April 27, 2000
DAR OPINION NO. 13-00
ATTY . VERONICA J . ALFILER
19 Electrical Road
Domestic Airport, Pasay City
Dear Atty. Alfiler:
This refers to your letter dated 08 February 2000, seeking opinion on the queries posed therein, to wit:
1. Does the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Office of the President (OP) in Case No. 6231 absolutely prohibit DAR Batangas from receiving evidence in order to determine which parcels of land owned by The Manila Banking Corporation (TMBC) in Nasugbu, Batangas, are agricultural, exempted, or converted to non-agricultural uses?
2. What are the particular acts which are sought to be restrained by said CDO?
3. Is the action taken by DAR Batangas, in recommending for the coverage of the 12-hectare property, within the parameter of the CDO?
4. Is the CDO still effective in view of the resumption of operation of TMBC?
5. May the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Batangas now proceed/continue with his legally assigned official duty to compulsorily acquire subject landholding in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)?
A careful scrutiny of your letter, together with the appended documents, reveals that the property in issue is a 12-hectare agricultural land, situated at Barangay Balaytigue, Nasugbu, Batangas, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-36964, T-36965 and T-36966, and registered in the name of The Manila Banking Corporation (TMBC); that on 02 August 1996, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Manuel J. Limjoco, Jr. of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a Notice of Coverage to TMBC, subjecting said property under compulsory acquisition coverage in accordance with Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657; that in a letter dated 29 August 1996, the TMBC, thru counsel, sent a reply informing MARO Limjoco that TMBC has a pending case contesting the coverage of subject landholding under CARP; that said property was placed under "custodia legis" in May 1987, before the effectivity of CARL on 15 June 1988; that on 31 July 1997, TMBC also sent a letter to the PARO of Batangas, requesting said Office to desist from taking any further action towards the compulsory acquisition of subject property, invoking the Resolution of the Office of the President dated 14 March 1997 in OP Case No. 6321, denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the DAR in the earlier OP Decision dated 11 October 1996; that on 24 November 1997, pursuant to the aforementioned OP Decisions dated 11 October 1996 and 14 March 1997, Atty. Clemente C. Carlos, Jr., Chief, Legal Division of PARO-Batangas, sent a letter to TMBC, thru its counsel, Atty. Manuel D. Yngson, Jr., for a conference on 15 December 1997 at 9:00 A.M. at the PARO Office in Lipa City; that in said conference, Atty. Mary Jane B. Austria of TMBC made the impression that TMBC is not yet ready to sit with the DAR to determine which properties are exempt from CARP coverage, which lands may be converted into non-agricultural uses, and which may be subjected to compulsory acquisition; that in a Resolution dated 19 December 1997, Atty. Clemente C. Carlos, Jr., Chief-Legal Division (DAR-Batangas), recommended the coverage of the landholding in issue, pertinently stating the following, quote:
"xxx xxx xxx
The landholdings covered under TCT Nos. 36964, 36965 and 36966 of TMBC does not fall within the enumerated exemptions and exception.
xxx xxx xxx
Resolution dated March 14, 1997, which is the railing to DAR's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision, gives emphasis on the remanding of the case to the DAR for reception of evidence to determine which properties of the TMBC are exempt from the program's coverage or which may be converted into non-agricultural uses and which may be subjected to compulsory coverage.
Unfortunately, after the lapse of more than a year, no steps had been taken by TMBC to comply with the directive mentioned in the Decisions and resolutions of the Office of the President." (emphasis supplied)
and, that in a recent letter of Atty. Clemente C. Carlos, Jr. dated 17 March 2000, addressed to PARO Antonio G. Evangelista, the former significantly declared, thus:
"Records of this office shows the Manila Banking Corporation (TMBC) thru counsel Manuel D. Yngson, Jr., has on April 24, 1998 received a copy of our 1st Indorsement dated 01 April 1998 and since then and up to the present, has not filed any motion, paper and/or pleading related thereto. Attached is a xerox copy of the registry receipt of the law office of Manuel D. Yngson and Associates." (emphasis supplied)
Anent your first query, in its Resolution dated 14 March 1997, the Office of the President itself declared that what the assailed Decision dated 11 October 1996 mandates is a mere remand to the DAR for the reception of evidence so that the intent and purposes of the CARL can be properly implemented without unnecessarily prejudicing the recovery efforts of the concerned bank. The cease and desist directive was but a temporary relief designed to maintain the status quo ante so that the interests and rights of all concerned can be preserved and protected. It was not, definitely, a judgment on the merits where the rights and liabilities of the parties on the basis of the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, dilatory objections, are determined (Citibank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 61508, March 17, 1999). Rather, it was a mere preliminary injunction which enjoins the parties to assist each other in formulating a mutually beneficial solution until the issues shall have been resolved (Pete Nicomedes Prado, et al. vs. Regino T . Veridiano II, et al., G.R. No. 98118, December 6, 1991).
Put simply, the CDO issued by the Office of the President was only a tool to insure that coverage proceedings of CARPable lands owned by TMBC are duly observed. It was by its tenor, never intended to serve as a permanent hindrance or obstacle in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Thus, the remand of the matter to the DAR for the reception of evidence.
As regards your second query, the particular acts referred to as restrained by the CDO were the perceived indiscriminate acts of DAR in pursuing the compulsory acquisition process, pending the resolutions of the issues on exemption, conversion and/or coverage raised, if any.
Concerning your third query, subject recommendation for coverage of the TMBC property will not fall within the purview of the CDO. The latter was, as stated earlier, only a temporary relief to insure that objections to coverage are first addressed and resolved. Besides, the action referred to is only recommendatory.
On the fourth query, the effectual expiration of the CDO lies in the eventual resolution of the issues of exemption, conversion and/or coverage of subject landholding, on the basis of the availability of evidence received in support thereto, or, the lack of it.
Anent your last query, the answer is in the affirmative. In view of all the foregoing and considering that more than three (3) years since then already lapsed without any tangible step taken by TMBC toward complying with the directive mentioned in the abovementioned decisions of the Office of the President, it behooves now upon the PARO to proceed/resume without delay the coverage, acquisition and redistribution process subject only to what the proper court may direct in the event the landholdings involved are still under custodia legis.
We hope to have clarified you on the matters.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FEDERICO A. POBLETE
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning
Copy furnished:
PARO Antonio G. Evangelista
DAR-Provincial Office
Lipa City, Batangas
MARO Manuel J. Limjoco, Jr.
DAR-Municipal Office
Nasugbu, Batangas
Atty. Manuel D. Yngson, Jr.
7th Floor Strata 200 Bldg., Emerald Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Dep. Gov. A. V. Reyes
Receiver, TMBC
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
F.B. Harrison, Manila
Mr. S. S. Zantua, Jr.
Deputy Receiver
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
F.B. Harrison, Manila