roxas vs. ca

2
G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999 ROXAS & CO., INC. vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PUNO, J.: FACTS: (1) 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 Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area. (2) 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. (3) 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. ISSUE: Whether the Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all situated in Nasugbu, Batangas, are non-agricultural and outside the scope of Republic Act No. 665 RULING:

Upload: ford

Post on 15-Dec-2015

919 views

Category:

Documents


76 download

DESCRIPTION

Case digest

TRANSCRIPT

G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999ROXAS & CO., INC. vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,PUNO,J.:FACTS:(1) 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 is1,024 hectares in Hacienda Banilad is1,050 hectares in area. Hacienda Caylaway is867.4571 hectares in area.(2) Beforethe law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR avoluntary 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.(3) Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of . . . DARwithdrawing its VOSof 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 wasapplying for conversionof Hacienda Caylawayfrom agricultural to other uses.ISSUE:Whether the Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all situated in Nasugbu, Batangas, are non-agricultural and outside the scope of Republic Act No. 665RULING:Yes. The Supreme Court held that The DAR itself has issued administrative circulars governing lands which are outside of CARP and may not be subjected to land reform. Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996 declares in its policy statement what landholdings are outside the coverage of CARP. The AO is explicit in providing that such non-covered properties shall be reconveyed to the original transferors or owners.These non-covered lands are:a. Land, or portions thereof, found to be no longer suitable for agriculture and, therefore, could not be given appropriate valuation by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);b. Those were a Conversion Order has already been issued by the DAR allowing the use of the landholding other than for agricultural purposes in accordance with Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 and Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994;c. Property determined to be exempted from CARP coverage pursuant to Department of Justice Opinion Nos. 44 and 181; ord. Where a Presidential Proclamation has been issued declaring the subject property for certain uses other than agricultural.In the present case, Proclamation 1520 dated November 20, 1975 is part of the law of the land. It declares the area in and around Nasugbu, Batangas, as a Tourist Zone. It has not been repealed, and has in fact been used by DAR to justify conversion of other contiguous and nearby properties of other parties.Furthermore, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, affirmed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, expressly defines the property as tourist, not agricultural. The power to classify its territory is given by law to the local governments.