Case Digest (G.R. No. 197127)
Facts:
Noel L. Ong, Omar Anthony L. Ong, and Norman L. Ong v. Nicolasa O. Imperial et al., G.R. No. 197127, July 15, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Noel L. Ong, Omar Anthony L. Ong, and Norman L. Ong are registered owners of a 405,645 sq. m. parcel in Barangay Dogongan, Daet, Camarines Norte (TCT No. T-17045). The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage on August 14, 1994 and, later, a Notice of Acquisition on September 23, 1996, placing the land under CARP compulsory acquisition. Petitioners protested coverage and filed (October 16, 1996) an application for exemption with the DAR Regional Office, claiming the land had been reclassified as residential under Daet’s Town Plan/Zoning (Town Plan approved 21 Sept. 1978; Zoning Ordinance No. 4, series of 1980). They submitted a Deputized Zoning Administrator (DZA) certification, an HLURB certification, NIA and MARO certifications, a deed of undertaking and other documentary proofs.
DAR RCLUPPI’s investigation found the land planted with coconuts, tenanted, not irrigated, and that the area had been reclassified as residential prior to 15 June 1988 but nonetheless recommended denial. DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied the exemption (Order Feb. 2, 2000), concluding the DZA’s certification lacked substantial evidence and that petitioners failed to meet Administrative Order No. 6 (1994) documentary requirements; Acting Secretary Hernani A. Braganza denied reconsideration (Order June 20, 2002). Meanwhile, a CLOA (TCT No. T-4202-A) was issued to third parties on October 27, 2000.
Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President. The Office (Executive Secretary Ermita) reversed DAR and granted the exemption (Decision Sept. 5, 2005), holding that the DZA/HLURB records showed reclassification to residential prior to June 15, 1988 and that a Notice of Acquisition covering only agricultural lands was void ab initio. The Office denied intervenors’ motion for reconsideration (Order Mar. 3, 2006), finding intervenors had reasonable opportunity to participate and that the exemption process (per DOJ Opinion No. 44 and DAR A.O. No. 06-94) afforded notice and investigation.
Respondents (Nicolasa O. Imperial et al.) sought relief in the Court of Appeals via a petition under Rule 43 (CA-G.R. SP No. 93941). The Court of Appeals (Nov. 30, 2010) reversed the Office of the President, holding petitioners had not complied with documentary requirements of A.O. No. 06-94 (notably inconsistencies between the DZA an...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err by deciding an unassigned error—i.e., whether petitioners complied with DAR A.O. No. 06-94—even though that ground was not raised as an assignment of error on appeal?
- Was the subject land exempt from CARP because it was validly reclassified to residential prior to June 15, 1988, including whether the DZA/HLURB (or their predecessors) certifications sufficed to ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)