Roxas & Co., Inc. v.

CA

G.R. No. 127876

PUNO, J / En Banc

Facts:

Petitioner corporation is the registered owner of Hacienda Palico, Banilad and Caylaway in Nasugbu,
Batangas. Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988 before
the effectivity of the CARL. Hacienda Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition
by the DAR in accordance with the CARL. On August 6, 1992, petitioner informed DAR that it was
withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway and applying for conversion of the hacienda from agricultural
to other uses. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. DAR denied petitioner's withdrawal of the VOS.
Meanwhile on May 4, 1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion of Haciendas Palico and
Banilad from agricultural to non-agricultural lands under the provisions of the CARL. Despite petitioner's
application for conversion, DAR proceeded with the acquisition of the two haciendas.

On July 14, 1993, petitioner reiterated its request to withdraw the VOS over Hacienda Caylaway. On
October 30, 1993, Certificates of Land Ownership Awards were distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
Petitioner then instituted a case with the DAR Adjudication Board for the cancellation of the CLOA's
issued to several persons. The DARAB, in its Resolution, held that the case involved the prejudicial
question whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence, the question should be submitted
to the DAR Secretary for determination. Thus, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
questioning the expropriation of the properties under the CARL and the denial of the due process in the
acquisition of its landholdings. Meanwhile, petitioner's request for conversion of the three haciendas
was denied by respondent Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Nasugbu, Batangas. The Court of
Appeals also dismissed petitioner's petition. Its motion for reconsideration having been likewise denied,
petitioner filed the present petition.

Issue:

Whether the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance with law

Ruling:

No, the importance of the first notice, i .e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the
conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated.

They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The
implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of eminent domain.
To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police
power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out
such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed,
there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession
of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The
Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
of law." The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of
the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property.