0% found this document useful (0 votes)
72 views7 pages

DAR V Apex

1) The document describes a case where the Department of Agrarian Reform initiated compulsory acquisition of lots owned by Apex Investment. Apex filed protests contesting the acquisition but the protests were not acted on for over a year. 2) The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Apex, declaring the acquisition void and prohibiting further proceedings. It found that Apex was not required to exhaust all administrative remedies given the official inaction on its protests. 3) The Department of Agrarian Reform appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the circumstances justified judicial intervention without fully exhausting administrative remedies due to the agency's failure to act on the protests in a timely manner
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
72 views7 pages

DAR V Apex

1) The document describes a case where the Department of Agrarian Reform initiated compulsory acquisition of lots owned by Apex Investment. Apex filed protests contesting the acquisition but the protests were not acted on for over a year. 2) The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Apex, declaring the acquisition void and prohibiting further proceedings. It found that Apex was not required to exhaust all administrative remedies given the official inaction on its protests. 3) The Department of Agrarian Reform appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that the circumstances justified judicial intervention without fully exhausting administrative remedies due to the agency's failure to act on the protests in a timely manner
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

G.R. No. 149422. April 10, 2003 (TCT) Nos.

T-72491, T-90474, T-90475, T-


90476, and T-90477.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, petitioner vs. APEX On August 24, 1994, the Municipal Agrarian
INVESTMENT AND FINANCING Reform Office (MARO) of Dasmarias initiated
CORPORATION (now SM Investment compulsory acquisition proceedings over
Corporation), respondent. those lots pursuant to Republic Act No.
6657, otherwise known as the
DECISION Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988. The MARO issued a Notice of
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: Coverage informing respondent of the
compulsory acquisition and inviting it to a
Before us is a petition for review
meeting set on September 8, 1994; and
on certiorari1 filed by the Department of
Notice of Acquisition. Copies of these notices
Agrarian Reform (DAR) assailing the
were sent to respondents office at 627
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals dated April
Echague Street, Manila. However,
26, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 55052, Apex
respondent denied having received the same
Investment and Financing Corporation vs.
because it was no longer holding office
Department of Agrarian Reform, et al.; and
there.
its Resolution dated August 2, 2001 denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration. Respondent learned of the compulsory
acquisition proceedings from the December
Respondent Apex Investment and Financing
11, 1997 issue of the Balita stating, among
Corporation (now SM Investments
others, that TCT No. T-90476, covering
Corporation), registered under the laws of
respondents lot consisting of 23,614
the Philippines, owns several lots located at
square meters, has been placed under the
Barangay Paliparan, Dasmarias, Cavite,
compulsory acquisition program. Forthwith,
covered by Transfer Certificates of Title
petitioner sent respondent a copy of the
Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition duly approved by the Housing and Land Use
dated July 24, 1997, offering to pay Regulatory Board (HLURB) in its Resolution
it P229,014.33 as compensation for the lot No. R-42-A-3 dated February 11, 1981.
covered by TCT No. T-90476.
It was only on February 15, 1999, or more
On January 12, 1998, respondent filed with than one year after respondent filed its
the PARO a Protest rejecting the offer of protest, that the PARO forwarded to
compensation and contending that its lands petitioner DAR the said protest together
are not covered by R.A. No. 6657 because with the records of the compulsory
they were classified as residential even prior acquisition proceedings.
to the effectivity of the law. Attached to its
protest are copies of its land titles, tax On June 21, 1999, respondent received a
declarations, location map and other letter dated May 28, 1999 from petitioner
supporting documents. requiring it to submit certified true copies of
the TCTs covering its lots and a Certification
On March 27, 1998, respondent filed with from the HLURB attesting that they are
the PARO a Supplemental Protest with (a) within the residential zone of Dasmarias
the Certification issued by Engineer Baltazar based on HLURB Resolution No. R-42-A-3
M. Usis, Regional Irrigation Manager of the dated February 11, 1981.
National Irrigation Administration, Region
IV, stating that respondents lots are not Thereafter, respondent learned that on June
covered by any irrigation project; and (b) 24, 1999, the Registry of Deeds of Cavite
the Certification issued by Engineer Gregorio cancelled one of its titles, TCT No. T-90476,
Bermejo, Municipal Engineer and Deputized and in lieu thereof, issued TCT No. T-
Zoning Administrator of Dasmarias, Cavite, 868471 in the name of the Republic of the
attesting that the same lots are within Philippines.
the residential zone based on the Land
Use Plan of the Municipality of Dasmarias On July 26, 1999, respondent came to know
that TCT No. T-868471 was cancelled and in
lieu thereof, TCT No. CLOA-2473 was issued b) prohibiting public respondents PARO and
in the name of Angel M. Umali, a farmer- DAR from continuing with the compulsory
beneficiary allegedly occupying the land. acquisition proceedings over TCT No. T-
This prompted respondent to file with the 72491; TCT No. T-90474; TCT No. T-90475;
Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and and TCT No. T-90477;
prohibition praying that the compulsory
acquisition proceedings over its landholdings compulsory acquisition proceedings over
be declared void and that TCT No. CLOA- TCT No. T-72491; TCT No. T-90474; TCT
2473 issued to Angel Umali be cancelled. No. T-90475; and TCT No. T-90477;

In its comment, petitioner alleged that c) prohibiting public respondent Register of


respondent failed to exhaust all Deeds of Cavite from cancelling the land
administrative remedies before filing its titles of petitioner, i.e., TCT No. T-72491;
petition. Hence, the same should be TCT No. T-90474; TCT No. T-90475; and
dismissed. TCT No. T-90477 and the transferring,
conveying and alienation thereof; and
On April 26, 2001, the Court of Appeals
rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion d) ordering the Register of Deeds of Cavite
of which reads: to restore TCT No. T-90476 (now CLOA
2473) in the name of petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is
hereby granted and judgment is hereby SO ORDERED.
rendered as follows:
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
a) declaring the compulsory acquisition but was denied in the Resolution dated
under Republic Act No. 6657 as null and August 2, 2001.
void ab initio;
Hence, the instant petition for review on
certiorari.
Petitioner ascribes to the Court of Appeals petitioner DAR. Since then, what petitioner
the following errors: (a) in ruling that has done was to require respondent every
respondent corporation did not violate the now and then to submit copies of supporting
principle of exhaustion of remedies; (b) in documents which were already attached to
holding that respondent was deprived of its its Protest. In the meantime, respondent
right to due process; and (c) in concluding found that the PARO had caused the
that the subject parcels of land are cancellation of its title and that a new one
residential, hence, not covered by R.A. No. was issued to an alleged farmer-beneficiary.
6657.
In Natalia Realty vs. Department of Agrarian
On the first assigned error, this Court has Reform,6 we held that the aggrieved
consistently held that the doctrine of landowners were not supposed to wait until
exhaustion of administrative remedies is a the DAR acted on their letter-protests (after
relative one and is flexible depending on the it had sat on them for almost a
peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and year) before resorting to judicial process.
circumstantial settings of a case.3 Among Given the official indifference which, under
others, it is disregarded where, as in this the circumstances could have continued
case, (a) there are circumstances indicating forever, the landowners had to act to assert
the urgency of judicial intervention;4 and (b) and protect their interests. Thus, their
the administrative action is patently illegal petition for certiorari was allowed even
and amounts to lack or excess of though the DAR had not yet resolved their
jurisdiction.5
cr älä wvirt u alib räry protests. In the same vein, respondent here
could not be expected to wait for petitioner
Records show that the PARO did not take DAR to resolve its protest before seeking
immediate action on respondents Protest judicial intervention. Obviously, petitioner
filed on January 12, 1998. It was only on might continue to alienate respondents lots
February 15, 1999, or after more than one during the pendency of its protest. Hence,
year, that it forwarded the same to the Court of Appeals did not err in
concluding that on the basis of the xxx
circumstances of this case, respondent need
not exhaust all administrative remedies In Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. Court of
before filing its petition for certiorari and Appeals,7 we held:
prohibition.
For a valid implementation of the CAR
As to the second assigned error, we find program, two notices are required: (1)
that petitioner was deprived of its the Notice of Coverage and letter of
constitutional right to due process. invitation to preliminary conference sent to
the landowner, the representatives of the
Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657, provides: BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other
interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No.
Section 16. Procedures for Acquisition of 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of
Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition of Acquisition sent to the landowner under
private lands, the following procedures shall Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657.
be followed:
The importance of the first notice, i.e.,
(a) After having identified the land, the the Notice of Coverage and the letter of
landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR invitation to the conference, and its
shall send its notice to acquire the land actual conduct cannot be
to the owners thereof, by personal understated. They are steps designed to
delivery or registered mail, and post the comply with the requirements of
same in a conspicuous place in the administrative due process. The
municipal building and barangay hall of the implementation of the CARL is an
place where the property is located. Said exercise of the States police power and
notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to the power of eminent domain. To the
pay a corresponding value in accordance extent that the CARL prescribes
with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, retention limits to the landowners,
18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
there is an exercise of police power for observed in the taking of private
the regulation of private property in property.
accordance with the
Constitution (Association of Small In the instant case, petitioner does not
Landowners in the Philippines vs. Secretary dispute that respondent did not
of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343, 373-374 receive the Notice of Acquisition and
[1989]). But where, to carry out such Notice of Coverage sent to the latters old
regulation, the owners are deprived of address. Petitioner explained that its
lands they own in excess of the personnel could not effect personal service
maximum area allowed there is also a of those notices upon respondent because it
taking under the power of eminent changed its juridical name from Apex
domain. The taking contemplated is not a Investment and Financing Corporation to SM
mere limitation of the use of the land. What Investment Corporation. While it is true,
is required is the surrender of the title to that personal service could not be made,
and physical possession of the said excess however, there is no showing that petitioner
and all beneficial rights accruing to the caused the service of the
owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary notices via registered mail as required by
(id.). The Bill of Rights provides that Section 16(a) of R.A. No. 6657. On this
[n]o person shall be deprived of life, point, petitioner claimed that the notices
liberty or property without de process were sent not only by registered mail but
of law (Section 1, Article III of the also by personal delivery and that there was
1987 Constitution). The CARL was not actual receipt by respondent as shown by
intended to take away property without the signature appearing at the bottom left-
due process of law (Development Bank hand corner of petitioners copies of the
of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, notices. But petitioner could not identify the
262 SCRA 245, 253 [1996]). The name of respondents representative who
exercise of the power of eminent allegedly received the notices. In fact,
domain requires that due process be petitioner admitted that the signature
thereon is illegible. It is thus safe to Dasmarias, Cavite, certified that
conclude that respondent was not notified of respondents lands are within
the compulsory acquisition proceedings. the residential zone of Dasmarias, based
Clearly, respondent was deprived of its right on the Land Use Plan of that municipality
to procedural due process. It is elementary duly approved by the HLURB in its
that before a person can be deprived of his Resolution No. R-42-A-3 dated February
property, he should be informed of the claim 11, 1981. We observe, however, that this
against him and the theory on which such factual issue was never determined below.
claim is premised.8cräl äw virt u alib räry Thus, we cannot conclude that respondents
parcels of land are residential.
On the last assigned error, Section 4 of R.A.
No. 6657 provides that the WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law dated April 26, 2001 of the Court of Appeals
shall cover, regardless of tenurial in CA-G.R. SP No. 55052 is AFFIRMEDwith
arrangement and commodity produced, all MODIFICATION in the sense that we allow
public and private agricultural lands. the DAR to conduct appropriate proceedings
Section 3(c) defines agricultural land, as to determine whether the subject parcels of
land devoted to agricultural activity as land are indeed residential and are thus
defined in this Act and not classified outside the coverage of R.A. No. 6657.
as mineral, forest, residential, commercial
or industrial land. SO ORDERED.

Respondent vehemently insists that its lots


had been classified as residential prior to
June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of R.A.
No. 6657. As earlier mentioned, Engineer
Gregorio Bermejo, Municipal Engineer and
Deputized Zoning Administrator of

You might also like