ROXAS
& CO., INC., petitioner,
vs.
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETARY
OF
AGRARIAN
REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN
REFORM
OFFICER
OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION
BOARD, respondents.
G.R.
No. 127876 December 17, 1999
FACTS:
- This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the government under Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
- Petitioner 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 area.
- On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power from the President. 2 This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988.
- Before the law'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. Hacienda Palico
- On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice entitled "Invitation to Parties" to petitioner. The Invitation was addressed to "Jaime Pimentel, Hda. Administrator, Hda. Palico." Therein, the MARO invited petitioner to a conference on October 6, 1989 at the DAR office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the DAR investigation of Hacienda Palico, which was "scheduled for compulsory acquisition this year under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."
- On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR through then Department Secretary Miriam D. Santiago sent a "Notice of Acquisition" to petitioner. The Notice was addressed as follows:
Roxas
y Cia, Limited
Soriano
Bldg., Plaza Cervantes
Manila,
Metro Manila.
- Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in Hacienda Palico were subject to immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL; that based on the DAR's valuation criteria, the government was offering compensation of P3.4 million for 333.0800 hectares; that whether this offer was to be accepted or rejected, petitioner was to inform the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) of the DAR; that in case of petitioner's rejection or failure to reply within thirty days, respondent DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings with notice to petitioner to determine just compensation for the land; that if petitioner accepts respondent DAR's offer, or upon deposit of the compensation with an accessible bank if it rejects the same, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land.
- Almost two years later, on September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager three (3) separate Memoranda entitled "Request to Open Trust Account." Each Memoranda requested that a trust account representing the valuation of three portions of Hacienda Palico be opened in favor of the petitioner in view of the latter's rejection of its offered value.
- Despite petitioner's application for conversion, respondent DAR proceeded with the acquisition of the two Haciendas. The LBP trust accounts as compensation for Hacienda Palico were replaced by respondent DAR with cash and LBP bonds. On October 22, 1993, from the mother title of TCT No. 985 of the Hacienda, respondent DAR registered Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6654. On October 30, 1993, CLOA's were distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
Hacienda
Banilad
- On August 23, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MARO of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice to petitioner addressed as follows:
Mr.
Jaime Pimentel
Hacienda
Administrator
Hacienda
Banilad
Nasugbu,
Batangas
- The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to compulsory acquisition under the CARL; that should petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes such as Voluntary Offer to Sell or Voluntary Land Transfer, respondent DAR was willing to provide assistance thereto.
- On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department Secretary, sent to petitioner two (2) separate "Notices of Acquisition" over Hacienda Banilad. These Notices were sent on the same day as the Notice of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the Notice over Hacienda Palico, however, the Notices over Hacienda Banilad were addressed to:
Roxas
y Cia. Limited
7th
Floor, CachoGonzales
Bldg.
101 Aguirre St., Leg.
Makati,
Metro Manila.
- Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of P15,108,995.52 for 729.4190 hectares and P4,428,496.00 for 234.6498 hectares.
- On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager a "Request to Open Trust Account" in petitioner's name as compensation for 234.6493 hectares of Hacienda Banilad. A second "Request to Open Trust Account" was sent on November 18, 1991 over 723.4130 hectares of said Hacienda.
- On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts of P4,428,496.40 and P21,234,468.78 in cash and LBP bonds had been earmarked as compensation for petitioner's land in Hacienda Banilad.
- On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
Hacienda
Caylaway
- Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988 before the effectivity of the CARL. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares.
- On January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director for Region IV, sent to petitioner two (2) separate Resolutions accepting petitioner's voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway, particularly TCT Nos. T44664 and T44663. The Resolutions were addressed to:
Roxas
& Company, Inc.
7th
Flr. CachoGonzales Bldg.
Aguirre,
Legaspi Village
Makati,
M. M
- Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to nonagricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.
- In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that a reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent Secretary also denied petitioner's withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the slope of the land is over 18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped.
- Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993, petitioner filed its application for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
- On August 24, 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. N00179646 (BA) with respondent DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOA's issued by respondent DAR in the name of several persons. 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 Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to nonagricultural.
- In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved the prejudicial question of whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence, this question should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.
ISSUE(S):
- W/N this Court can take cognizance of this petition despite petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies;
- W/N the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance with law;
- assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from agricultural to nonagricultural, W/N this court has the power to rule on this issue.
HELD:
- YES.
As
a general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the
jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he is expected to have
exhausted all means of administrative redress. This is not absolute,
however. There are instances when judicial action may be resorted to
immediately. Among these exceptions are:
- when the question raised is purely legal;
- when the administrative body is in estoppel;
- when the act complained of is patently illegal;
- when there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
- when the respondent acted in disregard of due process;
- when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter;
- when irreparable damage will be suffered;
- when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
- when strong public interest is involved;
- when the subject of the controversy is private land; and
- in quo warranto proceedings.
Petitioner
rightly sought immediate redress in the courts. There was a violation
of its rights and to require it to exhaust administrative remedies
before the DAR itself was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
Respondent
DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) to farmer
beneficiaries over portions of petitioner's land without just
compensation to petitioner. A Certificate of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R.A.
6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Before this may
be awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired
by the State from the landowner and ownership transferred to the
former. The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government are conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with
an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner.
There was no receipt by petitioner of any compensation for any of the
lands acquired by the government.
The
kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The
law provides that the deposit must be made only in "cash"
or "LBP bonds." Respondent DAR's opening of trust account
deposits in petitioner' s name with the Land Bank of the Philippines
does not constitute payment under the law. Trust account deposits are
not cash or LBP bonds. The replacement of the trust account with cash
or LBP bonds did not ipso facto cure the lack of compensation; for
essentially, the determination of this compensation was marred by
lack of due process. In fact, in the entire acquisition proceedings,
respondent DAR disregarded the basic requirements of administrative
due process. Under these circumstances, the issuance of the CLOA's to
farmer beneficiaries necessitated immediate judicial action on the
part of the petitioner.
- NO.
Procedure
in the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the law:
A.
Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657
Republic
Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL),
provides for two (2) modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory
and voluntary. The procedure for the compulsory acquisition of
private lands is set forth in Section 16 of R.A. 6657.
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.
Under
Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is
the identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries.
However, the law is silent on how the identification process must be
made. To fill in this gap, the DAR issued on July 26, 1989
Administrative Order No. 12, Series or 1989, which set the operating
procedure in the identification of such lands.
Administrative
Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural
lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility containing all the
required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case
Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the
landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of
invitation" to a "conference/meeting" over the land
covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to the prospective
farmerbeneficiaries the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and
other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of
the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or agreements
of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate
his retention area.
The
MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land.
Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall
be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds
P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the PARO shall
forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central
Office of the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the Bureau
of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall review, evaluate
and determine the final land valuation of the property. The BLAD
shall prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly
authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition for the subject
property. From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of R.A. 6657
then apply.
For
a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required:
(1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary
conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC,
LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to
DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition
sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The
importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the
letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot
be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the
requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the
CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of
eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention
limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for
the regulation of private property in accordance with the
Constitution. But where, to carry ou such regulation, the owners are
deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed,
there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking
contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is
required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of
the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in
favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that
"[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law." The CARL was not intended to take
away property without due process of law. The exercise of the power
of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking
of private property.
DAR
A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first
sprung, was amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in
1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. The Notice of Coverage and
letter of invitation to the conference meeting were expanded and
amplified in said amendments.
DAR
A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary
Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) transactions
involving lands enumerated under Section 7 of the CARL. In both VOS
and CA. transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell
Case Folder (VOCF) and the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF),
as the case may be, over a particular landholding. The MARO notifies
the landowner as well as representatives of the LBP, BARC and
prospective beneficiaries of the date of the ocular inspection of the
property at least one week before the scheduled date and invites them
to attend the same. The MARO, LBP or BARC conducts the ocular
inspection and investigation by identifying the land and landowner,
determining the suitability of the land for agriculture and
productivity, interviewing and screening prospective farmer
beneficiaries. Based on its investigation, the MARO, LBP or BARC
prepares the Field Investigation Report which shall be signed by all
parties concerned. In addition to the field investigation, a boundary
or subdivision survey of the land ma also be conducted by a Survey
Party of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
to be assisted by the MARO. This survey shall delineate the areas
covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT), areas retained by the
landowner, areas with infrastructure, and the areas subject to VOS
and CA. After the survey and field investigation, the MARO sends a
"Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly
authorized representative inviting him to a conference or public
hearing with the farmer beneficiaries, representatives of the BARC,
LBP, DENR, Department of Agriculture (DA), nongovernment
organizations, farmer's organizations and other interested parties.
At the public hearing, the parties shall discuss the results of the
field investigation, issues that may be raised in relation thereto,
inputs to the valuation of the subject landholding, and other
comments and recommendations by all parties concerned. The Minutes of
the conference/public hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF
which files shall be forwarded by the MARO to the PARO. The PARO
reviews, evaluates and validates the Field Investigation Report and
other documents in the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards the records to the
RARO for another review.
DAR
A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and
increased the number of governmen agencies involved in the
identification and delineation of the land subject to acquisition.
This time, the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner before the
conduct of the field investigation and the sending must comply with
specific requirements. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office
(DARMO) must send the Notice of Coverage to the landowner by
"personal delivery with proof of service, or by registered mail
with return card," informing him that his property is under CARP
coverage and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention,
he may choose which area he shall retain. The Notice of Coverage
shall also invite the landowner to attend the field investigation to
be scheduled at least two weeks from notice. The field investigation
is for the purpose of identifying the landholding and determining its
suitability for agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the
Notice of Coverage shall be posted for at least one week on the
bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the property
is
located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by
the DAR Municipal Office to representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR
and prospective farmer beneficiaries. The field investigation shall
be conducted on the date set with the participation of the landowner
and the various representatives. If the landowner and other
representatives are absent, the field investigation shall proceed,
provided they were duly notified thereof. Should there be a variance
between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to whether the land be
placed under agrarian reform, the land's suitability to agriculture,
the degree or development of the slope, etc., the conflict shall be
resolved by a composite team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall
jointly conduct further investigation. The team's findings shall be
binding on both DAR and LBP. After the field investigation, the DAR
Municipal Office shall prepare the Field Investigation Report and
Land Use Map, a copy of which shall be furnished the landowner "by
personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with
return card." Another copy of the Report and Map shall likewise
be posted for at least one week in the municipal or barangay halls
where the property is located.
B.
The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad
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. Notices and pleadings are served on private domestic
corporations or partnerships in the following manner:
Sec.
6. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation or Partnership. — If
the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on
the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its
directors or partners.
Similarly,
the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, in Section 13, Rule 14
provides:
Sec.
13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. — If
the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the
Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on
the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its
directors.
Summonses,
pleadings and notices in cases against a private domestic corporation
before the DARAB and the regular courts are served on the president,
manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors. These
persons are those through whom the private domestic corporation or
partnership is capable of action.
Jaime
Pimentel is not the president, manager, secretary, cashier or
director of petitioner corporation.
Assuming
further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP coverage of its
haciendas, the areas found actually subject to CARP were not properly
identified before they were taken over by respondent DAR. Respondents
insist that the lands were identified because they are all registered
property and the technical description in their respective titles
specifies their metes and bounds. Respondents admit at the same time,
however, that not all areas in the haciendas were placed under the
comprehensive agrarian reform program invariably by reason of
elevation or character or use of the land.
The
acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of
the two haciendas, but only portions thereof. Hacienda Palico has an
area of 1,024 hectares and only 688.7576 hectares were targetted for
acquisition. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050 hectares but only
964.0688 hectares were subject to CARP. The haciendas are not
entirely agricultural lands. In fact, the various tax declarations
over the haciendas describe the landholdings as "sugarland,"
and "forest, sugarland, pasture land, horticulture and
woodland."
Under
Section 16 of the CARL, the sending of the Notice of Acquisition
specifically requires that the land subject
to
land reform be first identified. The two haciendas in the instant
case cover vast tracts of land. Before Notices of Acquisition were
sent to petitioner, however, the exact areas of the landholdings were
not properly segregated and delineated. Upon receipt of this notice,
therefore, petitioner corporation had no idea which portions of its
estate were subject to compulsory acquisition, which portions it
could rightfully retain, whether these retained portions were compact
or contiguous, and which portions were excluded from CARP coverage.
Even respondent DAR's evidence does not show that petitioner, through
its duly authorized representative, was notified of any ocular
inspection and investigation that was to be conducted by respondent
DAR. Neither is there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity
to at least choose and identify its retention area in those portions
to be acquired compulsorily. The right of retention and how this
right is exercised, is guaranteed in Section 6 of the CARL.
Under
the law, a landowner may retain not more than five hectares out of
the total area of his agricultural land subject to CARP. The right to
choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous,
pertains to the landowner. If the area chosen for retention is
tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
remain on the portion or be a beneficiary in the same or another
agricultural land with similar or comparable features.
C.
The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway
Hacienda
Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale in 1989. The Hacienda has a
total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles. In
two separate Resolutions both dated January 12, 1989, respondent DAR,
through the
Regional
Director, formally accepted the VOS over the two of these four
titles. The land covered by two titles has an area of 855.5257
hectares, but only 648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage
of R.A. 6657. Petitioner claims it does not know where these
portions are located.
Respondent
DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the
four titles were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as
landowner, was not denied participation therein, The results of the
survey and the land valuation summary report, however, do not
indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and
received by petitioner or its duly authorized representative. To
reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay down the operating
procedure, much less the notice requirements, before the VOS is
accepted by respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner, however, cannot
be dispensed with. It is part of administrative due process and is an
essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to exercise, at
the very least, his right of retention guaranteed under the CARL.
- NO.
The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate
unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over
which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve
petitioner's application for conversion, being primarily the agency
possessing the necessary expertise on the matter. The power to
determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are
nonagricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the CARL lies
with the DAR, not with this Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment