[DARCO ORDER NO. EXE/MR-1103-045. March 10, 2011.]
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990 AS IMPLEMENTED UNDER DAR A.O. NO. 6, SERIES OF 1994 AND AMENDED BY AO NO. 4, SERIES OF 2003 INVOLVING THREE (3) PARCELS OF LAND WITH AN AGGREGATE AREA OF 0.8667 HECTARES AND LOCATED AT BARANGAY SAN GREGORIO, SAN PABLO CITY, LAGUNA
ROBENANZA ARANZA, represented by OWEN SUMAGUE, applicant-appellee,
FEDERICO PARALUMAN, oppositor-appellant.
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990 AS IMPLEMENTED UNDER DAR A.O. NO. 6, SERIES OF 1994 AND AMENDED BY AO NO. 4, SERIES OF 2003 INVOLVING TWO (2) PARCELS OF LAND WITH AN AGGREGATE AREA OF 4.7733 HECTARES AND LOCATED AT BARANGAY SAN GREGORIO, SAN PABLO CITY, LAGUNA
SERGIO A. GESMUNDO, JR., represented by ROLINA BIRON, applicant-appellee,
FEDERICO PARALUMAN, oppositor-appellant.
RESOLUTION
This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration of DARCO Order dated 16 October 2009 denying Federico Paraluman's appeal of the Orders issued by Region IV-A Regional Director Antonio G. Evangelista. The dispositive portion of the 16 October 2009 DARCO Order reads, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal filed by Federico Paraluman to the Orders dated 19 January 2009 and 10 June 2009, involving landholdings with an aggregate area of 5.4600 hectares, located in Brgy. San Gregorio, San Pablo City, Laguna is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
HOWEVER, the appellant has the right for payment of disturbance compensation as determined by the DARAB subject to its rules and regulations.
SO ORDERED."
In his 09 November 2009 Motion for Reconsideration, Federico Paraluman moved for reconsideration of the 16 October 2009 Order on the following grounds:
1. The applicants committed misrepresentation of facts because their total area of landholding is thirteen (13) hectares as established in the decision in DARAB Case No. 12185. Thus, the area being more than five (5) hectares, the application should have been filed with the Office of the DAR Secretary, not with the Office of the Regional Director;
2. The Honorable Secretary failed to consider the right to a homelot of Federico Paraluman. As tenant, he is entitled to a homelot; and
3. The landholdings are still agricultural in nature.
Applicants filed their Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration on 10 December 2009. They argued that:
1. The Secretary did not err in upholding that the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the two (2) applications subject of appeal inasmuch as both applications involved areas with less than five (5) hectares owned by two (2) landowners;
2. The Secretary did not disregard the established right of the petitioner as tenant. RA No. 3844 provides that one of the rights of the lessee is to be paid disturbance compensation in case the conversion of the farmholding has been approved; and
3. It maybe true that the landholding is agricultural in nature, however, it was reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARP.
On 21 January 2011, the motion for reconsideration and the corresponding opposition to the motion for reconsideration were deliberated upon by the CLUPPI Executive Committee on Exemption and the committee recommended the denial of the motion. It must be noted that jurisdiction is not an issue in this case since there are actually two (2) separate applications for exemptions filed by two different landowners involving landholdings less than five (5) hectares. Thus, Section 5.3 of DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2003 which states that "for properties with an area larger than five (5) hectares, the approving authority shall be the Secretary" is not applicable.
It is further noted that Federico's established right as tenant was not disregarded because the assailed Order itself provided that he should be paid disturbance compensation.
Moreover, although the subject lands are still agricultural in nature, its subsequent reclassification into residential purposes as certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board prior to the effectivity of CARP renders the same exempt from CARP coverage.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 16 October 2009 is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon City, March 10, 2011.
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Secretary