Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
2K views3 pages

Roxas Vs Co Vs Damba-NFSW (2009) Case Digest

Uploaded by

JessaMangadlao

This a case digest on the case of Roxas vs Co vs Damba-NFSW (2009). One of the cases we tackled in constitutional law II

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as rtf, pdf, or txt

Roxas Vs Co Vs Damba-NFSW (2009) Case Digest

Uploaded by

JessaMangadlao
2K views3 pages
This a case digest on the case of Roxas vs Co vs Damba-NFSW (2009). One of the cases we tackled in constitutional law II

Original Title

Roxas vs Co vs Damba-NFSW (2009) Case Digest

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

This a case digest on the case of Roxas vs Co vs Damba-NFSW (2009). One of the cases we tackled in constitutional law II

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
2K views3 pages

Roxas Vs Co Vs Damba-NFSW (2009) Case Digest

Uploaded by

JessaMangadlao
This a case digest on the case of Roxas vs Co vs Damba-NFSW (2009). One of the cases we tackled in constitutional law II

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

Roxas and Company, Inc. vs.

DAMBA-NSFW and DAR


FACTS:
Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three
haciendas. 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 bythe President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988. Before
the laws 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. On August 6, 1992 [Roxas & Co.],
through its President, 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. The petitions nub on the
interpretation of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1520 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. Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application for conversion of its three
haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural on the assumption that the issuance
of PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu,Batangas as a tourism zone, reclassified them
to non-agricultural uses. Its pending application notwithstanding,the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to
thefarmer-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. Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an applicationfor 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 19943 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.
ISSUES:
Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-TernateNasugbu tourism zone to non- agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.s
three haciendas in Nasugbu from CARP coverage
RULING:
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.The perambulatory clauses of PP
1520 identified only "certain areas in the sector comprising the [three
Municipalitiesthat] 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. In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA, the 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 CARL lies with the
[Department of Agrarian Reform], not with this Court."
Relatedly, the DAR, by
Memorandum Circular No. 7,Series of 2004, came up with clarificatory guidelines
and therein decreed that ....
B. 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 peninsulasto be
with potential tourism value and charge the Philippine Tourism Authority with the
taskto 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 areadeclared 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. A
proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism valueof 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 CARP able lands within the
zone shall already be used for purposes other than agricultural. 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. 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. 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
oneis permitted to use it for other purpose.
2. THE CLOAs ISSUED BY THE DAR in ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. A-9999008-98 SUBJECT OF G.R. No. 179650 TO THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
INVOLVING THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN HACIENDA PALICO MUST BE
CANCELLED.
The court held...
. . . [t]he failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in
the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the [CLOAs]
already issued to the farmer-beneficiaries. To assume the power is to short-circuit
the administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR
must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition
proceedings. . . . . Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the
rightful owner of the land.
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. A relaxation of the
rules may, however, for meritorious reasons, be allowed in the interest of justice.
The Court finds that in giving due course to DAMBA-NSFW's appeal, the appellate
court committed no reversible error. Consider its ratiocination:
. . . . To deny [DAMBA-NSFW]'s appeal with the PARAD will not only affect their right
over the parcel of land subject of this petition with an area of 103.1436 hectares,
but also that of the whole area covered by CLOA No. 6654 since the PARAD rendered
a Joint Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the [DAMBA-NSFW] with
regard to [Roxas & Co.]'s application for partial and total cancellation of the CLOA in
DARAB Cases No. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-2001 and No. 401-239-2001. There
is a pressing need for an extensive discussion of the issues as raised by both parties
as the matter of canceling CLOA No. 6654 is of utmost importance, involving as it
does the probable displacement of hundreds of farmer-beneficiaries and their
families. . . . (underscoring supplied)

You might also like