ROXAS & CO VS CA

CASE: ROXAS & CO. VS. CA FACTS:

Petiti Petitione onerr Roxas Roxas & Co. is a domest domestic ic corpor corporati ation on and is the regist registere ered d owner owner of three three hacie haciendas ndas:: Haciendas Paico! "aniad and Ca#awa#! a a ocated in the $%nicipait# of as%g'%! "atangas. (he e)ents e)ents of this this case case occ%rr occ%rred ed d%ring d%ring the inc%m' inc%m'enc enc# # of then then Presi Presiden dentt Cora*o Cora*on n C. A+%in A+%ino. o. ,n ,n -e'r%ar# /01! President A+%ino iss%ed Procamation o. 2 prom%gating a Pro)isiona Constit%tion. President A+%ino signed on 3%# 44! /05! Procamation o. 2 instit%ting a Comprehensi)e Agrarian Reform Program and Exec%ti)e Order o. 44/ pro)iding the mechanisms necessar# to initia# impement the program. On 3%# 45! /05! the Congress of the Phiippines forma# con)ened and too6 o)er egisati)e power from the President. (his Congress passed Rep%'ic Act o. 1175! the Comprehensi)e Agrarian Reform 8aw 9CAR8 of /00. (he Act was signed '# the President on 3%ne ;! /00 and too6 effect on 3%ne 7! /00. "efore the aws effecti)it#! on $a# 1! /00! petitioner fied with respondent
= = = =

Asse Assess ssed ed '# $%ni $%nici cipa pa Agrar graria ian n Offi Office cerr 9$AR 9$ARO O!! s%'> s%'>ec ecte ted d to ac+% ac+%is isit itio ion n and and dist distri ri'% '%ti tion on according to CAR8. Petition Petitioner er appied appied with with
HAC,E%dication Ad>%dication "oard 9%dicia +%estion of whether the propert# was s%'>ect to agrarian reform! hence! this +%estion sho%d 'e s%'mitted to the Office of the Secretar# of Agrarian Reform for determination. Petitioners +%estioned the expropriation of its properties %nder the CAR8 and the denia of d%e process in the ac+%isition of its andhodings. $ARO @ denied CA @ denied $R B denied ISSUE/S:

.

W/N the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance accordance with law; and

4.

W/N SC has the power to rule on whether the lots were reclassifed rom agricultural agricultural to non-agricultural. non-agricultural.

HELD:

. ES. ES. Ac+%isi Ac+%isition tion proceedi proceedings ngs was against against petiti petitionerDs onerDs right right to d%e process. process. -irst! there was an improper ser)ice of the otice of Ac+%isition. otices to corporations sho%d 'e ser)ed thro%gh their president! manager! secretar#! cashier! agent! or an# of its directors or  partners. 3aime Piminte! to whom the notice was ser)ed! was neither of those. Second Second!! there there was no notic notice e of co)era co)erage! ge! meaning! meaning! the parce parces s of and and were were not proper# proper# identified 'efore the# were ta6en '# the ect to comp%sor# ac+%isition. (hird! (hird! (he C8OAs were iss%ed iss%ed to farmer farmer 'eneficiar 'eneficiaries ies witho%t witho%t >%st compensati compensation. on. (he aw pro)ides that the deposit m%st 'e made on# in cash or 8"P 'onds. %risdic >%risdictio tion n to r%e on the recas recassif sifica icati tion on of and and from from agric%t%ra to non=agric%t%ra. %dicate o)er  petitionerD petitionerDs s appicatio appication n for and con)ersion con)ersion..