Case Digest (G.R. No. 103302)
Facts:
Natalia Realty, Inc., and Estate Developers and Investors Corp., G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are private landowner-developer entities that own and developed the Antipolo Hills Subdivision; respondents are the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Secretary Benjamin T. Leong and Director Wilfredo Leano, DAR-Region IV, who issued a Notice of Coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657).
The petition arises from three contiguous parcels in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal (totaling about 125.0078 hectares) included within Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 (18 April 1979) which set aside some 20,312 hectares as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. As private owners were permitted to develop low-cost housing within the reservation, petitioner developer Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC) secured preliminary approvals, locational clearances and development permits from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) — later the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) — for Phase I (1982), Phase II (13 October 1983) and Phase III (25 April 1986) of the subdivision, all stating conformity with the standards implementing P.D. 957.
After R.A. 6657 took effect on 15 June 1988, the DAR, through its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued on 22 November 1990 a Notice of Coverage placing roughly 90.3307 hectares of the undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills under CARL coverage. Petitioners protested administratively (letters to the Secretary and to DAR Region IV) and objected to the Notice; SAMBA (Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc.) separately filed a complaint before the DAR Regional Adjudicator seeking to restrain development on areas they claimed were under cultivation. The Regional Adjudicator issued a temporary restraining order and, later, a writ of preliminary injunction; the DAR Adjudication Board remanded SAMBA’s case to the Regional Adjudicator on 16 December 1991.
Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by DAR in including lands already classified for residential use within CARL coverage and contending they had complied with the requirements of applicable land-use and subdivision rules. Public respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued petitioners’ permits were not valid because no application for conversion was filed with DAR (thus no valid conversion), that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that the petition was premature because the SAMBA administrative action remained pending.
The Supreme Court reviewed the administrative record, the permits and c...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition premature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or otherwise procedurally infirm?
- Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use by HLURB (or its predecessors) prior to 15 June 1988 covered by R.A. No. 66...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)