G.R. No. 191545 - Heirs of Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal

Augusto Salas, Jr. is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land comprising 148.4354 hectares under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2807.
The property is located in several barangays (Pusil, Inosluban, Marawoy, and Balintawak) within Lipa City, Batangas.

In May 1987, Salas entered into an Owner-Contractor Agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation for the purpose of developing, subdividing, and selling the property.
On November 17, 1987, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued Development Permit No. 7-0370 authorizing the development and subdivision of the land into a farmlot subdivision of 80 saleable lots.
The property was further subdivided into smaller lots, and new TCTs were issued in the name of Salas for these subdivided parcels.

Inclusion in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and Exemption Applications

Despite the HLURB’s approval in the form of a development permit and later a license to sell, portions of the property remained included in the CARP by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
Petitioners, as heirs of Augusto Salas, Jr. (represented by Teresita D. Salas), consistently protested the inclusion by filing various applications for exemption with the DAR and its agencies.
The latest application for exemption was filed on April 27, 2001, covering a total of 82.8494 hectares distributed among several parcels (with detailed TCT numbers and corresponding lot survey numbers provided).

On January 7, 2004, then DAR Secretary Roberto Pagdanganan granted the exemption for the 17 lots in question.
Subsequently, DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman reversed the decision by setting aside the Pagdanganan order.
Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President, which reinstated the Pagdanganan order; however, the Court of Appeals reversed that decision on October 26, 2009.

On November 9, 2010, petitioners filed a motion for the issuance of a TRO, asserting that respondents had clandestinely begun or were about to begin transactions for the conveyance of the 17 parcels of disputed land.
Petitioners alleged that respondents had already received substantial sums as part of the consideration for these transactions, supported by an affidavit from a tenant, Gloria Linang Mantuano, dated August 18, 2010.
They contended that the consummation of these transactions would hinder their right to defend their title, resulting in grave and irreparable injury.

Former DAR Secretary Pagdanganan’s order for exemption was grounded on the reclassification of the property into a farmlot subdivision through the Lipa City Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, which effectively converted the property to non-agricultural use even before RA No. 6657 took effect.
The HLURB, through its promulgated rules and the issuance of a development permit and license to sell, indicated that the subject lots were no longer exclusively agricultural.
These administrative determinations supported petitioners’ claim to a prima facie right to be exempted from the CARP inclusion.

Whether the issuance of the temporary restraining order (TRO) was proper in view of the petitioners’ prima facie right to exemption from the CARP.

Does the conversion of the property into a farmlot subdivision, as effectuated by the HLURB and through local ordinances, justify an exemption from CARP?
Is the petitioners’ application for exemption, having been granted previously and subsequently reversed, sufficient to establish a valid claim that merits immediate relief?

Whether permitting respondents to continue with transactions involving the conveyance of the disputed parcels would irreparably harm petitioners’ right to defend their title.

Will the consummation of these transactions jeopardize the petitioners’ ability to assert their ownership rights?
Does the potential for irreversible injury outweigh any harm that might be suffered by respondents if the TRO is granted?

Whether it is in the public interest to maintain the status quo and prevent any change in the contested property’s disposition pending the final resolution of the case.