FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 191545, November 22, 2010 ]HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS v. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL ET AL. +
HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR., REPRESENTED BY TERESITA D. SALAS, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS v. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL ET AL. +
HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR., REPRESENTED BY TERESITA D. SALAS, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, C.J.:
Augusto Salas, Jr. is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land consisting of 148.4354 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2807.[1] The properties are located in Barangays Pusil, Inosluban, Marawoy
and Balintawak, Lipa City, Batangas.
In May 1987, Salas entered into an Owner-Contractor Agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation for the development, subdivision and sale of the property.[2] On November 17, 1987, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued Development Permit No. 7-0370 allowing Salas and Laperal Realty to develop the property and subdivide it into a farmlot subdivision consisting of 80 saleable lots.[3] The property was further subdivided into smaller lots for which new TCTs were issued in the name of Salas.[4]
Despite the HLURB's issuance of the aforesaid development permit and, eventually, a license to sell covering Salas's property, portions of the same were still included in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).[5] Petitioners protested and have continued to untiringly protest the said inclusion and filed applications for exemption with the DAR and its various agencies, to no avail. Petitioners' latest effort consisted of another application for exemption filed with DAR-Center for Land Use, Policy Planning and Implementation (DAR-CLUPPI) on April 27, 2001.[6] The application covered a total area of 82.8494 hectares consisting of the following parcels of land:[7]
This latest application for exemption gave rise to the instant petition.
Petitioner's application for exemption has been ruled upon at least four times before the instant petition in this Court. On January 7, 2004, then DAR Secretary Roberto Pagdanganan granted the application for exemption of the 17 lots (Pagdanganan order). On reconsideration, however, DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman, who had by then replaced Pagdanganan, ruled in favor of respondents and set aside the Pagdanganan order (Pangandaman order).[8] This order prompted petitioners to appeal to the Office of the President which set aside the Pangandaman order and reinstated the Pagdanganan order. However, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals on October 26, 2009.
In a resolution dated, September 15, 2010, this Court gave due course to this petition and dispensed with the filing of memoranda. The case has been calendared for deliberation.
On November 9, 2010, petitioners filed a motion for issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) claiming that "the majority, if not all of the respondents, have clandestinely entered or are about to enter into transactions for the conveyance of the 17 parcels of land" subject of this petition.[9] Petitioners also claim that respondents have already received sizeable amounts of money as part of the consideration for the said conveyance[10]. The affidavit of one Gloria Linang Mantuano, who claims to be a tenant on petitioners' land, dated August 18, 2010 was submitted as proof of petitioners' allegations.
Petitioners contend that the consummation of transactions conveying the contested property will affect their right to defend their title to the property thereby causing grave and irreparable injury to them. While this Court does not agree with that claim, we still deem it to be more prudent to grant the requested TRO.
Petitioners have shown a prima facie right to the exemption that they claim. Former DAR Secretary Pagdanganan granted petitioners' application for exemption upon finding that the subject lots had already been converted to non-agricultural even prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657,[11] due to the property's reclassification into farmlot subdivision through the Land Use and Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City.[12] This ordinance was approved by the HLURB in Resolution No.35, s. 1981,[13] with a certification issued by HLURB Secretariat OIC Carolina Casaje that the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City was approved by the National Coordinating Council for Town Planning, Housing and Zoning.[14]
Furthermore, the HLURB's Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot Subdivision Plan[15] categorizes a farmlot subdivision as different from agricultural land as "it is without the intended qualities of an agricultural land and is never intended to be exclusively used for cultivation, livestock production and agro-forestry."[16]
Finally, the HLURB development permit and license to sell were "indications of the locational viability and the non-exclusivity for agricultural purposes of the subject lots."[17] All these arguments were in fact adopted by the Office of the President on appeal.
We therefore deem it proper to grant temporary protection to petitioners' prima facie right.
The consummation of acts leading to the disposition of the litigated property can make it difficult to implement this Court's decision upon resolution of the case and can only prolong this protracted battle even more. On the other hand, respondents would not be unduly deprived of their livelihood as they can continue tilling the land pending the final disposition of this case. The Court therefore finds that it is to the public interest to maintain the conditions prevailing before the filing of this case. Posting of a bond by petitioners shall answer for any damages which may be sustained by respondents as a consequence of the issuance of a TRO if the Court finally decides that petitioners are not entitled to it.
WHEREFORE, the motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order is GRANTED upon posting by the petitioners of a bond in the amount of P2 Million. Respondents are enjoined from entering into transactions resulting in the conveyance of any part of the properties subject of this case.
The parties in this case are directed to maintain the status quo and to refrain from all actions which may affect the ownership or present possession of the contested properties until further orders of this Court.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta* and Perez, JJ., concur.
* Per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010.
[1] Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 103703 dated October 26, 2009. Rollo, p. 37.
[2] CA decision. Rollo, p. 38.
[3] Id.
[4] CA decision. Rollo, p. 38.
[5] Claim of the estate in its application for exemption as cited in the CA decision. Rollo, p. 41.
[6] CA decision. Rollo, p. 41. DOJ Opinion No. 44 s. 1990 by then Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon opined that the authority of the DAR to approve conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses could be exercised only from the date of the effectivity of RA No. 6657.
[7] CA decision. Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[8] Order dated September 19, 2006.
[9] Rollo, p. 178.
[10] Id.
[11] The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
[12] CA decision. Rollo, p. 44.
[13] Id, pp. 44 and 48.
[14] Supra note 12.
[15] Promulgated on December 28, 1981 as cited by the CA decision. Id.
[16] CA decision. Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[17] CA decision. Rollo, p. 44.
In May 1987, Salas entered into an Owner-Contractor Agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation for the development, subdivision and sale of the property.[2] On November 17, 1987, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued Development Permit No. 7-0370 allowing Salas and Laperal Realty to develop the property and subdivide it into a farmlot subdivision consisting of 80 saleable lots.[3] The property was further subdivided into smaller lots for which new TCTs were issued in the name of Salas.[4]
Despite the HLURB's issuance of the aforesaid development permit and, eventually, a license to sell covering Salas's property, portions of the same were still included in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).[5] Petitioners protested and have continued to untiringly protest the said inclusion and filed applications for exemption with the DAR and its various agencies, to no avail. Petitioners' latest effort consisted of another application for exemption filed with DAR-Center for Land Use, Policy Planning and Implementation (DAR-CLUPPI) on April 27, 2001.[6] The application covered a total area of 82.8494 hectares consisting of the following parcels of land:[7]
|
TCT No.
|
Area (in hectares)
|
Lot Survey No.
|
|
67660
|
23.4967
|
A
|
|
67661
|
0.9366
|
B (Psd-04-0262541)
|
|
67662
|
31.7028
|
B (Psd-04-0262541)
|
|
67664
|
9.0587
|
B (Psd-04-0262541)
|
|
67665
|
0.2925
|
C (Psd-04-0262542)
|
|
68223
|
1.2159
|
J-7
|
|
68224
|
1.0757
|
J-8
|
|
68225
|
1.2158
|
J-9
|
|
68226
|
1.3356
|
J-10
|
|
68227
|
1.00
|
J-11
|
|
68228
|
1.00
|
J-12
|
|
68229
|
1.4802
|
J-13
|
|
68230
|
2.0443
|
J-14
|
|
68231
|
1.8060
|
J-15
|
|
68232
|
2.1663
|
J-16
|
|
68233
|
1.5454
|
J-17
|
|
68234
|
1.4769
|
J-18
|
|
Total Land Area
|
82.8494 hectares
|
This latest application for exemption gave rise to the instant petition.
Petitioner's application for exemption has been ruled upon at least four times before the instant petition in this Court. On January 7, 2004, then DAR Secretary Roberto Pagdanganan granted the application for exemption of the 17 lots (Pagdanganan order). On reconsideration, however, DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman, who had by then replaced Pagdanganan, ruled in favor of respondents and set aside the Pagdanganan order (Pangandaman order).[8] This order prompted petitioners to appeal to the Office of the President which set aside the Pangandaman order and reinstated the Pagdanganan order. However, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals on October 26, 2009.
In a resolution dated, September 15, 2010, this Court gave due course to this petition and dispensed with the filing of memoranda. The case has been calendared for deliberation.
On November 9, 2010, petitioners filed a motion for issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) claiming that "the majority, if not all of the respondents, have clandestinely entered or are about to enter into transactions for the conveyance of the 17 parcels of land" subject of this petition.[9] Petitioners also claim that respondents have already received sizeable amounts of money as part of the consideration for the said conveyance[10]. The affidavit of one Gloria Linang Mantuano, who claims to be a tenant on petitioners' land, dated August 18, 2010 was submitted as proof of petitioners' allegations.
Petitioners contend that the consummation of transactions conveying the contested property will affect their right to defend their title to the property thereby causing grave and irreparable injury to them. While this Court does not agree with that claim, we still deem it to be more prudent to grant the requested TRO.
Petitioners have shown a prima facie right to the exemption that they claim. Former DAR Secretary Pagdanganan granted petitioners' application for exemption upon finding that the subject lots had already been converted to non-agricultural even prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657,[11] due to the property's reclassification into farmlot subdivision through the Land Use and Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City.[12] This ordinance was approved by the HLURB in Resolution No.35, s. 1981,[13] with a certification issued by HLURB Secretariat OIC Carolina Casaje that the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City was approved by the National Coordinating Council for Town Planning, Housing and Zoning.[14]
Furthermore, the HLURB's Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot Subdivision Plan[15] categorizes a farmlot subdivision as different from agricultural land as "it is without the intended qualities of an agricultural land and is never intended to be exclusively used for cultivation, livestock production and agro-forestry."[16]
Finally, the HLURB development permit and license to sell were "indications of the locational viability and the non-exclusivity for agricultural purposes of the subject lots."[17] All these arguments were in fact adopted by the Office of the President on appeal.
We therefore deem it proper to grant temporary protection to petitioners' prima facie right.
The consummation of acts leading to the disposition of the litigated property can make it difficult to implement this Court's decision upon resolution of the case and can only prolong this protracted battle even more. On the other hand, respondents would not be unduly deprived of their livelihood as they can continue tilling the land pending the final disposition of this case. The Court therefore finds that it is to the public interest to maintain the conditions prevailing before the filing of this case. Posting of a bond by petitioners shall answer for any damages which may be sustained by respondents as a consequence of the issuance of a TRO if the Court finally decides that petitioners are not entitled to it.
WHEREFORE, the motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order is GRANTED upon posting by the petitioners of a bond in the amount of P2 Million. Respondents are enjoined from entering into transactions resulting in the conveyance of any part of the properties subject of this case.
The parties in this case are directed to maintain the status quo and to refrain from all actions which may affect the ownership or present possession of the contested properties until further orders of this Court.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta* and Perez, JJ., concur.
* Per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010.
[1] Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 103703 dated October 26, 2009. Rollo, p. 37.
[2] CA decision. Rollo, p. 38.
[3] Id.
[4] CA decision. Rollo, p. 38.
[5] Claim of the estate in its application for exemption as cited in the CA decision. Rollo, p. 41.
[6] CA decision. Rollo, p. 41. DOJ Opinion No. 44 s. 1990 by then Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon opined that the authority of the DAR to approve conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses could be exercised only from the date of the effectivity of RA No. 6657.
[7] CA decision. Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[8] Order dated September 19, 2006.
[9] Rollo, p. 178.
[10] Id.
[11] The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
[12] CA decision. Rollo, p. 44.
[13] Id, pp. 44 and 48.
[14] Supra note 12.
[15] Promulgated on December 28, 1981 as cited by the CA decision. Id.
[16] CA decision. Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[17] CA decision. Rollo, p. 44.