Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 165547 January 15, 2009
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by its Secretary RENE C. VILLA,Petitioners,
vs.
SARANGANI AGRICULTURE CO., INC., ACIL CORPORATION, NICASIO ALCANTARA and TOMAS ALCANTARA, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
AZCUNA, J.:
Respondents filed a motion for partial reconsideration of this Court’s Decision of January 24, 2007, invoking this Court’s ruling in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals 1 and asking that they be served separate Notices of Coverage and Notices of Acquisition vis-à-vis the subject lands, apart from and in addition to the Notice of Deferment that this Court’s Decision deemed sufficient and amounting to said Notices. To remove any and all doubts as to compliance with due process requirements in the projected acquisition of subject lands for agrarian reform, the Court RESOLVES to amend the dispositive portion of its aforesaid Decision to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. Subject to the compliance with all requirements in connection with the giving of the Notices of Coverage and Notices of Acquisition as provided by law, the denial by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of respondents’ application for conversion with regard to 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares, the deferment period of which has already expired, is AFFIRMED. The Decision and Resolution, dated July 19, 2004 and September 24, 2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79899, are hereby MODIFIED accordingly. The case is REMANDED to the Department of Agrarian Reform for further proceedings to properly effect the acquisition of the subject lands for distribution to the intended beneficiaries.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
IT IS ORDERED
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1See CA Decision, Annex “B” of Petition, pp. 44-45.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
