Roxas &Co V CA
GR. No 127876
December 17, 1999
FACTS:
Roxas & Co is a domestic corporation and is the registered
owner of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico(1,024
hectares), Banilad (1050 hectares) and Caylaway (867.4571
hectares) all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas.
Before the CARL's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with
respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway
pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and
Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by
respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL.
Petitioner was informed that 1023.999 hectares of its land in
Hacienda Palico were subject to immediate acquisition and
distribution by the government under the CARL. In a letter dated
May 4,1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion of
Haciendas Palico and Banilad from agricultural to non-agricultural
lands under the provisions of CARL. Despite the application for
conversion, DAR proceeded with the acquisition of 2 haciendas.
The LBP trust accounts as compensations for Hacienda Palico were
replaced by DAR with cash and LBP bonds. On October 22, 1993,
from the title of the Hacienda, DAR registered CLOA Award no.
6654 then CLOA were distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the
government. Roxas sent a letter to the Secretary of DAR
withdrawing its voluntary offer of sale. As a result, the petitioner
informed DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda
Caylaway from agricultural to other uses. DAR Secretary informed
that reclassification of lands would not exempt it from agrarian
reform.
On August 24, 1993, petitioner instituted a case with respondent
DARAB praying for the cancellation of the CLOAs issued by DAR in
the name of the farmers. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of
Nasugbu, where the haciendas are located, had been declared a
tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for agricultural production ,
and that the SB had reclassified the land to non-agricultural.
DARAB held that the case involved prejudicial question of whether
the property is subjected to agrarian reform; hence this question
should be submitted to the Office of Secretary of Agrarian Reform
for Determination.
Petitioner filed a petition with the CA. It questioned the
expropriation of its properties under the CARL and the denial of
due process in acquisition of its landholdings. The petition for
conversion of three haciendas was denied. Petitioners petition
was dismissed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas
were valid and in accordance with law
RULING:
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding,
the landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified.
After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to
the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it
in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay
hall of the place where the property is located. Within thirty days
from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his
administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer. If the landowner accepts, he
executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days
from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the
landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR
conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just
compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative
and other interested parties may submit evidence on just
compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days
from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the
owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon
receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of
rejection or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit
the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank.
The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause
the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to
the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of
the DAR in the regular courts for final determination of just
compensation.
In the case at bar, respondent DAR claims that it, through
MARO Leopoldo C. Lejano, sent a letter of invitation entitled
"Invitation to Parties" dated September 29, 1989 to petitioner
corporation, through Jaime Pimentel, the administrator of
Hacienda Palico. The invitation was received on the same day it
was sent as indicated by a signature and the date received at the
bottom left corner of said invitation. With regard to Hacienda
Banilad, respondent DAR claims that Jaime Pimentel, administrator
also of Hacienda Banilad, was notified and sent an invitation to the
conference. Pimentel actually attended the conference on
September 21, 1989 and signed the Minutes of the meeting on
behalf of petitioner corporation. The Minutes was also signed by
the representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer
beneficiaries. No letter of invitation was sent or conference
meeting held with respect to Hacienda Caylaway because it was
subject to a Voluntary Offer to Sell to respondent DAR.
When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO), sent to the various parties the Notice of Coverage
and invitation to the conference, DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989
was already in effect more than a month earlier. The Operating
Procedure in DAR Administrative Order No. 12 does not specify
how notices or letters of invitation shall be sent to the landowner,
the representatives of the BARC, the LBP, the farmer beneficiaries
and other interested parties. The procedure in the sending of these
notices is important to comply with the requisites of due process
especially when the owner, as in this case, is a juridical entity.
Petitioner is a domestic corporation, and therefore, has a
personality separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and
employees.
The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to
be sent to the landowner by "personal delivery or registered
mail." Whether the landowner be a natural or juridical person to
whose address the Notice may be sent by personal delivery or
registered mail, the law does not distinguish. The DAR
Administrative Orders also do not distinguish. In the proceedings
before the DAR, the distinction between natural and juridical
persons in the sending of notices may be found in the Revised
Rules of Procedure of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Service of pleadings before the DARAB is governed by Section 6,
Rule V of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
