Cancellartion Universal Motors.docx

Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator TARLAC CITY, TARLAC UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY, Applicant/Petitioner, - versus -

CANC-__________________

RICARDO VALETE, CONSTANCIO VALETE, RAYMUNDO PIMENTEL , , WARREN CARIAGA, RODRIGO CARIAGA, and DOMINGO UNEC, Private Respondents,

FOR: APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARDS: CLOA No. 13137; CLOA No. 15234; CLOA No. 13138; CLOA No. 15235; CLOA No. 15236; & CLOA No. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE 15237 PROVINCE OF TARLAC, AND THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM OFFICER (PARPO) OF THE PROVINCE OF TARLAC, Public Respondents. x----------------------------------------------x

APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA) Comes now the applicant/petitioner, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers: I.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“JUSTICIA NEMINI NEGANDA EST” (Justice is to be denied to none). “For a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL. The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise

of the States police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that [n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property.” ROXAS & CO., INC., vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD,(G.R. No. 127876. December 17, 1999). Applicant opts to begin this application for cancellation by way of this prefatory statement in order to underscore the point it wants to bring to this Honorable Office for resolution and redress. II.

PARTIES

1. Applicant Universal Motors Corporation is a stock corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws. A copy of the SEC Certificate of Registration is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”. It is being represented herewith by __________________, a copy of a Secretary’s Certificate showing such authority to represent the applicant is hereto attached as ANNEX “B”. Applicant’s mailing and business address is at ______________________, where it may be served with notices and other processes of this Honorable Office. 2.

Private respondents, namely: RICARDO VALETE, CONSTANCIO

VALETE, RAYMUNDO PIMENTEL, WARREN CARIAGA, RODRIGO CARIAGA, and DOMINGO UNEC, are the named beneficiaries and recipients of the CLOAS being applied for cancellation herewith. They may be served with notices and other processes of this Honorable Office at Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac.

3. Public Respondent Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer (PARPO) II, ILEONA B. PANGILINAN is made a party to this case in her capacity as incumbent PARPO II of the Province of Tarlac. She may be served with notices of this Honorable Office through DAR Provincial Office located at Pinacles Building, Matatalaib, Tarlac City. 4. Public Respondent Register of Deeds of the Province of Tarlac is being impleaded in his capacity as Land Registration Officer of the Province of Tarlac. He may be served with notices of this Honorable

Office through the office address of the Registry of Deeds OF Tarlac at Champaca Street, Tarlac City, Tarlac.

III.

BRIEF FACTUAL ACTECEDENTS

5. On _____________2018, the herein applicant received a Notice from the Land Bank of the Philippines informing the applicant that its property denominated as Claim No, 03-CA-98-0164 has been covered under the Agrarian Reform Program pursuant to RA 6657/RA 9700, and the Land Bank shall release payment under the said claim number, subject to the compliance of the herein applicant-petitioner to the updated list of requirements enumerated in the said Notice. A copy of the Notice is hereto attached as ANNEX “C”. 6. Herein applicant was very much surprised of the said notice because it was not aware that its land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 64569 encompassing an area of 159,643 square meters, and located at Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac had already been covered and acquired by the Government pursuant to the the Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP. Thus, on November 21, 2018, herein applicant’s authorized representative went to the DAR Provincial Office in Tarlac City in order to verify therein the true status of the land by submitting thereon a written inquiry with request for documents involving the subject land. A copy of the letter-request made by the herein applicant is hereto attached as ANNEX “D”. 7. On 2018, herein applicant through Mr. John Paul B. Moreno, received from PARPO II Ileona B. Pangilinan a written reply to herein applicant’s formal inquiry. The content of the letter merely confirms that the subject land has indeed been covered under CARP, but no supporting documents that would clearly show the procedure that had been undertaken by DAR relative to the government’s compulsory acquisition and distribution of the subject land, was provided by the DAR Provincial Office. However, the said letter of the DAR Provincial Officer also contained copy of: a) a Certification form the Land Bank dated February 3, 1999 alleging a deposit of P276,803.41 cash and Agrarian Reform Bonds made by the Land Bank on February 2, 1999, in the name of Universal Motors Corporation; b) Notice of Coverage dated August 21, 1997; and c) Letter-invitation for an Ocular Inspection dated April 16, 1998. Copy of the letter-reply of PARPO II Ileona Pangilinan is hereto attached as ANNEX “E”. Copy of the Land Bank Certification is hereto attached as ANNEX “E-1”. Copy of the Notice of Coverage is hereto attached as

ANNEX “E-2”. Lastly, copy of the Letter-invitation for ocular inspection is hereto attached as ANNEX “E-3”. 8. Not satisfied with the response of the DAR Provincial Office as the reply letter and its attachment failed to show that the herein applicant or its authorized representative has been able to receive those notices and had been duly notified of the entire proceedings relative to the coverage and acquisition of the herein subject land within the sphere of CARP, on January 11, 2019, herein applicant filed with the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Office of the Undersecretary for Program Planning and Research Office (PPRO), another written request inquiring about the procedure that had been undertaken in connection with DAR coverage and distribution of the subject land, with particular request for documents surrounding the said coverage and distribution to farmers of the subject land. 9. On March 18, 2019, the representative of the herein applicant received from the DAR-PPRO a two (2) pages memorandum dated February 28, 2019, submitted to the said DAR Office by PARPO II Ileona B. Pangilinan. The said memorandum merely provided a brief case history of the acquisition and distribution of the subject land to the named beneficiaries. No supporting documents were ever provided, aside from the said memorandum. A copy of the said memorandum is hereto attached as ANNEX “F”. 10. Page 1 of the said memorandum provides among others that the Notice of Coverage dated August 21, 1997 was allegedly issued to the Manager of the Universal Motors Corporation. That the Notice of Acquisition dated August 17, 1998 was allegedly issued to the Manager of Universal Motors Corporation. 11. Meanwhile, page 2 of the memorandum provides that the entire land was covered under CARP via a compulsory acquisition and distributed to named beneficiaries, namely: a) Richard Valete for Lot A, under CLOA No. 13137 which was allegedly registered on August 30, 1999, and covering an area of 2.7968 hectares; b) Constancio Valete for Lot B, under CLOA No. 15234 which was allegedly registered on November 16, 2000, and covering an area of 2.8107 hectares; c) Raymundo Pimentel for Lot C, bearing CLOA No. 13138 which was allegedly registered on August 30, 1999, and covering an area of 2.5494 hectares; d) Warren Cariaga for Lot D, under CLOA No. 15235, which was registered on November 16, 2000, and covering an area of 3.0117 hectares; e) Rodrigo Cariaga for Lot E, bearing CLOA No. 15236 which was registered on November 16, 2000, and covering an area of 2.0779

hectares; and f) Domingo Unec for Lot F, under CLOA No. 15237, which was allegedly registered on November 16, 2000, covering an area of 2.5178 hectares. 12. However, a profound verification of the herein applicant totally contravenes the said memorandum. The only notice having been received by the herein applicant was the notice from Land Bank of the Philippines dated October 15, 2018. That contrary to what was stated in the memorandum, herein applicant has not received a Notice of Coverage. It has not received either a Notice of Acquisition. Since the herein applicant has not received any of such notices, there was a total denial of due process pertaining to the compulsory coverage and acquisition of its entire landholding. That the documents provided by the DAR Provincial Officer are totally bare and devoid of any information as to who from the side of the herein applicant-petitioner has ever received the Notices sent by DAR during the 1997-2000 period where the subject land has allegedly undertaken a compulsory coverage and acquisition proceedings under RA 6657.

IV. NATURE OF THE ACTION 3. This is an application for cancellation of CLOA No. 13137; CLOA No. 15234; CLOA No. 13138; CLOA No. 15235; CLOA No. 15236; & CLOA No. 15237.

V.BASIS OF THE APPLICATION 14. The basis of the application for cancellation of CLOAs is that the herein applicant was totally denied of due process. For one, there was no showing that a notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference had been sent and actually received by the herein applicant. For another, there was no showing also that a notice of acquisition had been sent by DAR and actually received by the herein applicant.

VI. DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

15. The case of ROXAS & CO., INC., vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF

NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD,(G.R. No. 127876. December 17, 1999) underscored the two notices requirement under the R.A. 6657, to wit:

“For a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL. The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the States police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that [n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property.” 16. In the herein case, the applicant had not actually received even one of those two notices during the time the property of the herein applicant is being subjected to the compulsory coverage and acquisition by DAR. That as already stated, the only notice it received was the notice from the Land Bank of the Philippines dated October 15,2018. That notice from the Land Bank of the Philippines simply means that the landholding of the applicant has already been covered under CARP; distributed to farmers; issued CLOA; and registered in the name of the beneficiaries. These facts about its landholding were only confirmed by the applicant upon its thorough verification starting from its receipt of such notice from the LBP. That this Office or its concerned Officers could not provide the folder of documents that would show that the compulsory coverage and acquisition

of its land by the government through CARP had observed due process. This is because as already stated, other than the two-page memorandum and the earlier letter-reply issued by PARPO II Ileona B. Pangilinan, no further documents were ever provided. 17. The fact also that the entire landholding of the herein applicant has been covered within the ambit of CARP would further show that the herein applicant had no actual participation in the said compulsory coverage and acquisition by the government of its land through CARP. Had the applicant been notified of the coverage and received a letter invitation to a preliminary conference, it could have at least identified its preferred retention area, assuming that the applicant would not oppose the compulsory coverage and acquisition. AGAIN, IN THE HEREIN CASE, ITS ENTIRE LANDHOLDING WAS COMPULSORILY COVERED AND ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR CARP PURPOSES WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. 18. Other evidence that would show that the landholding of the herein applicant was invalidly covered under CARP and that the herein applicant-petitioner was totally denied of due process, a perusal of its latest Certified Electronic Copy issued by the Registry of Deeds based in Tarlac City would clearly show that the entire property has remained up until now in the name of the herein applicant. Moreover, copies of the Official Receipt of the payment of the Real Property Tax of the herein subject property, from year 2010 to year 2018 would also show that the owner of the entire property and the one paying taxes thereon is still the herein applicant-petitioner. Attached as ANNEX “G” herewith is the copy of the Certified Electronic Copy of TCT No. 64589. Also attached herewith as ANNEXES “H” to “H-9” are the copies of the said Official Receipts of the payment of Real Property Taxes by the herein applicant-petitioner. 19. Hence, this application for cancellation of CLOA No. 13137; CLOA No. 15234; CLOA No. 13138; CLOA No. 15235; CLOA No. 15236; & CLOA No. 15237.

PRAYER WHEREFORE, in the INTEREST of JUSTICE and EQUITY, it is respectfully prayed to this Honorable Office that this APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION of CLOA No. 13137; CLOA No. 15234; CLOA No. 13138; CLOA No. 15235; CLOA No. 15236; & CLOA No. 15237 be GIVEN DUE COURSE.

Other relief, just and equitable, under the premises is likewise prayed for. Manila for Tarlac City,

20

March 2019.

BENITO B. DE ASIS Counsel for the Applicant IBP No.020798/01-08-18/Iloilo PTR No. 6988480/01-08-18/Manila Roll No. 49167 MCLE Compliance No. V-0021990/6-10-16 Room 416 FEMII Building Andres Soriano Avenue Intramuros, ManilA

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION I, JOHN PAUL B. M ARENO, of legal age, Filipino, with postal and office address at ________________________________City, duly representing Universal Motors Corporation, hereby depose and state that: 1. The Universal Motors Corporation is the applicant-petitioner in the above-captioned case; 2. Being its authorized representative, I have caused the preparation of the foregoing, have read the same and the contents thereof are all true and correct of my personal knowledge and based on available records/ authentic documents; and 3. I further depose and state that I have not commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, that to the best of our knowledge, no such similar action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; if there is any action or proceeding which is either pending or may have been terminated, we will state the status thereof, and if we should hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, we hereby undertake to report the fact within five (5) days from notice thereof to this Honorable Office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this March 2019 in City, Philippines.

day of

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, for and in City, this day of 2019 by the above-named affiant who exhibited to me his ID No. , as competent proof of his identity being the affiant hereto.

Doc. No. Page No. Book N o. Series of 2019