EN BANC

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, - versus - DAMBA-NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,* Respondents. x------------------------------------x DAMAYAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA ROXAS-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS (DAMBA-NFSW), Petitioner, - versus - SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC. AND/OR ATTY. MARIANO AMPIL, Respondents. x-----------------------------------x 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), represnted by LAURO MARTIN, Petitioners, - versus - SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ROXAS & Co., INC., Respondents. x------------------------------------------x DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM, FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), Petitioner, - versus - ROXAS & CO, INC., Respondent. x------------------------------------x ROXAS & CO., INC., Petitioner, - versus - DAMBA-NFSW, Respondent. x------------------------------------x DAMBA-NFSW REPRESENTED BY LAURO V. MARTIN, Petitioner, - versus - ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent. x------------------------------------x DAMBA-NFSW, Petitioner, - versus - ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 149548 G.R. No. 167505 Present: PUNO, C.J., CARPIO, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, and VILLARAMA, JJ. Promulgated: December 4, 2009 G.R. No. 167540 G.R. No. 167543 G.R. No. 167845 G.R. No. 169163 G.R. No. 179650

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

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The main subject of the seven consolidated petitions is the application of petitioner Roxas & Co., Inc. (Roxas & Co.) for conversion from agricultural to 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.

x x x x

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.

x x x x

Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of …DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.

x x x x[2] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543 nub on the interpretation of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1520 which was issued on November 28, 1975 by then President Ferdinand Marcos. The PP reads:

DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF MARAGONDON AND TERNATE IN CAVITE PROVINCE AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU IN BATANGAS AS A TOURIST ZONE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, certain areas in the sector comprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas have potential tourism value after being developed into resort complexes for the foreign and domestic market; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to conduct the necessary studies and to segregate specific geographic areas for concentrated efforts of both the government and private sectors in developing their tourism potential;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby declare the area comprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas Province as a tourist zone under the administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) pursuant to Section 5 (D) of P.D. 564.

The PTA shall identify well-defined geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value, wherein optimum use of natural assets and attractions, as well as existing facilities and concentration of efforts and limited resources of both government and private sector may be affected and realized in order to generate foreign exchange as well as other tourist receipts.

Any duly established military reservation existing within the zone shall be excluded from this proclamation.

All proclamation, decrees or executive orders inconsistent herewith are hereby revoked or modified accordingly. (emphasis and underscoring supplied).

The incidents which spawned the filing of the petitions in G.R. Nos. 149548, 167505, 167845, 169163 and 179650 are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, the original draft of which was made the basis of the Court’s deliberations.

Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application for conversion of its three haciendas from argricultural to non-agricultural on the assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourism zone, reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its pending application notwithstanding, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including CLOA No. 6654 which was issued on October 15, 1993 covering 513.983 hectares, the subject of G.R. No. 167505.

The application for conversion of Roxas & Co. was the subject of the 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 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;

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 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 in DAR v. Franco,[7] it pronounced:

Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the Philippine Tourism Authority, has to determine precisely which areas are for tourism development and excluded from the Operation Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. And suffice it to state here that the Court has repeatedly ruled that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 do not need any conversion clearance.[8] (emphasis and underscoring supplied).

While the above pronouncement in Franco is an obiter, it should not be ignored in the resolution of the present petitions since it reflects a more rational and just interpretation of PP 1520. There is no prohibition in embracing the rationale of an obiter dictum in settling controversies, or in considering related proclamations establishing tourism zones.

In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA,[9] the Court made it clear that the “power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are 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. x x x x.

B. Proclamations declaring general areas such as whole provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands or peninsulas as tourist zones that merely:

(1) recognize certain still unidentified areas within the covered provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands, or peninsulas to be with potential tourism value and charge the Philippine Tourism Authority with the task to identify/delineate specific geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value and to coordinate said areas’ development; or

(2) recognize the potential value of identified spots located within the general area declared as tourist zone (i.e. x x x x) and direct the Philippine Tourism Authority to coordinate said areas’ development;

could not be regarded as effecting an automatic reclassification of the entirety of the land area declared as tourist zone. This is so because “reclassification of lands” denotes their allocation into some specific use and “providing for the manner of their utilization and disposition (Sec. 20, Local Government Code) or the “act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan.” (Joint HLURB, DAR, DA, DILG Memo. Circular Prescribing Guidelines for MC 54, S. 1995, Sec.2)

A proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism value of certain areas within the general area declared as tourist zone clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intend the entirety of the land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said proclamation direct that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be used for purposes other than agricultural.

Moreover, to view these kinds of proclamation as a reclassification for non-agricultural purposes of entire provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands, or peninsulas would be unreasonable as it amounts to an automatic and sweeping exemption from CARP in the name of tourism development. The same would also undermine the land use reclassification powers vested in local government units in conjunction with pertinent agencies of government.

C. There being no reclassification, it is clear that said proclamations/issuances, assuming [these] took effect before June 15, 1988, could not supply a basis for exemption of the entirety of the lands embraced therein from CARP coverage x x x x.

D. x x x x. (underscoring in the original; emphasis and italics supplied)

The 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 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.

Interestingly, then President Marcos also issued on September 26, 1972 PD No. 2 which declared the entire Philippines as land reform area.[18] Such declaration did not intend to reclassify all lands in the entire country to agricultural lands. President Marcos, about a month later or on October 21, 1972, issued PD 27 which decreed that all private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn were deemed awarded to their tenant-farmers.

Given these martial law-era decrees and considering the socio-political backdrop at the time PP 1520 was issued in 1975, it is inconceivable that PP 1520, as well as other similarly worded proclamations which are completely silent on the aspect of reclassification of the lands in those tourism zones, would nullify the gains already then achieved by PD 27.

Even so, Roxas & Co. turns to Natalia Realty v. DAR and NHA v. Allarde to support its position. These cases are not even closely similar to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543. The only time that these cases may find application to said petitions is when the PTA actually identifies “well-defined geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value.”

In remotely tying these two immediately-cited cases that involve specific and defined townsite reservations for the housing program of the National Housing Authority to the present petitions, Roxas & Co. cites Letter of Instructions No. 352 issued on December 22, 1975 which states that the survey and technical description of the tourism zones shall be considered an integral part of PP 1520. There were, however, at the time no surveys and technical delineations yet of the intended tourism areas.

On hindsight, Natalia and Allarde find application in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 167505, which petitions are anchored on the extenuating effects of Nasugbu MZO No. 4, but not in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 & 167543 bearing on PP 1520, as will later be discussed.

Of significance also in the present petitions is the issuance on August 3, 2007 of Executive Order No. 647[19] by President Arroyo which proclaimed the areas in the Nasugbu Tourism Development Plan as Special Tourism Zone. Pursuant to said Executive Order, the PTA completed its validation of 21 out of 42 barangays as tourism priority areas, hence, it is only after such completion that these identified lands may be subjected to reclassification proceedings.

It bears emphasis that a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use since there is still that process of conversion before one is permitted to use it for other purposes.[20]

Tourism Act, and not to PP 1520, for possible exemption.

II. ROXAS & CO.’S APPLICATION IN DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 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.

Since PP 1520 did not automatically convert Haciendas Caylaway, Banilad and Palico into non-agricultural estates, can Roxas & Co. invoke in the alternative Nasugbu MZO No. 4, which reclassified in 1982 the haciendas to 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.

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.

x x x x

In the case under review, the subject parcels of lands were reclassified within an urban zone as per approved Official Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Davao. The reclassification was embodied in City Ordinance No. 363, Series of 1982. As such, the subject parcels of land are considered “non-agricultural” and may be utilized for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. The reclassification was later approved by the HLURB.[25] (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

The DAR Secretary[26] denied the application for exemption of Roxas & Co., however, in this wise:

Initially, CLUPPI-2 based [its] evaluation on the lot nos. as appearing in CLOA No. 6654. However, for purposes of clarity and to ensure that the area applied for exemption is indeed part of TCT No. T-60034, CLUPPI-2 sought to clarify with [Roxas & Co.] the origin of TCT No. T-60034. In a letter dated May 28, 1998, [Roxas & Co.] explains that portions of TCT No. T-985, the mother title, …was subdivided into 125 lots pursuant to PD 27. A total of 947.8417 was retained by the landowners and was subsequently registered under TCT No. 49946. [[Roxas & Co.] further explains that TCT No. 49946 was further subdivided into several lots (Lot 125-A to Lot 125-P) with Lot No. 125-N registered under TCT No. 60034. [A] review of the titles, however, shows that the origin of T-49946 is T-783 and not 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 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, respetively. While [Roxas & Co.] claims that DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24 and 31 correspond to the aforementioned TCTs submitted to the DAR no evidence was presented to substantiate such allegation.

Moreover, [Roxas & Co.] failed to submit TCT 634 which it claims covers DAR Lot Nos. 28, 32 and 24.(TSN, April 24, 2001, pp. 43-44)

x x x x

[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. x x x x. In fact, the TCTs submitted by [Roxas & Co.] show that the properties covered by said titles are all located at Barrio Lumbangan.[29] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the appellate court still allowed Roxas & Co. to adduce additional evidence to support its application for exemption under Nasugbu MZO No. 4.

Meanwhile, Roxas & Co. appealed the appellate 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.

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 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;

4. Location and vicinity maps of subject landholdings;

5. Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Reynaldo Garcia, Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu, Batangas, stating that the subject parcels of land are within the Urban Core Zone as specified in Zone A. VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), under Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;

6. Two (2) Certifications both dated 31 August 1998, issued by Alfredo Tan II, Director, HLURB, Region IV, stating that the subject parcels of land appear to be within the Residential cluster Area as specified in Zone VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved under HSRC Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;[35]

x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

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

1. The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in their peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until a final determination has been made on the amount of disturbance compensation due and entitlement of such 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.

x x x x

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. x x x x. Anyhow, the farmer[-]beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.”

Since subject landholding has been validly determined to be CARP-exempt, therefore, the previous issuance of the CLOA of oppositors-movants is erroneous. Hence, similar to the situation of the above-quoted Supreme Court Decision, oppositors-movants only hold the property in trust for the rightful owners of the land and are not the owners of subject landholding who should be notified of the exemption application of applicant Roxas & Company, Incorporated.

Finally, this Office finds no substantial basis to reverse the assailed Orders since there is substantial compliance by the applicant with the requirements for the issuance of exemption clearance under DAR AO 6 (1994).[37]

On DAMBA-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.

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. x x x x. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.[39]

On the procedural question raised by Roxas & Co. on the appellate 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:

x x x x. To deny [DAMBA-NSFW]’s appeal with the PARAD will not only affect their right over the parcel of land subject of this petition with an area of 103.1436 hectares, but also that of the whole area covered by CLOA No. 6654 since the PARAD rendered a Joint Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the [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. x x x x (underscoring supplied)

Unlike courts of justice, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body, is not bound to strictly observe rules of procedure and evidence. To strictly enforce rules on appeals in this case would render to naught the 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.

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 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 July 20, 2005;

3) In G.R. No. 149548, the Court DENIES the petition for review of Roxas & Co. for lack of merit;

4) In G.R. No. 179650, the Court GRANTS the petition for review of 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) 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.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice	RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice	PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice	DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice	MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

REYNATO S. PUNO

Chief Justice

---

* 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;

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;

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. – x x x x.

x x x x.

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. x x x x.

CERTIFICATION

x x x x.

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.

x x x x.

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.

x x x x.

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.

x x x x.

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. x x x x.

[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.

[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.