Case Name: ROXAS & CO., INC.,petitioner,vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

DISSCUSSION: GUIDELINE REGARDING VOLUNTARY AND COMPULSARY ACQUISITION OF LANDS

Court with Jurisdiction ( MTC/CA/Supreme Court)

Administrative CourtsCA LevelSupreme Court Level

Issue/s 1. WON the court can take cognizance of petitioners petition despite failure to exhaust administrative remedies2. WON acquisition proceedings against the petitioners were valid3. WON the court can rule on whether the haciendas may be reclassified from agricultural to non agricultural

Facts of the CasePetitioner Roxas and Co. is a corporation that owns 3 haciendas in Batangas, which the government wishes to acquire under the Comprehensive Agrarian Law (CARL).

Before the effectivity of the law, the petitioner filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to EO 229, which served as guidelines to the comprehensive agrarian program.

The two other haciendasBanilad and Palicowere placed under compulsory acquisition by the DAR in accordance with the CARL.

Hacienda Banilad and Palico

DAR sent invitations to Roxas and Co in order to discuss the results of the DAR investigation, finding both Banilad and Palico qualified under the CARP. For Hacienda Palico, DAR sent a letter of acquisition to Roxas and Co at their offices in Manila, while for Hacienda Banilad, DAR addressed the notices to Jaime Pimintel, caretaker of the said hacienda. It was petitioner Pimintel who attended all the proceedings regarding the two haciendas. Hence, during trial, Roxas and Co claimed that they were not informed of the acquisition proceedings on their two haciendas.

DAR then opened a trust account in favor of petitioner Roxas and Co. These trust accounts were replaced by DAR with cash and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) bonds. Meanwhile, petitioner Roxas applied for the conversion of the haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural. Despite this, DAR proceeded with the acquisition of the two haciendas. It then issued and distributed certificate of land ownership awards (CLOA) to farmer beneficiaries.

Hacianda CaylawayAlthough Hacienda Caylaway was initially offered for sale to the government, Roxas and Co sent a letter to DAR secretary withdrawing its offer. According to Roxas, the reclassification of Caylaway from agricultural to non agricultural was authorized by the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu. Also, the municipality of Nasugbu where the haciendas are located had been declared a tourist zone. Roxas also argued that the land is not suitable for agricultural purposes.

DAR secretary denied Roxas withdrawal of his VOS. According to the secretary, the withdrawal can only be based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of soil for agriculture, slope of the lad is over 180 degrees and that the land is undeveloped.

Despite the denial of the withdrawal of the VOS, petitioner still filed an application for conversion with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which submitted the case to the Secretary of DAR for resolution.

ISSUE #1 :

Yes. Petitioners action falls under the exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies sine there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy for the petitioners at this point. The CLOAs were already issued despite the fact that there was no just compensation.

ISSUE #21. Acquisition proceedings against petitioners violated their right to due process. First, there was an improper service of the Notice of Acquisition. Notices to corporations should be served through their president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors or partners. Jaime Pimintel, to whom the notice was served, was neither of those. Second, there was no notice of coverage, meaning, the parcels of land were not properly identified before they were taken by the DAR. Under the law, the land owner has the right to choose 5 hectares of land he wishes to retain. Upon receiving the Notice of Acquisition, petitioner corporation had no idea which portions of its estate were subject to compulsory acquisition.

Third, The CLOAs were issued to farmer beneficiaries without just compensation. The law provides that the deposit must be made only in cash or LBP bonds. DARs opening of a trust account in petitioners name does not constitute payment. Even if later, DAR substituted the trust account with cash and LBP bonds, such does not cure the lack of notice, which still amounts to a violation of the petitioners right to due process.

Decision of the Court

The DAR secretary dismissed the case.Roxas and Co went to the CA on appeal.

CA dismissed appeal claiming that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

The petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure to observe due process therein.

The case is hereby remanded to respondent DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's application for conversion.