Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Sta. Rosa Realty Dev Corp. vs. CA D

    Uploaded by

    Juris Doctor
    The petitioner owned two parcels of land that were declared as a "PARK" by zoning ordinance in 1979. In 1989, notices of acquisition were sent by the DAR stating the lands were covered by CARP. The petitioner claimed exemption as the lands were classified as a watershed area and subject to a land conversion petition. In 1994, a resolution voided the park classification and declared the lands agricultural. The Court remanded the case to DARAB to re-evaluate the nature of the lands and determine coverage by CARP, and continued the stay of CLOAs issued until final decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sta. Rosa Realty Dev Corp. vs. CA D

    Uploaded by

    Juris Doctor
    38 views1 page
    The petitioner owned two parcels of land that were declared as a "PARK" by zoning ordinance in 1979. In 1989, notices of acquisition were sent by the DAR stating the lands were covered by CARP. The petitioner claimed exemption as the lands were classified as a watershed area and subject to a land conversion petition. In 1994, a resolution voided the park classification and declared the lands agricultural. The Court remanded the case to DARAB to re-evaluate the nature of the lands and determine coverage by CARP, and continued the stay of CLOAs issued until final decision.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner owned two parcels of land that were declared as a "PARK" by zoning ordinance in 1979. In 1989, notices of acquisition were sent by the DAR stating the lands were covered by CARP. The petitioner claimed exemption as the lands were classified as a watershed area and subject to a land conversion petition. In 1994, a resolution voided the park classification and declared the lands agricultural. The Court remanded the case to DARAB to re-evaluate the nature of the lands and determine coverage by CARP, and continued the stay of CLOAs issued until final decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    38 views1 page

    Sta. Rosa Realty Dev Corp. vs. CA D

    Uploaded by

    Juris Doctor
    The petitioner owned two parcels of land that were declared as a "PARK" by zoning ordinance in 1979. In 1989, notices of acquisition were sent by the DAR stating the lands were covered by CARP. The petitioner claimed exemption as the lands were classified as a watershed area and subject to a land conversion petition. In 1994, a resolution voided the park classification and declared the lands agricultural. The Court remanded the case to DARAB to re-evaluate the nature of the lands and determine coverage by CARP, and continued the stay of CLOAs issued until final decision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Sta.

    Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs  Court of Appeals


    G.R. No. 112526
    October 12, 2001
    367 SCRA 175

    Facts:
    Petitioner, Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (SRRDC) was the registered owner of two
    parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and
    84891, with a total area of 254.6 hectares.

    The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance
    adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the Housing and Land Use
    Regulatory Board.
    On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two (2)
    notices of acquisition to petitioner, stating that petitioner's landholdings had been placed under
    the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

    On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its
    property under the aforesaid land titleswere exempt from CARP coverage because they had been
    classified as watershed area and were the subject of a pending petition for land conversion.
    On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution voiding
    the zoning classification of the land at Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land is now
    classified as agricultural land.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the entire
    property formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657.

    Held:
    In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs (DAR) Department of Agrarian Reform, the Court held that lands
    classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL may not be compulsorily
    acquired for distribution to farmer beneficiaries.
    However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact that subsequent
    studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in question form a vital part of a watershed
    area.

    Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing, petitioner
    presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the land
    from the coverage of CARL.

    Hence, the Court remanded the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination of the
    nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive
    Land Reform Program.In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to
    supposed farmer beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order
    issued on December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final decision on the case.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy