15 Roxas and Co V Dambanfsw
15 Roxas and Co V Dambanfsw
*
G.R. No. 160420. July 28, 2005.
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
527
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
528
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
529
530
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
GARCIA, J.:
_______________
531
Subject of this case are several parcels of land with a total area of
507 hectares, more or less, which used to form part of a larger
expanse consisting of 807 hectares situated in Brgys. Baha and
Talibayog, Calatagan, Batangas, and formerly owned by Ceferino
Ascue (Ascue).
Records show that on various dates in 1989 and 1990,
emancipation patents (EPs) covering the disputed lands were
issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Operation
Land Transfer (OLT) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27 and/or
Executive Order (EO) No. 228, s. of 1987, entitled “Declaring Full
Ownership to Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries Covered by [PD] No.
27.”
On August 1, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(MARO) of Calatagan, Batangas sent a ‘Final Notification’ letter
dated July 28, 1989 to the heirs of Ascue relative to the payment
of their land transfer claim (Records, p. 250).
On September 26, 1991, the DAR Region IV Office requested
the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to open a trust account in
favor of Ascue in an amount corresponding to the valuation of his
agricultural property. Consequently, on different dates . . . the
LBP issued separate documents each certifying that an amount
certain, in cash and LBP bonds, has been set aside . . . .
Sometime in 1995, the heirs of Ascue, with the approval of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Balayan, Batangas handling the
settlement his estate (sic), sold to Asturias Chemical Industries,
Inc. (“Asturias”) the 807 hectares of land referred to at the outset.
Years later, Asturias disturbed by what it viewed as initial
activities undertaken by the DAR, . . . to place its remaining
landholding under the comprehensive agrarian reform program
(CARP), addressed a letter dated July 26, 1999 to the DAR Region
IV office. There, Asturias made it known that its Calatagan
landholding could no longer be considered for CARP coverage, it
having “already been declared as mineral land pursuant to a
Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (‘MPSA’) between the
government and Asturias” (Record,
_______________
532
533
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
_______________
534
_______________
535
_______________
536
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
537
_______________
538
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
_______________
539
_______________
14 Salonga vs. Cruz Paño, 134 SCRA 438 [1985]; Republic vs. City of
Davao, 388 SCRA 691 (2002).
15 Sec. 4, Art. XII of the Constitution provides that “[T]he State shall,
by law, undertake an agrarian reform program . . . To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Congress may prescribe . . . .”
16 Sec. 3 (c), R.A. No. 6657.
17 Sec. 4, R.A. No. 6657.
18 Daez vs. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 856 (2000).
540
_______________
19 Ibid.
20 Sebastian vs. Morales, 397 SCRA 549 (2003).
21 Page 8 of DAR Order dated August 4, 2000; Rollo, p. 96.
541
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
_______________
542
26
tial economic value are found, as here, are, to reiterate,
outside of OLT or CARP coverage. Hence, petitioners’
invocation of Section 6 of R.A. 6657 is misplaced. What is
more, petitioners are, at bottom, without standing to
challenge the validity of the Heirs of Ascue—Asturias sale,
as approved by the Regional Trial Court at Balayan,
Batangas.
Finally, petitioners’ challenge to the DAR’s jurisdiction
to nullify the OLT coverage of the lands subject hereof,
especially when EPs have been issued therefor, is tenuous
at best. It need not detain us long. Nullification of OLT
coverage and cancellation of EPs are entirely different
concepts, albeit the cancellation of an EP, if issued over a
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
_______________
543
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
5/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 464
Petition denied.
——o0o——
_______________
544
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016adfc370b1d1cb8769003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18