ALITA VS CA

FACTS
The subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of land, acquired by
private respondents' predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the
provisions of Commonwealth Act. No. 141. Said lands are situated at Guilinan, T
ungawan, Zamboanga del Sur. Private respondents herein are desirous of personall
y cultivating these lands, but petitioners refuse to vacate, relying on the prov
isions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and appurtenant regulations issued by the then Mi
nistry of Agrarian Reform (MAR for short), now Department of Agrarian Reform (DA
R).
Private respondents (then plaintiffs), instituted a complaint against Hon. Conra
do Estrella as then Minister of Agrarian Reform, P.D. Macarambon as Regional Dir
ector (DAR) of MAR Region IX, and herein petitioners (then defendants) for the d
eclaration of P.D. 27 and all other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General
Orders issued in connection therewith as inapplicable to homestead lands.
Subsequently, on July 19, 1982, plaintiffs filed an urgent motion to enjoin the
defendants from declaring the lands in litigation under Operation Land Transfer
and from being issued land transfer certificates to which the defendants filed t
heir opposition dated August 4, 1982. On November 5, 1982, the then Court of Agr
arian Relations 16th Regional District, Branch IV, Pagadian City (now Regional T
rial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch XVIII) rendered its decision dismissing
the said complaint and the motion to enjoin the defendants was denied. several p
etitions were made. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
whether or not lands obtained through homestead patent are covered by the Agrari
an Reform under P.D. 27.
HELD:
The Philippine Constitution respects the superiority of the homesteaders' rights
over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In po
int is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provi
des: "Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stew
ardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utili
zation of other natural resources, including lands of public domain under lease
or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights
of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral
lands."
Additionaly, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agra
rian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso sup
porting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents lik
e those of the property in question, reading, "Section 6. Retention Limits. x x
x "x x x Provided further, That original homestead grantees or their direct comp
ulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of
this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said
homestead."
Case dismissed and motion to enjoin the defendants was denied.

NATALIA REALTY VS DAR

G.R. No. 103302 August 12, 1993
FACTS:
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of three (3)
titled contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal. On 18 Apr
il 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land lo
cated in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite are

as to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as

the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the a
reas proclaimed as townsite reservation.
Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into low-cost
housing subdivisions within the reservation, petitioner Estate Developers and In
vestors Corporation (EDIC), as developer of NATALIA properties, applied for and
was granted preliminary approval and locational clearances by the Human Settleme
nts Regulatory Commission. Petitioner were likewise issued after development pe
rmits complying with the requirements. Thus the NATALIA properties later became
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
Then, the CARP law took effect, DAR through its Municipal Agrarian Officer issue
d a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivi
sion, NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage. ED
IC also protested at the DAR Regional Office and twice wrote a letter for the ca
ncellation of the Notice of Coverage.
Members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA) filed a com
plaint against NATALIA and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain
petitioners from developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA members. The Region
al Adjudicator temporarily restrained petitioners from proceeding with the devel
opment of the subdivision. Petitioners then moved to dismiss the complaint; it w
as denied.
Petitioners NATALIA and EDIC elevated their cause to the DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB); however, on 16 9 December 1991 the DARAB merely remanded the case to th
e Regional Adjudicator for further proceedings. In the interim, NATALIA wrote re
spondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform reiterating its request to set aside the N
otice of Coverage. Neither respondent Secretary nor respondent Director took act
ion on the protest-letters, thus compelling petitioners to institute this procee
ding more than a year thereafter. NATALIA and EDIC both impute grave abuse of di
scretion to respondent DAR for including undedeveloped portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision within the coverage of the CARL. They argue that NATALIA prope
rties already ceased to be agricultural lands when they were included in the are
as reserved by presidential fiat for the townsite reservation.
hat no application for conversion of the NATALIA lands from agricultural residen
tial was ever filed with the DAR. In other words, there was no valid conversion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not lands already classified for residential, commercial or industria
l use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precurso
r agencies to 15 June 1988, 2 covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Compr
ehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988?
HELD:
Contrary to the claim of public respondents, petitioners NATALIA and EDIC did in
fact comply with all the requirements of law with reference to the Preliminary
Approval and Locational Clearances as well as the Development Permits granted to
the petitioners for Phases I, II and III of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision. As
a matter of fact, there was even no need for petitioners to secure a clearance o
r prior approval from DAR. The NATALIA properties were within the areas set asid
e for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Since Presidential Proclamation No. 1637
created the townsite reservation for the purpose of providing additional housin
g to the burgeoning population of Metro Manila, it in effect converted for resid
ential use what were erstwhile agricultural lands provided all requisites were m
et.
"Agricultural lands" are only those lands which are "arable and suitable 17 agri
cultural lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands
". The undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any lang
uage be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots were intended for residen
tial use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion
in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Lands not devoted to agricultural activity
are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to no

n-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies othe

r than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion
of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses. DAR itself defined "agr
icultural land" thus . . . Agricultural lands refers to those devoted to agricul
tural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest b
y the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor
agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent a
uthorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use.
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is
bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped port
ions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.
WHEREFORE, the petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Notice of Coverage of 22
November 1990 by virtue of which undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subd
ivision were placed under CARL coverage is hereby SET ASIDE.

LUBRICA VS LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 170220
FACTS:
gPetitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certa
in titled parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occident
al Mindoro. Part of the property was placed under the land reform program pursua
nt to Presidential Decree No. 27 [4] [5] (1972) and Executive Order No. 228 (198
7). The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of the land
at P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited in cash and bonds in favor of Lubric
a.
On the other hand, petitioners Nenita Suntay-Tanedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III in
herited from Federico Suntay a parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay,
Mamburao, Occidental [6] Mindoro covered by TCT No. T-128, consisting of two lot
s.Lot 2 was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 hectares
was considered by LBP and valued the same at P1,512,575.05.
Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative
proceedings for determination of just compensation. On January 29, 2003, the PAR
AD fixed the preliminary just compensation of the subject properties.
Not satisfied with the valuation LBP filed two separate petitions for the judici
al determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial Cour which was d
enied. Several petitions were made thereafter with the same result.
ISSUE:
Whether or not valuation of the expropriated properties as just compensation is
improper because it was erroneously computed.
Whether or not just compensation should be based on the value of the property as
of that time and not at the time of possession.
HELD:
1. Yes. R.A. No. 6657 is the applicable law, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 h
aving only suppletory effect. Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that the LBP
shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the lando
wner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally determined by the court as the
just compensation for the land. In determining just compensation, the cost of t
he acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, ac
tual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and
the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the gov

ernment to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from
any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as ad
ditional factors to determine its valuation.
As held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada that the provision was conver
ted into a formula by the DAR through Administrative Order No. 05, S. 1998, to w
it:
Land Value (LV) = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + (Comparable Sales x 0.3) + (M
arket Value per Tax Declaration x 0.1)
1. No, just compensation should be based at the time of it's payment. Petitioner
s were deprived of their properties way back in 1972, yet to date, they have not
yet received just compensation. Thus, it would certainly be inequitable to dete
rmine just compensation based on the guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O.
No. 228 considering the failure to determine just compensation for a considerab
le length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance wit
h R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 227 or E.O. No. 228, is important considering t
hat just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property tak
en from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, f
ull and ample.

LUZ FARMS VS SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM

G.R. No. 86889, December 04, 1990
FACTS:
On June 10, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, which
includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage (Rollo, p.
80). On January 2, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the Guide
lines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing as embodied in S
ections 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (Rollo, p. 80). On January 9, 1989, the Secre
tary of Agrarian Reform promulgated its Rules and Regulations implementing Secti
on 11 of R.A. No. 6657 (Commercial Farms).
Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock an
d poultry business and one of those affected by such laws and regulations. Hence
, this petition praying that aforesaid laws, guidelines and rules be declared un
constitutional and questions the following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as t
hey are made to apply to it:
(a) Section 3(b) which includes the raising of livestock (and poultry) in the defi
nition of Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity.
(b) Section 11 which defines commercial farms as private agricultural lands devoted
to commercial, livestock, poultry and swine raising x x x.
(c) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing plan.
(d) Section 32 which spells out the production-snaring plan mentioned in Section
13
ISSUE:
Whether Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agraria
n Reform Law of 1988), insofar as the said law includes the raising of livestock
, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and Guidel
ines promulgated in accordance therewith is constitutional.
HELD:
The question raised is one of constitutional construction. The transcripts of th
e deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the w
ord "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers
of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of
the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government. The Co
mmittee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under Section 1

86 of R.A. 3844, as land devoted to any growth. Including but not limited to cro
p lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land.
Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes private agricultural lands devoted to comm
ercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of "commercial farm
s" is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are
made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply
no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian ref
orm.
Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. 6657 directing corporate farms which include livestock
and poultry raisers to execute and implement production-sharing plans (pending fin
al redistribution of their landholdings) whereby they are called upon to distrib
ute from three percent (3%) of their gross sales and ten percent (10%) of their
net profits to their workers as additional compensation is unreasonable for bein
g confiscatory, and therefore violative of due process.
Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the ra
ising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the Implementin
g Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith, are hereby DECLARED
null and void for being unconstitutional.

ESTRIBILLO VS DAR
G.R. No. 159674 June 30, 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners are the recipients of Emancipation Patents (EPs) over parcels of lan
d located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur, with their respective
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and EP.
Subject lands were formerly part of a forested area which have been denuded as a
result of the logging operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). Peti
tioners, together with other persons, occupied and tilled these areas believing
that the same were public lands. HMI never disturbed petitioners and the other o
ccupants in their peaceful cultivation thereof. HMI acquired such forested area
from the Republic of the Philippines through Sales Patent No. 2683 in 1956 by vi
rtue of which it was issued OCT No. P-3077-1661.
Presidential Decree No. 275 was issued mandating that tenanted rice and corn lan
ds be brought under Operation Land Transfer and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries.
HMI, requested that 527.8308 hectares of its landholdings be placed under the c
overage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving compensation therefor, HMI allowed
petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the landholdings so that the same
may be covered under said law. HMI, through its representatives, actively partic
ipated in all relevant proceedings.
In December 1997, HMI filed with the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD
) of CARAGA petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage under Presid
ential Decree No. 27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings covered by
OCT No. P-3077-1661 and
as not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and that no
compensation was paid therefor. HMI sought for the cancellation of the EPs cove
ring the disputed 277.5008 hectares which had been awarded to petitioners AND di
d not question the coverage of the other 250.3300 hectares under Presidential De
cree No. 27 despite claiming that the entire landholdings were untenanted and no
t devoted to rice and corn.
After petitioners failed to submit a Position Paper, the RARAD rendered a Decisi
on declaring as void the TCTs and EPs awarded to petitioners because the land co
vered was not devoted to rice and corn, and neither was there any established te
nancy relations between HMI and petitioners when Presidential Decree No. 27 took
effect on 21 October 1972. Several unsuccessful petitions were made by the peti
tioners. At the perusal of CA the petition reveals that the Verification and Cer

tification of Non-Forum Shopping was executed by Samuel A. Estribillo who is one

of the petitioners, without the corresponding Special Power of Attorneys execut
ed by the other petitioners authorizing him to sign for their behalf in violatio
n of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Motion for Reconsideration was filed but also denied because the Verification an
d Certification on Non-Forum shopping was executed without the proper authorizat
ion from all the petitioners, such personal knowledge cannot be presumed to exis
t thereby rendering the petition fatally defective.
Petitioners now file this present Petition contending that there had been compli
ance with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. They further r
eiterate their argument that the EPs are ordinary titles which become indefeasib
le one year after their registration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are
as indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings.
Held:
Yes, Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as indefe
asible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings.
Certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible a
s certificates of title issued in judicial proceedings provided the land covered
by said certificate is a disposable public land within the contemplation of the
Public Land Law.
There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141, as amended)
or the Land Registration Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing the one (1) year
period within which the public land patent is open to review on the ground of ac
tual fraud as in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of P.D.
1529, and clothing a public land patent certificate of title with indefeasibili
ty.
Where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the correspondi
ng patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the gr
antee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the
Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all
the safeguards provided in Section 38 of the said Act. In other words, upon exp
iration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become irr
evocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding
.
The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in Rep
ublic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), are enrolled
in the Torrens system of registration. The Property Registration Decree in fact
devotes Chapter IX27 on the subject of EPs. Indeed, such EPs and CLOAs are, in
themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in re
gistration proceedings.

JOSON VS MENDOZA
G.R. No. 144071. August 25, 2005]
FACTS:
Petitioners are the registered owners of a parcel of riceland with an area of ap
proximately 1.25 hectares, located at Barrio Bagongbayan, Malolos, Bulacan. Resp
ondents, on the other hand, claim to be the actual and lawful tillers of the lan
d.
On 22 September 1987, petitioners and Pastor Mendoza, father of respondent Reyna
ldo Mendoza, entered into an Agricultural Leasehold Contract covering the said p
arcel of land where the lessee bound [4] himself to pay 20 cavans of palay at 46
kilos per cavan to the lessor per cropping. On 17 August 1994, petitioners file

d with the PARAD a Complaint for Confirmation of Right To [5] Recover Possession
with Damages. Petitioners sought the recovery of possession and actual cultivat
ion of the landholding in question from Pastor Mendoza, alleging therein in subs
tance that lessee Pastor Mendoza has migrated to the United States of America an
d has lived there as lawful permanent resident since 22 February 1988 as evidenc
ed by the letter of the Department of Justice of the United States of America; h
ence, it is not possible for him to work as a tenant in the Philippines, thereby
virtually abandoning the land. They alleged further that they have not given th
eir consent to either respondent Agapito Laquindanum or respondent Reynaldo Mend
oza to till the land, the latter in lieu of his father.
averring that Pastor Mendoza still possessed all the qualifications required of
an agricultural tenant according to law, and that he did not abandon nor has he
the intention of abandoning his right over the land in question.
The Provincial Adjudicator of Bulacan with station at Malolos, Bulacan, Region I
II, issued a Decision favoring the respondents. The petitioners appealed at the
DARAB which on its decision modifed PARAB decision and decided that the parties
plaintiffs-appellants as landowners and defendant-appellees Reynaldo Mendoza and
Agapito Laquindanum are enjoined to observe the status quo on the landholding i
n question, that is, said appellees to work on the said land and pay the lease r
entals while the appellants to maintain them in peaceful possession and tilling
on the said landholding, subject to whatever disposition the Department of Agrar
ian Reform may take on the land in question.
ISSUE:
Whether or not person NOT CLAIMING ANY RIGHT OF THEIR OWN AS LANDLESS PEASANTS B
UT AS MERE FARMWoRKERS FOR FEE OF TENANT and not of the landowner who have not c
onsented thereto or despite the fact that they were not de jure farm workers ent
itled to the benefits of CARL
(1) whether or not there was abandonment on the part of the original tenant whic
h can serve as basis to declare him as out of status as leasehold tenant by peti
tioners; (2) whether or not respondents were lawful tenants of petitioners; and
(3) whether or not respondents have rights, under the law.
HELD:
landless tillers. is a phrase that automatically makes them beneficiaries under th
e CARP, a determination still to be made by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
1. there was abandonment, the original tenant, did not deny frequenting the Unit
ed States of America.
2. No, they are not lawful tenants of the petitioner. Respondents tillage of the
subject landholding was without the consent of petitioners, Nonetheless, armed
with the knowledge that under the present state of laws, even the actual occupan
ts or tillers may actually have rights as beneficiary of the CARP. The plaintiffsappellants cannot recover possession of the landholding in question, although th
ey are the owners thereof and although the appellee-agricultural lessee Pastor M
endoza has indeed abandoned the landholding in question and although the other a
ppellees are not tenant-farmers on the subject land but are mere farmworkers or
actual tillers thereon. The parties plaintiffs-appellants as landowners and defe
ndant-appellees Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum are enjoined to observe
the status quo on the landholding in question, that is, said appellees to work
on the said land and pay the lease rentals while the appellants to maintain them
in peaceful possession and tilling on the said landholding, subject to whatever
disposition the Department of Agrarian Reform may take on the land in question.

HACIENDA LUISITA INC. VS PARC

G.R. No. 171101
FACTS:
Before the Court are the Motion to Clarify and Reconsider Resolution of November
22, 2011 dated December 16, 2011 filed by petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HL
I) and the Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification dated December 9, 2011 filed
by private respondents Noel Mallari, Julio Suniga, Supervisory Group of Haciend
a Luisita, Inc. and Windsor Andaya (collectively referred to as Mallari, et al.) t
hat all the benefits and homelots received by all the FWBs shall be respected wi
th no obligation to refund or return them.
ISSUES:
(1) determination of the date of taking; (2) propriety of the revocation of the op
tion on the part of the original FWBs to remain as stockholders of HLI; (3) prop
riety of distributing to the qualified FWBs the proceeds from the sale of the co
nverted land and of the 80.51-hectare Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX ) lan
d; and (4) just compensation for the homelots given to the FWBs.
HELD:
Payment of just compensation
Just compensation has been defined as the full and fair equivalent of the propert
y taken from its [12] [13] owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the take
rs gain, but the owners loss. In determining just compensation, the price or value
of the property at the time it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the
government shall be the basis. If the government takes possession of the land b
efore the institution of expropriation proceedings, the value should be fixed as
of the time of the taking of said possession, not of the filing of the complain
t .Even though the compensation due to HLI will still be preliminarily determine
d by DAR and LBP, subject to review by the RTC acting as a SAC, the fact that th
e reckoning point of taking is already fixed at a certain date should already hast
en the proceedings and not further cause undue hardship on the parties, especial
ly the qualified FWBs. By the vote of six, just compensation shall be determine
at the time of taking which is November 21, 1981 when PARC approved HLI s stock
plan.
Option will not ensure control over agricultural lands.
The SDP was approved by PARC even if the qualified FWBs did not and will not hav
e majority stockholdings in HLI, contrary to the obvious policy by the governmen
t on agrarian reform. Such an adverse situation for the FWBs will not and should
not be permitted to stand. For this reason, We maintain the qualified FWBs will
no longer have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.
QQQ

ROXAS VS DAMBA
G.R. No. 149548
FACTS:
The subject of the seven consolidated petitions is the application of petitioner
Roxas & Co., Inc. for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use of i
ts three haciendas located in Nasugbu, Batangas containing a total area of almos
t 3,000 hectares.
Before the effectivity of CARL Roxas & Co. filed with DAR a voluntary offer to s
ell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Hacienda
s Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by ... DAR i
n accordance with the CARL.
When the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclass
ification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a resul

t, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hac
ienda Caylaway from agricultural to other, and [Roxas & Co.], through its Presid
ent, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of ...DAR withdrawing its
VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. During the pendency before the DAR of its application
for conversion following its remand to the DAR, Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR
an application for exemption from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Ref
orm Program (CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520 and of DAR Administrative Ord
er (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994 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. Its pending application notwithstanding,
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership A
ward (CLOAs) to the farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including CLOA N
o. 6654 which was issued on October 15, 1993 covering 513.983 hectares, the subj
ect of G.R. No. 167505.
ISSUE:
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 N
asugbu from CARP coverage.
Whether or not a local government unit has the power to reclassify an agricultur
al land.
Whether or not CLOA holders need not be informed of the pending application for
CARP-exemption

HELD:
PP 1520 DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE THREE MUNICI
PALITIES INCLUDING NASUGBU TO NON- AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
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 nonagricultural use.
A local government unit has the power to classify and convert land from agricult
ural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL.
Application for CARP-exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, a
s implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, is non-adversar
ial or non-litigious in nature. Hence, applicant is correct in saying that nowhe
re in the rules is it required that occupants of a landholding should be notifie
d of an initiated or pending exemption application. Since subject landholding ha
s been validly determined to be CARP-exempt, therefore, the previous issuance of
the CLOA of oppositors-movants is erroneous,
Republic Act No. 3844 (R.A. No. 3844), as amended, mandates that disturbance com
pensation be given to tenants of parcels of land upon finding that (t)he landhold
ing is declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National Plann
ing Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some othe
r urban [43] purposes. purposes. In addition, DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994 direct
s the payment of disturbance compensation before the application for exemption m
ay be completely granted.