Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
TARLAC CITY, TARLAC

UNIVERSAL MOTORS
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED
BY,
Applicant/Petitioner,

- versus - CANC-__________________

RICARDO VALETE, CONSTANCIO FOR: APPLICATION FOR

VALETE, RAYMUNDO PIMENTEL , , CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE
WARREN CARIAGA, RODRIGO OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARDS:
CARIAGA, and DOMINGO UNEC, CLOA No. 13137; CLOA No. 15234;
Private Respondents, CLOA No. 13138; CLOA No. 15235;
CLOA No. 15236; & CLOA No.
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE 15237
PROVINCE OF TARLAC, AND THE
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM
PROGRAM OFFICER (PARPO) OF
THE PROVINCE OF TARLAC,
Public Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------x

APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF LAND

OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOA)

Comes now the applicant/petitioner, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully avers:

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

“JUSTICIA NEMINI NEGANDA EST” (Justice is to be denied to

none).
“For a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two notices are
required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a
preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the
BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to
DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to
the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the
letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be
understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of
administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise
of the States police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent
that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an
exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance
with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners
are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed,
there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking
contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is
required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer
beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that [n]o person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law. The CARL was not
intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of
the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the
taking of private property.” ROXAS & CO., INC., vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR
FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF
NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD,(G.R. No. 127876. December 17, 1999).
Applicant opts to begin this application for cancellation by way of this
prefatory statement in order to underscore the point it wants to bring to this
Honorable Office for resolution and redress.

II. PARTIES

1. Applicant Universal Motors Corporation is a stock corporation

duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws. A copy of the SEC
Certificate of Registration is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”. It is being
represented herewith by __________________, a copy of a Secretary’s
Certificate showing such authority to represent the applicant is hereto
attached as ANNEX “B”. Applicant’s mailing and business address is at
______________________, where it may be served with notices and other
processes of this Honorable Office.

2. Private respondents, namely: RICARDO VALETE, CONSTANCIO

VALETE, RAYMUNDO PIMENTEL, WARREN CARIAGA, RODRIGO CARIAGA, and
DOMINGO UNEC, are the named beneficiaries and recipients of the CLOAS being
applied for cancellation herewith. They may be served with notices and other
processes of this Honorable Office at Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac.

3. Public Respondent Provincial Agrarian Reform Program

Officer (PARPO) II, ILEONA B. PANGILINAN is made a party to this case
in her capacity as incumbent PARPO II of the Province of Tarlac. She
may be served with notices of this Honorable Office through DAR
Provincial Office located at Pinacles Building, Matatalaib, Tarlac City.

4. Public Respondent Register of Deeds of the Province of Tarlac

is being impleaded in his capacity as Land Registration Officer of the
Province of Tarlac. He may be served with notices of this Honorable
Office through the office address of the Registry of Deeds OF Tarlac at
Champaca Street, Tarlac City, Tarlac.

III. BRIEF FACTUAL ACTECEDENTS

5. On _____________2018, the herein applicant received a
Notice from the Land Bank of the Philippines informing the applicant that
its property denominated as Claim No, 03-CA-98-0164 has been covered
under the Agrarian Reform Program pursuant to RA 6657/RA 9700, and
the Land Bank shall release payment under the said claim number,
subject to the compliance of the herein applicant-petitioner to the updated
list of requirements enumerated in the said Notice. A copy of the Notice is
hereto attached as ANNEX “C”.

6. Herein applicant was very much surprised of the said notice

because it was not aware that its land covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 64569 encompassing an area of 159,643 square meters, and
located at Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac had already been covered
and acquired by the Government pursuant to the the Republic Act 6657 or
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP. Thus, on
November 21, 2018, herein applicant’s authorized representative went to
the DAR Provincial Office in Tarlac City in order to verify therein the true
status of the land by submitting thereon a written inquiry with request for
documents involving the subject land. A copy of the letter-request made
by the herein applicant is hereto attached as ANNEX “D”.

7. On 2018, herein applicant through Mr. John Paul

B. Moreno, received from PARPO II Ileona B. Pangilinan a written reply to
herein applicant’s formal inquiry. The content of the letter merely confirms
that the subject land has indeed been covered under CARP, but no
supporting documents that would clearly show the procedure that had
been undertaken by DAR relative to the government’s compulsory
acquisition and distribution of the subject land, was provided by the DAR
Provincial Office. However, the said letter of the DAR Provincial Officer
also contained copy of: a) a Certification form the Land Bank dated
February 3, 1999 alleging a deposit of P276,803.41 cash and Agrarian
Reform Bonds made by the Land Bank on February 2, 1999, in the name
of Universal Motors Corporation; b) Notice of Coverage dated August 21,
1997; and c) Letter-invitation for an Ocular Inspection dated April 16, 1998.
Copy of the letter-reply of PARPO II Ileona Pangilinan is hereto attached
as ANNEX “E”. Copy of the Land Bank Certification is hereto attached as
ANNEX “E-1”. Copy of the Notice of Coverage is hereto attached as
ANNEX “E-2”. Lastly, copy of the Letter-invitation for ocular inspection is
hereto attached as ANNEX “E-3”.

8. Not satisfied with the response of the DAR Provincial Office as

the reply letter and its attachment failed to show that the herein applicant
or its authorized representative has been able to receive those notices and
had been duly notified of the entire proceedings relative to the coverage
and acquisition of the herein subject land within the sphere of CARP, on
January 11, 2019, herein applicant filed with the Office of the Secretary of
the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Office of the Undersecretary
for Program Planning and Research Office (PPRO), another written
request inquiring about the procedure that had been undertaken in
connection with DAR coverage and distribution of the subject land, with
particular request for documents surrounding the said coverage and
distribution to farmers of the subject land.

9. On March 18, 2019, the representative of the herein applicant

received from the DAR-PPRO a two (2) pages memorandum dated
February 28, 2019, submitted to the said DAR Office by PARPO II Ileona
B. Pangilinan. The said memorandum merely provided a brief case
history of the acquisition and distribution of the subject land to the named
beneficiaries. No supporting documents were ever provided, aside from
the said memorandum. A copy of the said memorandum is hereto
attached as ANNEX “F”.

10. Page 1 of the said memorandum provides among others that

the Notice of Coverage dated August 21, 1997 was allegedly issued to the
Manager of the Universal Motors Corporation. That the Notice of
Acquisition dated August 17, 1998 was allegedly issued to the Manager of
Universal Motors Corporation.

11. Meanwhile, page 2 of the memorandum provides that the entire

land was covered under CARP via a compulsory acquisition and
distributed to named beneficiaries, namely: a) Richard Valete for Lot A,
under CLOA No. 13137 which was allegedly registered on August 30,
1999, and covering an area of 2.7968 hectares; b) Constancio Valete for
Lot B, under CLOA No. 15234 which was allegedly registered on
November 16, 2000, and covering an area of 2.8107 hectares; c)
Raymundo Pimentel for Lot C, bearing CLOA No. 13138 which was
allegedly registered on August 30, 1999, and covering an area of 2.5494
hectares; d) Warren Cariaga for Lot D, under CLOA No. 15235, which
was registered on November 16, 2000, and covering an area of 3.0117
hectares; e) Rodrigo Cariaga for Lot E, bearing CLOA No. 15236 which
was registered on November 16, 2000, and covering an area of 2.0779
hectares; and f) Domingo Unec for Lot F, under CLOA No. 15237, which
was allegedly registered on November 16, 2000, covering an area of
2.5178 hectares.

12. However, a profound verification of the herein applicant totally

contravenes the said memorandum. The only notice having been received
by the herein applicant was the notice from Land Bank of the Philippines
dated October 15, 2018. That contrary to what was stated in the
memorandum, herein applicant has not received a Notice of Coverage. It
has not received either a Notice of Acquisition. Since the herein applicant
has not received any of such notices, there was a total denial of due
process pertaining to the compulsory coverage and acquisition of its entire
landholding. That the documents provided by the DAR Provincial Officer
are totally bare and devoid of any information as to who from the side of
the herein applicant-petitioner has ever received the Notices sent by DAR
during the 1997-2000 period where the subject land has allegedly
undertaken a compulsory coverage and acquisition proceedings under RA
6657.

IV. NATURE OF THE ACTION

3. This is an application for cancellation of CLOA No. 13137; CLOA

No. 15234; CLOA No. 13138; CLOA No. 15235; CLOA No. 15236; &
CLOA No. 15237.

V.BASIS OF THE APPLICATION

14. The basis of the application for cancellation of CLOAs is that the
herein applicant was totally denied of due process. For one, there was no
showing that a notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary
conference had been sent and actually received by the herein applicant.
For another, there was no showing also that a notice of acquisition had
been sent by DAR and actually received by the herein applicant.

VI. DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

15. The case of ROXAS & CO., INC., vs. THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR
FOR REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF
NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD,(G.R. No. 127876. December 17, 1999)
underscored the two notices requirement under the R.A. 6657, to wit:

“For a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two

notices are required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of
invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner,
the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and
other interested parties pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of
1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner
under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of
Coverage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its
actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed
to comply with the requirements of administrative due
process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the
States police power and the power of eminent domain. To the
extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the
landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the
regulation of private property in accordance with the
Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the
owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power
of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the
surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of
the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that [n]o
person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law. The CARL was not intended to take away
property without due process of law. The exercise of the power
of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in
the taking of private property.”

16. In the herein case, the applicant had not actually received even
one of those two notices during the time the property of the herein applicant
is being subjected to the compulsory coverage and acquisition by DAR.
That as already stated, the only notice it received was the notice from the
Land Bank of the Philippines dated October 15,2018. That notice from the
Land Bank of the Philippines simply means that the landholding of the
applicant has already been covered under CARP; distributed to farmers;
issued CLOA; and registered in the name of the beneficiaries. These facts
about its landholding were only confirmed by the applicant upon its
thorough verification starting from its receipt of such notice from the LBP.
That this Office or its concerned Officers could not provide the folder of
documents that would show that the compulsory coverage and acquisition
of its land by the government through CARP had observed due process.
This is because as already stated, other than the two-page memorandum
and the earlier letter-reply issued by PARPO II Ileona B. Pangilinan, no
further documents were ever provided.

17. The fact also that the entire landholding of the herein applicant
has been covered within the ambit of CARP would further show that the
herein applicant had no actual participation in the said compulsory
coverage and acquisition by the government of its land through CARP.
Had the applicant been notified of the coverage and received a letter
invitation to a preliminary conference, it could have at least identified its
preferred retention area, assuming that the applicant would not oppose the
compulsory coverage and acquisition. AGAIN, IN THE HEREIN CASE,
ITS ENTIRE LANDHOLDING WAS COMPULSORILY COVERED AND
ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR CARP PURPOSES WITHOUT
DUE PROCESS.

18. Other evidence that would show that the landholding of the
herein applicant was invalidly covered under CARP and that the herein
applicant-petitioner was totally denied of due process, a perusal of its
latest Certified Electronic Copy issued by the Registry of Deeds based in
Tarlac City would clearly show that the entire property has remained up
until now in the name of the herein applicant. Moreover, copies of the
Official Receipt of the payment of the Real Property Tax of the herein
subject property, from year 2010 to year 2018 would also show that the
owner of the entire property and the one paying taxes thereon is still the
herein applicant-petitioner. Attached as ANNEX “G” herewith is the copy
of the Certified Electronic Copy of TCT No. 64589. Also attached herewith
as ANNEXES “H” to “H-9” are the copies of the said Official Receipts of
the payment of Real Property Taxes by the herein applicant-petitioner.

19. Hence, this application for cancellation of CLOA No. 13137;

CLOA No. 15234; CLOA No. 13138; CLOA No. 15235; CLOA No.
15236; & CLOA No. 15237.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in the INTEREST of JUSTICE and EQUITY, it is
respectfully prayed to this Honorable Office that this APPLICATION FOR
CANCELLATION of CLOA No. 13137; CLOA No. 15234; CLOA No. 13138;
CLOA No. 15235; CLOA No. 15236; & CLOA No. 15237 be GIVEN DUE
COURSE.
 Other relief, just and equitable, under the premises is likewise prayed
for.

Manila for Tarlac City, 20 March 2019.

BENITO B. DE ASIS
Counsel for the Applicant
IBP No.020798/01-08-18/Iloilo
PTR No. 6988480/01-08-18/Manila
Roll No. 49167
MCLE Compliance No. V-0021990/6-10-16

Room 416 FEMII Building

Andres Soriano Avenue
Intramuros, ManilA

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, JOHN PAUL B. M ARENO, of legal age, Filipino, with postal and office
address at ________________________________City, duly representing
Universal Motors Corporation, hereby depose and state that:

1. The Universal Motors Corporation is the applicant-petitioner in the

above-captioned case;

2. Being its authorized representative, I have caused the preparation of

the foregoing, have read the same and the contents thereof are all true and
correct of my personal knowledge and based on available records/ authentic
documents; and

3. I further depose and state that I have not commenced any action or
proceeding involving the same issue in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or any other tribunal or agency, that to the best of our knowledge, no such
similar action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or any other tribunal or agency; if there is any action or proceeding
which is either pending or may have been terminated, we will state the status
thereof, and if we should hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any
other tribunal or agency, we hereby undertake to report the fact within five (5)
days from notice thereof to this Honorable Office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this day of

March 2019 in City, Philippines.
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, for and in
City, this day of 2019 by the above-named affiant who exhibited
to me his ID No. , as competent proof of his identity
being the affiant hereto.

Doc. No.
Page No.
Book N o.
Series of 2019