roxas vs damba-nfsw & dar

8/12/2019 Roxas vs DAMBA-NFSW & DAR

1/13

ROXAS & Co., Inc. vs. DAMBA-NFSW and DAR, GR 149548, Dec 4,2009

The main subject of the seven consolidated petitions is the application of petitioner Roxas & Co., Inc.(Roxas & Co.) for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use of its three haciendas located inNasugbu, Batangas containing a total area of almost 3,000 hectares. The facts are not new, the Courthaving earlier resolved intimately-related issues dealing with these haciendas. Thus, in the 1999 caseof Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[1]the Court presented the facts as follows:

. . . Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of threehaciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located inthe Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and isregistered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 985. This land is covered by TaxDeclaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468, 0470, 0234 and 0354. Hacienda Banilad is 1,050hectares in area, registered under TCT No. 924 and covered by Tax Declaration Nos.0236, 0237 and 0390. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in areaand is registeredunder TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665.

x x x x

On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took overlegislative power from the President. This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by thePresident on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988.

Before the laws effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondentDAR 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.

x x x x

Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, Eduardo J.Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of DARwithdrawing its VOS of HaciendaCaylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized thereclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result,petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of HaciendaCaylaway from agricultural to other uses.

x x x x[2](emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543 nub on the interpretation of PresidenProclamation (PP) 1520 which was issued on November 28, 1975 by then President FerdinaMarcos. The PP reads:

DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF MARAGONDONAND TERNATE IN CAVITE PROVINCE AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU IN

BATANGAS AS A TOURIST ZONE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

WHEREAS, certain areas in the sector comprising the Municipalities of Maragondonand Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas have potential tourismvalueafter being developed into resort complexes for the foreign and domestic market; and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn2


2/13

WHEREAS, it is necessary to conduct the necessary studies and to segregatespecific geographic areas for concentrated efforts of both the government and privatesectors in developing their tourism potential;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, byvirtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby declare the areacomprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbuin Batangas Province as a tourist zone under the administration and control of the

Philippine Tourism Authority(PTA) pursuant to Section 5 (D) of P.D. 564.

The PTA shall identify well-defined geographic areas within the zone with potentialtourism value, wherein optimum use of natural assets and attractions, as well as existingfacilities and concentration of efforts and limited resources of both government and privatesector may be affected and realized in order to generate foreign exchange as well as othertourist receipts.

Any duly established military reservation existing within the zone shall be excludedfrom this proclamation.

All proclamation, decrees or executive orders inconsistent herewith are herebyrevoked or modified accordingly. (emphasis and underscoring supplied).

The incidents which spawned the filing of the petitions in G.R. Nos. 149548, 167505, 1678169163 and 179650 are stated in the dissenting opinion of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, the original dof which was made the basis of the Courts deliberations.

Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application for conversion of its three haciendas from argricultuto non-agricultural on the assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu, Batangasa tourism zone, reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its pending application notwithstanding, tDepartment of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to t

farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including CLOA No. 6654 which was issued on October 1993 covering 513.983 hectares, the subject of G.R. No. 167505.

The application for conversion of Roxas & Co. was the subject of the above-stated Roxas & CInc. v. Court of Appealswhich the Court remanded to the DAR for the observance of proper acquisitproceedings. As reflected in the above-quoted statement of facts in said case, during the pendenbefore the DAR of its application for conversion following its remand to the DAR or on May 16, 200Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an application for exemption from the coverage of the ComprehensAgrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520 and of DAR Administrative Order (ANo. 6, Series of 1994[3]which states that all lands already classified as commercial, industrial, or residenbefore the effectivity of CARP no longer need conversion clearance from the DAR.

It bears mentioning at this juncture that on April 18, 1982, the Sangguniang Bayanof Nasugenacted Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4 (Nasugbu MZO No. 4) which was approved on May 4, 1983the Human Settlements Regulation Commission, now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Bo(HLURB).

The records show that Sangguniang Bayan and Association of Barangay Captains of Nasugbu fibefore this Court petitions for intervention which were, however, denied by Resolution of June 5, 2006 lack of standing.

[4]

After the seven present petitions were consolidated and referred to the Court en banc,[5]o

arguments were conducted on July 7, 2009.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn4


3/13

The core issues are:

1. Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu tourizone to non-agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.s threehaciendas in Nasugbu from CAcoverage;

2. Whether Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of 1982 exempted certain lots in Hacienda Palico frCARP coverage; and

3. Whether the partial and complete cancellations by the DAR of CLOA No. 6654 subject of GNo. 167505 is valid.

The Court shall discuss the issues inseriatim.

I. PP 1520 DID NOTAUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE THR

MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING NASUGBU TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared the three municipalities as each constituting a tourizone, reclassified all lands therein to tourism and, therefore, converted their use to non-agricultupurposes.

To determine the chief intent of PP 1520, reference to the whereas clausesis in order. By alarge, a reference to the congressional deliberation records would provide guidance in dissecting the intof legislation. But since PP 1520 emanated from the legislative powers of then President Marcos durmartial rule, reference to the whereas clausescannot be dispensed with.

[6]

The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only certain areas in the sector comprising [three Municipalities that] have potential tourism value and mandated the conduct of necessary studiand the segregation of specific geographic areas to achieve its purpose. Which is why the PP directhe Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) to identify what those potential tourism areas are. If all the landsthose tourism zones were to be wholly converted to non-agricultural use, there would have been no nefor the PP to direct the PTA to identify what those specific geographic areas are.

The Court had in fact passed upon a similar matter before. Thus in DAR v. Franco,[7]it pronounce

Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the Philippine TourismAuthority, has to determine precisely which areas are for tourism development and

excluded from the Operation Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian ReformProgram. And suffice it to state here that the Court has repeatedly ruled that lands alreadyclassified as non-agricultural before the enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 do notneed any conversion clearance.[8](emphasis and underscoring supplied).

While the above pronouncement in Francois an obiter, it should not be ignored in the resolution of present petitions since it reflects a more rational and just interpretation of PP 1520. There is no prohibitin embracing the rationale of an obiter dictumin settling controversies, or in considering relaproclamations establishing tourism zones.

In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA,[9]the Court made it clear that the power to determ

whether Haciendas Palico, Baniladand Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the covera
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn7


4/13

of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] lies with the [Department of Agrarian Reform], not with tCourt.[10] The DAR, an administrative body of special competence, denied, by Order of October 22, 20the application for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it finding that PP 1520 did notautomatically reclasall the lands in the affected municipalities from their original uses. It appears that the PTA had not yetthat time, identified the specific geographic areas for tourism development and had no pending touridevelopment projects in the areas. Further, report from the Center for Land Use Policy Planning aImplementation (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were planted with sugar cane and other crops.[11]

Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2004,[12]came up with clarificatguidelines and therein decreed that

A. x x x x.

B. Proclamations declaring 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 peninsulas to be with potential tourism value andcharge the Philippine Tourism Authority with the task to identify/delineate specific

geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value and to coordinate said areasdevelopment; 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 tocoordinate said areas development;

could not be regarded as effecting an automatic reclassification of the entirety of the landarea declared as tourist zone. This is so because reclassification of lands denotes theirallocation into some specific use and providing for the manner of their utilization anddisposition (Sec. 20, Local Government Code) or the act of specifying how agricultural

lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, orcommercial, as embodied in the land use plan. (Joint HLURB, DAR, DA, DILG Memo.Circular Prescribing Guidelines for MC 54, S. 1995, Sec.2)

A proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism value of certain areaswithin the general area declared as tourist zone clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intendthe entirety of the land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes . Neither does saidproclamation direct that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be usedfor purposes other than agricultural.

Moreover, to view these kinds of proclamation as a reclassification for non-

agricultural purposes of entire provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands, or peninsulaswould be unreasonable as it amounts to an automatic and sweeping exemption from CARPin the name of tourism development. The same would also undermine the land usereclassification powers vested in local government units in conjunction with pertinentagencies of government.

C. 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 exemptionof theentirety of the lands embraced therein from CARP coverage x x x x.

D. x x x x. (underscoring in the original; emphasis and italics supplied)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn11


5/13

The DARs reading into these general proclamations of tourism zones deserves utm

consideration, more especially in the present petitions which involve vast tracts of agricultural land. reiterate, PP 1520 merely recognized the potential tourism value of certain areas within the general adeclared as tourism zones. It did not reclassify the areas to non-agricultural use.

Apart from PP 1520, there are similarly worded proclamations declaring the whole of Ilocos Noand Bataan Provinces, Camiguin, Puerto Prinsesa, Siquijor, PanglaoIsland, parts of Cebu City a

Municipalities of Argao and Dalaguete in Cebu Province as tourism zones.[13]

Indubitably, these proclamations, particularly those pertaining to the Provinces of Ilocos Noand Bataan, did not intend to reclassify all agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands in one swoop. The Court takes notice of how the agrarian reform program wasand still isimplementedthese provinces since there are lands that do not have any tourism potential and are more appropriate agricultural utilization.

Relatedly, a reference to the Special Economic Zone Act of 1995[14]provides a parallel orientaton the issue. Under saidAct, several towns and cities encompassing the whole Philippines were readidentified as economic zones.

[15] To uphold Roxas & Co.s reading of PP 1520 would see a to

reclassification of practically all the agricultural lands in the country to non-agricultural use. Propitiousthe legislature had the foresight to include a bailout provision in Section 31 of saidAct for laconversion.

[16] The same cannot be said of PP 1520, despite the existence of Presidential Decree (P

No. 27 or the Tenant Emancipation Decree,[17]

which is the precursor of the CARP.

Interestingly, then President Marcos also issued on September 26, 1972 PD No. 2 which declathe entirePhilippines as land reform area.

[18] Such declaration did not intend to reclassify all lands in

entire country to agricultural lands. President Marcos, about a month later or on October 21, 1972, issuPD 27 which decreed that all private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn were deemawarded to their tenant-farmers.

Given these martial law-era decrees and considering the socio-political backdrop at the time 1520 was issued in 1975, it is inconceivable that PP 1520, as well as other similarly worded proclamatiowhich are completely silent on the aspect of reclassification of the lands in those tourism zones, wounullify the gains already then achieved by PD 27.

Even so, Roxas & Co. turns to Natalia Realty v. DARand NHA v. Allarde to support position. These cases are not even closely similar to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543. Tonly time that these cases may find application to said petitions is when the PTA actually identifies wdefined geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value.

In remotely tying these two immediately-cited cases that involve specific and defined towns

reservations for the housing program of the National Housing Authority to the present petitions, RoxasCo. cites Letter of Instructions No. 352 issued on December 22, 1975 which states that the survey atechnical description of the tourism zones shall be considered an integral part of PP 1520. There wehowever, at the time no surveys and technical delineations yet of the intended tourism areas.

On hindsight, Natalia andAllarde find application in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 1675which petitions are anchored on the extenuating effects of Nasugbu MZO No. 4, but not in the petitionsG.R. Nos. 167540 & 167543 bearing on PP 1520, as will later be discussed.

Of significance also in the present petitions is the issuance on August 3, 2007 of Executive OrNo. 647[19]by President Arroyo which proclaimed the areas in the Nasugbu Tourism Development Plan

Special Tourism Zone. Pursuant to said Executive Order, the PTA completed its validation of 21 out of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn14


6/13

barangays as tourism priority areas, hence, it is only after such completion that these identified lands mbe subjected to reclassification proceedings.

It bears emphasis that a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allowlandowner to change its use since there is still that process of conversion before one is permitted to usefor other purposes.[20]

Tourism Act, and not to PP 1520, for possible exemption.

II. ROXAS & CO.S APPLICATION INDAR ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. A-9999-142-97 FOR CAEXEMPTION IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO. 179650 CANNOT BE GRANTEDVIEW OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE LOCATION AND IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS OLAND.

Since PP 1520 did not automatically convert HaciendasCaylaway, Baniladand Palicointo nagricultural estates, can Roxas & Co. invoke in the alternative Nasugbu MZO No. 4, which reclassified1982 the haciendas to non-agricultural use to exclude six parcels of land in Hacienda Palico from CAcoverage?

By Roxas & Co.s contention, the affectedsix parcels of land which are the subject of DAdministrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 and nine parcels of land which are the subject of DAdministrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 involved in G.R. No. 167505, all in HaciendaPalico, habeen reclassified to non-agricultural uses via Nasugbu MZO No. 4 which was approved by the forerunof HLURB.

Roxas & Co.s contention fails.

To be sure, the Court had on several occasions decreed that a local government unit has the powto classify and convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of t

CARL.[23]

InAgrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas,[24]

it reiterated that

. . . the facts obtaining in this case are similar to those in Natalia Realty. Bothsubject lands form part of an area designated for non-agricultural purposes. Both wereclassified as non-agricultural landsprior to June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of CARL.

x x x x

In the case under review, the subject parcels of lands were reclassified within anurban zone as per approved Official Comprehensive Zoning Map of the Cityof Davao. The reclassification was embodied in City Ordinance No. 363, Series of

1982. As such, the subject parcels of land are considered non-agricultural and may beutilized for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes. The reclassification was laterapproved by the HLURB.[25](emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

The DAR Secretary[26]denied the application for exemption of Roxas & Co., however, in this wise

Initially, CLUPPI-2 based [its] evaluation on the lot nos. as appearing in CLOANo. 6654. However, for purposes of clarity and to ensure that the area applied forexemption is indeed part of TCT No. T-60034, CLUPPI-2 sought to clarify with [Roxas &Co.] the origin of TCT No. T-60034. In a letter dated May 28, 1998, [Roxas & Co.]

explains that portions of TCT No. T-985, the mother title, was subdivided into 125 lots
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn21


7/13

pursuant to PD 27. A total of 947.8417 was retained by the landowners and wassubsequently registered under TCT No. 49946. [[Roxas & Co.] further explains that TCTNo. 49946 was further subdivided into several lots (Lot 125-A to Lot 125-P) with Lot No.125-N registered under TCT No. 60034. [A] review of the titles, however, shows that theorigin of T-49946 is T-783 and not T-985. On the other hand, the origin of T-60034 islisted as 59946, and not T-49946. The discrepancies were attributed by [Roxas & Co.] totypographical errors which were acknowledged and initialled [sic] by the ROD. Perverification,the discrepancies . . . cannot be ascertained.

[27] (emphasis and

underscoring supplied)

In denying Roxas & Co.s motion for reconsideration, the DAR Secretary held:

The landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to theCertification dated February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB] , the Certification dated September12, 1996 issued by the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, and theCertifications dated July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National Irrigation

Authority. The certifications were issued for Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 34. Thus, itwas not even possible to issue exemption clearance over the lots covered by TCT Nos.60019 to 60023.

Furthermore, we also note the discrepancies between the certifications issued bythe HLURB and the Municipal Planning Development Coordinator as to the area of thespecific lots.[28](emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In affirming the DAR Secretarys denial of Roxas & Co.s application for exemption, the CourtAppeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 63146 subject of G.R. No. 179650, observed:

In the instant case, a perusal of the documents before us shows that there is noindication that the said TCTs refer to the same properties applied for exemption by [Roxas& Co.] It is true that the certifications refer, among others, to DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28,

31, 32 and 34But these certifications contain nothing to show that these lots are thesame as Lots 125-A, 125-B, 125-C, 125-D and 125-E covered by TCT Nos. 60019,60020, 60021, 60022 and 60023, respetively. While [Roxas & Co.] claims that DAR LotNos. 21, 24 and 31 correspond to the aforementioned TCTs submitted to the DAR noevidence was presented to substantiate such allegation.

Moreover, [Roxas & Co.] failed to submit TCT 634 which it claims covers DARLot Nos. 28, 32 and 24.(TSN, April 24, 2001, pp. 43-44)

x x x x

[Roxas & Co.] also claims that subject properties are located at Barangay Cogunanand Lumbangan and that these properties are part of the zone classified as Industrialunder Municipal Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982 of the Municipality of Nasugbu,Batangas. .a scrutiny of the said Ordinance shows that only Barangays Talangan andLumbangan of the said municipality were classified as Industrial ZonesBarangayCogunan was not included. x x x x. In fact, the TCTs submitted by [Roxas & Co.] showthat the properties covered by said titles are all located at BarrioLumbangan.

[29](emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the appellate court still allowed Roxas & Co. to adduce additio

evidence to support its application for exemption under Nasugbu MZO No. 4.


8/13

Meanwhile, Roxas & Co. appealed the appellate courts decision in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 631

affirming the DAR Secretarys denial of its application for CARP exemption in Hacienda Palico (now subject of G.R. No. 149548).

When Roxas & Co. sought the re-opening of the proceedings in DAR Administrative Case No. 9999-142-97 (subject of G.R. No. 179650), and offered additional evidence in support of its application CARP exemption, the DAR Secretary, this time, granted its application for the six lots including Lot No.

since the additional documents offered by Roxas & Co. mentioned the said lot.

In granting the application, the DAR Secretary[30]

examined anew the evidence submitted by Rox& Co. which consisted mainly of certifications from various local and national governmeagencies.[31] Petitioner in G.R. Nos. 167505, 167540, 169163 and 179650, Damayan Ng MManggagawang Bukid Sa Asyenda Roxas-National Federation of Sugar Workers (DAMBA-NFSW), organization of the farmer-beneficiaries, moved to have the grant of the application reconsidered but tsame was denied by the DAR by Order of December 12, 2003, hence, it filed a petitfor certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 82225, on grounds of forushopping and grave abuse of discretion. The appellate court, by Decision of October 31, 2006, ruled tDAMBA-NFSW availed of the wrong mode of appeal. At all events, it dismissed its petition as it upheld

DAR Secretarys ruling that Roxas & Co. did not commit forum-shopping, hence, the petition of DAMBNGSW in G.R. No. 179650.

While ordinarily findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded great weight aeven finality by the Court if supported by substantial evidence in recognition of their expertise on specific matters under their consideration,

[32]this legal precept cannot be made to apply in G.R. N

179650.

Even as the existence and validity of Nasugbu MZO No. 4 had already been established, thremains in dispute the issue of whether the parcels of land involved in DAR Administrative Case No.9999-142-97 subject of G.R. No. 179650 are actually within the said zoning ordinance.

The Court finds that the DAR Secretary indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when ignored the glaring inconsistencies in the certifications submitted early on by Roxas & Co. in support ofapplication vis--vis the certifications it later submitted when the DAR Secretary reopened DAAdministrative Case No. A-9999-142-97.

Notably, then DAR Secretary Horacio Morales, on one hand, observed that the landholdincovered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to the Certification dated February 11, 1998 of t[HLURB], the Certification dated September 12, 1996 issued by the Municipal Planning and DevelopmCoordinator, and the Certifications dated July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National IrrigatAuthority. On the other hand, then Secretary Hernani Braganza relied on a differentset of certificatio

which were issued later or on September 19, 1996.

In this regard, the Court finds in order the observation of DAMBA-NFSW that Roxas & Co. shohave submitted the comprehensive land use plan and pointed therein the exact locations of the propertto prove that indeed they are within the area of coverage of Nasugbu MZO No. 4.

The petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 149548 must be distinguished from Junio v. Garilao[33]wherthe certifications submitted in support of the application for exemption of the therein subject lot were maiconsidered on the presumption of regularity in their issuance, there being no doubt on the location aidentity of the subject lot.[34] In G.R. No. 179650, there exist uncertainties on the location and identitiesthe properties being applied for exemption.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn31


9/13

G.R. No. 179650 & G.R. No. 149548 must accordingly be denied for lack of merit.

III. ROXAS & CO.S APPLICATION FOR CARP EXEMPTION INDAR ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO.9999-008-98 FOR THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. N167505 SHOULD BE GRANTED.

The Court, however, takes a different stance with respect to Roxas & Co.s application for CA

exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 over nineparcels of land identified as Lot N20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectarin Hacienda Palico, subject of G.R. No. 167505.

In its application, Roxas & Co. submitted the following documents:

1. Letter-application dated 29 September 1997 signed by Elino SJ. Napigkit, forand on behalf of Roxas & Company, Inc., seeking exemption from CARPcoverage of subject landholdings;

2. Secretarys Certificate dated September 2002 executed by Mariano M. AmpilIII, Corporate Secretary of Roxas & Company, Inc., indicating a BoardResolution authorizing him to represent the corporation in its application forexemption with the DAR. The same Board Resolution revoked the authorizationpreviously granted to the Sierra Management & Resources Corporation;

3. Photocopy of TCT No. 985 and its corresponding Tax Declaration No. 0401;

4. Location and vicinity maps of subject landholdings;

5. Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Reynaldo Garcia, MunicipalPlanning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and Zoning Administrator ofNasugbu, Batangas, stating that the subject parcels of land are within the UrbanCore Zone as specified in Zone A. VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4,Series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission(HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), underResolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;

6. Two (2) Certifications both dated 31 August 1998, issued by Alfredo Tan II,Director, HLURB, Region IV, stating that the subject parcels of land appear tobe within the Residential cluster Area as specified in Zone VII of Municipal

Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved under HSRC Resolution No.123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;

[35]

x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

By Order of November 6, 2002, the DAR Secretary granted the application for exemption but issuthe following conditions:

1. The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained intheir peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until

a final determination has been made on the amount of disturbance
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn36


10/13

compensation due and entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by thePARAD of Batangas;

2. No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land untilthe appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer-occupants who are determined by the PARAD to be entitled thereto. Proof ofpayment of disturbance compensation shall be submitted to this Office withinten (10) days from such payment; and

3. The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer-beneficiaries shall besubject of a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas.

[36]

DAMBA-NSFW moved for reconsideration but the DAR Secretary denied the same and explainfurther why CLOA holders need not be informed of the pending application for exemption in this wise:

As regards the first ground raised by [DAMBA-NSFW], it should beremembered that an application for CARP-exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No.44, series of 1990, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of

1994, is non-adversarial or non-litigious in nature. Hence, applicant is correct insaying that nowhere in the rules is it required that occupants of a landholdingshould be notified of an initiated or pending exemption application.

x x x x

With regard [to] the allegation that oppositors-movants are already CLOAholders of subject propert[ies] and deserve to be notified, as owners, of the initiatedquestioned exemption application, is of no moment. The Supreme Court in thecase of Roxas [&] Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106, held:

We stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites

of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power tonullify the CLOAs already issued to the farmer beneficiaries.x x x x. Anyhow, thefarmer[-]beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.

Since subject landholding has been validly determined to be CARP-exempt,therefore, the previous issuance of the CLOA of oppositors-movants iserroneous. Hence, similar to the situation of the above-quoted Supreme CourtDecision, oppositors-movants only hold the property in trust for the rightful ownersof the land and are not the owners of subject landholding who should be notified ofthe exemption application of applicant Roxas & Company, Incorporated.

Finally, this Office finds no substantial basis to reverse the assailed Orderssince there is substantial compliance by the applicant with the requirements for theissuance of exemption clearance under DAR AO 6 (1994).[37]

On DAMBA-NSFWs petition for certiorari, the Court of Appeals, noting that the petition wbelatedly filed, sustained, by Decision of December 20, 1994 and Resolution of May 7, 2007,[38]the DSecretarys finding that Roxas & Co. had substantially complied with the prerequisites of DAR AO 6, Serof 1994. Hence, DAMBA-NFSWs petition in G.R. No. 167505.

The Court finds no reversible error in the Court of Appeals assailed issuances, the orders of t

DAR Secretary which it sustained being amply supported by evidence.


11/13

IV. THE CLOAs ISSUED BY THE DAR in ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. A-9999-008-98 SUBJECT G.R. No. 179650 TO THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES INVOLVING THE NINE PARCELS OF LAIN HACIENDA PALICO MUST BE CANCELLED.

Turning now to the validity of the issuance of CLOAs in Hacienda Palico vis--visthe presdispositions: It bears recalling that in DAR Administrative Case Nos. A-9999-008-98 and A-9999-142(G.R. No. 179650), the Court ruled for Roxas & Co.s grant of exemption i n DAR Administrative Case NA-9999-008-98 but denied the grant of exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 reasons already discussed. It follows that the CLOAs issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in DAAdministrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 must be cancelled.

But first, the Court digresses. The assertion of DAMBA-NSFW that the petitions for partial acomplete cancellations of the CLOAs subject of DARAB Case Nos. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-20and No. 401-239-2001 violated the earlier order in Roxas v. Court of Appealsdoes not lie. Nowhere

the Court therein pronounce that the CLOAs issued cannot and should not be cancelled, what winvolved therein being the legality of the acquisition proceedings. The Court merely reiterated that it is DAR which has primary jurisdiction to rule on the validity of CLOAs. Thus it held:

. . . [t]he failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process inthe 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 theadministrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR must begiven the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. x x xx. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful owner of theland.[39]

On the procedural question raised by Roxas & Co. on the appellate courts relaxation of the rules giving due course to DAMBA-NFSWs 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 renders the assailed decision final and executory.[40]A relaxation of the rules may, however, meritorious reasons, be allowed in the interest of justice.

[41] The Court finds that in giving due course

DAMBA-NSFWs appeal, the appellate court committed no reversible error. Consider its ratiocination:

x x x x. To deny [DAMBA-NSFW]s appeal with the PARAD will not only affect theirright over the parcel of land subject of this petition with an area of 103.1436 hectares, butalso that of the whole area covered by CLOA No. 6654 since the PARAD rendered a JointResolution 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 CasesNo. R-401-003-2001 to R-401-005-2001 and No. 401-239-2001. There is a pressing needfor an extensive discussion of the issues as raised by both parties as the matter ofcanceling CLOA No. 6654 is of utmost importance, involving as it does the probabledisplacement of hundreds of farmer-beneficiaries and their families. x x x x (underscoringsupplied)


12/13

Unlike courts of justice, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body, is not bound to strictly observe rulesprocedure and evidence. To strictly enforce rules on appeals in this case would render to naught Courts dispositions on the other issues in these consolidated petitions.

In the main, there is no logical recourse except to cancel the CLOAs issued for the nine parcelsland identified as Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No. 9covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico(or those covered by DAR Administrative Case No. A-999

008-98). As for the rest of the CLOAs, they should be respected since Roxas & Co., as shown in discussion in G.R. Nos. 167540, 167543 and 167505, failed to prove that the other lots in HacienPalicoand the other two haciendas, aside from the above-mentioned nine lots, are CARP-exempt.

Conformably, Republic Act No. 3844 (R.A. No. 3844), as amended,[42]mandates that disturbancompensation be given to tenants of parcels of land upon finding that (t)he landholding is declared b y department head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for residentcommercial, industrial or some other urban purposes.

[43] In addition, DAR AO No. 6, Series of 19

directs the payment of disturbance compensation before the application for exemption may be completgranted.

Roxas & Co. is thus mandated to first satisfy the disturbance compensation of affected farmbeneficiaries in the areas covered by the nine parcels of lands in DAR AO No. A-9999-008-98 before CLOAs covering them can be cancelled. And it is enjoined to strictly follow the instructions of R.A. N3844.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn43


13/13

Finally then, and in view of the Courts dispositions in G.R. Nos. 179650 and 167505, the May 2001 Decision of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) [44]in DARAB Case No. 401-22001 ordering the total cancellation of CLOA No. 6654, subject of G.R. No. 169163, is SET ASIDE excewith respect to the CLOAs issued for Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which aportions of TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico(or those covered by DAAdministrative Case No. A-9999-008-98). It goes without saying that the motion for reconsiderationDAMBA-NFSW is granted to thus vacate the Courts October 19, 2005 Resolution dismissing DAMBNFSWs petition for review of the appellate courts Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 75952;

[45]

WHEREFORE,

1) In G.R. No. 167540, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the November 24, 20Decision[46]and March 18, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72131 whdeclared that Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 reclassified the lands in the municipalities of NasugbuBatangas and Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite to non-agricultural use;

2) The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration of the Department of AgrarReform in G.R. No. 167543 and REVERSES and SETS ASIDEits Resolution of July 20, 2005;

3) In G.R. No. 149548, the Court DENIES the petition for review of Roxas & Co. for lack of merit;

4) In G.R. No. 179650, the Court GRANTS the petition for review of DAMBA-NSFand REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the October 31, 2006 Decision and August 16, 2007 Resolution of Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82225;

5) In G.R. No. 167505, the Court DENIES the petition for review of DAMBA-NSFand AFFIRMS the December 20, 2004 Decision and March 7, 2005 Resolution of the Court of AppealsCA-G.R. SP No. 82226;

6) In G.R. No. 167845, the Court DENIES Roxas & Co.s petition for review for lack of m

and AFFIRMS the September 10, 2004 Decision and April 14, 2005Resolution of the Court of Appeals;

7) In G.R. No. 169163, the Court SETS ASIDE the Decisions of the Provincial Agrarian RefoAdjudicator in DARAB Case No. 401-239-2001 ordering the cancellation of CLOA No. 6654 and DARCases Nos. R-401-003-2001 to No. R-401-005-2001 granting the partial cancellation of CLOA N6654. The CLOAs issued for Lots No. 21 No. 24, No. 26, No. 31, No. 32 and No. 34 or those coveredDAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97) remain; and

8) Roxas & Co. is ORDERED to pay the disturbance compensation of affected farmer-beneficiarin the areas covered by the nine parcels of lands in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 befothe CLOAs therein can be cancelled, and is ENJOINED to strictly follow the mandate of R.A. No. 3844.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn45

roxas vs damba-nfsw & dar

Documents