EN BANC

[G.R. No. 149548. December 4, 2009.]

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC. , petitioner, vs. DAMBA-NFSW and

the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, * respondents.

[G.R. No. 167505. December 4, 2009.]

DAMAYAN 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. December 4, 2009.]

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), represented by LAURO MARTIN , petitioners,
v s . SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
ROXAS & CO., INC., respondents.

[G.R. No. 167543. December 4, 2009.]

DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT

OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), petitioner, v s . ROXAS & CO,
INC., respondent.

[G.R. No. 167845. December 4, 2009.]

ROXAS & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. DAMBA-NFSW, respondent.

[G.R. No. 169163. December 4, 2009.]

DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY LAURO V. MARTIN ,

petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., respondent.

[G.R. No. 179650. December 4, 2009.]

DAMBA-NFSW, petitioner, vs. ROXAS & CO., INC., respondent.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J : p

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.

xxx xxx xxx

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.
xxx xxx xxx

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
w a s applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from
agricultural to other uses.

xxx xxx xxx 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:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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
a n d 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; HIaSDc

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 a n d 1 7 9 6 5 0 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 agricultural 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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; HSAcaE

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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 inDAR
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. ...

B. Proclamations declaring general areas such as whole

provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands or peninsulas as tourist
zones that merely: ASETHC

(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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 areas' development; or

(2) recognize the potential value of identified spots located

within the general area declared as tourist zone (i.e. . . .) 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 . .
..

D. . . . . (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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. HCITcA

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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. . . . . — 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. . . . . (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. DcICEa

Since PP 1520 did n o t 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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
s u c h , 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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, respectively. 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)
xxx xxx xxx
[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. . . . . 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) DICSaH

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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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; TaISEH

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

xxx xxx xxx (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

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

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 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.

xxx xxx xxx

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. . . . . 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. TAacIE

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. . . . . 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:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 . . . . 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. . . . (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. HDTCSI

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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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) I n 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) I n 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. CacTSI

Carpio, Corona, Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad and Villarama, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
Puno, C.J., see separate opinion.
Chico-Nazario, J., please see dissenting opinion.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Nachura, Brion and Bersamin, JJ., took no part.
Leonardo-de Castro, J., I join the dissent of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario.

Footnotes
* Now the Department of Land Reform.

1. G.R. No. 127876, 378 Phil. 727 (1999).

2. Id. at 744-745.
3. GUIDELINES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF EXEMPTION CLEARANCES BASED ON
SECTION 3(c) OF RA 6657 AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) OPINION
NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990.
4. Rollo (G.R. No. 167540), pp. 1280-1281.
5. Resolutions of February 22, 2006; October 22, 2006; and February 4, 2009.
6. Vide Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447, 457 SCRA 744 (2005).
7. G.R. No. 147479, September 26, 2005, 471 SCRA 74.

8. Id. at 92.
9. Supra note 2.
10. Id. at 783.
11. Ibid.
12. CLARIFICATORY GUIDELINES ON THE EFFECT OF DECLARATIONS OF
GENERAL AREAS IN THE COUNTRY AS "TOURIST ZONES" TO THE COVERAGE
OF LANDS DEVOTED TO OR SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURE WITHIN SAID AREAS
UNDER THE [CARP]. Issued on March 29, 2004 by then Acting Secretary Jose
Mari B. Ponce.
13. Proclamation Nos. 1653, 1801, 2052 and 2067.

14. Republic Act No. 7916.

15. SECTION 5. Establishment of ECOZONES. — To ensure the viability and
geographic dispersal of ECOZONES through a system of prioritization, the
following areas are initially identified as ECOZONES, subject to the criteria
specified in Section 6:

a) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Morong, Hermosa,

Dinalupihan, Orani, Samal, and Abucay in the Province of Bataan;

b) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the municipalities of

Ibaan, Rosario, Taysan, San Jose, San Juan, and cities of Lipa and Batangas;

c) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the City of Cagayan de

Oro in the Province of Misamis Oriental;

d) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the City of Iligan in the

Province of Lanao del Norte;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 e) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Province of
Saranggani;

f)So much as may be necessary of that portion of the City of Laoag in the
Province of Ilocos Norte;

g) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Davao City and Samal

Island in the Province of Ilocos Norte;

h) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Oroquieta City in the

Province of Misamis Occidental;
i) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Tubalan Cove, Malita in the
Province of Davao del Sur;

j) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Baler, Dinalungan and

Casiguran including its territorial waters and islets and its immediate
environs in the Province of Aurora;
k) So much as may be necessary of that portion of cities of Naga and Iriga in
the Province of Camarines Sur, Legaspi and Tabaco in the Province of Albay,
and Sorsogon in the Province of Sorsogon;

l) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Bataan Island in the

province of Batanes;

m) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Lapu-lapu in the Island of

Mactan, and the municipalities of Balamban and Pinamungahan and the
cities of Cebu and Toledo and the Province of Cebu, including its territorial
waters and islets and its immediate environs;
n) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Tacloban City;

o) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Municipality of Barugo

in the Province of Leyte;
p) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Municipality of
Buenavista in the Province of Guimaras;

q) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the municipalities of San

Jose de Buenavista, Hamtic, Sibalom, and Culasi in the Province of Antique;
r) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the municipalities of
Catarman, Bobon and San Jose in the Province of Northern Samar, the Island
of Samar;

s) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Municipality of Ternate

and its immediate environs in the Province of Cavite;

t) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Polloc, Parang in the

Province of Maguindanao;

u) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Municipality of Boac in

the Province of Marinduque;

v) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Municipality of Pitogo

in the Province of Zamboanga del Sur;
w) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Dipolog City-Manukan
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Corridor in the Province of Zamboanga del Norte;

x) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Mambajao, Camiguin

Province;

y) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Infanta, Real, Polillo,

Alabat, Atimonan, Mauban, Tiaong, Pagbilao, Mulanay, Tagkawayan, and
Dingalan Bay in the Province of Quezon;
z) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Butuan City and the
Province of Agusan del Norte, including its territorial waters and islets and its
immediate environs;

aa) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Roxas City including its
territorial waters and islets and its immediate environs in the Province of
Capiz;

bb) So much as may be necessary of that portion of San Jacinto, San Fabian,
Mangaldan, Lingayen, Sual, Dagupan, Alaminos, Manaoag, Binmaley in the
Province of Pangasinan;
cc) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the autonomous region;

dd) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Masinloc, Candelaria and

Sta. Cruz in the Province of Zambales;
ee) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Palawan Island;

ff) So much as may be necessary of that portion of General Santos City in

South Cotabato and its immediate environs;

gg) So much as may be necessary of that portion of Dumaguete City and

Negros Oriental, including its territorial waters and islets and its immediate
environs.

hh) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Province of Ilocos

Sur;
ii) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Province of La Union;

jj) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Province of Laguna,

including its territorial waters and its immediate environs;
kk) So much as may be necessary of that portion of the Province of Rizal;

16. Land Conversion. — Agricultural lands may be converted for residential,

commercial, industrial and other non-agricultural purposes, subject to the
conditions set forth under Republic Act. No.. 6657 and other existing laws.
17. Tenant Emancipation Decree of 1972.

18. On September 26, 1972.

19. On August 3, 2007.

20. Section 2(k) of DAR Administrative Order No. 01-99, Revised Rules and
Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses.

21. Republic Act No. 9593.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 22. SEC. 61. Development Planning. — . . . .

xxx xxx xxx

No [Tourism Enterprise Zone] shall be designated without a development

plan duly approved by the [Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone
Authority] and without the approval, by resolution, of the [local government
unit] concerned. Any deviation or modification from the development plan
shall require the prior authorization of the TIEZA. The TIEZA may cause the
suspension of granted incentives and withdrawal of recognition as a TEZ
Operator. It may likewise impose reasonable fines and penalties upon TEZ
Operators and responsible persons for any failure to properly implement the
approved development plan.

Lands identified as part of a TEZ shall qualify for exemption from the
coverage of Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban
Development and Housing Act of 1992, and Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, subject to rules and
regulations to be crafted by the TIEZA, the Housing and Urban Development
Coordinating Council and the Department of Agrarian Reform.

23. Vide: Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association v. CA, G.R. No. 142359, May 25,
2004; and Junio v. Garilao, G.R. No. 147146, July 29, 2005.
24. G.R. No. 168394, October 6, 2008, 567 SCRA 540.

25. Id. at 553-554.

26. Then Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr.
27. CA rollo (CA G.R. No. 63146 as part of G.R. No. 149548), pp. 9-11.

28. Id. (CA G.R. No. 63146 as part of G.R. No. 149548) at 12-17.
29. Id. (CA G.R. No. 63146 as part of G.R. No. 149548) at 345-347.
30. Then Secretary Hernani Braganza.

31. The DAR Secretary ruled that:

In the case at hand Records show that subject properties were originally
registered under TCT No. T-985. This is shown in the Certification dated 17
June 1998 issued by Alexander Bonuan, Deputy Register of Deeds II, Registry
of Deeds, Nasugbu, Batangas. . . .

CERTIFICATION
xxx xxx xxx

This is to certify that Lot No. 125 of Psd-04016141 (OLT) under TCT No.
49946 is a transfer from TCT-985. Further, it is certified that Lot 125-N Psd-
04-046912 under TCT No. 60034 is a transfer from TCT No. T-49946.

xxx xxx xxx

In a letter dated 18 July 2000 addressed to Director Ricardo R. San Andres,

Head, Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI)-2
Secretariat, Deputy Register of Deeds Bonuan clarified that "TCT No. 49946"
should read "TCT No. 59946." Attached to said letter is a certified true copy
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of TCT No. T-59946. A scrutiny of TCT No. T-59946 shows that it covers a
parcel of land identified as Lot No. 125 of the subdivision plan Psd-04-016144
with an area of 947.8417 hectares situated in Barangays Bilaran,
Lumbangan, Cogonan, and Reparo, Nasugbu, Batangas.

xxx xxx xxx.

A scrutiny of TCT Nos. T-60019, T-60020, T-60021, T-60022, T-60023 and T-

60034 shows that they are transfers from TCT No. T-59946. Furthermore, a
Certification dated 6 September 2001 issued by Dante Ramirez, Deputy
Register of Deeds, Nasugbu, Batangas, states that the mother title of TCT
Nos. T-60019, T-60020, T-60021, T-60022, T-60023 and T-60034 is TCT No.
T-985. registered in the name of Roxas Y Cia.
xxx xxx xxx.

In the case at hand, the Certification dated 19 September 1996 issued by

Reynaldo H. Garcia, Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu, Batangas states,
among others, that Lots Nos. 31, 24, 21, 32, 28 and 34 situated in Barangays
Cogunan and Lumbangan, Nasugbu, Batangas, are within the Industrial Zone
. . . . Moreover, a Certification also dated 19 September 1996 issued by
Zoning Administrator Reynaldo H. Garcia states that DAR Lot No. 36 with an
area of 0.6273 hectares situated in Brgy. Lumbanga, Nasugbu, Batangas, is
within the industrial zone . . . Moreover, a Certification dated 7 January 1998
issued by Maria Luisa G. Pangan, under authority of the HLURB Secretariat,
states that Resolution No. 28, Municipal Ordinance No. 4 of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas, dated 18 April 1982, was approved by the
HSRC, now HLURB, under Resolution No. R-123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May
1983. . . .

32. Viva Footwear Manufacturing Corp. v. SEC, G.R. No. 163235, April 27, 2007,
522 SCRA 609, 615 citing Quiambao v. CA, G.R. No. 128305, March 28, 2005,
454 SCRA 17, 40.
33. G.R. No. 147146, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 173.

34. Id. at 187.

35. Rollo (G.R. No. 167505), pp. 529-532.
36. Id. at 533-534.
37. Id. at 525-526.
38. Id. at 91-93.
39. Supra note 1 at 783.
40. Sublay v. NLRC, 324 SCRA 188 (2000).
41. Cuevas v. Bais Steel Corporation, G.R. No. 142689, October 17, 2002, 391
SCRA 192.
42. An Act to Ordain the Agricultural Land Reform Code and to Institute Land
Reforms in the Philippines, including the Abolition of Tenancy and the
Channeling of Capital into Industry, Provide for the Necessary Implementing
Agencies, Appropriate Funds therefor and for Other Purposes. As amended
by Republic Act No. 6389.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 43. Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844.
44. PARAD Barbara P. Tan. In the Decision of May 27, 2001, the PARAD
disposed as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Finding and declaring the issuance of CLOA 6654 not in accordance with
the mandate of Sec. 16, RA 6657 thereby effectively circumventing the
implementation of the CARP;
2. Finding CLOA 6654 to be fictitious/null and void having been generated on
the basis of a subdivision survey which was plotted on a survey plan which
has already been previously cancelled, superseded and extinct, accordingly;
3. Ordering the cancellation of CLOA 6654, as prayed for by Petitioner,
without prejudice, however, to the execution of the proper subdivision survey
for purposes of delineating accurately the boundaries of the properties
subject of acquisition proceedings for purposes of determining their coverage
under the CARP or their negotiability for conversion and/or exclusion from the
Program.
45. Penned by Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with the concurrence of Justices
Lucas P. Bersamin and Celia C. Librea-Leagogo.
46. Penned by Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. with the concurrence of Justices Amelita
G. Tolentino and Regalado E. Maambong and the dissent of Justices Ruben T.
Reyes (now a retired member of the Court) and Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com