25 NOVEMBER 2015

For : THE NCCA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Through : PROF. FELIPE M. DE LEON, JR.

Chairman

From : ATTY. G. AHMED G. PAGLINAWAN

NCCA Hearing Officer

Cc : ATTY. AGATHA ZAPANTA-DE JESUS

Prosecutor

Re : RECOMMENDATION TO (1) PERMANENTLY LIFT THE

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER DATED MARCH 2, 2015
ISSUED AGAINST HUANG HSIANG J. DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION FROM DEMOLISHING THE CARLOS
PALANCE, SR. RESIDENCE ALONG TAFT AVENUE,
PASAY CITY.; AND (2) ORDER THE RESPONDENT TO
IMPLEMENT FAITHFULLY THE PLAN OF ACTION AS
CONTAINED IN ITS “PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CARLOS PALANCA SR. ANCESTRAL MANSION”.

I. RESOLUTION

Brought to our consideration and appropriate disposition on March 2, 2015 was the Petition for
the issuance of a cease and desist order by Isidra Reyes against Huang Hsiang J Development
Corporation in connection with Republic Act No. 10066, as amended.

II. PARTIES

The record of this case will show that respondent company is the developer of a certain realty
located at Taft Avenue Pasay City, specifically the former residence of Carlos Palanca, Sr.,
which allegedly was erected in 1940 in National Artist Pablo S. Antonio’s architectural fashion.
It is likewise claimed that the said property assumes further historical significance in view of
Palanca’s contributions to the distillery and motor industries, education, culture and arts, and
philanthropy in the country. These notwithstanding, the company has reportedly been tearing
down the Carlos Palanca, Sr. residence building, to say the very least, since February 25, 2015;
and unless immediately stopped, the physical integrity of the said property will be considerably
undermined.

On even date, the Commission issued a cease and desist order against the respondent company,
barring the same from further demolishing the subject property pending the resolution of the
case. Meanwhile, the case was assigned to the undersigned as Hearing Officer, with Atty. Agatha
Zapanta-De Jesus, as prosecutor. On March 5, 2015, this Tribunal issued a notice of hearing
setting the case for initial hearing and ordering the parties to appear on March 16, 2015.

On May, 25, 2015, following a request for an extension of time to file its responsive pleading,
the respondent company filed its comment and opposition to the petition arguing that it is bereft
of legal and factual basis. In relation thereto, the respondent company asked for the quashal or
lifting of the cease and desist order as well as the removal of the presumption of important
cultural property over the subject residence.

During the hearing on the petition, the respondent company moved for a conference in an effort
to amicably settle the controversy with an offer to, among other things, put up a small replica of
the Carlos Palanca, Sr. residence along Taft Avenue as a memorial in the respondent company’s
proposed building project on the said site. This Hearing Officer then endorsed the case for
conference to explore the possibility of settling the controversy amicably.

During the conference set on July 30, 2015, the respondent company submitted a copy of its
“Proposed Site Development of the Carlos Palanca Sr. Ancestral Mansion – In Lieu of its near-
total Demolition and lost Cultural & Heritage Value” plan, drawings and design to the
Commission. Petitioner failed to appear. The conference was then reset to August 25,
2015.Meanwhile, the respondent company under took to furnish the petitioner with a copy
thereof before the next setting.

As satisfactorily established by the respondent company, it caused the service a copy of the said
proposed site development plan, drawings and design on the petitioner at 23 Atlas Street,
Acropolis Greens, Bagumbayan, Quezon City, her last known address, as appearing in the
records of the case. The petitioner had, in the interim, moved out of the said address without
having duly notified this Tribunal.

During the conference set on August 25, 2015, Petitioner again failed to appear despite having
been duly notified by this Tribunal. Soon thereafter, the respondent company filed a motion for
the permanent quashal /lifting if the cease and desist order issued by the Commission against it
as well as for the dismissal of the Petition and the approval of the proposal it submitted to the
Commission.
.
At the hearing on the said motion on September 10, 2015, petitioner appeared. This Hearing
Officer directed the respondent company to furnish a copy of the proposed site development
plan, drawings and design on the petitioner at the new address that she provided to the
Commission during the said hearing. On the other hand, petitioner was tasked to comment on the
respondent company’s settlement offer. In the meantime, this Hearing Officer ordered the
continuation of conference proceedings (for possible amicable settlement).

In the pleading the Petitioner filed, she clearly failed to address the respondent company’s
proposal and instead focused on matters irrelevant to the case. Although the pleading petitioner
filed was duly admitted into the records, this Hearing Officer opines it best for petitioner’s
statements therein to stay in the records only, to obviate unnecessary incidents arising.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Having carefully considered Petitioner’s offer; as well as the actualities of the case, particularly
the current physical condition of the subject property; and the lack of any substantial
countervailing evidence, this Hearing Officer opines that the Commission’s mandate would be
fittingly served should the respondent Huang Hsiang J Development Corporation’s settlement
proposal be approved. Thus, we are recommending the approval thereof. We are likewise
recommending the approval of the said proposal in view of it acceptability and viability. With
the settlement of the said controversy, we are recommending the termination of the case as well
as the lifting of the cease and desist order.

Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, this Hearing Officer RECOMMENDS the permanent
lifting of the CEASE AND DESIST ORDER dated March 2, 2015.

Respondent is ORDERED, as it is hereby ordered, to implement faithfully the plan of action as

contained in its “Proposed Site Development of the Carlos Palanca Sr. Ancestral Mansion – In
Lieu of its near-total Demolition and lost Cultural & Heritage Value.”

Further, Respondent is hereby RECOMMENDED discharged from any other obligation arising
out of the present controversy other than what is hereby recommended.

Finally, this Hearing Officer, in behalf of this Tribunal, expresses his utmost gratitude to
Petitioner for her vigilance and dedication to the protection of this nation’s cultural heritage. The
Commission honors Petitioner Isidra Reyes for her invaluable participation in the present case.

All matters not otherwise subsumed in this recommendation are excluded from the ambit of the
Commission’s resolution of this case. All issues collateral to the issue as discussed in this
recommendation are deemed quashed and accordingly dismissed.

For your positive consideration.