Title
Heirs of Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal
Case
G.R. No. 191545
Decision Date
Nov 22, 2010
Augusto Salas, Jr.'s heirs sought CARP exemption for 82.8494 hectares of land, claiming prior non-agricultural conversion. SC granted TRO, preserving status quo, citing prima facie right to exemption.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 72188)

Background and Property Development

Augusto Salas, Jr. was the registered owner of a 148.4354-hectare agricultural land parcel covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2807. In May 1987, he entered into an Owner-Contractor Agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation for the development, subdivision, and sale of the land. The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) issued Development Permit No. 7-0370 on November 17, 1987, permitting the development of the property into a farmlot subdivision comprising 80 saleable lots. Subsequent to the development, new TCTs were issued under Salas's name.

Agrarian Reform Program and Exemption Applications

Despite the HLURB’s permits, certain portions of the property were included in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The petitioners contested this inclusion by filing numerous applications for exemption with various DAR agencies, including a recent application on April 27, 2001, covering a total area of 82.8494 hectares, which initiated the current petition.

Previous Orders and Appeals

Petitioners’ applications for exemption had been ruled upon multiple times prior to this petition. On January 7, 2004, DAR Secretary Roberto Pagdanganan approved the exemption for 17 lots, but this decision was reversed by his successor, Secretary Nasser Pangandaman. Subsequently, the Office of the President reinstated Pagdanganan's order, only for the Court of Appeals to reverse this decision on October 26, 2009.

Request for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

On November 9, 2010, petitioners sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) alleging that respondents were about to enter into transactions conveying the 17 parcels of contested land. They provided evidence, including an affidavit from a claimed tenant, suggesting that transactions jeopardizing their property rights were imminent. Though the Court disagreed with their assertion of imminent harm, it granted the TRO based on the petitioners' demonstrated prima facie right to exemption.

Rationale for Granting the TRO

The Court found that former DAR Secretary Pagdanganan had justified the exemption by recognizing that the properties had already been converted to non-agricultural use before the enactment of Republic Act No. 6657, due in part to local zoning regula

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.