ROXAS & COMPANY, INC.

,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 149548

- versus -

DAMBA-NFSW and the

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM,*
Respondents.

x------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 167505

DAMAYAN
NG
MGA
MANGGAGAWANG
BUKID
SA Present:
ASYENDA
ROXAS-NATIONAL
PUNO, C.J.,
FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS
CARPIO,
(DAMBA-NFSW),
CORONA,
Petitioner,
CARPIO MORALES,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
- versus VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co.,
BRION,
INC. AND/OR ATTY. MARIANO
PERALTA,
AMPIL,
BERSAMIN,
Respondents.
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
VILLARAMA, JJ.
x-----------------------------------x
Promulgated:
December 4, 2009

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 ROXASNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR
WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW),
represnted by LAURO MARTIN,
Petitioners,

- versus -

SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF

AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co.,
INC.,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------x
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM,
FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR),
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 167543

- versus -

ROXAS & CO, INC.,

Respondent.

x------------------------------------x
ROXAS & CO., INC.,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 167845

- versus DAMBA-NFSW,
Respondent.

x------------------------------------x
DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY
LAURO V. MARTIN,
Petitioner,
- versus -

G.R. No. 169163

ROXAS & CO., INC.,

Respondent.

x------------------------------------x
DAMBA-NFSW,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 179650

- versus ROXAS & CO., INC.,

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

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 nonagricultural 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, 1988and took effect on June 15, 1988.
Before the laws effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed
with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda
Caylawaypursuant 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 Courts
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 abovestated 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 abovequoted 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 MaragondonTernate-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 NONAGRICULTURAL 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 nonagricultural 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 nonagricultural, 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 DARs 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 wasand still isimplemented 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 nonagricultural 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]
Tourism Act, and not to PP 1520, for possible exemption.
II. ROXAS & CO.S APPLICATION IN DAR ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. A-9999-14297 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 nonagricultural 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 HaciendaPalico, 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 nonagricultural 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 T985. 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 Secretarys 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 34But 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
ZonesBarangay 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 courts decision in CA-G.R.
No. SP No. 63146 affirming the DAR Secretarys 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 Secretarys 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--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. Secretarys 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 farmeroccupants 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 farmerbeneficiaries 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 CARPexemption 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
CLOAs 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-NSFWs 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 Secretarys finding that Roxas & Co. had
substantially complied with the prerequisites of DAR AO 6, Series of 1994. Hence,
DAMBA-NFSWs 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-9999-00898 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-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 farmerbeneficiaries. 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 courts
relaxation of the rules by giving due course to DAMBA-NFSWs 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-NSFWs 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 [DAMBANSFW] with regard to [Roxas & Co.]s application for partial and total
cancellation of the CLOA in DARAB Cases No. R-401-003-2001 to R401-005-2001 and No. 401-239-2001. There is a pressing need for an
extensive discussion of the issuesas 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 farmerbeneficiaries 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 Courts 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 abovementioned nine lots, are CARP-exempt.

Conformably, Republic
Act
No.
3844 (R.A.
No.
3844),
as
[42]
amended, 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 Courts 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
Courts October 19, 2005 Resolution dismissing DAMBA-NFSWs petition for review
of the appellate courts 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 CAG.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 July 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 DAMBANSFW 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 DAMBANSFW 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, 2004Decision 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. R401-005-2001 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.