Case Name: ROXAS & CO., INC., petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

DISSCUSSION: GUIDELINE REGARDING VOLUNTARY AND COMPULSARY ACQUISITION OF LANDS

Court with
Jurisdiction
( MTC/CA/Supre
me Court)
Issue/s

Administrative Courts

CA Level

Supreme Court Level

1. WON the court can take cognizance of petitioners petition despite failure to exhaust administrative
remedies
2. WON acquisition proceedings against the petitioners were valid
3. WON the court can rule on whether the haciendas may be reclassified from agricultural to non agricultural

Facts of the
Case

Petitioner Roxas and Co. is a

corporation that owns 3
haciendas in Batangas, which
the government wishes to
acquire under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Law
(CARL).
Before the effectivity of the law,
the petitioner filed with the
Department of Agrarian Reform
a voluntary offer to sell (VOS)
Hacienda Caylaway pursuant

ISSUE #1 :
Yes. Petitioners action falls under the
exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies sine there is no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for the
petitioners at this point. The CLOAs were
already issued despite the fact that there was
no just compensation.

to EO 229, which served as

guidelines to the comprehensive
agrarian program.
The two other haciendas
Banilad and Palicowere placed
under compulsory
acquisition by the DAR in
accordance with the CARL.
Hacienda Banilad and Palico
DAR sent invitations to Roxas
and Co in order to discuss the
results of the DAR investigation,
finding both Banilad and Palico
qualified under the CARP. For
Hacienda Palico, DAR sent a
letter of acquisition to Roxas
and Co at their offices in
Manila, while for Hacienda
Banilad, DAR addressed the
notices to Jaime Pimintel,
caretaker of the said hacienda.
It was petitioner Pimintel who
attended all the proceedings
regarding the two haciendas.
Hence, during trial, Roxas and
Co claimed that they were not
informed of the acquisition
proceedings on their two
haciendas.
DAR then opened a trust

ISSUE #2
1. Acquisition
proceedings
against
petitioners violated their right to due
process.
First, there was an improper
service
of
the
Notice
of
Acquisition.
Notices
to
corporations should be served
through their president, manager,
secretary, cashier, agent, or any of
its directors or partners. Jaime
Pimintel, to whom the notice was
served, was neither of those.
Second, there was no notice of
coverage, meaning, the parcels of
land were not properly identified
before they were taken by the DAR.
Under the law, the land owner has the
right to choose 5 hectares of land he
wishes to retain. Upon receiving the
Notice of Acquisition, petitioner
corporation had no idea which
portions of its estate were subject to
compulsory acquisition.

Third, The CLOAs were issued to

farmer beneficiaries without just
compensation. The law provides that
the deposit must be made only in

account in favor of petitioner

Roxas and Co. These trust
accounts were replaced by DAR
with cash and Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) bonds.
Meanwhile, petitioner Roxas
applied for the conversion of
the haciendas from
agricultural to nonagricultural. Despite this, DAR
proceeded with the acquisition
of the two haciendas. It then
issued and distributed
certificate of land ownership
awards (CLOA) to farmer
beneficiaries.
Hacianda Caylaway
Although Hacienda Caylaway
was initially offered for sale to
the government, Roxas and Co
sent a letter to DAR
secretary withdrawing its
offer. According to Roxas, the
reclassification of Caylaway
from agricultural to non
agricultural was authorized by
the Sangguniang Bayan of
Nasugbu. Also, the municipality
of Nasugbu where the
haciendas are located had been
declared a tourist zone. Roxas
also argued that the land is not
suitable for agricultural

cash or LBP bonds. DARs opening of

a trust account in petitioners name
does not constitute payment. Even if
later, DAR substituted the trust
account with cash and LBP bonds,
such does not cure the lack of notice,
which still amounts to a violation of
the petitioners right to due process.

purposes.
DAR secretary denied Roxas
withdrawal of his VOS.
According to the secretary, the
withdrawal can only be based
on specific grounds such as
unsuitability of soil for
agriculture, slope of the lad
is over 180 degrees and that
the land is undeveloped.
Despite the denial of the
withdrawal of the VOS,
petitioner still filed an
application for conversion
with the DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB), which
submitted the case to the
Secretary of DAR for
resolution.

Decision of the
Court

The DAR secretary dismissed

the case.
Roxas and Co went to the CA on
appeal.

CA dismissed appeal claiming

that petitioners failed to
exhaust administrative
remedies.

The petition is granted in part and the acquisition

proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified
for respondent DAR's failure to observe due
process therein.
The case is hereby remanded to respondent DAR
for proper acquisition proceedings and
determination of petitioner's application for
conversion.