CASE 2016-0078: GONZALO PUY AT & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, – VERSUS RUBEN ALCAIDE (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY GLORIA ALCAIDE, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FARMERBENEFICIARIES, RESPONDENT. (G.R. NO. 167952, 19 OCT 2016, VELASCO, JR., J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration and the Supplement to Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration are GRANTED and the February 1, 2012 Decision of this Court is RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.

 

The instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated February 1, 2005 and the Resolution dated April 25, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 86069 are REINSTATED and AFFIRMED and, consequently, the Orders dated June 8, 2001 and November 5, 2001 of the Depaiiment of Agrarian Reform Secretary are REINSTATED.

 

SO ORDERED.’


SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

“Evidently, none of the abovementioned description of land would negate the determination of the DAR that the subject landholding is indeed an agricultural land. Whether the subject landholding is presently being cultivated or not or whether the same is sugarland, cornland, unirrigated or in-igated riceland is of no moment. The primordial consideration is whether the subject landholding 1s an agricultural land which falls within the coverage of CARP.

 

Moreover, any doubt as to the conduct of an ocular inspection and as to the nature and character of the subject landholding should be obviated with the issuance of the Memorandum28 dated March 3, 2005 addressed to Luis B. Bueno, Jr., Assistant Regional Director for Operations of DAR Regional Office Region IV-A, and prepared by Catalina D. Causaren, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Laguna, where it was stated that an ocular inspection has been conducted and that the subject landholding is indeed an agricultural land.

 

. . . . .

 

And second, petitioner has miserably failed to present any evidence that would support its contention that the subject landholding has already been validly reclassified from “agricultural” to “industrial” land. According to petitioner, the subject landholding has already been reclassified as industrial land by the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Bifian, and that pursuant to such reclassification, petitioner has been assessed, and is paying, realty taxes based on this new classification.

Indeed, the subject landholding had been reclassified under Kapasiyahan Blg. 03-(89)31 dated January 7, 1989 of the Municipality of Bifian, Laguna. It is worth noting, however, that s~id reclassification has not been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board based on its Certification32 dated October 16, 1997


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0078-gonzalo-puyat-sons-inc-vs-ruben-aldaide 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.