Rom v. Roxas & Company
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Roxas & Company, Inc. (Roxas) applied for exemption from CARP coverage of 27 parcels of land totaling 21.1236 hectares in Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas. Roxas claimed the lands were reclassified as residential under Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved prior to the CARL's effectivity. Petitioners, who are farmer-beneficiaries with Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs), opposed the application. Procedural History: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) granted Roxas's application for exemption, subject to conditions including the determination and payment of disturbance compensation to the farmer-occupants. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing the zoning ordinance was superseded and that the application was barred by laches and estoppel, and that they were not notified. The DAR denied the motion. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed it, holding that certiorari was an improper remedy and that there was no grave abuse of discretion by the DAR. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioners seek to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in affirming the DAR's grant of exemption without the required payment of disturbance compensation or a bond, and in ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in affirming the grant of respondent Roxas’ application for exemption from coverage of the CARL despite the fact that the property has been the subject of respondent’s voluntary offer to sell to the DAR. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in affirming the grant of respondent Roxas’ application for exemption from coverage of the CARL without the required payment of disturbance compensation, without any undertaking to pay the said compensation and without any bond being posted by the landowner to secure payment of said compensation. Whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error or grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the remedy of appeal is not available in this case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision dated April 29, 2005 and Resolution dated August 11, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82709 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of exemption despite the voluntary offer to sell (VOS): The Court ruled that the VOS became irrelevant because Roxas & Company, Inc. established that the subject lands were reclassified as non-agricultural (residential) by a valid municipal zoning ordinance prior to the effectivity of the CARL. Citing Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, the Court held that lands not devoted to agricultural activity, including those previously converted to non-agricultural uses before CARL's effectivity by agencies other than the DAR, are outside CARP's coverage. Therefore, Roxas was not bound by its previous VOS as the properties were beyond CARP's scope. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of exemption without required payment of disturbance compensation or bond: The Court found that Roxas substantially complied with the requirements. While the application was not initially accompanied by proof of disturbance compensation or waivers, Roxas exerted efforts to comply by offering payment, which petitioners refused. Roxas then filed a petition to fix disturbance compensation before the PARAD, submitting proof of these efforts. The DAR's grant of exemption was conditional upon the payment of disturbance compensation, and proof of payment was to be submitted later. The Court also noted that the requirement of a bond under DAR AO No. 4, Series of 2003 was raised belatedly and could not be retroactively applied to Roxas's application filed prior to the issuance of the said administrative order. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that petitioners resorted to the wrong mode of appeal. Section 61 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that judicial review of DAR orders is governed by Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, requiring a Petition for Review, not a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The Court clarified that the DAR had jurisdiction over the subject matter, and any alleged errors in its exercise of jurisdiction were errors of judgment, not grounds for certiorari. The Court also dismissed the argument that certiorari was warranted due to exceptional circumstances, as the DAR's order was conditional upon payment of disturbance compensation, negating the fear of losing the land without compensation.
Main Doctrine
A landowner's application for exemption from CARP coverage based on a prior reclassification of land to non-agricultural use is valid, provided that the reclassification was made by a competent authority through a valid ordinance prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The failure to immediately submit proof of disturbance compensation does not divest the DAR of jurisdiction, especially when the exemption is granted conditionally and the landowner initiates proceedings to fix such compensation. Resort to a petition for certiorari is improper when a petition for review under Rule 43 is the prescribed remedy, unless there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.