ENBANC

[G.R.No.127876.December17,1999]

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.
DECISION
PUNO,J.:

This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner and the validity of the
acquisitionofthesehaciendasbythegovernmentunderRepublicActNo.6657,theComprehensiveAgrarian
ReformLawof1988.
PetitionerRoxas&Co.isadomesticcorporationandistheregisteredownerofthreehaciendas,namely,
HaciendasPalico,BaniladandCaylaway,alllocatedintheMunicipalityofNasugbu,Batangas.HaciendaPalico
is1,024hectaresinareaandisregisteredunderTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.985.Thislandiscovered
byTaxDeclarationNos.0465,0466,0468,0470,0234and0354.HaciendaBaniladis1,050hectaresinarea,
registeredunderTCTNo.924andcoveredbyTaxDeclarationNos.0236,0237and0390.HaciendaCaylaway
is867.4571hectaresinareaandisregisteredunderTCTNos.T44662,T44663,T44664andT44665.
TheeventsofthiscaseoccurredduringtheincumbencyofthenPresidentCorazonC.Aquino.InFebruary
1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 promulgating a Provisional Constitution. As head of the
provisional government, the President exercised legislative power until a legislature is elected and convened
under a new Constitution.[1] In the exercise of this legislative power, the President signed on July 22, 1987,
Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and Executive Order No. 229
providingthemechanismsnecessarytoinitiallyimplementtheprogram.
OnJuly27,1987,theCongressofthePhilippinesformallyconvenedandtookoverlegislativepowerfrom
the President.[2] This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL)of1988.TheActwassignedbythePresidentonJune10,1988andtookeffectonJune15,1988.
Beforethelawseffectivity,onMay6,1988,petitionerfiledwithrespondentDARavoluntaryoffertosell
HaciendaCaylawaypursuanttotheprovisionsofE.O.No.229.HaciendasPalicoandBaniladwerelaterplaced
undercompulsoryacquisitionbyrespondentDARinaccordancewiththeCARL.
HaciendaPalico
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.[3] Therein, the MARO invited petitioner to a
conferenceonOctober6,1989attheDARofficeinNasugbutodiscusstheresultsoftheDARinvestigationof
HaciendaPalico,whichwasscheduledforcompulsoryacquisitionthisyearundertheComprehensiveAgrarian
ReformProgram.[4]

OnOctober25,1989,theMAROcompletedthree(3)InvestigationReportsafterinvestigationandocular
inspectionoftheHacienda.InthefirstReport,theMAROfoundthat270hectaresunderTaxDeclarationNos.
465,466,468and470wereflattoundulating(08%slope)andactuallyoccupiedandcultivatedby34tillersof
sugarcane.[5]InthesecondReport,theMAROidentifiedasflattoundulatingapproximately339hectaresunder
TaxDeclarationNo.0234whichalsohadseveralactualoccupantsandtillersofsugarcane[6]whileinthethird
Report,theMAROfoundapproximately75hectaresunderTaxDeclarationNo.0354asflattoundulatingwith
33actualoccupantsandtillersalsoofsugarcane.[7]
On October 27, 1989, a Summary Investigation Report was submitted and signed jointly by the MARO,
representativesoftheBarangayAgrarianReformCommittee(BARC)andLandBankofthePhilippines(LBP),
and by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).The Report recommended that 333.0800 hectares of
HaciendaPalicobesubjecttocompulsoryacquisitionatavalueofP6,807,622.20.[8]Thefollowingday,October
28,1989,two(2)moreSummaryInvestigationReportsweresubmittedbythesameofficersandrepresentatives.
Theyrecommendedthat270.0876hectaresand75.3800hectaresbeplacedundercompulsoryacquisitionata
compensationofP8,109,739.00andP2,188,195.47,respectively.[9]
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR through then Department Secretary Miriam D. Santiago sent a
NoticeofAcquisitiontopetitioner.TheNoticewasaddressedasfollows:
RoxasyCia,Limited
SorianoBldg.,PlazaCervantes
Manila,MetroManila.[10]
Petitionerwasinformedthat1,023.999hectaresofitslandinHaciendaPalicoweresubjecttoimmediate
acquisitionanddistributionbythegovernmentundertheCARLthatbasedontheDARsvaluationcriteria,the
governmentwasofferingcompensationofP3.4millionfor333.0800hectaresthatwhetherthisofferwastobe
acceptedorrejected,petitionerwastoinformtheBureauofLandAcquisitionandDistribution(BLAD)ofthe
DARthatincaseofpetitionersrejectionorfailuretoreplywithinthirtydays,respondentDARshallconduct
summaryadministrativeproceedingswithnoticetopetitionertodeterminejustcompensationforthelandthatif
petitioner accepts respondent DARs offer, or upon deposit of the compensation with an accessible bank if it
rejectsthesame,theDARshalltakeimmediatepossessionoftheland.[11]
Almosttwoyearslater,onSeptember26,1991,theDARRegionalDirectorsenttotheLBPLandValuation
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
petitionerinviewofthelattersrejectionofitsofferedvalue.[12]
Meanwhile in a letter dated May 4, 1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion of Haciendas
PalicoandBaniladfromagriculturaltononagriculturallandsundertheprovisionsoftheCARL.[13]OnJuly14,
1993, petitioner sent a letter to the DAR Regional Director reiterating its request for conversion of the two
haciendas.[14]
Despitepetitionersapplicationforconversion,respondentDARproceededwiththeacquisitionofthetwo
Haciendas. The LBP trust accounts as compensation for Hacienda Palico were replaced by respondent DAR
with cash and LBP bonds.[15] 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,
CLOAsweredistributedtofarmerbeneficiaries.[16]
HaciendaBanilad
OnAugust23,1989,respondentDAR,throughrespondentMAROofNasugbu,Batangas,sentanoticeto
petitioneraddressedasfollows:
Mr.JaimePimentel
HaciendaAdministrator
HaciendaBanilad

Nasugbu,Batangas[17]
The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to compulsory acquisition under the
CARLthatshouldpetitionerwishtoavailoftheotherschemessuchasVoluntaryOffertoSellorVoluntary
LandTransfer,respondentDARwaswillingtoprovideassistancethereto.[18]
On September 18, 1989, the MARO sent an Invitation to Parties again to Pimentel inviting the latter to
attend a conference on September 21, 1989 at the MARO Office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the
MAROsinvestigationoverHaciendaBanilad.[19]
OnSeptember21,1989,thesamedaytheconferencewasheld,theMAROsubmittedtwo(2)Reports. In
hisfirstReport,hefoundthatapproximately709hectaresoflandunderTaxDeclarationNos.0237and0236
wereflattoundulating(08%slope).Onthisareawerediscovered162actualoccupantsandtillersofsugarcane.
[20]InthesecondReport,itwasfoundthatapproximately235hectaresunderTaxDeclarationNo.0390wereflattoundulating,on
whichwere92actualoccupantsandtillersofsugarcane.[21]

The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference. Present in the conference were
representativesoftheprospectivefarmerbeneficiaries,theBARC,theLBP,andJaimePimentelonbehalfofthe
landowner.[22]Afterthemeeting,onthesameday,September 21, 1989, a Summary Investigation Report was
submitted jointly by the MARO, representatives of the BARC, LBP, and the PARO. They recommended that
after ocular inspection of the property, 234.6498 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0390 be subject to
compulsory acquisition and distribution by CLOA.[23] The following day, September 22, 1989, a second
SummaryInvestigationwassubmittedbythesameofficers.They recommended that 737.2590hectaresunder
TaxDeclarationNos.0236and0237belikewiseplacedundercompulsoryacquisitionfordistribution.[24]
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department Secretary, sent to petitioner two (2)
separateNoticesofAcquisitionoverHaciendaBanilad.TheseNoticesweresentonthesamedayastheNotice
of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the Notice over Hacienda Palico, however, the Notices over
HaciendaBaniladwereaddressedto:
RoxasyCia.Limited
7thFloor,CachoGonzalesBldg.101AguirreSt.,Leg.
Makati,MetroManila.[25]
RespondentDARofferedpetitionercompensationofP15,108,995.52for729.4190hectaresandP4,428,496.00
for234.6498hectares.[26]
OnSeptember26,1991,theDARRegionalDirectorsenttotheLBPLandValuationManageraRequestto
Open Trust Account in petitioners name as compensation for 234.6493 hectares of Hacienda Banilad.[27] A
second Request to Open Trust Account was sent on November 18, 1991 over 723.4130 hectares of said
Hacienda.[28]
OnDecember18,1991,theLBPcertifiedthattheamountsof P4,428,496.40andP21,234,468.78incash
andLBPbondshadbeenearmarkedascompensationforpetitionerslandinHaciendaBanilad.[29]
OnMay4,1993,petitionerappliedforconversionofbothHaciendasPalicoandBanilad.
HaciendaCaylaway
Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988 before the
effectivityoftheCARL.TheHaciendahasatotalareaof867.4571hectaresandiscoveredbyfour(4)titlesTCT
Nos. T44662, T44663, T44664 and T44665. On January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional
DirectorforRegionIV,senttopetitionertwo(2)separateResolutionsacceptingpetitionersvoluntaryofferto
sellHaciendaCaylaway,particularlyTCTNos.T44664andT44663.[30]TheResolutionswereaddressedto:
Roxas&Company,Inc.
7thFlr.CachoGonzalesBldg.

Aguirre,LegaspiVillage
Makati,M.M.[31]
OnSeptember4,1990,theDARRegionalDirectorissuedtwoseparateMemorandatotheLBPRegional
ManagerrequestingforthevaluationofthelandunderTCTNos.T44664andT44663.[32]Onthesameday,
respondent DAR, through the Regional Director, sent to petitioner a Notice of Acquisition over 241.6777
hectaresunderTCTNo.T44664and533.8180hectaresunderTCTNo.T44663.[33]LiketheResolutionsof
Acceptance,theNoticeofAcquisitionwasaddressedtopetitioneratitsofficeinMakati,MetroManila.
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 non
agricultural.Asaresult,petitionerinformedrespondentDARthatitwasapplyingforconversionofHacienda
Caylawayfromagriculturaltootheruses.[34]
InaletterdatedSeptember28,1992,respondentDARSecretaryinformedpetitionerthatareclassification
ofthelandwouldnotexemptitfromagrarianreform.RespondentSecretaryalsodeniedpetitionerswithdrawal
oftheVOSonthegroundthatwithdrawalcouldonlybebasedonspecificgroundssuchasunsuitabilityofthe
soilforagriculture,oriftheslopeofthelandisover18degreesandthatthelandisundeveloped.[35]
Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993, petitioner filed its
applicationforconversionofbothHaciendasPalicoandBanilad.[36]OnJuly14,1993,petitioner,throughitsPresident,
EduardoRoxas,reiterateditsrequesttowithdrawtheVOSoverHaciendaCaylawayinlightofthefollowing:

1)CertificationissuedbyConradoI.Gonzales,OfficerinCharge,DepartmentofAgriculture,Region4,4th
Floor,ATI(BA)Bldg.,Diliman,QuezonCitydatedMarch1,1993statingthatthelandssubjectofreferenced
titlesarenotfeasibleandeconomicallysoundforfurtheragriculturaldevelopment.
2)ResolutionNo.19oftheSangguniangBayanofNasugbu,BatangasapprovingtheZoningOrdinance
reclassifyingareascoveredbythereferencedtitlestononagriculturalwhichwasenactedafterextensive
consultationwithgovernmentagencies,including[theDepartmentofAgrarianReform],andtherequisitepublic
hearings.
3)ResolutionNo.106oftheSangguniangPanlalawiganofBatangasdatedMarch8,1993approvingtheZoning
OrdinanceenactedbytheMunicipalityofNasugbu.
4)LetterdatedDecember15,1992issuedbyReynaldoU.GarciaoftheMunicipalPlanning&Development,
CoordinatorandDeputizedZoningAdministratoraddressedtoMrs.AliciaP.Logartaadvisingthatthe
MunicipalityofNasugbu,Batangashasnoobjectiontotheconversionofthelandssubjectofreferencedtitlesto
nonagricultural.[37]
OnAugust24,1993,petitionerinstitutedCaseNo.N00179646(BA)withrespondentDARAdjudication
Board(DARAB)prayingforthecancellationoftheCLOAsissuedbyrespondentDARinthenameofseveral
persons.PetitionerallegedthattheMunicipalityofNasugbu,wherethehaciendasarelocated,hadbeendeclared
a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for agricultural production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of
Nasugbuhadreclassifiedthelandtononagricultural.
In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved the prejudicial
questionofwhetherthepropertywassubjecttoagrarianreform,hence,thisquestionshouldbesubmittedtothe
OfficeoftheSecretaryofAgrarianReformfordetermination.[38]
OnOctober29,1993,petitionerfiledwiththeCourtofAppealsCAG.R.SPNo.32484.Itquestionedthe
expropriation of its properties under the CARL and the denial of due process in the acquisition of its
landholdings.

Meanwhile,thepetitionforconversionofthethreehaciendaswasdeniedbytheMAROonNovember8,
1993.
Petitioners petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 28, 1994.[39] Petitioner moved for
reconsiderationbutthemotionwasdeniedonJanuary17,1997byrespondentcourt.[40]

Hence,thisrecourse.Petitionerassignsthefollowingerrors:
A.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINHOLDINGTHATPETITIONERSCAUSE
OFACTIONISPREMATUREFORFAILURETOEXHAUSTADMINISTRATIVEREMEDIESINVIEW
OFTHEPATENTILLEGALITYOFTHERESPONDENTSACTS,THEIRREPARABLEDAMAGE
CAUSEDBYSAIDILLEGALACTS,ANDTHEABSENCEOFAPLAIN,SPEEDYANDADEQUATE
REMEDYINTHEORDINARYCOURSEOFLAWALLOFWHICHAREEXCEPTIONSTOTHESAID
DOCTRINE.
B.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINHOLDINGTHATPETITIONERS
LANDHOLDINGSARESUBJECTTOCOVERAGEUNDERTHECOMPREHENSIVEAGRARIAN
REFORMLAW,INVIEWOFTHEUNDISPUTEDFACTTHATPETITIONERSLANDHOLDINGSHAVE
BEENCONVERTEDTONONAGRICULTURALUSESBYPRESIDENTIALPROCLAMATIONNO.1520
WHICHDECLAREDTHEMUNICIPALITYOFNASUGBU,BATANGASASATOURISTZONE,AND
THEZONINGORDINANCEOFTHEMUNICIPALITYOFNASUGBURECLASSIFYINGCERTAIN
PORTIONSOFPETITIONERSLANDHOLDINGSASNONAGRICULTURAL,BOTHOFWHICHPLACE
SAIDLANDHOLDINGSOUTSIDETHESCOPEOFAGRARIANREFORM,ORATTHEVERYLEAST
ENTITLEPETITIONERTOAPPLYFORCONVERSIONASCONCEDEDBYRESPONDENTDAR.
C.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDWHENITFAILEDTODECLARETHE
PROCEEDINGSBEFORERESPONDENTDARVOIDFORFAILURETOOBSERVEDUEPROCESS,
CONSIDERINGTHATRESPONDENTSBLATANTLYDISREGARDEDTHEPROCEDUREFORTHE
ACQUISITIONOFPRIVATELANDSUNDERR.A.6657,MOREPARTICULARLY,INFAILINGTOGIVE
DUENOTICETOTHEPETITIONERANDTOPROPERLYIDENTIFYTHESPECIFICAREASSOUGHT
TOBEACQUIRED.
D.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDWHENITFAILEDTORECOGNIZETHAT
PETITIONERWASBRAZENLYANDILLEGALLYDEPRIVEDOFITSPROPERTYWITHOUTJUST
COMPENSATION,CONSIDERINGTHATPETITIONERWASNOTPAIDJUSTCOMPENSATION
BEFOREITWASUNCEREMONIOUSLYSTRIPPEDOFITSLANDHOLDINGSTHROUGHTHE
ISSUANCEOFCLOASTOALLEGEDFARMERBENEFICIARIES,INVIOLATIONOFR.A.6657.[41]
The assigned errors involve three (3) principal issues:(1) whether this Court can take cognizance of this
petitiondespitepetitionersfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremedies(2)whethertheacquisitionproceedings
over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance with law and (3) assuming the haciendas may be
reclassifiedfromagriculturaltononagricultural,whetherthiscourthasthepowertoruleonthisissue.
I.ExhaustionofAdministrativeRemedies.
Initsfirstassignederror,petitionerclaimsthatrespondentCourtofAppealsgravelyerredinfindingthat
petitionerfailedtoexhaustadministrativeremedies.Asageneralrule,beforeapartymaybeallowedtoinvoke
the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress.
Thisisnotabsolute,however.Thereareinstanceswhenjudicialactionmayberesortedtoimmediately.Among
these exceptions are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal (2) when the administrative body is in
estoppel (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal (4) when there is urgent need for judicial
intervention(5)whentherespondentactedindisregardofdueprocess(6)whentherespondentisadepartment
secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter (7)

when irreparable damage will be suffered (8) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy (9)
whenstrongpublicinterestisinvolved(10)whenthesubjectofthecontroversyisprivatelandand(11)inquo
warrantoproceedings.[42]
Petitionerrightlysoughtimmediateredressinthecourts.Therewasaviolationofitsrightsandtorequireit
toexhaustadministrativeremediesbeforetheDARitselfwasnotaplain,speedyandadequateremedy.
Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to farmer beneficiaries over
portions of petitioners 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
ReformLawof1988.[43]Beforethismaybeawardedtoafarmerbeneficiary,thelandmustfirstbeacquiredby
theStatefromthelandownerandownershiptransferredtotheformer.Thetransferofpossessionandownership
ofthelandtothegovernmentareconditioneduponthereceiptbythelandownerofthecorrespondingpayment
or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the
landowner.[44] There was no receipt by petitioner of any compensation for any of the lands acquired by the
government.
Thekindofcompensationtobepaidthelandownerisalsospecific.Thelawprovidesthatthedepositmust
bemadeonlyincashorLBPbonds. [45]RespondentDARsopeningoftrustaccountdepositsinpetitionersname
withtheLandBankofthePhilippinesdoesnotconstitutepaymentunderthelaw.Trustaccountdepositsarenot
cashorLBPbonds.ThereplacementofthetrustaccountwithcashorLBPbondsdidnotipsofactocurethelack
ofcompensationforessentially,thedeterminationofthiscompensationwasmarredbylackofdueprocess.In
fact,intheentireacquisitionproceedings,respondentDARdisregardedthebasicrequirementsofadministrative
due process. Under these circumstances, the issuance of the CLOAs to farmer beneficiaries necessitated
immediatejudicialactiononthepartofthepetitioner.
II.TheValidityoftheAcquisitionProceedingsOvertheHaciendas.
Petititioners allegation of lack of due process goes into the validity of the acquisition proceedings
themselves.Beforeweruleonthismatter,however,thereisneedtolaydowntheprocedureintheacquisitionof
privatelandsundertheprovisionsofthelaw.
A.ModesofAcquisitionofLandunderR.A.6657
RepublicActNo.6657,theComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawof1988(CARL),providesfortwo(2)
modesofacquisitionofprivateland:compulsoryandvoluntary.Theprocedureforthecompulsoryacquisition
ofprivatelandsissetforthinSection16ofR.A.6657,viz:
Sec.16.ProcedureforAcquisitionofPrivateLands..Forpurposesofacquisitionofprivatelands,the
followingproceduresshallbefollowed:
a)Afterhavingidentifiedtheland,thelandownersandthebeneficiaries,theDARshallsenditsnoticeto
acquirethelandtotheownersthereof,bypersonaldeliveryorregisteredmail,andpostthesameina
conspicuousplaceinthemunicipalbuildingandbarangayhalloftheplacewherethepropertyislocated.Said
noticeshallcontaintheofferoftheDARtopayacorrespondingvalueinaccordancewiththevaluationsetforth
inSections17,18,andotherpertinentprovisionshereof.
b)Withinthirty(30)daysfromthedateofreceiptofwrittennoticebypersonaldeliveryorregisteredmail,the
landowner,hisadministratororrepresentativeshallinformtheDARofhisacceptanceorrejectionoftheoffer.

c)IfthelandowneracceptstheofferoftheDAR,theLBPshallpaythelandownerthepurchasepriceoftheland
withinthirty(30)daysafterheexecutesanddeliversadeedoftransferinfavoroftheGovernmentand
surrenderstheCertificateofTitleandothermunimentsoftitle.
d)Incaseofrejectionorfailuretoreply,theDARshallconductsummaryadministrativeproceedingsto
determinethecompensationforthelandrequiringthelandowner,theLBPandotherinterestedpartiestosubmit
evidenceastothejustcompensationfortheland,withinfifteen(15)daysfromreceiptofthenotice.Afterthe
expirationoftheaboveperiod,thematterisdeemedsubmittedfordecision.TheDARshalldecidethecase
withinthirty(30)daysafteritissubmittedfordecision.
e)Uponreceiptbythelandownerofthecorrespondingpayment,or,incaseofrejectionornoresponsefromthe
landowner,uponthedepositwithanaccessiblebankdesignatedbytheDARofthecompensationincashorin
LBPbondsinaccordancewiththisAct,theDARshalltakeimmediatepossessionofthelandandshallrequest
theproperRegisterofDeedstoissueaTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)inthenameoftheRepublicofthe
Philippines.TheDARshallthereafterproceedwiththeredistributionofthelandtothequalifiedbeneficiaries.
f)Anypartywhodisagreeswiththedecisionmaybringthemattertothecourtofproperjurisdictionforfinal
determinationofjustcompensation.
Inthecompulsoryacquisitionofprivatelands,thelandholding,thelandownersandthefarmerbeneficiaries
mustfirstbeidentified.Afteridentification,theDARshallsendaNoticeofAcquisitiontothelandowner,by
personaldeliveryorregisteredmail,andpostitinaconspicuousplaceinthemunicipalbuildingandbarangay
halloftheplacewherethepropertyislocated.WithinthirtydaysfromreceiptoftheNoticeofAcquisition,the
landowner,hisadministratororrepresentativeshallinformtheDARofhisacceptanceorrejectionoftheoffer.If
thelandowneraccepts,heexecutesanddeliversadeedoftransferinfavorofthegovernmentandsurrendersthe
certificateoftitle.Withinthirtydaysfromtheexecutionofthedeedoftransfer,theLandBankofthePhilippines
(LBP)paystheownerthepurchaseprice.IfthelandownerrejectstheDARsofferorfailstomakeareply,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
withinfifteendaysfromnotice.Withinthirtydaysfromsubmission,theDARshalldecidethecaseandinform
theownerofitsdecisionandtheamountofjustcompensation.Uponreceiptbytheownerofthecorresponding
payment,or,incaseofrejectionorlackofresponsefromthelatter,theDARshalldepositthecompensationin
cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and
causetheissuanceofatransfercertificateoftitleinthenameoftheRepublicofthePhilippines.Thelandshall
thenberedistributedtothefarmerbeneficiaries.AnypartymayquestionthedecisionoftheDARintheregular
courtsforfinaldeterminationofjustcompensation.
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the
implementationoftheComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram(CARP).[46]UnderSection16oftheCARL,
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
issuedonJuly26,1989AdministrativeOrderNo.12,Seriesof1989,whichsettheoperatingprocedurein
theidentificationofsuchlands.Theprocedureisasfollows:
II.OPERATINGPROCEDURE
A.TheMunicipalAgrarianReformOfficer,withtheassistanceofthepertinentBarangayAgrarian
ReformCommittee(BARC),shall:
1.Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area of responsibility. The
masterlistshallincludesuchinformationasrequiredundertheattachedCARPMasterlistFormwhichshall
includethenameofthelandowner,landholdingarea,TCT/OCTnumber,andtaxdeclarationnumber.
2.Prepare a CompulsoryAcquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered
underPhaseIandIIoftheCARPexceptthoseforwhichthelandownershavealreadyfiledapplicationsto
availofothermodesoflandacquisition.Acasefoldershallcontainthefollowingdulyaccomplishedforms:

a)CARPCAForm1MAROInvestigationReport
b)CARPCAForm2SummaryInvestigationReportofFindingsandEvaluation
c)CARPCAForm3ApplicantsInformationSheet
d)CARPCAForm4BeneficiariesUndertaking
e)CARPCAForm5TransmittalReporttothePARO

TheMARO/BARCshallcertifythatallinformationcontainedintheabovementionedformshavebeen
examinedandverifiedbyhimandthatthesamearetrueandcorrect.
3.SendaNoticeofCoverageandaletterofinvitationtoaconference/meetingtothelandownercovered
bytheCompulsoryCaseAcquisitionFolder.Invitationstothesaidconference/meetingshallalsobe
sent to the prospective farmerbeneficiaries, the BARC representative(s), the Land Bank of the
Philippines(LBP)representative,andotherinterestedpartiestodiscusstheinputstothevaluationof
theproperty.HeshalldiscusstheMARO/BARCinvestigationreportandsolicittheviews,objection,
agreementsorsuggestionsoftheparticipantsthereon.Thelandownershallalsobeaskedtoindicate
his retention area.The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference
andshallformanintegralpartoftheCACF.
4.SubmitallcompletedcasefolderstotheProvincialAgrarianReformOfficer(PARO).
B.ThePAROshall:
1.EnsurethattheindividualcasefoldersareforwardedtohimbyhisMAROs.
2.Immediatelyuponreceiptofacase folder,computethevaluationofthelandinaccordancewithA.O.

No.6,Seriesof1988.[47]ThevaluationworksheetandtherelatedCACFvaluationformsshallbe
dulycertifiedcorrectbythePAROandallthepersonnelwhoparticipatedintheaccomplishmentof
theseforms.
3.Inallcases,thePAROmayvalidatethereportoftheMAROthroughocularinspectionandverificationof
theproperty.This ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds
500,000perestate.
4.Upondeterminationofthevaluation,forwardthecasefolder,togetherwiththedulyaccomplishedvaluation
formsandhisrecommendations,totheCentralOffice.The LBP representative and the MARO concerned
shallbefurnishedacopyeachofhisreport.
C.DARCentralOffice,specificallythroughtheBureauofLandAcquisitionandDistribution(BLAD),
shall:
1.WithinthreedaysfromreceiptofthecasefolderfromthePARO,review,evaluateanddeterminethefinal
landvaluationofthepropertycoveredbythecasefolder.Asummaryreviewandevaluationreportshallbe
preparedanddulycertifiedbytheBLADDirectorandthepersonneldirectlyparticipatinginthereviewand
finalvaluation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition
(CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the Notice to the landowner personally or through
registeredmailwithinthreedaysfromitsapproval.TheNoticeshallinclude,amongothers,theareasubject
ofcompulsoryacquisition,andtheamountofjustcompensationofferedbyDAR.
3.ShouldthelandowneraccepttheDARsofferedvalue,theBLADshallprepareandsubmittotheSecretary
for approval the Order of Acquisition.However, in case of rejection or nonreply, the DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in
accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1989.Immediately
upon receipt of the DARABs decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the
SecretaryforapprovaltherequiredOrderofAcquisition.
4.Uponthelandownersreceiptofpayment,incaseofacceptance,orupondepositofpaymentinthedesignated
bank,incaseofrejectionornonresponse,theSecretaryshallimmediatelydirectthepertinentRegisterof

Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines.Oncethepropertyistransferred,theDAR,throughthePARO,shalltakepossessionoftheland
forredistributiontoqualifiedbeneficiaries.

AdministrativeOrderNo.12,Seriesof1989requiresthattheMunicipalAgrarianReformOfficer(MARO)
keepanupdatedmasterlistofallagriculturallandsundertheCARPinhisareaofresponsibilitycontainingall
the required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title
covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landownera Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a
conference/meetingoverthelandcoveredbytheCACF.He also sends invitations to the prospective farmer
beneficiaries,therepresentativesoftheBarangayAgrarianReformCommittee(BARC),theLandBankofthe
Philippines(LBP)andotherinterestedpartiestodiscusstheinputstothevaluationofthepropertyandsolicit
views,suggestions,objectionsoragreementsoftheparties.Atthemeeting,thelandownerisaskedtoindicate
hisretentionarea.
TheMAROshallmakeareportofthecasetotheProvincialAgrarianReformOfficer(PARO)whoshall
complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall be
mandatorywhenthecomputedvalueoftheestateexceedsP500,000.00.Upondeterminationofthevaluation,
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,
evaluateanddeterminethefinallandvaluationoftheproperty.TheBLADshallprepare,onthesignatureofthe
Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition for the subject property.[48] From this
point,theprovisionsofSection16ofR.A.6657thenapply.[49]

ForavalidimplementationoftheCARProgram,twonoticesarerequired:(1)theNoticeofCoverageand
letterofinvitationtoapreliminaryconferencesenttothelandowner,therepresentativesoftheBARC,LBP,
farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989 and (2) the
NoticeofAcquisitionsenttothelandownerunderSection16oftheCARL.
Theimportanceofthefirstnotice,i.e.,theNoticeofCoverageandtheletterofinvitationtotheconference,
and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of
administrativedueprocess.TheimplementationoftheCARLisanexerciseoftheStatespolicepowerandthe
powerofeminentdomain.TotheextentthattheCARLprescribesretentionlimitstothelandowners,thereisan
exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution.[50] But
where,tocarryoutsuchregulation,theownersaredeprivedoflandstheyowninexcessofthemaximumarea
allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitationoftheuseoftheland.Whatisrequiredisthesurrenderofthetitletoandphysicalpossessionofthe
said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary.[51] The Bill of
Rightsprovidesthat[n]opersonshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyorpropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.[52]The
CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law.[53] The exercise of the power of
eminentdomainrequiresthatdueprocessbeobservedinthetakingofprivateproperty.
DARA.O.No.12,Seriesof1989,fromwhencetheNoticeofCoveragefirstsprung,wasamendedin1990
byDARA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990andin1993byDARA.O.No.1,Seriesof1993.TheNoticeofCoverage
andletterofinvitationtotheconferencemeetingwereexpandedandamplifiedinsaidamendments.
DARA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990entitledRevisedRulesGoverningtheAcquisitionofAgriculturalLands
SubjectofVoluntaryOffertoSellandCompulsoryAcquisitionPursuanttoR.A.6657,requiresthat:
B.MARO
1.ReceivesthedulyaccomplishedCARPFormNos.1&1.1includingsupportingdocuments.
2.Gathersbasicownershipdocumentslistedunder1.aor1.baboveandpreparescorrespondingVOCF/CACF
bylandowner/landholding.
3.Notifies/invitesthelandownerandrepresentativesoftheLBP,DENR,BARCandprospectivebeneficiaries
ofthescheduleofocularinspectionofthepropertyatleastoneweekinadvance.

4.MARO/LANDBANKFIELDOFFICE/BARC

a)Identifythelandandlandowner,anddeterminethesuitabilityforagricultureandproductivityof
thelandandjointlyprepareFieldInvestigationReport(CARPFormNo.2),includingthe
LandUseMapoftheproperty.
b)InterviewapplicantsandassisttheminthepreparationoftheApplicationForPotentialCARP
Beneficiary(CARPFormNo.3).
c)Screenprospectivefarmerbeneficiariesandforthosefoundqualified,causethesigningofthe
respectiveApplicationtoPurchaseandFarmersUndertaking(CARPFormNo.4).
d)CompletetheFieldInvestigationReportbasedontheresultoftheocularinspection/
investigationofthepropertyanddocumentssubmitted.SeetoitthatFieldInvestigation
Reportisdulyaccomplishedandsignedbyallconcerned.
5.MARO

a)AssiststheDENRSurveyPartyintheconductofaboundary/subdivisionsurveydelineating
areascoveredbyOLT,retention,subjectofVOS,CA(byphases,ifpossible),
infrastructures,etc.,whicheverisapplicable.
b)SendsNoticeofCoverage(CARPFormNo.5)tolandownerconcernedorhisdulyauthorized
representativeinvitinghimforaconference.
c)SendsInvitationLetter(CARPFormNo.6)foraconference/publichearingtoprospective
farmerbeneficiaries,landowner,representativesofBARC,LBP,DENR,DA,NGOs,
farmersorganizationsandotherinterestedpartiestodiscussthefollowingmatters:
ResultofFieldInvestigation
Inputstovaluation
Issuesraised
Comments/recommendationsbyallpartiesconcerned.
d)PreparesSummaryofMinutesoftheconference/publichearingtobeguidedbyCARPForm
No.7.
e)ForwardsthecompletedVOCF/CACFtotheProvincialAgrarianReformOffice(PARO)using
CARPFormNo.8(TransmittalMemotoPARO).
xxx.
DAR A. O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and
CompulsoryAcquisition(CA)transactionsinvolvinglandsenumeratedunderSection7oftheCARL.[54]Inboth
VOS and CA transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell Case Folder (VOCF) and the
CompulsoryAcquisitionCaseFolder(CACF),asthecasemaybe,overaparticularlandholding.The MARO
notifiesthelandowneraswellasrepresentativesoftheLBP,BARCandprospectivebeneficiariesofthedateof
theocularinspectionofthepropertyatleastoneweekbeforethescheduleddateandinvitesthemtoattendthe
same.TheMARO,LBPorBARCconductstheocularinspectionandinvestigationbyidentifyingthelandand
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 may also be conducted by a Survey Party of the Department of

EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)tobeassistedbytheMARO.[55]Thissurveyshalldelineatethe
areascoveredbyOperationLandTransfer(OLT),areasretainedbythelandowner,areaswithinfrastructure,and
the areas subject to VOS and CA. After the survey and field investigation, the MARO sends a Notice of
Coveragetothelandownerorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativeinvitinghimtoaconferenceorpublichearing
withthefarmerbeneficiaries,representativesoftheBARC,LBP,DENR,DepartmentofAgriculture(DA),non
governmentorganizations,farmersorganizationsandotherinterestedparties.Atthepublichearing,theparties
shall discuss the results of the field investigation, issues that may be raised in relation thereto, inputs to the
valuationofthesubjectlandholding,andothercommentsandrecommendationsbyallpartiesconcerned. The
Minutesoftheconference/publichearingshallformpartoftheVOCForCACFwhichfilesshallbeforwarded
by the MARO to the PARO. The PARO reviews, evaluates and validates the Field Investigation Report and
otherdocumentsintheVOCF/CACF.HethenforwardstherecordstotheRAROforanotherreview.
DARA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990wasamendedbyDARA.O.No.1,Seriesof1993.DARA.O.No.1,
Seriesof1993provided,amongothers,that:
IV.OPERATINGPROCEDURES:
"StepsResponsibleActivityForms/
Agency/UnitDocument
(Requirements)
A.Identificationand
Documentation
xxx
5DARMOIssuesNoticeofCoveragetoLOCARP
bypersonaldeliverywithproofofFormNo.2
service,orbyregisteredmailwith
returncard,informinghimthathis
propertyisnowunderCARPcover
ageandforLOtoselecthisretention
area,ifhedesirestoavailofhisright
ofretentionandatthesametimein
viteshimtojointhefieldinvestigation
tobeconductedonhispropertywhich
shouldbescheduledatleasttwoweeks
inadvanceofsaidnotice.
AcopyofsaidNoticeCARP
shallbepostedforatleastFormNo.17
oneweekonthebulletin
boardofthemunicipalandbarangay
hallswherethepropertyislocated.
LGUofficeconcernednotifiesDAR
aboutcompliancewithpostingrequirement
thrureturnindorsementonCARPForm
No.17.
6DARMOSendsnoticetotheLBP,CARP
BARC,DENRFormNo.3
representativesand
prospectiveARBsofthescheduleof
thefieldinvestigationtobeconducted
onthesubjectproperty.
7DARMOWiththeparticipationofCARP
BARCtheLO,representativesofFormNo.4
LBPtheLBP,BARC,DENRLandUse
DENRandprospectiveARBs,Map
LocalOfficeconductstheinvestigation
onsubjectpropertytoidentifythelandholding,

determinesitssuitabilityandproductivity
andjointlypreparestheFieldInvestigation
Report(FIR)andLandUseMap.However,
thefieldinvestigationshallproceedevenifthe
LO,therepresentativesoftheDENRand
prospectiveARBsarenotavailableprovided,
theyweregivenduenoticeofthetimeanddate
oftheinvestigationtobeconducted.Similarly,
iftheLBPrepresentativeisnotavailableorcould
notcomeonthescheduleddate,thefield
investigationshallalsobeconducted,afterwhich
thedulyaccomplishedPartIofCARPFormNo.4
shallbeforwardedtotheLBPrepresentativefor
validation.Ifheagreestotheocularinspectionreport
ofDAR,hesignstheFIR(PartI)andaccomplishes
PartIIthereof.
Intheeventthatthereisadifferenceorvariance
betweenthefindingsoftheDARandtheLBPas
totheproprietyofcoveringthelandunderCARP,
whetherinwholeorinpart,ontheissueofsuitability
toagriculture,degreeofdevelopmentorslope,and
onissuesaffectingidlelands,theconflictshallbe
resolvedbyacompositeteamofDAR,LBP,DENR
andDAwhichshalljointlyconductfurtherinvestigation
thereon.Theteamshallsubmititsreportoffindings
whichshallbebindingtobothDARandLBP,pursuant
toJointMemorandumCircularoftheDAR,LBP,DENR
andDAdated27January1992.
8DARMOScreensprospectiveARBSCARP
BARCandcausesthesigningofFormNo.5
theApplicationof
PurchaseandFarmers'Undertaking(APFU).
9DARMOFurnishesacopyoftheCARP
dulyaccomplishedFIRtoFormNo.
thelandownerbypersonal4
deliverywithproofofserviceorregistered
mailwithreturncardandpostsacopythereof
foratleastoneweekonthebulletinboardofthe
municipalandbarangayhallswheretheproperty
islocated.
LGUofficeconcernedCARP
NotifiesDARaboutFormNo.
compliancewithposting17
requirementthrureturnendorsementon
CARPFormNo.17.
B.LandSurvey
10DARMOConductsperimeterorPerimeter
And/orsegregationsurveyor
DENRdelineatingareascoveredSegregation
LocalOfficebyOLT,"uncarpableSurveyPlan
areassuchas18%slopeandabove,
unproductive/unsuitabletoagriculture,
retention,infrastructure.Incaseof
segregationorsubdivisionsurvey,the

planshallbeapprovedbyDENRLMS.
C.ReviewandCompletionofDocuments.
11DARMOForwardsVOCF/CACFCARP
toDARPO.FormNo.
6
xxx."
DAR A. O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and increased the number of
governmentagenciesinvolvedintheidentificationanddelineationofthelandsubjecttoacquisition.[56]Thistime,
theNoticeofCoverageissenttothelandownerbeforetheconductofthefieldinvestigationandthesendingmustcomplywith
specificrequirements.RepresentativesoftheDARMunicipalOffice(DARMO)mustsendtheNoticeofCoveragetothelandowner
bypersonaldeliverywithproofofservice,orbyregisteredmailwithreturncard,informinghimthathispropertyisunderCARP
coverageandthatifhedesirestoavailofhisrightofretention,hemaychoosewhichareaheshallretain.TheNoticeofCoverage
shall also invite the landowner to attend the field investigation to be scheduled at least two weeks from notice. The field
investigationisforthepurposeofidentifyingthelandholdinganddeterminingitssuitabilityforagricultureanditsproductivity.A
copyoftheNoticeofCoverageshallbepostedforatleastoneweekonthebulletinboardofthemunicipalandbarangayhallswhere
thepropertyislocated.ThedateofthefieldinvestigationshallalsobesentbytheDARMunicipalOfficetorepresentativesofthe
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
investigationshallproceed,providedtheyweredulynotifiedthereof.ShouldtherebeavariancebetweenthefindingsoftheDAR
andtheLBPastowhetherthelandbeplacedunderagrarianreform,thelandssuitabilitytoagriculture,thedegreeordevelopmentof
theslope,etc.,theconflictshallberesolvedbyacompositeteamoftheDAR,LBP,DENRandDAwhichshalljointlyconduct
furtherinvestigation.TheteamsfindingsshallbebindingonbothDARandLBP.Afterthefieldinvestigation,theDARMunicipal
OfficeshallpreparetheFieldInvestigationReportandLandUseMap,acopyofwhichshallbefurnishedthelandownerbypersonal
deliverywithproofofserviceorregisteredmailwithreturncard.AnothercopyoftheReportandMapshalllikewisebepostedforat
leastoneweekinthemunicipalorbarangayhallswherethepropertyislocated.

Clearly then, the notice requirements under the CARL are not confined to the Notice of Acquisition set
forthinSection16ofthelaw.TheyalsoincludetheNoticeofCoveragefirstlaiddowninDARA.O.No.12,
Seriesof1989andsubsequentlyamendedinDARA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990andDARA.O.No.1,Seriesof
1993.This Notice of Coverage does not merely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under
CARPandthatheisentitledtoexercisehisretentionrightitalsonotifieshim,pursuanttoDARA.O.No.9,
Seriesof1990,thatapublichearingshallbeconductedwhereheandrepresentativesoftheconcernedsectorsof
societymayattendtodiscusstheresultsofthefieldinvestigation,thelandvaluationandotherpertinentmatters.
Under DAR A. O. No. 1, Series of 1993, the Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field
investigationofhislandholdingshallbeconductedwhereheandtheotherrepresentativesmaybepresent.
B.TheCompulsoryAcquisitionofHaciendasPalicoandBanilad
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,theadministratorofHaciendaPalico.[57]Theinvitationwasreceivedonthesamedayitwassentas
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,
1989andsignedtheMinutesofthemeetingonbehalfofpetitionercorporation.[58]TheMinuteswasalsosigned
by the representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries.[59] No letter of invitation was sent or
conferencemeetingheldwithrespecttoHaciendaCaylawaybecauseitwassubjecttoaVoluntaryOffertoSell
torespondentDAR.[60]
When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), sent to the various
partiestheNoticeofCoverageandinvitationtotheconference,DARA.O.No.12,Seriesof1989wasalready
in effect more than a month earlier.The Operating Procedure in DARAdministrative Order No. 12 does not
specifyhownoticesorlettersofinvitationshallbesenttothelandowner,therepresentativesoftheBARC,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
juridicalentity.Petitionerisadomesticcorporation,[61] and therefore, has a personality separate and distinct
fromitsshareholders,officersandemployees.
TheNoticeofAcquisitioninSection16oftheCARLisrequiredtobesenttothelandownerbypersonal
deliveryorregisteredmail.Whetherthelandownerbeanaturalorjuridicalpersontowhoseaddressthe
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
naturalandjuridicalpersonsinthesendingofnoticesmaybefoundintheRevisedRulesofProcedureofthe
DARAdjudicationBoard(DARAB).ServiceofpleadingsbeforetheDARABisgovernedbySection6,RuleV
oftheDARABRevisedRulesofProcedure.Noticesandpleadingsareservedonprivatedomesticcorporations
orpartnershipsinthefollowingmanner:
Sec.6.ServiceuponPrivateDomesticCorporationorPartnership.Ifthedefendantisacorporationorganized
underthelawsofthePhilippinesorapartnershipdulyregistered,servicemaybemadeonthepresident,
manager,secretary,cashier,agent,oranyofitsdirectorsorpartners.
Similarly,theRevisedRulesofCourtofthePhilippines,inSection13,Rule14provides:
Sec.13.Serviceuponprivatedomesticcorporationorpartnership.Ifthedefendantisacorporationorganized
underthelawsofthePhilippinesorapartnershipdulyregistered,servicemaybemadeonthepresident,
manager,secretary,cashier,agent,oranyofitsdirectors.
Summonses,pleadingsandnoticesincasesagainstaprivatedomesticcorporationbeforetheDARABand
theregularcourtsareservedonthepresident,manager,secretary,cashier,agentoranyofitsdirectors. These
personsarethosethroughwhomtheprivatedomesticcorporationorpartnershipiscapableofaction.[62]
JaimePimentelisnotthepresident,manager,secretary,cashierordirectorofpetitionercorporation.Is he,
asadministratorofthetwoHaciendas,consideredanagentofthecorporation?
The purpose of all rules for service of process on a corporation is to make it reasonably certain that the
corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against it.[63] Service must be made on a
representative so integrated with the corporation as to make it a priori supposable that he will realize his
responsibilities and know what he should do with any legal papers served on him,[64] and bring home to the
corporationnoticeofthefilingoftheaction.[65]PetitionersevidencedoesnotshowtheofficialdutiesofJaime
Pimentelasadministratorofpetitionershaciendas.TheevidencedoesnotindicatewhetherPimentelsdutiesis
so integrated with the corporation that he would immediately realize his responsibilities and know what he
shoulddowithanylegalpapersservedonhim.Atthetimethenoticesweresentandthepreliminaryconference
conducted,petitionersprincipalplaceofbusinesswaslistedinrespondentDARsrecordsasSorianoBldg.,Plaza
Cervantes,Manila,[66]and7thFlr.CachoGonzalesBldg.,101AguirreSt.,Makati,MetroManila.[67]Pimentel
didnotholdofficeattheprincipalplaceofbusinessofpetitioner.NeitherdidheexercisehisfunctionsinPlaza
Cervantes,ManilanorinCachoGonzalesBldg.,Makati,MetroManila.Heperformedhisofficialfunctionsand
actuallyresidedinthehaciendasinNasugbu,Batangas,aplaceovertwohundredkilometersawayfromMetro
Manila.
Curiously,respondentDARhadinformationoftheaddressofpetitionersprincipalplaceofbusiness.The
NoticesofAcquisitionoverHaciendasPalicoandBaniladwereaddressedtopetitioneratitsofficesinManila
andMakati.TheseNoticesweresentbarelythreetofourmonthsafterPimentelwasnotifiedofthepreliminary
conference.[68]WhyrespondentDARchosetonotifyPimentelinsteadoftheofficersofthecorporationwasnotexplainedbythe
saidrespondent.

Nevertheless,assumingthatPimentelwasanagentofpetitionercorporation,andthenoticesandlettersof
invitation were validly served on petitioner through him, there is no showing that Pimentel himself was duly
authorized to attend the conference meeting with the MARO, BARC and LBP representatives and farmer

beneficiaries for purposes of compulsory acquisition of petitioners landholdings. Even respondent DARs
evidence does not indicate this authority. On the contrary, petitioner claims that it had no knowledge of the
letterinvitation, hence, could not have given Pimentel the authority to bind it to whatever matters were
discussedoragreeduponbythepartiesatthepreliminaryconferenceorpublichearing.Notably,oneyearafter
Pimentel was informed of the preliminary conference, DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 was issued and this
required that the Notice of Coverage must be sent to the landowner concerned or his duly authorized
representative.[69]
AssumingfurtherthatpetitionerwasdulynotifiedoftheCARPcoverageofitshaciendas,theareasfound
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
invariablybyreasonofelevationorcharacteroruseoftheland.[70]Theacquisitionofthelandholdingsdidnot
covertheentireexpanseofthetwohaciendas,butonlyportionsthereof.HaciendaPalicohasanareaof1,024
hectares and only 688.7576 hectares were targetted for acquisition. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050
hectaresbutonly964.0688hectaresweresubjecttoCARP.Thehaciendasarenotentirelyagriculturallands.In
fact, the various tax declarations over the haciendas describe the landholdings as sugarland, and forest,
sugarland,pastureland,horticultureandwoodland.[71]
UnderSection16oftheCARL,thesendingoftheNoticeofAcquisitionspecificallyrequiresthattheland
subjecttolandreformbefirstidentified.Thetwohaciendasintheinstantcasecovervasttractsofland.Before
NoticesofAcquisitionweresenttopetitioner,however,theexactareasofthelandholdingswerenotproperly
segregatedanddelineated.Uponreceiptofthisnotice,therefore,petitionercorporationhadnoideawhich
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
CARPcoverage.Even respondent DARs evidence does not show that petitioner, through its duly authorized
representative,wasnotifiedofanyocularinspectionandinvestigationthatwastobeconductedbyrespondent
DAR.Neitheristhereproofthatpetitionerwasgiventheopportunitytoatleastchooseandidentifyitsretention
area in those portions to be acquired compulsorily. The right of retention and how this right is exercised, is
guaranteedinSection6oftheCARL,viz:
Section6.RetentionLimits.xxx.
Therighttochoosetheareatoberetained,whichshallbecompactorcontiguous,shallpertaintothelandowner
Provided,however,Thatincasetheareaselectedforretentionbythelandowneristenanted,thetenantshall
havetheoptiontochoosewhethertoremainthereinorbeabeneficiaryinthesameoranotheragriculturalland
withsimilarorcomparablefeatures.Incasethetenantchoosestoremainintheretainedarea,heshallbe
consideredaleaseholderandshalllosehisrighttobeabeneficiaryunderthisAct.Incasethetenantchoosesto
beabeneficiaryinanotheragriculturalland,heloseshisrightasaleaseholdertothelandretainedbythe
landowner.Thetenantmustexercisethisoptionwithinaperiodofone(1)yearfromthetimethelandowner
manifestshischoiceoftheareaforretention.
Underthelaw,alandownermayretainnotmorethanfivehectaresoutofthetotalareaofhisagricultural
land subject to CARP. The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous,
pertainstothelandowner.Iftheareachosenforretentionistenanted,thetenantshallhavetheoptiontochoose
whether to remain on the portion or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
comparablefeatures.
C.TheVoluntaryAcquisitionofHaciendaCaylaway
PetitionerwasalsoleftinthedarkwithrespecttoHaciendaCaylaway,whichwasthesubjectofaVoluntary
OffertoSell(VOS).TheVOSintheinstantcasewasmadeonMay6,1988,[72]beforetheeffectivityofR.A.

6657onJune15,1988.VOStransactionswerefirstgovernedbyDARAdministrativeOrderNo.19,seriesof
1989,[73]andunderthisorder,allVOSfiledbeforeJune15,1988shallbeheardandprocessedinaccordance
withtheprocedureprovidedforinExecutiveOrderNo.229,thus:
III.AllVOStransactionswhicharenowpendingbeforetheDARandforwhichnopaymenthasbeenmade
shallbesubjecttothenoticeandhearingrequirementsprovidedinAdministrativeOrderNo.12,Seriesof1989,
dated26July1989,SectionII,SubsectionA,paragraph3.
AllVOSfiledbefore15June1988,thedateofeffectivityoftheCARL,shallbeheardandprocessedin
accordancewiththeprocedureprovidedforinExecutiveOrderNo.229.
"xxx."
Section9ofE.O.229provides:
Sec.9.VoluntaryOffertoSell.Thegovernmentshallpurchaseallagriculturallandsitdeemsproductiveand
suitabletofarmercultivationvoluntarilyofferedforsaletoitatavaluationdeterminedinaccordancewith
Section6.Suchtransactionshallbeexemptfromthepaymentofcapitalgainstaxandothertaxesandfees.
Executive Order 229 does not contain the procedure for the identification of private land as set forth in
DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989. Section 5 of E.O. 229 merely reiterates the procedure of acquisition in
Section16,R.A.6657.Inotherwords,theE.O.issilentastotheprocedurefortheidentificationoftheland,the
noticeofcoverageandthepreliminaryconferencewiththelandowner,representativesoftheBARC,theLBP
andfarmerbeneficiaries.Does this mean that these requirements may be dispensed with regard to VOS filed
beforeJune15,1988?Theanswerisno.
First of all, the same E.O. 229, like Section 16 of the CARL, requires that the land, landowner and
beneficiaries of the land subject to agrarian reform be identified before the notice of acquisition should be
issued.[74] 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 two of these four titles.[75]
The land covered by the two titles has an area of 855.5257 hectares, but only 648.8544 hectares thereof fell
withinthecoverageofR.A.6657.[76]Petitionerclaimsitdoesnotknowwheretheseportionsarelocated.
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
surveyandthelandvaluationsummaryreport,however,donotindicatewhethernoticestoattendthesamewere
actuallysenttoandreceivedbypetitioneroritsdulyauthorizedrepresentative.[77]Toreiterate,ExecutiveOrder
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
administrativedueprocessandisanessentialrequisitetoenablethelandownerhimselftoexercise,atthevery
least,hisrightofretentionguaranteedundertheCARL.
III.TheConversionofthethreeHaciendas.
It is petitioners claim that the three haciendas are not subject to agrarian reform because they have been
declared for tourism, not agricultural purposes.[78] In 1975, then President Marcos issued Proclamation No.
1520declaringthemunicipalityofNasugbu,Batangasatouristzone.LandsinNasugbu,includingthesubject
haciendas,wereallegedlyreclassifiedasnonagricultural13yearsbeforetheeffectivityofR.A.No.6657.[79]
In1993,theRegionalDirectorforRegionIVoftheDepartmentofAgriculturecertifiedthatthehaciendasare
notfeasibleandsoundforagriculturaldevelopment.[80]OnMarch20,1992,pursuanttoProclamationNo.1520,
theSangguniangBayanofNasugbu,BatangasadoptedResolutionNo.19reclassifyingcertainareasofNasugbu
as nonagricultural.[81] This Resolution approved Municipal Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1992, the Revised

ZoningOrdinanceofNasugbu[82]whichzoningordinancewasbasedonaLandUsePlanforPlanningAreasfor
New Development allegedly prepared by the University of the Philippines.[83] Resolution No. 19 of the
SangguniangBayanwasapprovedbytheSangguniangPanlalawiganofBatangasonMarch8,1993.[84]
Petitioner claims that Proclamation No. 1520 was also upheld by respondent DAR in 1991 when it
approvedconversionof1,827hectaresinNasugbuintoatouristareaknownastheBatulaoResortComplex,and
13.52hectaresinBarangayCaylawayaswithinthepotentialtouristbelt.[85]Petitionerpresentsevidencebefore
usthattheseareasareadjacenttothehaciendassubjectofthispetition,hence,thehaciendasshouldlikewisebe
converted.PetitionerurgesthisCourttotakecognizanceoftheconversionproceedingsandruleaccordingly.[86]
We do not agree.Respondent DARs failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioners
landholdingsdoesnotipsofactogivethisCourtthepowertoadjudicateoverpetitionersapplicationfor
conversionofitshaciendasfromagriculturaltononagricultural.Theagencychargedwiththemandate
ofapprovingordisapprovingapplicationsforconversionistheDAR.
Atthetimepetitionerfileditsapplicationforconversion,theRulesofProceduregoverningtheprocessing
andapprovalofapplicationsforlanduseconversionwastheDARA.O.No.2,Seriesof1990.UnderthisA.O.,
theapplicationforconversionisfiledwiththeMAROwherethepropertyislocated.TheMAROreviewsthe
applicationanditssupportingdocumentsandconductsfieldinvestigationandocularinspectionoftheproperty.
The findings of the MARO are subject to review and evaluation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).ThePAROmayconductfurtherfieldinvestigationandsubmitasupplementalreporttogetherwithhis
recommendationtotheRegionalAgrarianReformOfficer(RARO)whoshallreviewthesame.Forlandsless
thanfivehectares,theRAROshallapproveordisapproveapplicationsforconversion.Forlandsexceedingfive
hectares, the RARO shall evaluate the PARO Report and forward the records and his report to the
UndersecretaryforLegalAffairs.Applicationsoverareasexceedingfiftyhectaresareapprovedordisapproved
bytheSecretaryofAgrarianReform.
TheDARsmandateoverapplicationsforconversionwasfirstlaiddowninSection4(j)andSection5(1)
ofExecutiveOrderNo.129A,Seriesof1987andreiteratedintheCARLandMemorandumCircularNo.54,
Seriesof1993oftheOfficeofthePresident.TheDARsjurisdictionoverapplicationsforconversionisprovided
asfollows:
"A. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to approve or disapprove applications for
conversion,restructuringorreadjustmentofagriculturallandsintononagriculturaluses,pursuanttoSection
4(j)ofExecutiveOrderNo.129A,Seriesof1987.
"B.Section5(1)ofE.O.129A,Seriesof1987,vestsintheDAR,exclusiveauthoritytoapproveordisapprove
applicationsforconversionofagriculturallandsforresidential,commercial,industrialandotherlanduses.
"C Section 65 of R. A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988,
likewiseempowerstheDARtoauthorizeundercertainconditions,theconversionofagriculturallands.
"D.Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President, provides that
actiononapplicationsforlanduseconversiononindividuallandholdingsshallremainastheresponsibilityof
theDAR,whichshallutilizeasitsprimaryreference,documentsonthecomprehensivelanduseplansand
accompanyingordinancespasseduponandapprovedbythelocalgovernmentunitsconcerned,togetherwith
theNationalLandUsePolicy,pursuanttoR.A.No.6657andE.O.No.129A.[87]

ApplicationsforconversionwereinitiallygovernedbyDARA.O.No.1,Seriesof1990entitledRevised
Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands and NonAgricultural Uses, and
DAR A. O. No. 2, Series of 1990 entitled Rules of Procedure Governing the Processing and Approval of
ApplicationsforLandUseConversion.TheseA.O.sandotherimplementingguidelines,includingPresidential
issuances and national policies related to land use conversion have been consolidated in DAR A. O. No. 07,
Seriesof1997.Underthisrecentissuance,theguidingprincipleinlanduseconversionis:
topreserveprimeagriculturallandsforfoodproductionwhile,atthesametime,recognizingtheneedofthe
othersectorsofsociety(housing,industryandcommerce)forland,whencoincidingwiththeobjectivesofthe

ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawtopromotesocialjustice,industrializationandtheoptimumuseofland
asanationalresourceforpublicwelfare.[88]
LandUsereferstothemannerofutilizationofland,includingitsallocation,developmentandmanagement.
LandUseConversionreferstotheactorprocessofchangingthecurrentuseofapieceofagriculturallandinto
someotheruseasapprovedbytheDAR.[89]Theconversionofagriculturallandtousesotherthanagriculturalrequiresfield
investigationandconferenceswiththeoccupantsoftheland.Theyinvolvefactualfindingsandhighlytechnicalmatterswithinthe
specialtrainingandexpertiseoftheDAR.DARA.O.No.7,Seriesof1997laysdownwithspecificityhowtheDARmustgoabout
itstask.Thistime,thefieldinvestigationisnotconductedbytheMARObutbyaspecialtaskforce,knownastheCenterforLand
UsePolicyPlanningandImplementation(CLUPPIDARCentralOffice).Theprocedureisthatonceanapplicationforconversionis
filed,theCLUPPIpreparestheNoticeofPosting.TheMAROonlypoststhenoticeandthereafterissuesacertificatetothefactof
posting.TheCLUPPIconductsthefieldinvestigationanddialogueswiththeapplicantsandthefarmerbeneficiariestoascertainthe
information necessary for the processing of the application. The Chairman of the CLUPPI deliberates on the merits of the
investigationreportandrecommendstheappropriateaction.ThisrecommendationistransmittedtotheRegionalDirector,thruthe
Undersecretary,orSecretaryofAgrarianReform.Applicationsinvolvingmorethanfiftyhectaresareapprovedordisapprovedbythe
Secretary.TheproceduredoesnotendwiththeSecretary,however.The Order provides that the decision of the Secretary may be
appealedtotheOfficeofthePresidentortheCourtofAppeals,asthecasemaybe,viz:

AppealfromthedecisionoftheUndersecretaryshallbemadetotheSecretary,andfromtheSecretarytothe
OfficeofthePresidentortheCourtofAppealsasthecasemaybe.Themodeofappeal/motionfor
reconsideration,andtheappealfee,fromUndersecretarytotheOfficeoftheSecretaryshallbethesameasthat
oftheRegionalDirectortotheOfficeoftheSecretary.[90]
Indeed,thedoctrineofprimaryjurisdictiondoesnotwarrantacourttoarrogateuntoitselfauthority
to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of
special competence.[91] Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve petitioners 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
thecoverageoftheCARLlieswiththeDAR,notwiththisCourt.
Finally,westressthatthefailureofrespondentDARtocomplywiththerequisitesofdueprocessin
theacquisitionproceedingsdoesnotgivethisCourtthepowertonullifytheCLOAsalreadyissuedtothe
farmerbeneficiaries.Toassumethepoweristoshortcircuittheadministrativeprocess,whichhasyetto
runitsregularcourse.RespondentDARmustbegiventhechancetocorrectitsprocedurallapsesinthe
acquisition proceedings. In Hacienda Palico alone, CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in
1993.[92] Sincethenuntilthepresent,thesefarmershavebeencultivatingtheirlands.[93]Itgoesagainst
thebasicpreceptsofjustice,fairnessandequitytodeprivethesepeople,throughnofaultoftheirown,of
thelandtheytill.Anyhow,thefarmerbeneficiariesholdthepropertyintrustfortherightfulownerofthe
land.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three
haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure to observe due process therein. In accordance with the
guidelinessetforthinthisdecisionandtheapplicableadministrativeprocedure,thecaseisherebyremandedto
respondentDARforproperacquisitionproceedingsanddeterminationofpetitioner'sapplicationforconversion.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Bellosillo,Vitug,Mendoza,Panganiban,Purisima,Buena,GonzagaReyes,andDeLeon,
Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Melo,J.,seeconcurringanddissentingopinion.
Kapunan,Quisumbing,andPardo,JJ.,concurinthedissentingopinionofJ.Santiago.
YnaresSantiago,J.,seeconcurringanddissentingopinion.
[1]ArticleII,Section1,ProclamationNo.3.

[2]AssociationofSmallLandownersinthePhilippinesv.SecretaryofAgrarianReform,175SCRA343,366[1989].
[3]Annex2toComment,Rollo,p.309.
[4]Id.
[5]Annex3toComment,Rollo,pp.310314.
[6]Annex4toComment,Rollo,pp.315315C.UnlikeAnnexes3and5,thelistofactualoccupantswasnotattachedtotheMARO
Report.
[7]Annex5toComment,Rollo,pp.316316E.
[8]Annex7toComment,Rollo,p.317.
[9]Annexes7and8toComment,Rollo,pp.317,319.
[10]Annex1toComment,Rollo,p.308.
[11]Id.
[12]Annexes9,10and11toComment,Rollo,pp.320322.
[13]AnnexesKandNtoPetition,Rollo,pp.211212,215.
[14]Petition,p.20,Rollo,p.30.
[15]Annexes16,17,18,and19toComment,Rollo,pp.327330.
[16]Annex20toComment,Rollo,p.331.
[17]Annex30toComment,Rollo,p.360.
[18]Id.
[19]Annex29toComment,Rollo,p.359.
[20]Annex23toComment,Rollo,pp.337344.
[21]Annex24toComment,Rollo,pp.346354.
[22]MinutesoftheConference/Meeting,Annex27toComment,Rollo,p.357.
[23]Annex26toComment,Rollo,p.356.
[24]Annex25toComment,Rollo,p.355.
[25]Annexes21and22toComment,Rollo,pp.332,333.
[26]Id.
[27]Annex34toComment,Rollo,p.364.
[28]Annex35toComment,Rollo,p.365.
[29]Annexes37and38toComment,Rollo,pp.367368.
[30]Annexes42and43toComment,Rollo,pp.372374.InitsCommentbeforethisCourt,respondentDARstatesthatvaluationof
thelandunderTCTNo.T44662hadnotbeencompleted,whilethelandunderTCTNo.T44665wasnotdistributedduetoerrorsin
thequalificationsofthefarmerbeneficiariesComment,p.16,Rollo,p.587.
[31]Id.
[32]Annexes44and45toComment,Rollo,pp.374,375.

[33]Annexes46and47toComment,Rollo,pp.376,377.
[34]AnnexStoPetition,Rollo,pp.223224.
[35]Petition,p.24,Rollo,p.34.
[36]AnnexesKandNtoPetition,Rollo,pp.211212,215.
[37]AnnexVtoPetition,Rollo,pp.229230.
[38]Petition,p.27,Rollo,p.37.
[39]TheCAdecisionwaspennedbyJusticeGloriaC.ParasandconcurredinbyJusticesSerafinGuingonaandEubuloVerzola.
[40]TheResolutionwaspennedbyJusticeParasandconcurredinbyJusticesJainalRasul(viceJ.Guingonawhoretired)andPortia
Hormachuelos.JusticeVerzolawroteadissentingopinionwhichJusticeDelilahMagtolisjoined.
[41]Petition,pp.2829,Rollo,pp.3839.
[42]Coronav.CourtofAppeals,214SCRA378,393[1992]SunvilleTimberProducts,Inc.v.Abad,206SCRA482,487[1992]
Quisumbingv.Gumban,193SCRA520,523524[1991].
[43]Section24,R.A.6657.
[44]AssociationofSmallLandownersofthePhilippinesv.DARSecretary,175SCRA343,391[1989].
[45]LandBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,249SCRA149,157[1995].
[46]PrefatoryStatement,DARAdministrativeOrderNo.12,Seriesof1989.
[47]NowrepealedbyAdministrativeOrderNo.17,Seriesof1989.
[48]Id.,at174175.
[49]Id.,at175177.
[50]AssociationofSmallLandownersinthePhilippinesv.SecretaryofAgrarianReform,175SCRA343,373374[1989].
[51]Id.
[52]Section1,ArticleIII,1987Constitution.
[53]DevelopmentBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,262SCRA245,253[1996].
[54]PriortoDARA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990,VOStransactionsweregovernedbyA.O.No.3,Seriesof1989andA.O.No.19,Series
of1989whileCAtransactionsweregovernedbyA.O.No.12,Seriesof1989.
[55]TheDENR'sparticipationwasaddedbyDARA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990.
[56]TheDepartmentofAgriculturebecamepartofthefieldinvestigationteam.UnderA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990,arepresentativeof
theDAwasmerelyinvitedtoattendtheconferenceorpublichearing.
[57]Annex2toComment,Rollo,p.309.
[58]Id.
[59]Annex27toComment,Rollo,p.357.
[60]Comment,p.16,Rollo,p.587.
[61]Petition,p.5,Rollo,p.15.
[62]R.Martin,CivilProcedure,p.461[1989].

[63]DeltaMotorsSalesCorp.vs.Mangosing,70SCRA598,603[1976].
[64] Leev.CourtofAppeals,205SCRA752,765[1992]G&GTradingCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,158SCRA466,468[1988]
VillaReyTransit,Inc.v.FarEastMotorCorp.,81SCRA298,303[1978].
[65]DeltaMotorsSalesCorp.vs.Mangosing,supra,at603Rebollidov.CourtofAppeals,170SCRA800,809810,[1989].
[66] SeeNoticeofAcquisitionforHaciendaPalico,Annex1 to Comment, Rollo, p. 308 seealsoMARO Investigation Reports,
Annexes"3","4","5"toRespondent'sComment,Rollopp.310,315,316Annexes"6","7","8"toRespondents'Comment,Rollopp.
317319.
[67]SeeNoticesofAcquisitionforHaciendaBanilad,Annexes21and22toComment,Rollo,pp.332,333.
[68]SeeNoticeofAcquisitionforHaciendaPalico,Annex1toComment,Rollo,p.308NoticesofAcquisitionforHaciendaBanilad,Annexes21and22
toComment,Rollo,pp.332,333.
[69]Paragraph5(b),PartIVB,A.O.9,Seriesof1990.
[70]RejoinderofRespondents,pp.34,Rollo,pp.434435.
[71]Annexes12to15toRespondents'Comment,Rollo,pp.361363Annexes31to33"toRespondentsComment,Rollo,pp.324
326.
[72]Petition,p.23,Rollo,p.33.
[73]VOStransactionswerelatergovernedbyA.O.No.9,Seriesof1990,andA.O.No.1,Seriesof1993bothalsocoveringlands
subjecttoCompulsoryAcquisition.
[74]Section5,E.O.229.
[75]Annexes42and43toComment,Rollo,pp.372374.
[76]Surrejoinder,p.3.
[77]Annexes39and40toComment,Rollo,pp.369370.
[78]Petition,p.37,Rollo,p.47.
[79]Petition,pp.3839,Rollo,pp.4849SupplementalManifestation,p.3.
[80]Petition,p.25,Rollo,p.35AnnexUtothePetition,Rollo,p.228.
[81]AnnexEtoPetition,Rollo,p.124.
[82]AttachedtoAnnexE,Rollo,pp.125200.
[83]Id.83AnnexFtoPetition,Rollo,p.201.
[84]AnnexFtoPetition,Rollo,p.201.
[85]Manifestation,pp.34SupplementalManifestation,p.4.
[86]Manifestation,p.4SupplementalManifestation,p.5.
[87]PartII,DARA.O.No.7,Seriesof1997.
[88]PrefatoryStatement,DARA.O.No.7,Seriesof1997.
[89]PartIII,E,F,DARA.O.No.7,Seriesof1997.
[90]Par.3,C,PartVIIIPartXIV,DARA.O.No.7,Seriesof1997.

[91]FirstLepantoCeramics,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,253SRA552,558[1996]Machetev.CourtofAppeals,250SCRA176,182
[1995]Vidadv.RegionalTrialCourtofNegrosOriental,227SCRA271,276[1990].
[92]MotionforIntervention,pp.15,Rollo,pp.452456.
[93]Id.