FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 205618, September 16, 2019
ELFLEDA, ALBERT, NAPOLEON, EDEN, SEVERIANO, CELIA AND LEO, ALL SURNAMED MARCELO, REPRESENTED BY SPOUSES SEVERINO** [DECEASED] AND CELIA C. MARCELO, PETITIONERS, v. SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA NG BARANGAY SAN MARIANO, REPRESENTED BY GODOFREDO ERMITA, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
Through this Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners challenge the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated June 28, 2012 and Resolution3 dated February 4, 2013. The assailed CA Decision and Resolution reversed the ruling of the Office of the President (OP), and instead, reinstated the order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary which denied petitioners' application for exemption of their landholdings from the coverage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
TCT No. Lot No. Area (Ha) Date of Registration NT-47472 3346 0.1675 August 2, 1963 NT-47472 3340 8.9955 August 2, 1963 NT-47473 1222 11.9882 August 2, 1963 NT-47473 3345 1.3080 August 2, 1963 NT-47473 3344 0.0495 August 2, 1963 NT-216355 1-I 92.1943 March 14, 1991 TOTAL 114.7030
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
- Ordering the RECALL and CANCELLATION of Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA[s]) Nos. 006261 (TCT-CLOA-CA2116), 00626177 (TCT-CLOA-CA-2117), and 00626396 (TCT-CLOA-CA-22213) issued in the name of private respondents being NULL and VOID.
- Ordering, the Register of Deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija to cause the Cancellation of Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA[s]) issued in favor of the private respondents and declaring the same of no legal force and effect.
- Directing the Department of Agrarian Reform to protect the rights of the legitimate title holders and the rest of the unaffected areas must remain undisturbed.
- Enjoining Private Respondents to cease and [desist] from entering and conducting any activity inside the subject property specifically Celia Village located at San Mariano, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija.
- No pronouncement as to cost.
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, an Order is hereby issued DIRECTING the protestants Elfleda Marcelo, et al., as represented by Sps. Severiano Marcelo and Celia Marcelo, to file their Application for Exemption pursuant to Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2003, pertaining to landholdings embraced by TCT Nos. NT 216355 [and] 47473, with an area of 92.1943 and 13.3447 hectares, more or less, respectively, situated in Brgy. San Mariano, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija.
SO ORDERED.16
(a) Order18 dated November 17, 2005, issued by the DAR Regional Office directing petitioners to file their Application for exemption; (b) Certification19 dated September 12, 2005, issued by the HLURB confirming that there exists a valid certificate of registration and license to sell issued by the NHA covering the landholdings; (c) Certification20 dated March 22, 2006, issued by the HLURB stating that the landholdings are within the urban residence and reclassified as residential properties prior to June 15, 1988; (d) Certification21 dated April 10, 2006, issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) stating that the landholdings are Within the urban residence pursuant to Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2006-004; (e) Certificate of Registration22 of Celia Subdivision and License to Sell23 issued by the NHA; (f) Resolution No. 2006-00424 dated March 15,2006, issued by the Sangguniang Bayan of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija ratifying the landholdings as urban and residential under the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance; (g) Certification25 dated April 18, 2006, issued by the Department of Agriculture (DA) certifying that the landholdings are not suitable for agricultural production; (h) Certification26 dated September 21, 2005, issued by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) stating that the landholdings are already partially developed and not included in its programmed area; (i) Certifications dated January 9, 199827 and November 27, 2005 issued by the DAR Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) stating that the landholdings were unteiianted; (j) Certification28 dated April 6, 2006, issued by the DAR Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) stating that the landholdings have no farmworkers or actual tillers; (k) Affidavit of Undertaking29 executed on April 4, 2006, by petitioners in support of their application for exemption; and (l) Various pictures30 and location map of the landholdings showing the development undertaken therein.
WHEREFORE, premises considered the application for Exemption Clearance pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2003, involving six (6) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 114.7030 hectares, located in Barangay San Mariano, San Antonio Nueva Ecija is hereby DENIED. The Municipal and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officers are hereby directed to continue with the documentation of the said landholdings pursuant to pertinent and applicable agrarian laws, and thereafter to cause the immediate distribution of the same to the qualified Beneficiaries.
SO ORDERED.33
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Orders dated 21 March 2007 and 4 February 2008 of the Department of Agrarian Reform are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and, in lieu thereof, a new judgment rendered GRANTING appellants' application for exemption of their titled landholdings from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
SO ORDERED.39
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated March 1, 2010 and Resolution dated May 27, 2010 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the Order dated March 21, 2007 issued by the DAR Secretary is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.43
ITHE HONORABLE COURT OF AP[P]EALS ERRED WHEN IT DECLARE[D] THAT THERE [WERE] DISCREPANCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY HEREIN PETITIONERS; AND
IITHE SAID HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT SUSTAINED THE CLAIMS AND ARGUMENTS OF HEREIN RESPONDENTS THAT THE LAND IN DISPUTE REMAINS TO BE AGRICULTURAL DESPITE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE OTHERWISE.44
SEC. 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain.
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon. (Emphases supplied)
[T]hose devoted to agricultural activity as defined in [R.A. No.] 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use. (Emphasis supplied)
The [DOJ Opinion No. 044] has ruled that with respect to the conversion of agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands are [sic] already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance. (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 3. Applicability of Rules. —These guidelines shall apply to all applications for conversion, from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural use, such as:
x x x x
3.4. Conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the LGU or by way of a Presidential Proclamation, to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988, pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such uses. However, for those reclassified prior to 15 June 1988, the guidelines in securing an exemption clearance from the DAR shall apply. (Emphasis supplied)
2.1 Official receipt showing proof of payment of filing and inspection fees.
2.2 Sworn application for CARP Exemption or Exclusion xxx
x x x x
2.3 True copy, of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of the subject land, certified by the Register of Deeds not earlier than thirty (30) days prior to application filing date.
x x x x
2.4 Land classification certification:
2.4.1Certification from the [HLURB] Regional Officer on the Actual zoning or classification of the subject land in the approved comprehensive land use plan, citing the municipal or city zoning ordinance number, resolution number, and date of its approval by the HLURB or its corresponding board resolution number.
x x x x
2.5 Certification of the [NIA] that the area is not irrigated nor scheduled for irrigation rehabilitation nor irrigable with firm funding commitment.
2.6 Certification of the [MARO] attesting compliance with the public notice requirement xxx and its corresponding report x x x.
2.7 Photographs x x x, using color film, and taken on the subject land under sunlight, x x x
2.8 Proof of receipt of payment of disturbance compensation or a valid agreement to pay or waive payment of disturbance compensation.
2.9 Affidavit/Undertaking x x x
2.10 Lot plan prepared by a duly-licensed geodetic engineer indicating the lots being applied for and their technical descriptions.
2.11 Vicinity or directional map x x x68 (Emphases supplied)
The exemption order of Secretary Pagdanganan found petitioners' application to have fully complied with the documentary requirements for exemption set. forth under AO No. 6, the more important of which are the Certifications from the Deputized Zoning Administrator and the HUDCC stating that petitioners' property falls within the Light Intensity Industrial Zone of Calapan City.
x x x x
In contrast to the exemption order issued by Secretary Pagdanganan, the resolution and order, respectively, of OIC Secretaries Ponce and Pangandaman — which the CA cited with approval — relied mainly on certifications declaring that the property is irrigated or has a slope of below 18% and on an ocular inspection report stating that the property is generally covered with rice and that the surrounding areas are still agricultural, as bases for their conclusion that subject land is agricultural and, therefore, covered by the CARL. These matters, however, no longer bear any significance in the light of the certifications of the Deputized Zoning Administrator and the HUDCC testifying to the non-agricultural nature of the landholding in question.
The CARL, as amended, is unequivocal that only lands devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land are within its scope. Thus, the slope of the land or the fact of its being irrigated or non-irrigated becomes material only if the land is agricultural, for purposes of exempting the same from the coverage of the agrarian law. However, if the land is non-agricultural — as is the case of the property here under consideration — the character and topography of the land lose significance.
It must likewise be emphasized that, since zoning ordinances are based not only on the present, but also on the future projection of needs of a local government unit, when a zoning ordinance is passed, the local legislative council obviously takes into consideration the prevailing conditions in the area where the land subject of reclassification is situated.
Accordingly, when the then Sangguniang Bayan of Calapan enacted Ordinance No. 21, there is reasonable ground to believe that the district subject of the reclassification, including its environs, was already developing. Thus, as found by the Office of the President: "we find that the area where subject property is situated was really intended to be classified not as agricultural, as in fact it was declared as a residential, commercial and institutional in 1998."70 (Emphasis supplied)
Zoning classification is an exercise by the local government of police power, not the power of eminent domain. A zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes, defines, and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and future projection of needs.The Court gave a more extensive explanation of zoning in Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. v. Municipality of Tarlac, thus:
The appellant argues that Ordinance No. 1 is a zoning ordinance which the Municipal Council is authorized to adopt. McQuillin in his treaties on Municipal Corporations (Volume 8, 3rd ed.) says:Zoning is governmental regulation of the uses of land and buildings according to districts or zones. It is comprehensive where it is governed by a single plan for the entire municipality and prevails throughout the municipality in accordance with that plan. It is partial or limited where it is applicable only to a certain part of the municipality or to certain uses. Fire limits, height districts and building regulations are forms of partial or limited zoning or use regulation that are antecedents of modern comprehensive zoning.
The term "zoning," ordinarily used with the connotation of comprehensive or general zoning, refers to governmental regulation of the uses of land and buildings according to districts or zones. This regulation must and does utilize classification of uses within districts as well as classification of districts, inasmuch as it manifestly is impossible to deal specifically with each of the innumerable uses made of land and buildings. Accordingly, (zoning has been defined as the confining of certain classes of buildings and uses to certain localities, areas, districts or zones.) It has been stated that zoning is the regulation by districts of building development and uses of property, and that the term "zoning" is not only capable of this definition but has acquired a technical and artificial meaning in accordance therewith. (Zoning is the separation of the municipality into districts and the regulation of buildings and structures within the districts so created, in accordance with their construction, and nature and extent of their use. It is a dedication of districts delimited to particular uses designed to subserve the general welfare.) Numerous other definitions of zoning more or less in accordance with these have been given in the cases.72 (Internal citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
SEC. 3. Additional Powers of Provincial Boards, Municipal Boards or City Councils and Municipal and Regularly Organized Municipal District Councils. –
x x x x
Power to adopt zoning and planning ordinances. - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, Municipal Boards or City Councils in cities, and Municipal Councils in municipalities are hereby authorized to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations for their respective cities and municipalities subject to the approval of the City Mayor or Municipal Mayor, as the case may be. Cities and municipalities may, however, consult the National Planning Commission on matters pertaining to planning and zoning.
(2) Generate and maximize the use of resources and revenues for the development plans, program objectives and priorities of the municipality as provided for under Section 18 of this Code with particular attention to agro-industrial development and countryside growth and progress, and relative thereto, shall:x x x x
(vii) Adopt a comprehensive land use plan for the municipality: Provided, That the formulation, adoption, or modification of said plan shall be in coordination with the approved provincial comprehensive land use plan;
(viii) Reclassify land within the jurisdiction of the municipality subject to the pertinent provision of this Code;
(ix) Enact integrated zoning ordinances in consonance with the approved comprehensive land use plan, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations; establish fire limits or zones, particularly in populous centers; and regulate the construction, repair or modification of buildings within said fire limits or zones in accordance with the provisions of the Fire Code[.] (Emphases supplied)
SEC. 20. Reclassification of Lands. - (a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearing for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance:(1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%);
(2) For component cities and first to the third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and
(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, farther, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law", shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act.
(b) The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of the National Economic Development Authority, authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of the limits set in the next preceding paragraph.
(c) The local government units shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided, That the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such plans.
(d) When approval by a national agency is required for reclassification, such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Failure to act on a proper and complete application for reclassification within three (3) months from receipt of the same shall be deemed as approval thereof.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657. (Emphases supplied)
WHEREAS, spouses [Marcelo], registered co-owners and duly authorized representatives of the titled owners of said CELIA SUBDIVISION, located at San Mariano, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, submitted and filed on February 17, 2006 copies of documents and pertinent papers with the Office of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Antonio, asking for a Resolution to ratify and recognize said subdivision as already a residential zone even prior to June 15, 1988, the affectivity [sic] of [R.A. No. 6657];
WHEREAS, to support their request, the following documentary evidences [sic] were submitted: (a). Xerox copies of the titles; (b). Tax declarations; (c). Tax clearance; (d). Approval of the Comprehensive Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; (e). Special Power of Attorney; (f). Certified Xerox copy of the Certificate of Registration; (g). Certified Xerox copy of License to Sell; (h). Original copy of the certification of the [HLURB]; (i). Pictures taken on the subject properties; (j). MARO's certification that the subject properties are untenanted, and (k). Certification from Chief District III, NIA that said properties are not included in the program area of District III, NIA, UPRIIS, and not irrigated;
WHEREAS, it is true that the existence of the subdivision made it possible for the urbanization of the locality leading to the construction of infrastructures like schools, hospitals and residential houses which now abound in the area. It is also a public knowledge that the lot on which San Mariano High School was built and constructed – which has been donated by spouses Marcelo – forms part and parcel of subject landholdings;
x x x x
WHEREAS, spouses Marcelo's request partakes the nature of exemption pursuant to see3 [sic] par. C of [R.A. No. 6657] and [DOJ Opinion No. 044] and they alleged that subject properties had been classified and converted into subdivision for residential purpose by the [NHA] prior to June 15, 1988, the effectivity of [R.A. No. 6657][;]
WHEREAS, it appears upon the certification of the MARO, that no agricultural tenancy exists, coupled with certification of the [NHA]74that Certificate of Registration and License to sell is still valid and subsisting on subject landholding, hence these [sic] exists no impediment to classify subject landholding into a residential zone.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANTONIO, NUEVA ECIJA, BY VIRTUE OF POWERS VESTED IN IT BY LAW, IN SESSION ASSEMBLED, to ratify and approve, on the basis of documentary evidences [sic] submitted, a RESOLUTION ratifying CELIA SUBDIVISION, located at San Mariano, San Antonio Nueva Ecija, as a residential subdivision and classified as URBAN and RESIDENTIAL in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance.75 (Emphases supplied)
This is to certify that CELIA SUBDIVISION, subdivision project covered by LRC Plan Pcs-3160 located at San Mariano, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija has been issued a CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION (CR No.) RS-0272 and LICENSE TO SELL (LS No.) 0239 by the [NHA] on 28 April 1977 which is covered [sic] Transfer Certificate of Title No. 47474 (now NT-216355)[,] NT-47473 and NT-47472 with an area of 92.1943 hectares more or less, 13.3457 hectares more or less and 9.1630 hectares more or less respectively.
Furthermore, said CR and LS issued by the NHA is still valid and recognized by this Board.76
This is to certify that CELIA SUBDIVISION, a subdivision project with Certificate of Registration (CR No.) RS-0272 and License to Sell (LS No.) 0239 by the [NHA] on 28 April 1977 under Title Nos. 47472, 47473 and NT-216355 which is covered by LRC Plan Pcs-3160 (Lot 3340, 3346, 1222, 3343, 3344 and lot 1-I of the subdivision plan Psd-03-042455, being a portion of Lot 1 II 3960 LRC Rec. No. (situated at Brgy. San Mariano, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, containing an area of 1,547,030 square meters registered in the name of Elfleda Marcelo et.al.) is found to be within the URBAN RESIDENCE and partakes the nature of EXEMPTION pursuant to Sec. 3, par. c of [R.A. No. 6657] and [DOJ Opinion No. 044], that the subject properties had been classified and converted into subdivision for residential purpose by the NHA prior to June 15, 1988, the effectivity of [R.A. No. 6657] and further ratified and approved by the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Resolution No. 2006-004.
Furthermore, said Certificate of Rgistration [sic] and License to Sell issued by the NHA is valid and recognized by the Board.77
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2703 dated September 10, 2019.
** Also referred to as "Severiano" in the pleadings.
1 Dated March 6, 2013, rollo, pp. 9-30.
2 Id. at 31-48. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Francisco P. Acosta.
3 Id. at 49-50.
4 Id. at 286.
5 Id. at 33.
6 Id. at 32.
7 Id. at 66.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 33.
10 Id. at 93.
11 Id. at 98.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 34.
14 Id. at 66.
15 Id. at 66-68.
16 Id. at 68.
17 Id. at 57-65.
18Supra note 15.
19 Id. at 69.
20 Id. at 70.
21 Id. at 71.
22 Id. at 72.
23 Id. at 73.
24 Id. at 74-75.
25 Id. at 76.
26 Id. at 77.
27 Id. at 78.
28 Id. at 79-80.
29 Id. at 81.
30 Id. at 82-89.
31 Id. at 149.
32 Id. at 141.
33 Id. at 107.
34 Id. at 143-148.
35 Id. at 150-158.
36 Id. at 155.
37 Id. at 157.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 157-158.
40 Id. at 170-171.
41 Id. at 176.
42 Id. at 46.
43 Supra note 2 at 47.
44 Rollo, p. 21.
45 Id. at 23.
46 Id. at 24.
47 Id. at 209.
48 Id. at 207.
49 Id. at 208.
50 Id. at 214-221.
51 Id. at 225.
52 Id. at 252-253.
53 See Liberty Construction & Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 490, 495 (1996).
54 Over time, exceptions to this rule have expanded As enumerated in Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 182-183(2016), these are:(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures: (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. (Internal citations omitted)
55 Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
Rules and regulations. – The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said Rules shall take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
56 Dated March 22, 1990. See also Heirs of Luis A Luna v. Afable, 702 Phil. 146, 166-167 (2013).
57 See Heirs of Luis A. Luna v. Afable, supra at 167.
58 Dated March 16, 1990.
59 Such as the National Planning Commission under R.A. No. 3344, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, by the Human Settlements Commission under P.D. Nos. 583, 815 and 946, and by the Department of Local Government and Community Development. See Junto v. Garilao, 503 Phil. 154, 1563-164 (2005)
60 296-A Phil. 271 (1993).
61 Dated March 27, 1994.
62 Junio v. Garilao, supra note 59 at 165 citing Advincida-Velasquez v. Court of Appeals et al., 475 Phil. 45 (2004) and National Housing Authority v. Allarde, 376 Phil. 147 (1999).
63 473 Phil. 64 (2004).
64 661 Phil. 34, 88 (2011).
65 764 Phil. 92 (2015).
66 Id. at 125, citing Buklod Nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc., supra at 85-89.
67 Heirs of Luis A. Luna v. Afable, supra note 57.
68 Id.
69 Supra note 57.
70 Id. at 170-172.
71 Supra note 62.
72 Id. at 67-68.
73 See United B.F. Homeowners Association, Inc., v. The City Mayor of Paranaque City, 543 Phil. 684, 693 (2007).
74 Should have been the HLURB according to the facts of the case.
75 Supra note 24.
76 Supra note 19.
77 Supra note 20.
78 Junio v. Garilao, supra note 59 at 169.
79 Ong v. Imperial, supra note 65 at footnote 34.