Case Digest (G.R. No. 208399)
Facts:
First Division Cat Realty Corporation v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 208399, June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court First Division, Zalameda, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns twenty-three (23) parcels totaling 386.7992 hectares in Bayambang, Pangasinan. The parcels were owned by Central Azucarera de Tarlac (predecessor-in-interest of CAT Realty Corporation). On September 4, 1975, then DAR Secretary Conrado Estrella issued a conversion order (the Conversion Order) declaring the parcels suitable for residential, commercial, industrial and other urban purposes and imposing conditions on conversion, including payment of disturbance compensation and allocation of homelots to tenants.
On December 15, 2004, Center for Agrarian Reform Empowerment & Transformation, Inc. (CARET), Alternative Community Centered Organization for Rural Development (ACCORD), Benjamin C. De Vera, Jr., and Tenario Garcia (collectively, the private respondents) filed a petition for revocation of the 1975 Conversion Order, alleging that CAT Realty failed to develop the property and that much of it remained in agricultural use. On August 2, 2006, then DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman issued an order partially revoking the 1975 Conversion Order and directed the municipal agrarian reform officer to proceed with acquisition of agriculturally viable portions for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
CAT Realty moved for reconsideration. On October 11, 2006 DAR set aside the August 2, 2006 partial revocation and affirmed the 1975 Conversion Order, finding payment of disturbance compensation (via tenant subdivisions) and that the 1975 order did not prescribe a development period. Private respondents again sought reconsideration; on September 6, 2007, Secretary Pangandaman granted reconsideration and reinstated the partial revocation. CAT Realty's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by Secretary Pangandaman on August 15, 2008, whereupon DAR again affirmed the partial revocation and directed acquisition of undeveloped, agriculturally viable portions.
CAT Realty filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA denied the petition in a decision dated June 19, 2012, affirming DAR’s August 15, 2008 order on the ground that there was no substantial development and that the land remained agricultural. The CA denied CAT Realty’s motion for reco...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the DAR’s partial revocation of the September 4, 1975 Conversion Order and in allowing DAR to place the undeveloped portions of the subject property under the coverage of agr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)