G.R. No. 178110
- AYALA LAND, INC. and CAPITOL CITY FARMS,
INC., petitioners, versus SIMEONA
CASTILLO, LORENZO PERLAS, JESSIELYN CASTILLO, LUIS MAESA, ROLANDO BATIQUIN and
BUKLURAN MAGSASAKA NG TIBIG, as represented by their attorney-in-fact, SIMEONA
CASTILLO, respondents.
Promulgated:
June
15, 2011
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DISSENTING OPINION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
I dissent from the majority ruling
for the following reasons:
1.
The grant of the
appeal was mainly premised on petitioners unfounded assertion that the
issuance of the notice of coverage and notice of acquisition was raised for the
first time on appeal.
2.
The prohibition
on the filing of a petition for conversion of agricultural lands already placed
under CARP coverage is not a mere guiding principle but a preventive measure
against any act of the landowner to evade the application of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6657 to his landholding.
3.
The rules on land
conversion expressly provide for the remedy of cancellation or revocation of
conversion order within a five-year
period if the petition is based on any
violation of relevant rules and regulations of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR).
4.
Petitioners have not
complied with the requirements for a valid reclassification of agricultural
lands.
5.
The policy
pronouncement of the Office of the President (OP) on the supposed balancing of
the rights of agricultural tenants and farm workers with substantial financial
losses to be incurred by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP),
the biggest creditor of the landowners mortgagee bank, ignores the declared policy
of the State that [T]he welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers will
receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the
nation toward sound rural development and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship
of economic size farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture.
The
buy-out arrangement clearly favored the landowner CCFI who was able to evade
CARP coverage and at the same pay off its huge mortgage debtwhich otherwise it
could not fully settle from the proceeds of
a foreclosure saleto a private bank then under liquidation, at the
expense of impoverished farmers and in
violation of existing DAR regulations. In these situations, the
landowner-mortgagor alone should bear the loss in case of deficiency because
the foreclosure buyer is merely substituted to the landowner entitled only to
just compensation pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 and DAR rules.
The factual
antecedents are undisputed:
Capitol City Farms,
Inc. (CCFI) is the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of
On September
29, 1989, the DAR issued a Notice of
Coverage, placing the subject property under compulsory acquisition pursuant
to Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988 (CARL). On P1,263,015.87 as purchase
price.
Subsequently,
MBC foreclosed its mortgage lien over CCFIs properties and as a result of the
foreclosure sale, MBC acquired the same, as evidenced by a Certificate of Sale[2] issued
in its favor. Said certificate of sale was
registered on
In a special
civil action filed before this Court (G.R. No. 85960), MBC sought to enjoin the
Monetary Board, the Central Bank of the Philippines and two of its officials
from proceeding with MBCs liquidation.
On
On P500.00 per square meter excluding interest.[7]
On the same
date, CCFI executed a Deed of Absolute Sale[8]
in favor of Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI) over its properties covered by TCT Nos.
128672 and 144245. The payment of
purchase price to CCFI was subject to certain terms and conditions, among which
is the issuance of DAR Approval for the Parcels of Land, meaning the exemption
from coverage of the CARL or conversion of the land to non-agricultural use,
signed in either case by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform.[9] However, this sale was registered only on
Sometime in
August 1995, BSP through then Deputy Governor Alberto V. Reyes, requested the
DAR Secretary to issue an order exempting MBCs landholdings from the coverage
of CARL and declaring a moratorium on compulsory acquisition proceedings
against the same. This request was
denied by the DAR Secretary in his letter-decision dated
In the
meantime, CCFIs counsel sent a letter dated
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant case is hereby remanded to the Department of Agrarian Reform for the purpose of receiving evidence on the question of which among the parcels of land, subject matter of this case, are exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which lands may be converted into non-agricultural uses, and which may be subjected to compulsory coverage. In the meantime, and while these issues have not been resolved, Respondents are hereby directed to cease and desist from subjecting the Petitioners properties to the CARL, or otherwise distributing those parcels of land already covered to farmer-beneficiaries.
The parties are further enjoined to assist each other in formulating a mutually beneficial solution to this dispute, bearing in mind that the rehabilitation of the Petitioner will be beneficial to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the general public, without losing sight of the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
SO
ORDERED.[15]
DARs
motion for reconsideration of the above decision was denied by the OP which
reiterated the need to balance the interests of MBC, its creditors [including
the BSP to which MBC was indebted in the total amount of P8,771,893,000 or
85% of MBCs total indebtedness] and the general public, and the faithful
implementation of the agrarian reform, with the view of harmonizing them and ensuring
that the objectives of CARP are met and satisfied.[16]
Meanwhile, in
his Resolution[17]
dated October 3, 1997, DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao granted MBCs request
for clearance to sell its landholdings which included the subject property (TCT
No. 128672), citing Section 73-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 7881,
and further clarified in Memorandum Circular No. 05, Series of 1996, which permits the sale and/or transfer of
agricultural land in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made
necessary as a result of banks foreclosure of the mortgaged land. However, it was declared that the properties
sold shall remain under CARL coverage unless MBC is able to comply with the
requirements of the DAR on exemption or conversion. Furthermore, MBC or the
rightful owners of the properties, should a transfer, sale or conveyance
materialize, were granted a period of ninety (90) days to submit completed
applications for exemptions or conversions.
Note that the subject property had earlier been sold to ALI by virtue of
the authority granted to CCFI by MBC under the Deed of Partial Redemption while
CCFIs 1996 request for the DAR to lift the Notice of Acquisition was made in
pursuance of its contractual undertaking with MBC and ALI to seek exemption
from CARL or conversion of the land to non-agricultural use.
Subsequently,
CCFI filed an application for land conversion which was approved by then DAR Secretary
Ernesto D. Garilao. DAR Conversion Order
No. 4-97-1029-051[18]
issued on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the conversion/exemption application filed by the Capitol
Citifarms[,] Incorporated over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 128672 with
an area of
1) Submission of the abovementioned lacking documentary requirements as required by the Committee within thirty days from receipt of this Order;
2) The development of the land should be completed within five years from the issuance of this Order;
3) Notice of Conversion should be posted at the most conspicuous place within the project area using appropriate materials with a minimum size of one (1) by two (2) meters, indicating the name of the project and area, name of the developer/landowner, date when conversion was approved, and the date when the development permit was granted; and,
4) The DAR reserves the right to cancel or withdraw this order for misrepresentation of facts integral to its issuance and for violation of the rules and regulation on land use conversion.[19]
Among the documents submitted by CCFI
is the Department of Agriculture Soil Investigation Report stating that the
said property is considered moderately to marginally suitable to agricultural
crops due to very shallow to shallow soil depth, moderate erosion hazard,
moderate to low soil fertility, undulating topography, strongly rolling to
steep hilly physiology and is not economically suitable to agricultural development
due to serious soil/land limitation existing in the area.[20] The conversion order likewise cited the
findings of the Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI-1
& 2) which together with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of
Silang conducted a joint ocular inspection on
a. The subject property is about
b. The topography of the landholding is hilly
and has an average slope of more than 18%, undeveloped and is mostly covered
with wild growth of thick vines and bushes and secondary growth of forest trees
except for the portion where few pineapple and cassava are planted which is approximately
c. The dominant use of the surrounding area is industrial/forest growth as the landholding is sitting on a mountainous slope overlooking the Sta. Rosa Technopark.
d. The area is not irrigated and no irrigation system was noted in the area.[21]
On May 19, 2000, Ricardo Sim, Mario
Perlas, Simeona Castillo, and Marilou Buklatin, on their behalf and as
representatives of fifty-two (52) fellow tenant-farmers (herein respondents), filed
with the DAR a Petition for Revocation of Conversion Order No. 4-97-1029-051
against CCFI and ALI.[22]
They claimed that CCFI grossly violated the conversion order because instead of
developing the land within five years from the issuance of the order as
required in No. 2 above, it sold the land to ALI. They also pointed out that
when CCFI sold the land to ALI in 1995, it was still agricultural land. Thus,
CCFI violated Section 6[23] of the CARL and DAR Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 1989.[24]
They further alleged that the
application for conversion was a mere ploy to cover up the illegal transaction
and to evade the coverage of the property under the CARL, and in violation of
the tenant-farmers right to buy the land pursuant to the right of pre-emption
granted to them under R.A. No. 3844.
CCFI also committed
gross misrepresentation when it made it appear that the land had been duly
reclassified from agricultural to other uses when in truth, as certified by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB),[25]
the Municipality of Silang does not have an approved town plan/zoning ordinance
as of October 24, 1997 and only passed Sangguniang
Bayan Resolution No. ML-008, Series of 1996,[26]
which is not an ordinance but mere resolution approving CCFIs request for reclassification of the subject
property. Lastly, respondents claimed that CCFI failed to comply with the
undertaking to effect the complete payment of the disturbance compensation of
tenant-farmers.
On
x x x we find that respondents have violated the provisions of paragraph 4, Section 6 of RA 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, when Capitol Citifarms, Inc. sold the subject property to respondent Ayala Land, Inc. and did not register the same within a reasonable time. This is in order to avoid the full effects of the said law and rules and regulations. The conversion is resorted to evade the coverage of the land under CARP, with accompanying misrepresentation as to the ownership of the subject landholding to avoid detection of their unauthorized transaction. These are violations of the law and DAR rules and regulations and are grounds sufficient to warrant the revocation/withdrawal of the conversion order in respondents favor.[28] (Emphasis supplied.)
ALI moved to reconsider the Morales Order. On
On
The motion
for reconsideration filed by Atty. Henry So in behalf of the respondents was denied
by DAR Secretary Roberto M. Pagdanganan on
Aggrieved,
respondents elevated the case to the OP. In their Appeal Memorandum, they stressed
that a Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition have already been issued
over the subject property as early as 1989. It was reiterated that there was
misrepresentation and concealment on the part of CCFI and ALI when they did not
register the sale to escape the coverage of the subject land under the CARL pertaining
to ownership of lands exceeding the limits therein imposed. Attached to the
appeal memorandum is a copy of the Certification dated
On
Finding the
subject property to have been legally and validly converted into
non-agricultural land, the OP declared:
Moreover, in the absence of controverting evidence filed by the appellants to support otherwise, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the findings of the Central Land Use Planning Policy & Implementation-1 (CLUPPI-1 and 2) and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Silang, Cavite in a joint ocular inspection conducted on the subject property finding the same as beyond 18% in slope and undeveloped, not irrigated and no irrigation was noted in the area, which, in turn, were used as basis by the CLUPPI-1 Executive Committee to recommend that the subject property was not proper for Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage.
Under
DAR Memo Circular No. 11-79, land use conversion is allowed when the conversion
to non-agricultural purposes is by reason of the change in the predominant land
use brought about by urban development or zoning regulations which render the
landholdings more economically suitable to non-agricultural uses. Moreso, in the instant case, where the physical condition of the subject land
and its surroundings qualify the same to be exempted from the coverage of the
CARP.
It
is a known fact that the close proximity of the
It
must be stressed, however, that regardless of the urbanization and
industrialization taking place in
Respondents appealed to the CA which
by Decision[35]
dated
The only point argued at length in the Pagdanganan order was soundly rejected by the OP. Emphasis was made in the order on the lack of locus standi of the lawyer of the petitioners to file the motion for reconsideration against the Braganza order. But the OP said that in administrative cases, technicality must give way to the bigger purpose of providing relief to parties. The OP upheld the grounds in the Braganza order for maintaining the conversion order, but added one more, something original and novel.
At
the concluding part of its discussion, it alluded to another memorandum
circular of the DAR that land use conversion may be allowed when it is by
reason of the changes in the predominant land use brought about by urban
development. It then pointed to the fact that the close proximity of the
The argument is valid if the agricultural land is still not subjected to compulsory acquisition under CARP. But as we saw, there has already been a notice of coverage and notice of acquisition issued for the property. The OP was right in tempering its enthusiasm for modernization by recognizing that urbanization and industrialization may not be sufficient legal grounds for converting areas under land reform to other uses. Verily, no less than the cited DAR Administrative Order No. 12 enjoins conversions of lands already under a notice of acquisition. The objectives and ends of economic progress must always be sought after [sic] within the framework of the law, not against it, or in spite of it. This is what the rule of law is all about.[36] (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioners
anchored their petition on the following grounds:
A. RESPONDENTS ARE GUILTY OF FRAUD AND COME TO COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS. RESPONDENTS JESSIELYN CASTILLO, LUIS MAESA, ROLANDO BATIQUIN AND BUKLURAN MAGSASAKA NG TIBIG ARE NOT AMONG THOSE WHO FILED THE PETITION FOR THE REVOCATION OF THE SUBJECT CONVERSION ORDER.
B. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A LEGAL QUESTION NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH JURISPRUDENCE AND SANCTIONED A DEPARTURE FROM THE USUAL AND ACCEPTED COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN IT ISSUED THE SUBJECT DECISION AND RESOLUTION CONSIDERING THAT:
1) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS RESOLVED AN ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL. THIS IS OFFENSIVE TO JUSTICE, DUE PROCESS, AND FAIR PLAY.
2) THIS HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS INVOKED A DAR RULE THAT HAD BEEN SUPERSEDED EARLY ON.
3) THE FINDING OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THAT THE BRAGANZA ORDER FAILED TO YIELD ANY DIRECT CHALLENGE TO THE MORALES ORDER HAS NO FACTUAL BASIS.
4) THE DAR ITSELF FOUND THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT PROPER TO BE ACQUIRED AND DISTRIBUTED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM AND HAS LONG BEEN CONVERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.
5) THE RULING OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT THAT DAR MEMO CIRCULAR NO. 11-79 AUTHORIZED THE CONVERSION OF THE PROPERTY IS ENTITLED TO GREAT RESPECT.
6) THE PAGDANGANAN ORDER DIRECTED THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY OF THE BRAGANZA ORDER. HENCE, THE LATTER CAN NO LONGER BE REVIEWED OR MODIFIED.
7) THE EQUITIES MILITATE AGAINST PETITIONERS BECAUSE THEY ARE BARRED BY LACHES WHILE ALI HAS ALREADY DEVELOPED THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES IN KEEPING WITH ITS URBANIZED SETTING.[37]
The core
issue to be addressed is whether there exists legal ground to cancel or revoke
the conversion order previously issued on the subject land.
But first, the
issue of prescription, which was raised by the petitioner in opposition to the
petition for revocation filed by the respondents before the DAR Secretary on
The
Petition for Cancellation/
Revocation
of Conversion
Order
is not time-barred
Petitioners contended that
respondents action had prescribed, citing Section 34 of DAR AO No. 1, Series
of 1999 which states:
Article VII
Cancellation or Withdrawal of Conversion Orders
SEC. 34. Filing of Petition. - A petition for cancellation or withdrawal of the conversion order may be filed at the instance of DAR or any aggrieved party before the approving authority within ninety (90) days from discovery of facts which would warrant such cancellation but not more than one (1) year from issuance of the order: Provided, That where the ground refers to any of those enumerated in Sec. 35 (b), (e), and (f), the petition may be filed within ninety (90) days from discovery of such facts but not beyond the period for development stipulated in the order of conversion: Provided further, That where the ground is lack of jurisdiction, the petition shall be filed with the Secretary and the period prescribed herein shall not apply.
Resolving
the issue, Secretary Morales found the above inapplicable as AO No. 1 applies
only to those applications filed subsequent to its effectivity, as can be
gleaned from Article II, Section 3 thereof.
Instead, the provisions of DAR AO No. 12, Series of 1994 were applied,
which administrative order did not provide for any prescriptive period for the
filing of such petition. Petitioners
however, assail this interpretation as leading to absurd consequences because
then conversion orders filed after the effectivity of DAR AO No. 1 would have
to reckon with the one-year prescriptive period for filing a petition for
revocation/cancellation whereas those petitions for revocation of conversion
orders rendered before the
effectivity of DAR AO No. 1 would be imprescriptible.[38]
Further,
petitioners pointed out that Section 3(d), Article II of DAR AO No. 1 provides
that the rules shall apply to those agricultural lands reclassified to
residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on or after
the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988 pursuant to Section 20 of RA 7160
and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such
uses. Since the property had already been reclassified for residential,
commercial and industrial use as early as
The majority ruled
that the petitioners may no longer question the conversion order which had
attained finality considering that the action for its cancellation was filed
almost three years after the said order had been in force and effect.
I
disagree on the ground that this is a clear misapplication of the rules on
conversion.
As provided
in Section 34, Article VII of DAR AO No.
x x x x
(b)
Noncompliance with the conditions of the
conversion order;
x x x x
(e) Conversion to a use other than that authorized in the conversion order; and/or
(f) Any other violation of relevant rules and regulations of DAR. (Emphasis supplied.)
Moreover,
the
The DAR reserves the right to cancel or withdraw this order for misrepresentation of facts integral to its issuance and for violation of the rules and regulation on land use conversion.
Petitioners
are bound by the above express condition in the conversion order issued to it
such that even if DAR AO No. 1 is applicable, the respondents raised as among
the grounds for the revocation or cancellation of the conversion order the non-compliance
with the condition of developing the area within five years, the illegal sale
transaction made by CCFI to evade coverage under CARL, and CCFIs gross
misrepresentation before the DAR that the land subject of conversion had
already been reclassified to non-agricultural uses when in fact the Municipality
of Silang does not have an approved town plan/zoning ordinance as of October
24, 1997 and what was passed was a mere resolution and not an ordinance, and
pressure exerted on the tenant-farmers left them with no alternative but to
accept partial payments and sign waivers.
Such alleged misrepresentation of facts and violation of the rules and regulations on land conversion were
legally sufficient for the filing of a petition to revoke or cancel the
The majority also cited this Courts ruling in Villorente v. Aplaya Laiya Corp.[39] However, the facts in said
case are not on all fours with the present case. In that case, the petitioners
farmer-beneficiaries who did not appeal the conversion order, proceeded to
negotiate with the respondent regarding disturbance compensation, but after one
year of protracted negotiations decided to file a motion for reconsideration of
the conversion order, praying that it be set aside and should not be enforced
due to non-observance of due process as they allegedly were belatedly
notified. When their motion for
reconsideration was denied by the DAR, petitioners filed a petition for review
before the CA which dismissed the same.
We sustained the CA and ruled that estoppel had set in considering that
the petition for review filed by the petitioners with the CA was merely an
afterthought, when negotiations with the respondent for their claims for
disturbance compensation failed. Having
agreed to negotiate with the respondent for the disturbance compensation which
they claimed was due them, conformably with the Conversion Order, we held that
petitioners can no longer assail the conversion order which had become final
and executory.
In
the case at bar, the Court is confronted with a different factual milieu which
involves not an appeal from a conversion order but a petition to cancel or
revoke the same. A petition for cancellation or withdrawal of the conversion order
is a remedy provided under DAR AO No.
01, Series of 1999 (Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses),
already in force when respondents filed their petition before the DAR.
The
finality of the 1997 Conversion Order issued to CCFI notwithstanding, Sec. 34
of AO No. 01 provides a one-year period from the issuance of the order within
which to file the petition. By way of an
exception, a petition for cancellation may still be filed even beyond said
period if the grounds for cancellation are those enumerated in Sec. 35 (b), (e)
and (f), but not beyond the period for development stipulated in the order of
conversion. Since the respondents raised as grounds for cancellation of the
conversion order the 1995 non-compliance with the conditions of the conversion
order, the 1995 sale between CCFI and ALI of the subject agricultural lands,
and gross misrepresentation on the requisite reclassification pursuant to local
sanggunian ordinance grounds which
fall under Sec. 35 (b) and (f) -- the period for filing the petition was five
years. Hence, the petition was timely
filed in May 2000.
Revocation
of Conversion
Order
made by Secretary
Morales
was proper as the
lands
were already
placed
under CARP
coverage
The
timeliness of respondents petition for revocation having been established, the
principal issue for resolution is to determine whether the
Executive
Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987 vests on the DAR exclusive authority to
approve or disapprove [applications for] conversion of agricultural lands for
residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for
by law. Pursuant to its mandate, DAR
promulgated AO No. 12 on
E. No application for conversion shall be given due course if 1) the DAR has issued a Notice of Acquisition under the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) process; 2) Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), or an application for stock distribution covering the subject property has been received by DAR; or 3) there is already a perfected agreement between the landowner and the beneficiaries under Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT). (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Since a Notice of Acquisition was already issued over
the subject property, DAR clearly erred in giving due course to and granting
CCFIs application for conversion.
The majority
decision, however, holds that respondents are barred from asserting that Notice
of Acquisition had been issued over the subject landholding because such cannot
be raised for the first time on appeal.
Besides, the respondents were unable to substantiate their claim as no
such document is found in the records of the DAR, OP and the CA.
The decision
thus emphasized in bold print: In fact, the records show that this issue was
not raised in the original Petition for Certiorari in the second Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the farmers before the DAR, and that no Notice of
Acquisition was attached to their Appeal Memorandum to the OP and adding that
[A]s a consequence, the OP, Secretary Pagdanganan, Secretary Braganza, and
Secretary Morales did not have any opportunity to dwell on this issue in their
Orders and Decision. Obviously, the
majority deemed it of central importance so that the non-production of this
document resulted in grave violation of petitioners right to due process,
which cannot be countenanced.
With due respect
to the ponente and my esteemed
colleagues, I cannot agree with this
approach as it conveniently overlooks substantive rights on a mere invocation
of a procedural norm.
The
existence of Notice
of
Acquisition is an
admitted
fact; no
proof
necessary
Records of the DAR would show that
the fact of issuance of notices of coverage and acquisition over the subject
property was never in issue, notwithstanding the absence of reference to such
issuances in the Morales Order. MBC and
CCFI simply resorted to all legal maneuvers to delay their implementation.
That the
lands have already been placed under CARL coverage even before MBC acquired the
subject property is further evidently confirmed by the following documentary
evidence: (1) the stipulation/condition in the Deed of Partial Redemption and
Deed of Absolute Sale, both dated August 25,
Indeed, records
bear out that on May 7, 1996, counsel for CCFI wrote the DAR Regional Director
to request the lifting of the Notice of
Acquisition,[40]
citing as reasons the alleged reclassification of the lands from agricultural to commercial/industrial by the
Municipal Council of Silang, DA certification that the property is eligible for
conversion, non-irrigated character of the land, and absence of tenants except
for some occupants who had executed waiver of right and endorsed the lifting of
the notice of acquisition. It is to be
noted that such request was made in compliance with the terms and conditions of
the Deed of Partial Redemption dated
Moreover, the
request for the lifting of the Notice of Acquisition was made following the
denial by Secretary Ernesto Garilao of MBCs request for a DAR order exempting
the subject lands from the coverage of CARL, under letters dated
Notwithstanding
the favorable ruling issued by Executive Secretary Ruben Torres who ordered the
remand of the case to the DAR for further proceedings to determine whether the
subject lands can qualify for exemption or conversion, and issued a cease and
desist order against proceedings for compulsory acquisition being undertaken by
the DAR, MBC still sought DAR clearance to sell all its foreclosed assets which
have been placed under CARP coverage. This confirms that the subject lands have already
been subjected to compulsory acquisition under R.A. No. 6657. Notably, Secretary Garilao in his Order dated
03 October 1997[42]
clarified that despite the sale to be effected by MBC, which is allowed under
Sec. 73-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 7881, the subject lands
remain subject to compulsory transfer pursuant to Sec. 71 of said law, and also
directed that only those parcels not yet covered by CLOAs or EPs may be sold or
conveyed by MBC. However, MBC and CCFI
failed to disclose that the subject lands have already been sold by CCFI to ALI as early as
December 1995. Secretary Garilao
acknowledged the fact that a cease and desist order was issued by the OP but
nevertheless maintained that the landholdings remained subject to the
provisions on acquisition under CARL although the acquisition of petitioners
properties is thereby suspended. The clearance to sell requested by MBC was
thus granted simply because the sale and/or transfer of agricultural land in
case such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result of a
banks foreclosure of the mortgaged land, is permitted under Sec. 73-A, R.A.
No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 7881.
Such clearance was granted to enable MBC, the foreclosing mortgagee
bank, to sell the subject lands as a consequence of foreclosure under the law, but not for the purpose of its disposition
by CCFI. Conveyance or sale by the original landowner is subject to
restrictions or limitations under
the CARL.
Considering
the attendant circumstances, CCFIs May
1996 request for the lifting of Notice of Acquisition constitutes an
admission against interest of the fact that such notice have been issued
following the earlier issuance of Notice of Coverage over its
landholdings. Admissions against
interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or
identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not
the declarant is available as a witness.[43] An
admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest
certainty of the facts in dispute, based on the presumption that no man would
declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.[44]
As the successor-in-interest of CCFI, ALI is
bound by the admission under the aforesaid request to lift Notice of
Acquisition made by CCFI and may not be allowed in this case to dispute its
existence and issuance. Besides, the
fact that the DAR was already in the process of distributing the lands under
the Compulsory Acquisition at the time of
the sale and application for conversion, was never disputed by the
petitioners until the respondents mentioned it in their appeal memorandum filed
with the OP.
While it is true that an
issue which was neither alleged in the complaint nor raised during the trial
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the
basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process, the same is not without
exception.[45] The CA
under Section 3, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, can, in the interest of justice, entertain and resolve factual issues.[46]
In concluding that the conversion order
was improperly granted because there have been issued a notice of coverage and
notice of acquisition covering the subject landholdings, the CA is deemed to
have duly considered all relevant evidence on record inasmuch as it painstakingly
analyzed the orders, not only of the OP but also those rendered by the three
DAR Secretaries.
It is of course well-settled that points
of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the
lower court need not be -- and ordinarily will not be -- considered by a
reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late
stage. There are, however, exceptions to the
general rule. Though not raised below, the following issues may be considered
by the reviewing court: lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter, as this issue may be raised at any stage;
plain error; jurisprudential developments affecting the issues; or the raising
of a matter of public policy.[47]
In
this case, the CA found as crucial the previous issuance of a notice of
coverage and notice of acquisition to the resolution of the issue of whether or
not the OP erred in sustaining the Braganza and Pagdanganan orders which
reversed the Morales Order revoking the conversion order granted to CCFI. Ruling in the affirmative, the appellate
court declared that such reversal was grave error considering that under the
provisions of DAR AO No. 12, Series of 1994, such application for conversion
should not have been entertained in the first place. Assuming arguendo
this was raised only before the OP, the CAs finding and conclusions cannot
be assailed as reversible error or grave abuse.
Petitioners committed
serious
violations of
DAR
rules and
regulations
Even assuming that respondents were unable to
produce a copy of the Notice of Acquisition, such did not negate or cure
petitioners serious violations of
The ground cited
in the Morales Order was the failure of CCFI to register the sale to ALI, which
was made only four years later (1999) after its application for conversion was
approved. This was deliberately done in
view of the retention limits set by law on ownership of agricultural lands after
the effectivity of CARL. Secretary
Morales exhaustively discussed this finding which justified the revocation of
the conversion order, thus:
The
registration of the absolute deed of sale between respondents involving the
subject property was made on
The
sale or transaction between Capitol and ALI involving the subject parcel, which
at that time of sale is still agricultural, is subject to the prohibition on
any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of
private lands executed by the original
landowner in violation of the act, and the requirement imposed upon the
Registers of Deeds to inform the DAR within thirty days of any transaction
involving agricultural lands in excess of
five hectares, as provided for under paragraph 4, Section 6 of RA
6657. These same prohibitions and
requirements are contained under DAR AO 1, Series of 1989, the Rules and
Procedures Governing Land Transactions, then in force at the time of the sale.
... No
reporting of this sale of agricultural land which is beyond five (5) hectares
to the DAR can be made by the Register of Deeds, and the transferee ALI, can
not be required to furnish the Register of Deeds of an affidavit attesting that
their total landholding as a result of the said acquisition do not exceed five
(5) hectares, since the sale was not
brought to the attention of the Register of Deeds until lately. The Register of Deeds who is tasked to
perform such requirements cannot do so until the sale was brought to the
attention of the Register of Deeds, and to the public at large, only from the
day of the registration of the deed.
At
the time of the registration of the deed on
The
conclusion that can be drawn from the chronological events answers the issue at
hand in the affirmative. There was clear intention on the part of
respondents to evade the coverage of the land under CARP. Not only that, they have violated and failed
to comply with the requirements on transactions on agricultural lands under RA
6657 and pertinent DAR administrative order.
These will warrant the
revocation/withdrawal of the order as provided under item XV(c) of DAR AO
12, Series of 1994.
At the time of the sale, there was a
requirement that once a transaction involving an agricultural land in excess of
five (5) hectares is known to the Register of Deeds, he is to report the same
to the Department within thirty (30) days.
The transferee of the said land is likewise required to submit an
affidavit to the Register of Deeds and the BARC Chairman, attesting that he
does not own more than five (5) hectares of agricultural land as a result of
the said transactions. These
requirements find justification in Section 6 of RA 6657 on retention limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no
person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing
a viable family-sized farmbut in no case
shall retention by landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
The
sale made in 1995 was not registered within a reasonable time but nearly four
(4) years after the sale in 1999, at the time the land is no longer
agricultural. This is in order to avoid compliance with the abovementioned
requirements on sale of agricultural land.
Had they registered the sale at the time the land was still agricultural
in nature and not yet reclassified, the transaction, when reported can be
struck down as null and void. Besides,
at that time, the transferee, ALI, can not attest that its landholding does not
exceed the retention limit, as a result of the transaction because they hold
more.[48] (Emphasis and italics supplied.)
The
above findings and ruling of Secretary Morales were upheld by the CA which
noted that what renders the conversion order revocable was the deliberate
attempt of both CCFI and ALI to conceal their sale transaction in order to
circumvent the agrarian laws. The
Braganza ruling that the conveyance to ALI did not transfer ownership since it
was a conditional sale and hence not proscribed, overlooks the fact that a
Notice of Acquisition had already been issued.
Allowing the landowner to use this convenient ploy to evade CARP
coverage ultimately defeats the purpose of the agrarian reform program of
achieving social justice through equitable distribution of large landholdings
to tenants or farmers tilling the same.
As mentioned earlier,
DAR clearance was given authorizing MBC to sell the foreclosed mortgaged
land. The clearance to sell does not
cover a sale by landowner CCFI. Any sale by CCFI at the time the land was
still agricultural would be an illegal transfer under Sec. 73 of R.A. No. 6657
for which DAR clearance could not have been issued. Section 6 of the same Act allows only the
retention limit of the landowner up to five (5) hectares. This means that the landowner is only allowed
to dispose of his property within his retention limit and the excess of five
(5) hectares shall be covered by CARP for distribution to qualified farmers and
beneficiaries.[49] CCFI then could not have obtained the
requisite DAR clearance for it to sell more
than
Petitioners failed to comply
with
the requirements for
a
valid reclassification
Petitioners
submitted Resolution No. ML-008, Series of 1996 adopted by the Sangguniang
Bayan of Silang in support of their application for conversion. But as
found by Secretary Morales, said resolution merely approved CCFIs request for
reclassification.
Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 states that:
SECTION 20. Reclassification of Lands.
(a) A city or municipality may, through
an ordinance passed by the sanggunian
after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification
of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or
disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically
feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of
Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic
value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the
sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such reclassification
shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land
area at the time of the passage of the ordinance:
x
x x x
(e)
Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying
in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.
The document submitted by petitioners being a mere resolution
and not an ordinance, it cannot support their application for conversion. Even assuming arguendo
that the Sangguniang Bayan of Silang passed an ordinance to the effect, still
such reclassification would be legally infirm. Memorandum Circular No. 54
Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of RA 7160 Otherwise Known as
the Local Government Code of 1991 Authorizing Cities and Municipalities to
Reclassify Agricultural Lands Into Non-Agricultural
Uses issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 8, 1993 specified the scope
and limitations on the power of the cities and municipalities to reclassify
agricultural lands into other uses.
SECTION 1. Scope and Limitations. (a) Cities and municipalities with
comprehensive land use plans reviewed and approved in accordance with EO 72
(1993), may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands into
non-agricultural uses and provide for the manner of their utilization or
disposition, subject to the limitations and other conditions prescribed in this
Order.
x x x x
(d) In addition, the following types
of agricultural lands shall not be covered by the said reclassification:
(1) Agricultural
lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries subject to Section 65 of RA
6657;
(2) Agricultural lands already issued a notice
of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP.
(3) Agricultural
lands identified under AO 20, s. of 1992, as non-negotiable for conversion as
follows:
x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
The power of the LGUs to reclassify agricultural
lands is not absolute and the reclassification of agricultural lands by LGUs
shall be subject to the requirements of land use conversion procedure.[51] The exclusion of agricultural lands already
covered by CARP from the operation of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 was
reiterated in the statement of policies and governing principles of DAR AO No. 12,
Series of 1994 which expressly directs the DAR not to give due course to
applications for conversion of lands already issued a Notice of Acquisition. Clearly, the cancellation by Secretary
Morales of the 1997 Order of conversion issued by Secretary Garilao, for
violation of existing DAR rules and regulations, was proper and justified.
It is also to be noted that in the 1997 Order, Secretary Garilao approved
the conversion and exemption from
CARP coverage sought by CCFI despite the lack of documentary requirements
enumerated by the CLUPPI-1. While the
CLUPPI-1 recommended the issuance of an order stating that the land is exempt,
it nonetheless explicitly declared that such approval for exemption is subject
to the submission of said documents.
These documents are:
1.
2. Statement of justification of Economic/Social benefits of the
proposed subdivision project;
3. Development Plan including the Work and Financial Plan;
4. Proof of Financial and Organizational capability of the
proponent, and
5. Proof of disturbance compensation for the remaining unpaid
farmer beneficiaries.[52]
Petitioners
nonetheless contend that the recommendation of CLUPPI-1 Executive Committee to
exempt the subject property from CARP coverage in the light of the finding of
the joint ocular inspection with the MARO of Silang that [t]he topography of
the landholding is hilly and has an average slope of more than 18%, undeveloped
x x x and the dominant use of the surrounding area is industrial/forest
growth, was never disputed. They point
out that even the Morales Order noted that the property had long been converted
into non-agricultural uses when the conversion order was issued on
At the time
of CCFIs filing of application for conversion, the property was agricultural
land as defined under DAR rules and regulations. In its Revised Rules and
Regulations for Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses (DAR
AO No. 1, Series of 1990, issued on March 22, 1990), DAR itself defined
agricultural land thus
x x x Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in RA 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use. (Italics supplied.)
Respondents
attached to their petition for revocation a certification issued by Board
Secretary Charito B. Lansang that per HLURB records, the
4. If the city/municipality does not have a comprehensive development plan and zoning ordinance duly approved by HLURB/SP but the dominant use of the area surrounding the land subject of the application for conversion is no longer agricultural, or if the proposed use is similar to, or compatible with the dominant use of the surrounding area as determined by the DAR, conversion may be possible.[53] (Emphasis supplied.)
The above exception notwithstanding, DAR AO No. 12 is
categorical in declaring the policy that no application for conversion shall be given due course if the DAR has
issued a Notice of Acquisition under the Compulsory Acquisition process.[54]
The OPs policy pronouncement
is
not an imprimatur to disregard
existing
DAR rules and defeat
the
rights of agricultural
tenants
and farm workers
The majority decision stresses that the
conversion and/or reclassification of the subject lands has become an operative
fact, citing the findings of NIA, PCA, DENR and CLUPPI. It was also noted that
respondent farmers themselves do not deny that at the time of the filing of
the Petition for Revocation, the lands in question were no longer
agricultural.
I maintain my
disagreement that the grant of conversion order was legally infirm.
The CLUPPI indeed
recommended the approval of the application for land conversion, its stated
basis being the finding of the ocular inspection team that the property is
beyond 18 in slope, idle and undeveloped and is also considered eligible
for exemption subject to the submission
of the required documents. However,
exemption alone even if granted will not suffice if the intention of the
landowner is to modify the actual use of the land. Compliance with the rules on
land conversion is therefore still necessary to obtain a DAR conversion order.[55]
The majority further
held that the policy declaration in DAR AO No. 12, Series of 1994 was a mere
guiding principle, which should not be interpreted as an absolute proscription
on conversion, citing the same administrative order which likewise allowed
conversion if the use has changed due to urbanization or the land has ceased to
be economically feasible. It specifically cites par. B(3), Part VI of DAR AO
12-94 which allows conversion when the land will have greater economic value
for residential, commercial or industrial purposes as certified by the Local
Government Unit. According to the
majority, this signifies that the thrust of the community and the local
government is the conversion of lands, and hence the two resolutions issued by
the Sangguniang Bayan of Silang and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
I disagree
with this proposition because it overlooks the injustice wrought upon the
agricultural tenants and farm workers who have been deprived of the benefits of
the CARP designed to uplift their condition.
The OP remanded the
case to the DAR for further proceedings in order to give the petitioners
opportunity to prove that their landholdings are qualified for exemption and/or
conversion, as a matter of due process highlighted by the public interest
involved (i.e., rehabilitation of
financially distressed MBC). While the said office indeed underscored the need
to balance the interest between the petitioner bank (under receivership by the
BSP), its creditors [including
the BSP to which MBC was indebted in the total amount of P8,771,893,000
representing 85% of its total indebtedness] and the general public on one hand, and the faithful
implementation of agrarian reform program on the other, with the view of
harmonizing them and ensuring that the objectives of the CARP are met and
satisfied, this should not signal disregard of existing DAR rules and regulations
nor overlook patent violations thereof committed by the petitioners. As far as the DAR is concerned, the
correct perspective has been expressed in its declaration that [S]ince RA. No.
6657 is a social welfare legislation, the rules on exemptions, exclusions
and/or conversions must be interpreted
restrictively and any doubt as to
the applicability of the law should be resolved in favor of inclusion.[56]
In reality,
the buy-out arrangement did not involve such public interests balancing, but one
which clearly favored the landowner CCFI.
The sale by CCFI, in contravention of DAR rules and regulations, enabled
it to evade CARP coverage while paying off its huge debts to the already
financially distressed MBC, at the expense of its tenants and farm workers who would
have rightfully benefitted from the distribution of the vast agricultural
landholding had the compulsory
acquisition process not been scuttled by the combined efforts of MBC, CCFI and
ALI since the lands were placed under CARP coverage in 1989.
In these
situations where the mortgaged agricultural lands are foreclosed, the
defaulting landowner alone should bear the loss in case of deficiency because
the foreclosure buyer is merely substituted to the landowner entitled only to
just compensation pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing rules.[57] While Sec. 73-A of the law was amended by
R.A. No. 7881 to permit the sale of mortgaged agricultural lands made necessary
as a result of a banks foreclosure, it did not exempt the land sold from
the operation of CARP.
DAR
Opinion No. 09, Series of 2008[58]
states this unchanged policy with respect to mortgaged agricultural lands
foreclosed by a bank, even if the latter is under receivership/liquidation:
FORECLOSURE BY PRIVATE BANK PLACED UNDER RECEIVERSHIP/LIQUIDATION STILL UNDER ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION TO QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
● Private banks foreclosed assets, regardless of the area, are subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer under the General Banking Act as a consequence of foreclosure and acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657. As long as the subject property is agricultural, the same shall still be subjected to acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the CARL. Private bank may sell to third parties their foreclosed asset, as a consequence of foreclosure, but still subject to acquisition under CARP.
● Even if the subject foreclosed property was placed under receivership or liquidation by the BSP, the same shall still be subjected to acquisition under CARL. In case said foreclosed property was sold or will be sold as a consequence of liquidation or receivership by the BSP, the same will still be subjected to acquisition and eventual distribution to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to CARL.
In this case, MBC sought authority from this Court to sell
its acquired assets in G.R. No.
Section 2 of R.A.
No. 6657 declares in no uncertain terms that the welfare of the landless
farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social
justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization, and the
establishment of owner cultivatorship
of economic-sized farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture. It is this fundamental goal that breathes
spirit into the strict regulation of conversions and exemptions at the instance
of landowners. Landowners such as CCFI may not stall the acquisition proceedings
started as early as 1989, dragging it for several years in this case ten years and
later claim that the land had already ceased to be economically feasible for
agricultural purposes. Precisely,
the CARL had envisioned the advent of urbanization that would affect lands awarded
to the farmers. However, it is
altogether a different matter when the CARP was never even given the chance to
be implemented as a result of the landowners legal maneuvers until conditions
of the land had so changed with the lapse of time. Of late, the unabated land-use conversion
from agricultural to industrial, commercial, residential or tourist purposes
has been described as systematically reversing land reform in a way that was
never foreseen by the framers of CARL.[59]
That CARL
must first be implemented as a social justice measure prior to these perceived
developments in the locality is evident from a reading of Section 65, thus:
SEC.
65. Conversion of lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its
award, when the land ceases to be
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has
become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR upon application of the
beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties and
subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of
the land and its disposition: Provided, That
the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is my
humble view that in resolving this controversy, the interest of the landless
farmers is paramount.
Referral to
the Court En Banc
Given the facts and issues set forth, I reiterate my
position that this
case is proper for resolution by the Court En
Banc pursuant to Section 3 (k), Rule 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme
Court which states:
SEC. 3. Court en banc matters and cases. -- The Court en
banc shall act on the following matters and cases:
x x x x
(k) Division cases
where the subject matter has a huge financial impact on businesses or affects
the welfare of a community;
x x x x
The huge financial impact
of the Courts ruling in this case is clearly apparent in the figures involved
in current transactions within the Nuvali estate, reportedly at P11,000 per
square meter, or more than P24
Billion plus for the entire
I also submit to the discretion of my colleagues the
possible transfer of this case to the Court en
banc, in accordance with sub-section (l) of the same Rule which reads:
(l) subject
to Section 11(b) of this rule, other division cases that, in the opinion of at
least three Members of this Division who are voting and present, are
appropriate for transfer to the Court en
banc;
I therefore vote to DENY the present petition for review on
certiorari for lack of merit and AFFIRM the Decision dated
Should
there be further proceedings in this case, I also vote that the same be
referred to the Banc for appropriate action.
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
[1] CA rollo, pp. 152-157.
[2] DAR
records, folder #3 of 3, pp. 1455-1457.
[3] CA rollo, p. 157.
[4] DAR
records, folder #3 of 3, p. 1443.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] CA rollo, p. 157.
[11] DAR records, folder #3 of 3, p. 1482; CA rollo, pp. 60-65.
[12] DAR
records, folder #1 of 3, p. 526.
[13]
[14] DAR records, folder #3 of 3, pp. 1481-1490.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] CA rollo, pp. 38-40.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] DAR
records, folder #1 of 3, pp. 577-582; CA rollo, pp. 101-106.
[23] SEC.
6. Retention Limits. - Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing
a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure,
and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of
the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least
fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or
directly managing the farm: Provided,
That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That original
homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas
as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
x
x x x
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale,
disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private
lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null
and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to
this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within
a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all
Registers of Deeds shall inform the [Department of Agrarian Reform] within
thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of
five (5) hectares. (Emphasis supplied.)
[24] Rules
and Procedures Governing Land Transactions.
[25] DAR
records, folder #1 of 3, p. 566; CA rollo, p. 120.
[26]
[27] CA rollo, pp. 66-83.
[28]
[29] See DAR records, folder #2 of 3, pp. 1357-1359.
[30] CA
rollo, pp. 84-94.
[31] Rollo,
pp. 158-164.
[32] CA rollo, pp. 41-48, 57 and 96.
[33] Supra
note 3.
[34]
[35] Supra
note 1.
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] G.R. No. 145013,
[40] DAR records (Vol. I), pp. 7-8.
[41] Rollo, pp. 326-331.
[42] DAR
records (Vol. 3).
[43] Lazaro v. Agustin, G.R. No. 152364,
[44] Taghoy v. Tigol, Jr., G.R. No. 159665,
August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 341, 350, citing Heirs
of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 417, 425 (2003); Yuliongsiu v. PNB, 130 Phil. 575, 580
(1968); Republic v. Bautista, G.R.
No. 169801, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 598, 609; and Bon v. People, 464 Phil. 125, 138 (2004).
[45] Milestone Farm, Inc. v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 182332, February 23, 2011, citing Dosch v. NLRC, et al., 208 Phil. 259, 272 (1983) and DOH v. C.V. Canchela & Associates, Architects (CVCAA), 511 Phil. 654, 670 (2005).
[46] Section 3 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended,
provides:
SEC. 3. Where to appeal. An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
[47] Villaranda
v. Villaranda, G.R. No. 153447,
[48] Rollo, pp. 114-116.
[49] DAR Opinion No. 25, S. 2006,
[50] DAR Opinion, No. 15, s. 2006,
[51] See
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
Associations, Inc. (CREBA) v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
183409,
[52] CA
rollo, p. 39.
[53] DAR AO No. 12, Series of 1994, VI [B](4).
[54]
[55] See DAR Opinion No. 16, s. 2001,
[56] See DAR Opinion No. 18, s. 2003,
[57] See
DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2000 entitled Revised Rules and Regulations on the
Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Mortgage or Foreclosure.
[58] Dated
[59] Antonio Ma. Nieva, Agrarian Reform, Ramos Style based on
a series of articles published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, source:
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1994/01/nieva.html.