G.R. No. 224831 - ORLANDO D. GARCIA, AMADO Q. CALALANG, FERNANDO Q. CALALANG. AND BONIFACIO Q. CALALANG, VS. SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION, INC..

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, an Order is hereby issued: 1. DENYING herein petition/protest against CARP Coverage filed by Santos. Ventura, Hocorma foundation. Inc., as represented by Melchor Raymundo for lack of merit. 2. DIRECTING the MARO and PARO to continue with the documentation and distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries the remaining portion of 14.9709 hectares, more or less , of the 21.4224 hectare[-] portion over Lot 554-D-3 covered by TCT No. 549661-R registered in the name of Santos, Ventura, Hocorma Foundation, Inc. with a total area of 25.5699 hectares, located at Brgy. Mamatitang, (now Brgy. Cacutud), Mabalacat, Pampanga without prejudice to the right of retention of the landowner, if found to be so qualified. [17] Dissatisfied, SVHFI filed a motion for reconsideration [18] where it averred that the property is no longer devoted to or suitable for agricultural purposes and that the property is now an expressway, given the construction of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac expressway. In an Order dated September 5, 2006, the DAR OIC Regional Director took notice of the said construction, but still affirmed the January 16, 2006 Order and denied SVHFI's motion for reconsideration. [19] Thereafter, an Order of Finality dated November 20, 2006 was issued since no notice of appeal was filed by the parties concerned within the fifteen (15) day reglementary period as provided by law. [20] Despite this, however, things took a different turn in 2007. It appears in the records that, on June 28, 2007, petitioners filed a protest/petition before the DAR Center for Land Use Policy, Planning, and Implementation (DAR-CLUPPI). [21] Meanwhile, respondent SVHFI filed its Sworn Application for Exemption Clearance over the subject property on July 18, 2007. [22] Further, SVHFI also filed its Comment to petitioners' protest/petition on August 6, 2007, where it asserted its position that the subject landholding is exempt from CARP coverage pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1991 in relation to the cases of Junio v. Garilao and Jose Luis Ros v. Department of Agrarian Reform . [23] Ruling of the DAR Secretary: On December 10, 2007, then DAR Secretary Pagdanganan issued an Order granting the application for exemption of SVHFI. [24] Upon a review of the records of the application and its supporting documents, the DAR Secretary sided with SVHFI and ruled that the subject property had been reclassified to purposes other than agricultural prior to June 15, 1988. [25] Pertinently, the DAR Secretary stated: A close scrutiny of the records of the instant application reveals that indeed, the subject landholdings have been reclassified to purposes other than agricultural prior to June 15, 1988. Thus, its coverage under the program was erroneous, and in direct contravention with the provisions of DOJ 44 which specifically provides that "lands already classified and identified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988