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, v s . 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.

DECISION

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 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 Certi cate 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.] led 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 reclassi cation 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.

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:
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

W H E R E A S , 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

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREAS, it is necessary to conduct the necessary studies and to
segregate speci c 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-de ned 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 ling 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. led 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, reclassi ed them to non-
agricultural uses. Its pending application notwithstanding, the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) issued Certi cates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the farmer-
bene ciaries 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 re ected in the above-quoted
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. led
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
classi ed 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 led before this Court petitions for intervention which were,
however, denied by Resolution of June 5, 2006 for lack of standing. 4

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 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 reclassi ed 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, reclassi ed 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 identi ed 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 “speci c 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 "speci c 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 O ce 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 su ce it to state here that the
Court has repeatedly ruled that lands already classi ed 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 re ects 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad a n d 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." 1 0 The DAR, an
administrative body of special competence, denied, by Order of October 22, 2001, the
application for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it nding 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, identi ed the "speci c
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. 1 1
Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2004, 1 2 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 unidenti ed 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 speci c geographic areas within the zone with potential
tourism value and to coordinate said areas' development; or
(2) recognize the potential value of identi ed 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 reclassi cation of the entirety of the land area
declared as tourist zone . This is so because "reclassi cation of lands"
denotes their allocation into some speci c 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 reclassi cation 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 reclassi cation powers vested in local
government units in conjunction with pertinent agencies of government.

C. There being no reclassi cation, 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 1 3
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 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 1 4 provides a
parallel orientation on the issue. Under said Act, several towns and cities encompassing
the whole Philippines were readily identi ed as economic zones. 1 5 To uphold Roxas &
Co.'s reading of PP 1520 would see a total reclassi cation 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.
1 6 The same cannot be said of PP 1520, despite the existence of Presidential Decree
(PD) No. 27 or the Tenant Emancipation Decree, 1 7 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. 1 8 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
reclassi cation 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 nd application to said
petitions is when the PTA actually identi es "well-de ned geographic areas within the
zone with potential tourism value."
In remotely tying these two immediately-cited cases that involve speci c and
de ned 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 areas.
On hindsight, Natalia and Allarde nd 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 signi cance also in the present petitions is the issuance on August 3, 2007 of
Executive Order No. 647 1 9 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 identi ed lands may be
subjected to reclassification proceedings.
It bears emphasis that a mere reclassi cation 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. 2 0
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 speci cally de ned 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. 2 2
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
reclassi ed 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.
1 7 9 6 5 0 CANNOT BE GRANTED IN VIEW OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE
LOCATION AND IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS OF LAND. DcICEa

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 reclassi ed 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 reclassi ed to non-agricultural uses via
Nasugbu MZO No. 4 which was approved by the forerunner of HLURB.
Roxas & Co.'s contention fails.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 2 3 In Agrarian Reform Bene ciaries Association v.
Nicolas, 2 4 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 classi ed 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 reclassi ed
within an urban zone as per approved O cial Comprehensive Zoning Map of the
City of Davao. The reclassi cation 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 reclassi cation was later approved by the
HLURB . 2 5 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

The DAR Secretary 2 6 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 veri cation . . ., the discrepancies . . .
cannot be ascertained . 2 7 (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 Certi cation dated February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB],
the Certi cation dated September 12, 1996 issued by the Municipal
Planning and Development Coordinator, and the Certi cations dated
July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National Irrigation
Authority . The certi cations 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

certi cations issued by the HLURB and the Municipal Planning
Development Coordinator as to the area of the specific lots . 2 8 (emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

In a rming the DAR Secretary's denial of Roxas & Co.'s application for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 certi cations . . . refer, among others,
to DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 34 . . . But these certi cations 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
classi ed 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 classi ed 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. 2 9
(emphasis and underscoring supplied) DICSaH

Its foregoing ndings 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 a rming 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.
In granting the application, the DAR Secretary 3 0 examined anew the evidence
submitted by Roxas & Co. which consisted mainly of certi cations from various local
and national government agencies. 3 1 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-
bene ciaries, 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 led 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 While ordinarily ndings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies are generally
accorded great weight and even nality by the Court if supported by substantial
evidence in recognition of their expertise on the speci c matters under their
consideration, 3 2 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 nds that the DAR Secretary indeed committed grave abuse of
discretion when he ignored the glaring inconsistencies in the certi cations submitted
early on by Roxas & Co. in support of its application vis-à-vis the certi cations 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 Certi cation
dated February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB], the Certi cation dated September 12, 1996
issued by the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, and the Certi cations
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 nds 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 3 3 wherein the certi cations 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. 3 4 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 identi ed 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 Certi cate 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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. Certi cation 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
speci ed 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) Certi cations 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
speci ed 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; 3 5

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:
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 nal 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 O ce
within ten (10) days from such payment; and
3. The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer-bene ciaries shall be
subject of a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas. 3 6

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 rst 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

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 With regard [to] the allegation that oppositors-movants are already CLOA
holders of subject propert[ies] and deserve to be noti ed, 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 bene ciaries. . . . . 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 noti ed of the
exemption application of applicant Roxas & Company, Incorporated.
Finally, this O ce nds 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). 3 7

On DAMBA-NSFW's petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals, noting that the
petition was belatedly led, sustained, by Decision of December 20, 1994 and
Resolution of May 7, 2007, 3 8 the DAR Secretary's nding 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 nds 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-bene ciaries in DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 must be cancelled.
But rst, 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-bene ciaries. 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. . . . . Anyhow, the farmer
beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land. 3 9

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 nal and executory. 4 0 A relaxation of
the rules may, however, for meritorious reasons, be allowed in the interest of justice. 4 1
The Court nds that in giving due course to DAMBA-NSFW's appeal, the appellate court
committed no reversible error. Consider its ratiocination:
. . . . 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 led 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, 4 2 mandates
that disturbance compensation be given to tenants of parcels of land upon nding 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." 4 3 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 rst satisfy the disturbance compensation of
affected farmer-bene ciaries 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) 4 4 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 October 19,
2005 Resolution dismissing DAMBA-NFSW's petition for review of the appellate court's
Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 75952; 4 5
WHEREFORE,
1) I n G.R. No. 167540, the Court RE V E RS E S a n d SETS ASIDE the
November 24, 2003 Decision 4 6 and March 18, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 72131 which declared that Presidential Proclamation No. 1520
reclassi ed the lands in the municipalities of Nasugbu in Batangas and Maragondon
and Ternate in Cavite to non-agricultural use;
2) The Court accordingly G RANTS the Motion for Reconsideration of the
Department of Agrarian Reform in G.R. No. 167543 and RE V E RS E S a n d 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) I n G.R. No. 179650, the Court G RA N T S 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) In 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) In 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) I n 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 O RD E RE D to pay the disturbance compensation of
affected farmer-bene ciaries 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.
Nachura, Brion and Bersamin, JJ., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 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;

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;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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.

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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 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 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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.
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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 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. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com