EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 149548, December 04, 2009 ]

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DAMBA-NFSW AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM,* RESPONDENTS. 

[G.R. NO. 167505]

AMAYAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA ROXAS-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF

SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW), PETITIONER, VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & CO., INC. AND/OR ATTY. MARIANO AMPIL, RESPONDENTS. 

[G.R. NO. 167540]

KATIPUNAN NG MGA MAGBUBUKID SA HACIENDA ROXAS, INC. (KAMAHARI), REP. BY ITS

PRESIDENT CARLITO CAISIP, AND DAMAYAN NG MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA
ROXAS-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW), REPRESNTED BY
LAURO MARTIN, PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
ROXAS & CO., INC., RESPONDENTS. 

[G.R. NO. 167543]

DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR),

PETITIONER, VS. ROXAS & CO, INC., RESPONDENT. 

[G.R. NO. 167845]

ROXAS & CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. DAMBA-NFSW, RESPONDENT. 

[G.R. NO. 169163]

DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY LAURO V. MARTIN, PETITIONER, vs.ROXAS & CO., INC.,

RESPONDENT. 

[G.R. NO. 169163]

DAMBA-NFSW, PETITIONER, VS. ROXAS & CO., INC., RESPONDENT. 

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

The main subject of the seven consolidated petitions is the application of petitioner Roxas & Co., Inc.
(Roxas & Co.) for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use of its three haciendas located in
Nasugbu, Batangas containing a total area of almost 3,000 hectares. The facts are not new, the Court
having earlier resolved intimately-related issues dealing with these haciendas.  Thus, in the 1999 case
of Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[1] the Court presented the facts as follows:

. . . Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas,
namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu,
Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and is registered under Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 985. This land is covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468, 0470, 0234 and 0354.
Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area, registered under TCT No. 924 and covered by Tax
Declaration Nos. 0236, 0237 and 0390. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area and is
registered under TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665.
 xxxx

On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power
from the President. This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June
15, 1988.

Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a  voluntary
offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico
and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by ... DAR in accordance with the CARL.

xxxx

Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter
to the Secretary of ...DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of
Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from
agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it
was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.

x x x x[2] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543 nub on the interpretation of Presidential

Proclamation (PP) 1520  which was issued on November 28, 1975 by then President Ferdinand Marcos.
The PP reads:

DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF MARAGONDON AND TERNATE IN CAVITE PROVINCE AND THE
MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU IN BATANGAS AS A TOURIST ZONE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, certain areas in the sector comprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and

Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas have potential tourism value after being
developed into resort complexes for the foreign and domestic market; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to conduct the necessary studies and to segregate specific

geographic areas for concentrated efforts of both the government and private sectors in developing
their tourism potential;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby declare the area comprising the Municipalities of
Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas Province as a tourist zone
under the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Authority  (PTA) pursuant to
Section 5 (D) of P.D. 564.

The PTA shall identify well-defined geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism
value, wherein optimum use of natural assets and attractions, as well as existing facilities and
concentration of efforts and limited resources of both government and private sector may be affected
and realized in order to generate foreign exchange as well as other tourist receipts.

Any duly established military reservation existing within the zone shall be excluded from this
proclamation.

All proclamation, decrees or executive orders inconsistent herewith are hereby revoked or modified
accordingly. (emphasis and underscoring supplied).

The incidents which spawned the filing of the petitions in G.R. Nos. 149548, 167505, 167845,
169163 and 179650 are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, the original
draft of which was made the basis of the Court's deliberations.
Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application for conversion of its three haciendas from argricultural to
non-agricultural on the assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as
a tourism zone, reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its pending application notwithstanding, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the
farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including CLOA No. 6654 which was issued on October 15,
1993 covering 513.983 hectares, the subject of G.R. No. 167505.

The application for conversion of Roxas & Co. was the subject of the above-stated Roxas & Co., Inc. v.
Court of Appeals which the Court remanded to the DAR for the observance of proper acquisition
proceedings. As reflected in the above-quoted statement of facts in said case, during the pendency
before the DAR of its application for conversion following its remand to the DAR or on May 16, 2000,
Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an application for exemption from the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520 and of DAR Administrative Order
(AO) No. 6, Series of 1994[3] which states that all lands already classified as commercial, industrial, or
residential before the effectivity of CARP no longer need conversion clearance from the DAR.

It bears mentioning at this juncture that on April 18, 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu
enacted Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4 (Nasugbu MZO No. 4) which was approved on May 4, 1983
by the Human Settlements Regulation Commission, now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB).

The records show that Sangguniang Bayan  and Association of Barangay Captains of Nasugbu filed
before this Court petitions for intervention which were, however, denied by Resolution of June 5, 2006
for lack of standing.[4]

After the seven present petitions were consolidated and referred to the Court en banc,[5] oral
arguments were conducted on July 7, 2009.

The core issues are:

1. Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu tourism

zone to non-agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.'s three haciendas in Nasugbu from CARP
coverage;

2. Whether Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of 1982 exempted certain lots in Hacienda Palico from
CARP coverage; and

3. Whether the partial and complete cancellations by the DAR of CLOA No. 6654 subject of G.R.
No. 167505 is valid.

The Court shall discuss the issues in seriatim.

I. PP 1520 DID NOT  AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE THREE

MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING NASUGBU TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS. 

Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared the three municipalities as each constituting a tourism
zone, reclassified all lands therein to tourism and, therefore, converted their use to non-agricultural
purposes.

To determine the chief intent of PP 1520, reference to the "whereas clauses" is in order. By and large,
a reference to the congressional deliberation records would provide guidance in dissecting the intent of
legislation. But since PP 1520 emanated from the legislative powers of then President Marcos during
martial rule, reference to the whereas clauses cannot be dispensed with.[6]

The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only "certain areas in the sector comprising the
[three Municipalities that] have potential tourism value" and mandated the conduct of "necessary
studies" and the segregation of "specific geographic areas" to achieve its purpose. Which is why the PP
directed the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) to identify what those potential tourism areas are. If
all the lands in those tourism zones were to be wholly converted to non-agricultural use, there would
have been no need for the PP to direct the PTA to identify what those "specific geographic areas" are.

The Court had in fact passed upon a similar matter before. Thus in DAR v. Franco,[7]  it pronounced:

Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the Philippine Tourism Authority, has to
determine precisely which areas are for tourism development and excluded from the Operation
Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. And suffice it to state here that the
Court has repeatedly ruled that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the enactment of RA
6657 on 15 June 1988 do not need any conversion clearance. [8] (emphasis and underscoring supplied).

While the above pronouncement in Franco is an obiter, it should not be ignored in the resolution of the
present petitions since it reflects a more rational and just interpretation of PP 1520. There is no
prohibition in embracing the rationale of an obiter dictum in settling controversies, or in considering
related proclamations establishing tourism zones.

In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA,[9] the Court made it clear that the "power to determine
whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the
coverage of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] lies with the [Department of Agrarian Reform],
not with this Court."[10] The DAR, an administrative body of special competence, denied, by Order of
October 22, 2001, the application for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it finding that PP 1520
did not  automatically reclassify all the lands in the affected municipalities from their original uses. It
appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time, identified the "specific geographic areas" for tourism
development and had no pending tourism development projects in the areas. Further, report from the
Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were
planted with sugar cane and other crops.[11]

Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2004,[12] came up with clarificatory
guidelines and therein decreed that

A. x x x x.

B. Proclamations declaring general areas such as whole provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands
or peninsulas as tourist zones that merely:

(1) recognize certain still unidentified areas within the covered provinces, municipalities, barangays,
islands, or peninsulas to be with potential tourism value and charge the Philippine Tourism Authority
with the task to identify/delineate specific geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism
value and to coordinate said areas' development; or

(2) recognize the potential value of identified spots located within the general area declared as tourist
zone (i.e. x x x x) and direct the Philippine Tourism Authority to coordinate said areas' development;

could not be regarded as effecting an automatic reclassification  of the entirety of the land

area declared as tourist zone. This is so because "reclassification of lands" denotes their
allocation into some specific use and "providing for the manner of their utilization and
disposition (Sec. 20, Local Government Code) or the "act of specifying how agricultural
lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or
commercial, as embodied in the land use plan." (Joint HLURB, DAR, DA, DILG Memo. Circular
Prescribing Guidelines for MC 54, S. 1995, Sec.2)

A proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism value of certain areas within
the general area declared as tourist zone clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intend the
entirety of the land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said
proclamation direct that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be used for
purposes other than agricultural.
Moreover, to view these kinds of proclamation as a reclassification for non-agricultural purposes of
entire provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands, or peninsulas would be unreasonable as it
amounts to an automatic and sweeping exemption from CARP in the name of tourism development.
The same would also undermine the land use reclassification powers vested in local government units
in conjunction with pertinent agencies of government.

C. There being no reclassification, it is clear that said proclamations/issuances, assuming

[these] took effect before June 15, 1988, could not supply a basis for exemption of
the entirety of the lands embraced therein from CARP coverage x x x x. 

D. x x x x. (underscoring in the original; emphasis and italics supplied)

The DAR's reading into these general proclamations of tourism zones deserves utmost consideration,
more especially in the present petitions which involve vast tracts of agricultural land. To reiterate, PP
1520 merely recognized the "potential tourism value" of certain areas within the general area declared
as tourism zones. It did not reclassify the areas to non-agricultural use.

Apart from PP 1520, there are similarly worded proclamations declaring the whole of Ilocos Norte and
Bataan Provinces, Camiguin, Puerto Prinsesa, Siquijor, Panglao Island, parts of Cebu City and
Municipalities of Argao and Dalaguete in Cebu Province as tourism zones. [13]

Indubitably, these proclamations, particularly those pertaining to the Provinces of Ilocos Norte and
Bataan, did not intend to reclassify all agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands in one fell swoop.
The Court takes notice of how the agrarian reform program was--and still is--implemented in these
provinces since there are lands that do not have any tourism potential and are more appropriate for
agricultural utilization.

Relatedly, a reference to the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995[14] provides a parallel orientation on

the issue. Under said Act, several towns and cities encompassing the whole Philippines were readily
identified as economic zones.[15] To uphold Roxas & Co.'s reading of PP 1520 would see a total
reclassification of practically all the agricultural lands in the country to non-agricultural
use. Propitiously, the legislature had the foresight to include a bailout provision in Section 31 of
said Act for land conversion.[16] The same cannot be said of PP 1520, despite the existence of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 or the Tenant Emancipation Decree,[17] which is the precursor of the
CARP.

Interestingly, then President Marcos also issued on September 26, 1972 PD No. 2 which declared
the entire Philippines as land reform area.[18] Such declaration did not intend to reclassify all lands in
the entire country to agricultural lands. President Marcos, about a month later or on October 21, 1972,
issued PD 27 which decreed that all private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn were
deemed awarded to their tenant-farmers.

Given these martial law-era decrees and considering the socio-political backdrop at the time PP 1520
was issued in 1975, it is inconceivable that PP 1520, as well as other similarly worded proclamations
which are completely silent on the aspect of reclassification of the lands in those tourism zones, would
nullify the gains already then achieved by PD 27.

Even so, Roxas & Co. turns to Natalia Realty v. DAR and NHA v. Allarde to support its position. These
cases are not even closely similar to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543. The only time that
these cases may find application to said petitions is when the PTA actually identifies "well-defined
geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value."

In remotely tying these two immediately-cited cases that involve specific and defined townsite
reservations for the housing program of the National Housing Authority to the present petitions, Roxas
& Co. cites Letter of Instructions No. 352 issued on December 22, 1975 which states that the survey
and technical description of the tourism zones shall be considered an integral part of PP 1520. There
were, however, at the time no surveys and technical delineations yet of the intended tourism areas.
On hindsight, Natalia  and Allarde  find application in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 167505,
which petitions are anchored on the extenuating effects of Nasugbu MZO No. 4, but not in the
petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 & 167543 bearing on PP 1520, as will later be discussed.

Of significance also in the present petitions is the issuance on August 3, 2007 of Executive Order No.
647[19] by President Arroyo which proclaimed the areas in the Nasugbu Tourism Development Plan as
Special Tourism Zone. Pursuant to said Executive Order, the PTA completed its validation of 21 out of
42 barangays as tourism priority areas, hence, it is only after such completion that these identified
lands may be subjected to reclassification proceedings.

It bears emphasis that a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not  automatically allow a
landowner to change its use since there is still that process of conversion before one is permitted to
use it for other purposes.[20]

The recent passage of the Tourism Act of 2009[21] also impacts on the present petitions since Section
32 thereof states that:

Sec. 32. x x x x. - Any other area specifically defined as a tourism area, zone or spot under any
special or general law, decree or presidential issuance shall, as far as practicable, be
organized into a TEZ under the provisions of this Act. x x x x. (italics and emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, it is only under this same Act that it is explicitly declared that lands identified as part of
a tourism zone shall qualify for exemption from CARP coverage. [22]

The dissenting opinion ignores the supervening issuances mentioned above during the pendency of
the present petitions because they came after  the effectivity of the CARP on June 15, 1988. It labors
on the supposition that PP 1520 had already reclassified the lands encompassing the tourism zones;
and that those subsequent issuances, even if applied in the present cases, cannot be applied
retroactively.

Relevantly, while it may be argued that a remand to the DAR would be proper in light of the recent
formulation of a tourism development plan, which was validated by the PTA, that would put the cases
within the ambit of PP 1520, the Court sees otherwise. Roxas & Co. can only look to the provisions of
the Tourism Act, and not to PP 1520, for possible exemption.

II. ROXAS & CO.'S APPLICATION IN DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 FOR CARP
EXEMPTION IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO. 179650 CANNOT  BE GRANTED IN
VIEW OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE LOCATION AND IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS OF
LAND. 

Since PP 1520 did not automatically convert Haciendas Caylaway, Banilad and Palico into non-

agricultural estates, can Roxas & Co. invoke in the alternative Nasugbu MZO No. 4, which reclassified
in 1982 the haciendas to non-agricultural use to exclude six parcels of land in Hacienda Palico  from
CARP coverage?

By Roxas & Co.'s contention, the affected six parcels of land which are the subject of DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 and nine parcels of land which are the subject of DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 involved in G.R. No. 167505, all in Hacienda Palico, have
been reclassified to non-agricultural uses via Nasugbu MZO No. 4 which was approved by the
forerunner of HLURB.

Roxas & Co.'s contention fails.

To be sure, the Court had on several occasions decreed that a local government unit has the power to
classify and convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL.
[23]
 In Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas,[24] it reiterated that
. . . the facts obtaining in this case are similar to those in  Natalia Realty. Both subject lands form part
of an area designated for non-agricultural purposes. Both were classified as non-agricultural
lands prior  to June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of CARL.

xxxx

In the case under review, the subject parcels of lands were reclassified within an urban zone as per
approved Official Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Davao. The reclassification was
embodied in City Ordinance No. 363, Series of 1982. As such, the subject parcels of land are
considered "non-agricultural" and may be utilized for residential, commercial, and
industrial purposes. The reclassification was later approved by the HLURB.[25] (emphasis,
italics and underscoring supplied)

The DAR Secretary[26] denied the application for exemption of Roxas & Co., however, in this wise:

Initially, CLUPPI-2 based [its] evaluation on the lot nos. as appearing in CLOA No. 6654. However, for
purposes of clarity and to ensure that the area applied for exemption is indeed part of TCT No. T-
60034, CLUPPI-2 sought to clarify with [Roxas & Co.] the origin of TCT No. T-60034. In a letter dated
May 28, 1998, [Roxas & Co.] explains that portions of TCT No. T-985, the mother title, ...was
subdivided into 125 lots pursuant to PD 27. A total of 947.8417 was retained by the landowners and
was subsequently registered under TCT No. 49946. [[Roxas & Co.] further explains that TCT No.
49946 was further subdivided into several lots (Lot 125-A to Lot 125-P) with Lot No. 125-N registered
under TCT No. 60034. [A] review of the titles, however, shows that the origin of T-49946 is T-
783 and not T-985. On the other hand, the origin of T-60034 is listed as 59946, and not T-
49946. The discrepancies were attributed by [Roxas & Co.] to typographical errors which
were "acknowledged and initialled" [sic] by the ROD. Per verification..., the
discrepancies . . . cannot be ascertained.[27] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In denying Roxas & Co.'s motion for reconsideration, the DAR Secretary held:

The landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to the Certification
dated February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB] , the Certification dated September 12, 1996
issued by the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, and the Certifications dated
July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National Irrigation Authority. The certifications
were issued for Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 34. Thus, it was not even possible to issue exemption
clearance over the lots covered by TCT Nos. 60019 to 60023.

Furthermore, we also note the discrepancies between the certifications issued by the

HLURB and the Municipal Planning Development Coordinator as to the area of the specific
lots.[28] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In affirming the DAR Secretary's denial of Roxas & Co.'s application for exemption, the Court of
Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 63146 subject of G.R. No. 179650, observed:

In the instant case, a perusal of the documents before us shows that there is no indication that the
said TCTs refer to the same properties applied for exemption by [Roxas & Co.] It is true that the
certifications ...refer, among others, to DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 34...But these
certifications contain nothing to show that these lots are the same as Lots 125-A, 125-B,
125-C, 125-D and 125-E covered by TCT Nos. 60019, 60020, 60021, 60022 and 60023,
respetively. While [Roxas & Co.] claims that DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24 and 31 correspond to the
aforementioned TCTs submitted to the DAR no evidence was presented to substantiate such
allegation.

Moreover, [Roxas & Co.] failed to submit TCT 634 which it claims covers DAR Lot Nos. 28, 32
and 24.(TSN, April 24, 2001, pp. 43-44)

xxxx
[Roxas & Co.] also claims that subject properties are located at Barangay Cogunan and Lumbangan
and that these properties are part of the zone classified as Industrial under Municipal Ordinance No. 4,
Series of 1982 of the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. ....a scrutiny of the said Ordinance
shows that only Barangays Talangan and Lumbangan of the said municipality were
classified as Industrial Zones...Barangay Cogunan was not included. x x x x. In fact, the TCTs
submitted by [Roxas & Co.] show that the properties covered by said titles are all located at Barrio
Lumbangan.[29] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the appellate court still allowed Roxas & Co. to adduce
additional evidence to support its application for exemption under Nasugbu MZO No. 4.

Meanwhile, Roxas & Co. appealed the appellate court's decision in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 63146 affirming
the DAR Secretary's denial of its application for CARP exemption in Hacienda Palico (now the subject
of G.R. No. 149548).

When Roxas & Co. sought the re-opening of the proceedings in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-
142-97 (subject of G.R. No. 179650), and offered additional evidence in support of its application for
CARP exemption, the DAR Secretary, this time, granted its application for the six lots including Lot
No. 36 since the additional documents offered by Roxas & Co. mentioned the said lot.

In granting the application, the DAR Secretary [30] examined anew the evidence submitted by Roxas &
Co. which consisted mainly of certifications from various local and national government agencies.
[31]
 Petitioner in G.R. Nos. 167505, 167540, 169163 and 179650, Damayan Ng Mga Manggagawang
Bukid Sa Asyenda Roxas-National Federation of Sugar Workers (DAMBA-NFSW), the organization of
the farmer-beneficiaries, moved to have the grant of the application reconsidered but the same was
denied by the DAR by Order of December 12, 2003, hence, it filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82225, on grounds of forum-shopping and grave abuse
of discretion. The appellate court, by Decision of October 31, 2006, ruled that DAMBA-NFSW availed of
the wrong mode of appeal. At all events, it dismissed its petition as it upheld the DAR Secretary's
ruling that Roxas & Co. did not commit forum-shopping, hence, the petition of DAMBA-NGSW in G.R.
No. 179650.

While ordinarily findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded great weight and
even finality by the Court if supported by substantial evidence in recognition of their expertise on the
specific matters under their consideration,[32] this legal precept cannot be made to apply in G.R. No.
179650.

Even as the existence and validity of Nasugbu MZO No. 4  had already been established, there remains
in dispute the issue of whether the parcels of land involved in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-
142-97 subject of G.R. No. 179650 are actually within the said zoning ordinance.

The Court finds that the DAR Secretary indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when he ignored
the glaring inconsistencies in the certifications submitted early on by Roxas & Co. in support of its
application vis-à-vis the certifications it later submitted when the DAR Secretary reopened DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97.

Notably, then DAR Secretary Horacio Morales, on one hand, observed that the "landholdings covered
by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to the Certification dated February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB],
the Certification dated September 12, 1996 issued by the Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator, and the Certifications dated July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National
Irrigation Authority." On the other hand, then Secretary Hernani Braganza relied on a different set of
certifications which were issued later or on September 19, 1996.

In this regard, the Court finds in order the observation of DAMBA-NFSW that Roxas & Co. should have
submitted the comprehensive land use plan and pointed therein the exact locations of the properties
to prove that indeed they are within the area of coverage of Nasugbu MZO No. 4.
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 149548 must be distinguished from Junio v. Garilao[33] wherein
the certifications submitted in support of the application for exemption of the therein subject lot were
mainly considered on the presumption of regularity in their issuance, there being no doubt on the
location and identity of the subject lot.[34] In G.R. No. 179650, there exist uncertainties on the location
and identities of the properties being applied for exemption.

G.R. No. 179650 & G.R. No. 149548 must accordingly be denied for lack of merit.

III. ROXAS & CO.'S APPLICATION FOR CARP EXEMPTION IN DAR Administrative Case No. A-
9999-008-98 FOR THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO.
167505 SHOULD BE GRANTED. 

The Court, however, takes a different stance with respect to Roxas & Co.'s application for CARP
exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 over nine parcels of land identified as Lot
Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771
hectares in Hacienda Palico,  subject of G.R. No. 167505.

In its application, Roxas & Co. submitted the following documents:

1. Letter-application dated 29 September 1997 signed by Elino SJ. Napigkit, for and on
behalf of Roxas & Company, Inc., seeking exemption from CARP coverage of subject
landholdings;

2. Secretary's Certificate dated September 2002 executed by Mariano M. Ampil III,

Corporate Secretary of Roxas & Company, Inc., indicating a Board Resolution
authorizing him to represent the corporation in its application for exemption with the
DAR. The same Board Resolution revoked the authorization previously granted to the
Sierra Management & Resources Corporation;

3. Photocopy of TCT No. 985 and its corresponding Tax Declaration No. 0401;

4. Location and vicinity maps of subject landholdings;

5. Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Reynaldo Garcia, Municipal

Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and Zoning Administrator of
Nasugbu, Batangas, stating that the subject parcels of land are within the
Urban Core Zone as specified in Zone A. VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance
No. 4, Series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
(HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), under Resolution
No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;

6. Two (2) Certifications both dated 31 August 1998, issued by Alfredo Tan II,
Director, HLURB, Region IV, stating that the subject parcels of land appear to
be within the Residential cluster Area as specified in Zone VII of Municipal
Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved under HSRC Resolution No. 123,
Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;[35]

x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

By Order of November 6, 2002, the DAR Secretary granted the application for exemption but issued
the following conditions:

1. The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in their

peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until a final
determination has been made on the amount of disturbance compensation due and
entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the PARAD of Batangas;
 2. No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land until the
appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer-occupants who are
determined by the PARAD to be entitled thereto. Proof of payment of disturbance
compensation shall be submitted to this Office within ten (10) days from such
payment; and

3. The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer-beneficiaries shall be subject of a

separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas.[36]

DAMBA-NSFW moved for reconsideration but the DAR Secretary denied the same and explained
further why CLOA holders need not be informed of the pending application for exemption in this wise:

As regards the first ground raised by [DAMBA-NSFW], it should be remembered that an application for
CARP-exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, as implemented by DAR
Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, is non-adversarial or non-litigious in nature. Hence,
applicant is correct in saying that nowhere in the rules is it required that occupants of a landholding
should be notified of an initiated or pending exemption application.

xxxx

With regard [to] the allegation that oppositors-movants are already CLOA holders of subject
propert[ies] and deserve to be notified, as owners, of the initiated questioned exemption application,
is of no moment. The Supreme Court in the case of Roxas [&] Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA
106, held:

"We stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the
acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the CLOA's already issued to the
farmer beneficiaries. x x x x. Anyhow, the farmer[-]beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the
rightful owner of the land."

Since subject landholding has been validly determined to be CARP-exempt, therefore, the previous
issuance of the CLOA of oppositors-movants is erroneous. Hence, similar to the situation of the above-
quoted Supreme Court Decision, oppositors-movants only hold the property in trust for the rightful
owners of the land and are not the owners of subject landholding who should be notified of the
exemption application of applicant Roxas & Company, Incorporated.

Finally, this Office finds no substantial basis to reverse the assailed Orders since there is substantial
compliance by the applicant with the requirements for the issuance of exemption clearance under DAR
AO 6 (1994).[37]

On DAMBA-NSFW's petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals, noting that the petition was belatedly
filed, sustained, by Decision of December 20, 1994 and Resolution of May 7, 2007, [38] the DAR
Secretary's finding that Roxas & Co. had substantially complied with the prerequisites of DAR AO 6,
Series of 1994. Hence, DAMBA-NFSW's petition in G.R. No. 167505.

The Court finds no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' assailed issuances, the orders of the DAR
Secretary which it sustained being amply supported by evidence.

IV. THE CLOAs ISSUED BY THE DAR in ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. A-9999-008-98 SUBJECT
OF G.R. No. 179650 TO THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES INVOLVING THE NINE PARCELS OF
LAND IN HACIENDA PALICO MUST BE CANCELLED. 

Turning now to the validity of the issuance of CLOAs in Hacienda Palico vis-à-vis the present
dispositions: It bears recalling that in DAR Administrative Case Nos. A-9999-008-98 and A-9999-142-
97 (G.R. No. 179650), the Court ruled for Roxas & Co.'s grant of exemption in DAR Administrative
Case No. A-9999-008-98 but denied the grant of exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-
142-97 for reasons already discussed. It follows that the CLOAs issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in
DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 must be cancelled.

But first, the Court digresses. The assertion of DAMBA-NSFW that the petitions for partial and
complete cancellations of the CLOAs subject of DARAB Case Nos. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-2001
and No. 401-239-2001 violated the earlier order in Roxas v. Court of Appeals does not lie. Nowhere
did the Court therein pronounce that the CLOAs issued "cannot and should not be cancelled," what
was involved therein being the legality of the acquisition proceedings. The Court merely reiterated that
it is the DAR which has primary jurisdiction to rule on the validity of CLOAs. Thus it held:

. . . [t]he failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the acquisition
proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the [CLOAs] already issued to the farmer-
beneficiaries. To assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to run
its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the
acquisition proceedings. x x x x. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the
rightful owner of the land.[39]

On the procedural question raised by Roxas & Co. on the appellate court's relaxation of the rules by
giving due course to DAMBA-NFSW's appeal in CA G.R. SP No. 72198, the subject of G.R. No. 167845:

Indeed, the perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is jurisdictional and failure to do so
renders the assailed decision final and executory. [40] A relaxation of the rules may, however, for
meritorious reasons, be allowed in the interest of justice. [41] The Court finds that in giving due course
to DAMBA-NSFW's appeal, the appellate court committed no reversible error. Consider its
ratiocination:

x x x x. To deny [DAMBA-NSFW]'s appeal with the PARAD will not only affect their right over the
parcel of land subject of this petition with an area of 103.1436 hectares, but also that of the whole
area covered by CLOA No. 6654 since the PARAD rendered a Joint Resolution of the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the [DAMBA-NSFW] with regard to [Roxas & Co.]'s application for partial and
total cancellation of the CLOA in DARAB Cases No. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-2001 and No. 401-
239-2001. There is a pressing need for an extensive discussion of the issues  as raised by both parties
as the matter of canceling CLOA No. 6654 is of utmost importance, involving as it does the probable
displacement of hundreds of farmer-beneficiaries and their families. x x x x (underscoring supplied)

Unlike courts of justice, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body, is not bound to strictly observe rules of
procedure and evidence. To strictly enforce rules on appeals in this case would render to naught the
Court's dispositions on the other issues in these consolidated petitions.

In the main, there is no logical recourse except to cancel the CLOAs issued for the nine parcels of
land identified as Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No.
985 covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico (or those covered by DAR Administrative Case No.
A-9999-008-98). As for the rest of the CLOAs, they should be respected since Roxas & Co., as shown
in the discussion in G.R. Nos. 167540, 167543 and 167505, failed to prove that the other lots
in Hacienda Palico and the other two haciendas, aside from the above-mentioned nine lots, are CARP-
exempt.

Conformably, Republic Act No. 3844  (R.A. No. 3844), as amended,[42] mandates that disturbance
compensation be given to tenants of parcels of land upon finding that "(t)he landholding is declared by
the department head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for
residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes." [43] In addition, DAR AO No. 6,
Series of 1994 directs the payment of disturbance compensation before the application for exemption
may be completely granted.

Roxas & Co. is thus mandated to first satisfy the disturbance compensation of affected farmer-
beneficiaries in the areas covered by the nine parcels of lands in DAR AO No. A-9999-008-98 before
the CLOAs covering them can be cancelled. And it is enjoined to strictly follow the instructions of R.A.
No. 3844.
Finally then, and in view of the Court's dispositions in G.R. Nos. 179650 and 167505, the May 27,
2001 Decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) [44] in DARAB Case No. 401-239-
2001 ordering the total cancellation of CLOA No. 6654, subject of G.R. No. 169163, is SET ASIDE
except with respect to the CLOAs issued for Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2
which are portions of TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico (or those covered by
DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98). It goes without saying that the motion for
reconsideration of DAMBA-NFSW is granted to thus vacate the Court's October 19, 2005 Resolution
dismissing DAMBA-NFSW's petition for review of the appellate court's Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
75952;[45]

WHEREFORE,

1) In G.R. No. 167540, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the November 24, 2003

Decision[46] and March 18, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72131 which
declared that Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 reclassified the lands in the municipalities of
Nasugbu in Batangas and Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite to non-agricultural use;

2) The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration of the Department of Agrarian

Reform in G.R. No. 167543 and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE its Resolution of June 20, 2005;

3) In G.R. No. 149548, the Court DENIES the petition for review of Roxas & Co. for lack of merit;

4) In G.R. No. 179650, the Court GRANTS the petition for review of DAMBA-NSFW

and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the October 31, 2006 Decision and August 16, 2007 Resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82225;

5) In G.R. No. 167505, the Court DENIES the petition for review of DAMBA-NSFW and AFFIRMS the
December 20, 2004 Decision and March 7, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
82226;

6) In G.R. No. 167845, the Court DENIES Roxas & Co.'s petition for review for lack of merit
and AFFIRMS the September 10, 2004 Decision and April 14, 2005 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals;

7) In G.R. No. 169163, the Court SETS ASIDE the Decisions of the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator in DARAB Case No. 401-239-2001 ordering the cancellation of CLOA No. 6654 and DARAB
Cases Nos. R-401-003-2001 to No. R-401-005-2001 granting the partial cancellation of CLOA No.
6654. The CLOAs issued for Lots No. 21 No. 24, No. 26, No. 31, No. 32 and No. 34 or those covered
by DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97) remain; and

8) Roxas & Co. is ORDERED to pay the disturbance compensation of affected farmer-beneficiaries in
the areas covered by the nine parcels of lands in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 before
the CLOAs therein can be cancelled, and is ENJOINED to strictly follow the mandate of R.A. No. 3844.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Corona, Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Del CAstillo, Abad,  and Villarama, Jr., concur.
Puno, C.J., see separate concurring opinion.
Chico-Nazario, J., pls. see disenting opinion.
Nachura, Bersamin  and Brion, JJ., no part. 
Leonardo-De Castro, J., join the dissent of Justice Chico-Nazario.