Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Defendants filed their answer with special and affirmative defenses Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.
of July 8, 1981.
The pivotal issue is whether or not lands obtained through
Subsequently, on July 19, 1982, plaintiffs filed an urgent motion to homestead patent are covered by the Agrarian Reform under
enjoin the defendants from declaring the lands in litigation under P.D. 27.
Operation Land Transfer and from being issued land transfer
certificates to which the defendants filed their opposition dated The question certainly calls for a negative answer.
August 4, 1982.
We agree with the petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing
On November 5, 1982, the then Court of Agrarian Relations 16th the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and
Regional District, Branch IV, Pagadian City (now Regional Trial transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a
Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch XVIII) rendered its decision sweeping social legislation, a remedial measure promulgated
dismissing the said complaint and the motion to enjoin the pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution.
defendants was denied.
However, such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very
purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or
On January 4, 1983, plaintiffs moved to reconsider the Order of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Thus,
dismissal, to which defendants filed their opposition on January 10,
1983.
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and
protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of
Thus, on April 29, 1986, the Regional Trial Court issued the land where he may build a modest house for himself and
aforequoted decision prompting defendants to move for a family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the
reconsideration but the same was denied in its Order dated June 6, satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to
1986.
their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence is
as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live with a
On appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals, the same was certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the
State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is
sustained in its judgment rendered on March 3, 1987, thus:
under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error thereof, the decision (Patricio v. Bayog, 112 SCRA 45)
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED.
In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the
superiority of the homesteaders' rights over the rights of the
SO ORDERED. (p. 34, Rollo)
tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In point is Melencio-Herrera, (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and
Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which Regalado, JJ., concur.
provides:
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the
disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands
of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture,
subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the
rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No.
6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of
P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the
property in question, reading,
Section 6. Retention Limits. ...
... Provided further, That original homestead grantees or their direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of
the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they
continue to cultivate said homestead.'
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the respondent
Court of Appeals sustaining the decision of the Regional Trial Court
is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
pace. This can readily be gleaned from the fact that SAMBA
members even instituted an action to restrain petitioners from
continuing with such development. The enormity of the resources
needed for developing a subdivision may have delayed its
completion but this does not detract from the fact that these lands
are still residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL.
the NATALIA lands are part, having been reserved for townsite
purposes "to be developed as human settlements by the proper
land and housing agency," are "not deemed 'agricultural lands'
within the meaning and intent of Section 3 (c) of R.A. No.
6657. " Not being deemed "agricultural lands," they are outside
the coverage of CARL.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno and
Vitug, JJ., concur.
Later, however, this Court in its Resolution dated August 24, 1989
resolved to grant said Motion for Reconsideration regarding the
injunctive relief, after the filing and approval by this Court of an
injunction bond in the amount of P100,000.00. This Court also gave due
As gathered from the records, the factual background of this case, is as course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective
follows:
memoranda (Rollo, p. 119).
On June 10, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, The petitioner filed its Memorandum on September 6, 1989 (Rollo, pp.
which includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage 131-168).
(Rollo, p. 80).
On December 22, 1989, the Solicitor General adopted his Comment to
On January 2, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the the petition as his Memorandum (Rollo, pp. 186-187).
Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing as
Luz Farms questions the following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as
embodied in Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (Rollo, p. 80).
they are made to apply to it:
On January 9, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated its Rules
(a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock (and
and Regulations implementing Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657 (Commercial
poultry)" in the definition of "Agricultural, Agricultural
Farms). (Rollo, p. 81).
Enterprise or Agricultural Activity."
Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock
and poultry business and together with others in the same business allegedly
On the other hand, the public respondent argued that livestock and poultry
raising is embraced in the term "agriculture" and the inclusion of such
enterprise under Section 3(b) of R.A. 6657 is proper. He cited that Webster's
International Dictionary, Second Edition (1954), defines the following words:
provision because it speaks of the primary right of farmers and unreasonable for being confiscatory, and therefore violative of due
farmworkers to own directly or collectively the lands they till. As also process (Rollo, p. 21).:-cralaw
mentioned by Commissioner Tadeo, farmworkers include those who
It has been established that this Court will assume jurisdiction over a
work in piggeries and poultry projects.
constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of
I was wondering whether I am wrong in my appreciation that if a judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied. Thus, there must
somebody puts up a piggery or a poultry project and for that purpose be an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights
hires farmworkers therein, these farmworkers will automatically have susceptible of judicial determination, the constitutional question must
the right to own eventually, directly or ultimately or collectively, the have been opportunely raised by the proper party, and the resolution of
land on which the piggeries and poultry projects were constructed. the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision of the case itself
(Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, p. 618).
(Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, G.R. 78742; Acuna v. Arroyo, G.R. 79310; Pabico
x x x
v. Juico, G.R. 79744; Manaay v. Juico, G.R. 79777, 14 July 1989, 175
The questions were answered and explained in the statement of then SCRA 343).
Commissioner Tadeo, quoted as follows:
However, despite the inhibitions pressing upon the Court when
x x x
confronted with constitutional issues, it will not hesitate to declare a law
or act invalid when it is convinced that this must be done. In arriving at
"Sa pangalawang katanungan ng Ginoo ay medyo hindi kami
this conclusion, its only criterion will be the Constitution and God as its
nagkaunawaan. Ipinaaalam ko kay Commissioner Regalado na hindi
conscience gives it in the light to probe its meaning and discover its
namin inilagay ang agricultural worker sa kadahilanang kasama rito
purpose. Personal motives and political considerations are irrelevancies
ang piggery, poultry at livestock workers. Ang inilagay namin dito ay
that cannot influence its decisions. Blandishment is as ineffectual as
farm worker kaya hindi kasama ang piggery, poultry at livestock
intimidation, for all the awesome power of the Congress and Executive,
workers (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, Vol. II, p. 621).
the Court will not hesitate "to make the hammer fall heavily," where the
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which acts of these departments, or of any official, betray the people's will as
includes "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry expressed in the Constitution (Association of Small Landowners of the
and swine raising" in the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. 78742; Acuna v.
extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by Arroyo, G.R. 79310; Pabico v. Juico, G.R. 79744; Manaay v. Juico,
the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply no reason to include G.R. 79777, 14 July 1989).
livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform. (Rollo, p. 21).
Thus, where the legislature or the executive acts beyond the scope of its
Hence, there is merit in Luz Farms' argument that the requirement in Sections constitutional powers, it becomes the duty of the judiciary to declare
13 and 32 of R.A. 6657 directing "corporate farms" which include livestock what the other branches of the government had assumed to do, as void.
and poultry raisers to execute and implement "production-sharing plans" This is the essence of judicial power conferred by the Constitution "(I)n
(pending final redistribution of their landholdings) whereby they are called one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
upon to distribute from three percent (3%) of their gross sales and ten percent law" (Art. VIII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution; Article X, Section I
(10%) of their net profits to their workers as additional compensation is of the 1973 Constitution and which was adopted as part of the Freedom
Constitution, and Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution) and which that every presumption should be indulged in favor of the
power this Court has exercised in many instances (Demetria v. Alba, 148 constitutionality of a statute and the court in considering the validity of a
SCRA 208 [1987]).
statute should give it such reasonable construction as can be reached to
bring it within the fundamental law. 1
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the The presumption against unconstitutionality, I must say, assumes greater
raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the weight when a ruling to the contrary would, in effect, defeat the laudable
Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith, are and noble purpose of the law, i.e., the welfare of the landless farmers
hereby DECLARED null and void for being unconstitutional and the writ of and farmworkers in the promotion of social justice, by the expedient
preliminary injunction issued is hereby MADE permanent.
conversion of agricultural lands into livestock, poultry, and swine
raising by scheming landowners, thus, rendering the comprehensive
SO ORDERED.
nature of the agrarian program merely illusory.
Fernan (C.J.), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Gancayco,
The instant controversy, I submit, boils down to the question of whether
Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
or not the assailed provisions violate the equal protection clause of the
Feliciano, J., is on leave.
Constitution (Article II, section 1) which teaches simply that all persons
or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. 2
Separate Opinions
There is merit in the contention of the petitioner that substantial
distinctions exist between land directed purely to cultivation and
harvesting of fruits or crops and land exclusively used for livestock,
SARMIENTO, J., concurring:
poultry and swine raising, that make real differences, to wit:
I agree that the petition be granted.
x x x
It is my opinion however that the main issue on the validity of the assailed
No land is tilled and no crop is harvested in livestock and poultry
provisions of R.A. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988)
farming. There are no tenants nor landlords, only employers and
and its Implementing Rules and Guidelines insofar as they include the raising
employees.
of livestock, poultry, and swine in their coverage cannot be simplistically
reduced to a question of constitutional construction.
Livestock and poultry do not sprout from land nor are they "fruits of the
land."
It is a well-settled rule that construction and interpretation come only after it
has been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without Land is not even a primary resource in this industry. The land input is
them. A close reading however of the constitutional text in point, specifically, inconsequential that all the commercial hog and poultry farms combined
Sec. 4, Art. XIII, particularly the phrase, ". . . in case of other farmworkers, to occupy less than one percent (1%) (0.4% for piggery, 0.2% for poultry)
receive a just share of the fruits thereof," provides a basis for the clear and of the 5.45 million hectares of land supposedly covered by the CARP.
possible coverage of livestock, poultry, and swine raising within the ambit of And most farms utilize only 2 to 5 hectares of land.: nad
the comprehensive agrarian reform program. This accords with the principle
In every respect livestock and poultry production is an industrial activity. Its for, rather than a source of agricultural output. At least 60% of the entire
use of an inconsequential portion of land is a mere incident of its operation, as domestic supply of corn is absorbed by livestock and poultry farms. So
in any other undertaking, business or otherwise.
are the by-products of rice (rice-bran), coconut (copra meal), banana
(banana pulp meal), and fish (fish meal). 3
The fallacy of defining livestock and poultry production as an agricultural
enterprise is nowhere more evident when one considers that at least 95% of x x x
total investment in these farms is in the form of fixed assets which are
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that both kinds of lands are not
industrial in nature.
similarly situated and hence, cannot be treated alike. Therefore, the
These include (1) animal housing structures and facilities complete with assailed provisions which allow for the inclusion of livestock and
drainage, waterers, blowers, misters and in some cases even piped-in music; poultry industry within the coverage of the agrarian reform program
(2) feedmills complete with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts, generators, constitute invalid classification and must accordingly be struck down as
etc.; (3) extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies; (4) anti- repugnant to the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
pollution equipment such as bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons
and concrete ponds; (5) deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses and
accessory facilities; (6) modern equipment such as sprayers, pregnancy testers,
etc.; (7) laboratory facilities complete with expensive tools and equipment;
and a myriad other such technologically advanced appurtances.
How then can livestock and poultry farmlands be arable when such are almost
totally occupied by these structures?
The fallacy of equating the status of livestock and poultry farmworkers with
that of agricultural tenants surfaces when one considers contribution to output.
Labor cost of livestock and poultry farms is no more than 4% of total
operating cost. The 98% balance represents inputs not obtained from the land
nor provided by the farmworkers inputs such as feeds and biochemicals
(80% of the total cost), power cost, cost of money and several others.
Moreover, livestock and poultry farmworkers are covered by minimum wage
law rather than by tenancy law. They are entitled to social security benefits
where tenant-farmers are not. They are paid fixed wages rather than crop
shares. And as in any other industry, they receive additional benefits such as
allowances, bonuses, and other incentives such as free housing privileges,
light and water.
Equating livestock and poultry farming with other agricultural activities is
also fallacious in the sense that like the manufacturing sector, it is a market
infrastructure for every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded provided the guidelines to determine whether a certain parcel
from the operations of the CARL.
of land is being used for cattle-raising. However, the issue on
the constitutionality of the assailed A.O. was left for the
On February 4, 1994, respondents wrote the DAR Secretary and determination of the courts as the sole arbiters of such
advised him to consider as final and irrevocable the withdrawal of issue.
their VOS as, under the Luz Farms doctrine, their entire
landholding is exempted from the CARL.6
On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the
respondents. It declared DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, void for
On September 14, 1995, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao being contrary to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional
issued an Order7 partially granting the application of respondents for Commission to exclude livestock farms from the land reform
exemption from the coverage of CARL. Applying the retention program of the government. The dispositive portion reads:
limits outlined in the DAR A.O. No. 9, petitioner exempted 1,209
hectares of respondents land for grazing purposes, and a maximum WHEREFORE, premises considered, DAR Administrative
of 102.5635 hectares for infrastructure. Petitioner ordered the rest of Order No. 09, Series of 1993 is hereby DECLARED null and
respondents landholding to be segregated and placed under void. The assailed order of the Office of the President dated 09
Compulsory Acquisition.
October 2001 in so far as it affirmed the Department of
Agrarian Reforms ruling that petitioners landholding is
Respondents moved for reconsideration. They contend that their covered by the agrarian reform program of the government
entire landholding should be exempted as it is devoted exclusively is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
to cattle-raising. Their motion was denied. 8 They filed a notice of
appeal9 with the Office of the President assailing: (1) the SO ORDERED.11
reasonableness and validity of DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, which
provided for a ratio between land and livestock in determining the Hence, this petition.
land area qualified for exclusion from the CARL, and (2) the
constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, in view of the Luz The main issue in the case at bar is the constitutionality of
Farms case which declared cattle-raising lands excluded from the DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribes a maximum
coverage of agrarian reform.
retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising.
On October 9, 2001, the Office of the President affirmed the Invoking its rule-making power under Section 49 of the CARL,
impugned Order of petitioner DAR.10 It ruled that DAR A.O. No. 9, petitioner submits that it issued DAR A.O. No. 9 to limit the
s. 1993, does not run counter to the Luz Farms case as the A.O. area of livestock farm that may be retained by a landowner
anew that while Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the
CARL shall cover all public and private agricultural lands, the
term "agricultural land" does not include lands classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial. Thus,
in Natalia Realty, even portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision,
which are arable yet still undeveloped, could not be considered as
agricultural lands subject to agrarian reform as these lots were
already classified as residential lands.
A similar logical deduction should be followed in the case at bar.
Lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been
classified as industrial, not agricultural, lands and thus exempt from
agrarian reform. Petitioner DAR argues that, in issuing the
impugned A.O., it was seeking to address the reports it has received
that some unscrupulous landowners have been converting their
agricultural lands to livestock farms to avoid their coverage by the
agrarian reform. Again, we find neither merit nor logic in this
contention. The undesirable scenario which petitioner seeks to
prevent with the issuance of the A.O. clearly does not apply in
this case. Respondents family acquired their landholdings as early
as 1948. They have long been in the business of breeding cattle in
Masbate which is popularly known as the cattle-breeding capital of
the Philippines.18 Petitioner DAR does not dispute this fact. Indeed,
there is no evidence on record that respondents have just recently
engaged in or converted to the business of breeding cattle after the
enactment of the CARL that may lead one to suspect that
respondents intended to evade its coverage. It must be stressed that
what the CARL prohibits is the conversion of agricultural
lands for non-agricultural purposes after the effectivity of the
CARL. There has been no change of business interest in the case
of respondents.
SO ORDERED.
Acting on the said application, the DARs Land Use Conversion and November 24, 1994.9 Subsequently, the Pinugay Farmers filed
Exemption Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted an ocular a letter-appeal with the DAR Secretary.
inspection on petitioners property and arrived at the following
findings:
Correlatively, on June 4, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint for
Forcible Entry against Balajadia and company before the
[T]he actual land utilization for livestock, swine and poultry is Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Teresa-Baras, Rizal,
258.8422 hectares; the area which served as infrastructure is docketed as Civil Case No. 781-T.10 The MCTC ruled in favor
42.0000 hectares; ten (10) hectares are planted to corn and the of petitioner, but the decision was later reversed by the
remaining five (5) hectares are devoted to fish culture; that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, of Tanay, Rizal. Ultimately,
livestock population are 371 heads of cow, 20 heads of horses, 5,678 the case reached the CA, which, in its Decision 11 dated October
heads of swine and 788 heads of cocks; that the area being applied 8, 1999, reinstated the MCTCs ruling, ordering Balajadia and
for exclusion is far below the required or ideal area which is 563 all defendants therein to vacate portions of the property
hectares for the total livestock population; that the approximate area covered by TCT Nos. M-6013, M-8796, and M-8791. In its
not directly used for livestock purposes with an area of 15 hectares, Resolution12 dated July 31, 2000, the CA held that the
more or less, is likewise far below the allowable 10% variance; and, defendants therein failed to timely file a motion for
though not directly used for livestock purposes, the ten (10) hectares reconsideration, given the fact that their counsel of record
planted to sweet corn and the five (5) hectares devoted to fishpond received its October 8, 1999 Decision; hence, the same became
could be considered supportive to livestock production.
final and executory.
The LUCEC, thus, recommended the exemption of petitioners
316.0422-hectare property from the coverage of CARP. Adopting
the LUCECs findings and recommendation, DAR Regional
Director Percival Dalugdug (Director Dalugdug) issued an Order
dated June 27, 1994, exempting petitioners 316.0422-hectare
property from CARP.8
On January 21, 1997, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao 4. 0.3809 square meters of infrastructure for the 8 horses; [and]
(Secretary Garilao) issued an Order exempting from CARP only
240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 hectares previously exempted by 5. 138.5967 hectares for the 5,678 heads of swine.15
Director Dalugdug, and declaring 75.0646 hectares of the property
to be covered by CARP.14
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 16 submitting
therewith copies of Certificates of Transfer of Large Cattle and
Secretary Garilao opined that, for private agricultural lands to be additional Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle issued to
excluded from CARP, they must already be devoted to livestock, petitioner prior to June 15, 1988, as additional proof that it had
poultry, and swine raising as of June 15, 1988, when the CARL took met the required animal-land ratio. Petitioner also submitted a
effect. He found that the Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle copy of a Disbursement Voucher dated December 17, 1986,
submitted by petitioner showed that only 86 heads of cattle were showing the purchase of 100 heads of cattle by the Bureau of
registered in the name of petitioners president, Misael Vera, Jr., Animal Industry from petitioner, as further proof that it had
prior to June 15, 1988; 133 were subsequently bought in 1990, while been actively operating a livestock farm even before June 15,
204 were registered from 1992 to 1995. Secretary Garilao gave more 1988. However, in his Order dated April 15, 1997, Secretary
weight to the certificates rather than to the headcount because "the Garilao denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.17
same explicitly provide for the number of cattle owned by petitioner
as of June 15, 1988."
Aggrieved, petitioner filed its Memorandum on Appeal18 before
the Office of the President (OP).
Applying the animal-land ratio (1 hectare for grazing for every head
of cattle/carabao/horse) and the infrastructure-animal ratio (1.7815
The OPs Ruling
hectares for 21 heads of cattle/carabao/horse, and 0.5126 hectare for
21 heads of hogs) under DAR A.O. No. 9, Secretary Garilao On February 4, 2000, the OP rendered a decision 19 reinstating
exempted 240.9776 hectares of the property, as follows:
Director Dalugdugs Order dated June 27, 1994 and declared
the entire 316.0422-hectare property exempt from the coverage
1. 86 hectares for the 86 heads of cattle existing as of 15 June 1988; of CARP.
2. 8 hectares for infrastructure following the ratio of 1.7815 hectares However, on separate motions for reconsideration of the
for every 21 heads of cattle;
aforesaid decision filed by farmer-groups Samahang AnakPawis ng Lagundi (SAPLAG) and Pinugay Farmers, and the
3. 8 hectares for the 8 horses;
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of DAR, the OP issued a
resolution20 dated September 16, 2002, setting aside its
previous decision. The dispositive portion of the OP resolution Consequently, petitioner sought recourse from the CA.22
reads:
The Proceedings Before the CA and Its Rulings
WHEREFORE, the Decision subject of the instant separate motions
for reconsideration is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one entered On April 29, 2005, the CA found that, based on the
REINSTATING the Order dated 21 January 1997 of then DAR documentary evidence presented, the property subject of the
Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao, as reiterated in another Order of 15 application for exclusion had more than satisfied the animalApril 1997, without prejudice to the outcome of the continuing land and infrastructure-animal ratios under DAR A.O. No. 9.
review and verification proceedings that DAR, thru the appropriate The CA also found that petitioner applied for exclusion long
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, may undertake pursuant to Rule before the effectivity of DAR A.O. No. 9, thus, negating the
III (D) of DAR Administrative Order No. 09, series of 1993.
claim that petitioner merely converted the property for
livestock, poultry, and swine raising in order to exclude it from
SO ORDERED.21
CARP coverage. Petitioner was held to have actually engaged
in the said business on the property even before June 15, 1988.
The OP held that, when it comes to proof of ownership, the The CA disposed of the case in this wise:
reference is the Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle.
Certificates of cattle ownership, which are readily available being WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The
issued by the appropriate government office ought to match the assailed Resolution of the Office of the President dated
number of heads of cattle counted as existing during the actual September 16, 2002 is hereby SET ASIDE, and its Decision
headcount. The presence of large cattle on the land, without dated February 4, 2000 declaring the entire 316.0422 hectares
sufficient proof of ownership thereof, only proves such presence.
exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program is hereby REINSTATED without prejudice to
Taking note of Secretary Garilaos observations, the OP also held the outcome of the continuing review and verification
that, before an ocular investigation is conducted on the property, the proceedings which the Department of Agrarian Reform,
landowners are notified in advance; hence, mere reliance on the through the proper Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, may
physical headcount is dangerous because there is a possibility that undertake pursuant to Policy Statement (D) of DAR
the landowners would increase the number of their cattle for Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993.
headcount purposes only. The OP observed that there was a big
variance between the actual headcount of 448 heads of cattle and SO ORDERED.23
only 86 certificates of ownership of large cattle.
Rejoinder,34 and prayed that the MARO Report be disregarded and accorded the findings of MARO Elma and MARO Celi the
expunged from the records for lack of factual and legal basis.
presumption of regularity in the performance of official
functions in the absence of evidence proving misconduct
With the CA now made aware of these developments, particularly and/or dishonesty when they inspected the subject property and
Secretary Villas Conversion Order of November 4, 2004, the rendered their report. Thus, the CA disposed:
appellate court had to acknowledge that the property subject of the
controversy would now be limited to the remaining 162.7373 WHEREFORE, this Courts Decision dated April 29, 2005 is
hectares. In the same token, the Espinas group prayed that this hereby amended in that the exemption of the subject
remaining area be covered by the CARP.35
landholding from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program is hereby lifted, and the 162.7373 hectareOn October 4, 2006, the CA amended its earlier Decision. It held agricultural portion thereof is hereby declared covered by the
that its April 29, 2005 Decision was theoretically not final because Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
DAR A.O. No. 9 required the MARO to make a continuing review
and verification of the subject property. While the CA was cognizant SO ORDERED.39
of our ruling in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sutton,36 wherein
we declared DAR A.O. No. 9 as unconstitutional, it still resolved to Unperturbed,
petitioner
filed
a
Motion
for
lift the exemption of the subject property from the CARP, not on the Reconsideration.40 On January 8, 2007, MARO Elma, in
basis of DAR A.O. No. 9, but on the strength of evidence such as the compliance with the Memorandum of DAR Regional Director
MARO Report and Certification, and the Katunayan37 issued by the Dominador B. Andres, tendered another Report41 reiterating
Punong Barangay, Alfredo Ruba (Chairman Ruba), of Pinugay, that, upon inspection of the subject property, together with
Baras, Rizal, showing that the subject property was no longer petitioners counsel-turned witness, Atty. Grace Eloisa J. Que
operated as a livestock farm. Moreover, the CA held that the lease (Atty. Que), PARO Danilo M. Obarse, Chairman Ruba, and
agreements,38 which petitioner submitted to prove that it was several occupants thereof, he, among others, found no livestock
compelled to lease a ranch as temporary shelter for its cattle, only farm within the subject property. About 43 heads of cattle were
reinforced the DARs finding that there was indeed no existing shown, but MARO Elma observed that the same were inside an
livestock farm on the subject property. While petitioner claimed that area adjacent to Palo Alto. Subsequently, upon Atty. Ques
it was merely forced to do so to prevent further slaughtering of its request for reinvestigation, designated personnel of the DAR
cattle allegedly committed by the occupants, the CA found the claim Provincial and Regional Offices (Investigating Team)
unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the CA opined that petitioner should conducted another ocular inspection on the subject property on
have asserted its rights when the irrigation and road projects were February 20, 2007. The Investigating Team, in its Report42dated
introduced by the Government within its property. Finally, the CA February 21, 2007, found that, per testimony of petitioners
of livestock-raising
Reconsideration.48
for
the
purpose
of
its
Motion
factual in nature and not proper in this case; that under Rule 43 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, questions of fact may be raised
by the parties and resolved by the CA; that due to the divergence in
the factual findings of the DAR and the OP, the CA was duty bound
to review and ascertain which of the said findings are duly supported
by substantial evidence; that the subject property was subject to
continuing review and verification proceedings due to the then
prevailing DAR A.O. No. 9; that there is no question that the power
to determine if a property is subject to CARP coverage lies with the
DAR Secretary; that pursuant to such power, the MARO rendered
the assailed reports and certification, and the DAR itself manifested
before the CA that the subject property is no longer devoted to
livestock farming; and that, while it is true that this Courts ruling in
Luz Farms declared that agricultural lands devoted to livestock,
poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded from the CARP, the said
ruling is not without any qualification.52
With the procedural issue disposed of, we find that petitioners Indeed, as pointed out by the CA, the instant case does not rest
arguments fail to persuade. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. In on facts parallel to those of Sutton because, in Sutton, the
Sutton, we held:
subject property remained a livestock farm. We even
highlighted therein the fact that "there has been no change of
In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it business interest in the case of respondents." 60 Similarly, in
contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock Department of Agrarian Reform v. Uy,61 we excluded a parcel
farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and of land from CARP coverage due to the factual findings of the
prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. MARO, which were confirmed by the DAR, that the property
However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission was entirely devoted to livestock farming. However, in A.Z.
show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively Arnaiz Realty, Inc., represented by Carmen Z. Arnaiz v. Office
xxxx
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 100091. October 22, 1992.]
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR.
LEONARDO A. CHUA, petitioner, vs. THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD, THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND ALVIN OBRIQUE, REPRESENTING
BUKIDNON FREE FARMERS AGRICULTURAL
LABORERS ORGANIZATION (BUFFALO),
respondents.
Abundio L. Okit for petitioner.
Cabanlas, Resma & Cabanlas Law Office for respondent Obrique, et al.
SYLLABUS
1.LABOR LAW; TENANCY; TENANTS' CLAIM OF BEING LANDLESS
REQUIRES PROOFS. Complainants claim that they are landless peasants.
This allegation requires proof and should not be accepted as factually true.
Obrique is not a landless peasant. The facts showed he was a Physics
Instructor at CMU holding a very responsible position and was separated from
the service on account of certain irregularities he committed while Assistant
Director of the Agri-Business Project of cultivating lowland rice. Others may,
at the moment, own no land in Bukidnon but they may not necessarily be so
destitute in their places of origin. No proof whatsoever appears in the record
to show that they are landless peasants.
stations, research and pilot production centers, etc. Consequently, the DARAB
has no power to try, hear and adjudicate the case pending before it involving a
portion of the CMU's titled school site, as the portion of the CMU land
reservation ordered segregated is actually, directly and exclusively used and
found by the school to be necessary for its purposes.
5.ID.; ID.; ID.; AGRARIAN DISPUTE, DEFINED. There is no doubt that
the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute in the
implementation of the CARP. An agrarian dispute is defined by the same law
as any controversy relating to tenurial rights whether leasehold, tenancy
stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture.
6.ID.; ID.; ID.; SEGREGATING SOME HECTARES OF LAND WITHOUT
FINDING THAT COMPLAINANTS ARE TENANTS, GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION. Where the quasi-judicial body finds that the
complainants/petitioners are not entitled to the rights they are demanding, it is
an erroneous interpretation of authority for that quasi-judicial body to order
private property to be awarded to future beneficiaries. The order segregating
400 hectares of the CMU land was issued on a finding that the complainants
are not entitled as beneficiaries, and on an erroneous assumption that the
CMU land which is excluded or exempted under the law is subject to the
coverage of the CARP. Going beyond what was asked by the complainants
who were not entitled to the relief prayed for, constitutes a grave abuse of
discretion because it implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
7.ID.; ID.; NEITHER EDUCATION OF THE YOUTH OR AGRARIAN
REFORM NEED GIVE WAY TO THE OTHER. The education of the
youth and agrarian reform are admittedly among the highest priorities in the
government socio-economic programs. In this case, neither need give way to
the other. Certainly, there must still be vast tracts of agricultural land in
Mindanao outside the CMU land reservation which can be made available to
landless peasants, assuming the claimants here, or some of them, can qualify
as CARP beneficiaries. To our mind, the taking of the CMU land which had
been segregated for educational purposes for distribution to yet uncertain
DECISION
CAMPOS, JR., J p:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court to nullify the proceedings and decision of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB for brevity) dated
September 4, 1989 and to set aside the decision * of the Court of
Appeals dated August 20, 1990, affirming the decision of the DARAB
which ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of suitable, compact and
contiguous portions of the Central Mindanao University (CMU for
brevity) land and their inclusion in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP for brevity) for distribution to qualified beneficiaries,
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. cdphil
This case originated in a complaint filed by complainants calling
themselves as the Bukidnon Free Farmers and Agricultural Laborers
Organization (BUFFALO for brevity) under the leadership of Alvin
Obrique and Luis Hermoso against the CMU, before the Department of
Agrarian Reform for Declaration of Status as Tenants, under the CARP.
From the records, the following facts are evident. The petitioner, the
CMU, is an agricultural education institution owned and run by the
estate located in the town of Musuan, Bukidnon province. It started as a
farm school at Marilag, Bukidnon, in early 1910, in response to the
public demand for an agricultural school in Mindanao. It expanded into
the Bukidnon National Agricultural High School and was transferred to
its new site in Managok near Malaybalay, the provincial capital of
Bukidnon.
In the early 1960's, it was converted into a college with campus at Musuan,
until it became what is now known as the CMU, but still primarily an
agricultural university. From its beginning, the school was the answer to the
crying need for training people in order to develop the agricultural potential of
the island of Mindanao. Those who planned and established the school had a
vision as to the future development of that part of the Philippines. On January
16, 1958 the President of the Republic of the Philippines, the late Carlos P.
Garcia, "upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 53, of Commonwealth
Act No. 141, as amended", issued Proclamation No. 467, withdrawing from
sale or settlement and reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural College, a site
which would be the future campus of what is now the CMU. A total land area
comprising 3,080 hectares was surveyed and registered and titled in the name
of the petitioner under OCT Nos. 160, 161 and 162. 1
In the course of the cadastral hearing of the school's petition for registration of
the aforementioned grant of agricultural land, several tribes belonging to
cultural communities, opposed the petition claiming ownership of certain
ancestral lands forming part of the tribal reservations. Some of the claims
were granted so that what was titled to the present petitioner school was
reduced from 3,401 hectares to 3,080 hectares. LLpr
In the early 1960's, the student population of the school was less than 3,000.
By 1988, the student population had expanded to some 13,000 students, so
that the school community has an academic population (student, faculty and
non-academic staff) of almost 15,000. To cope with the increase in its
enrollment, it has expanded and improved its education facilities partly from
government appropriation and partly by self-help measures.
True to the concept of a land grant college, the school embarked on self-help
measures to carry out its educational objectives, train its students, and
maintain various activities which the government appropriation could not
adequately support or sustain. In 1984, the CMU approved Resolution No.
Sometime in 1986, under Dr. Chua as President, the CMU launched a selfhelp project called CMU-Income Enhancement Program (CMU-IEP) to
develop unutilized land resources, mobilize and promote the spirit of selfreliance, provide socio-economic and technical training in actual field project
implementation and augment the income of the faculty and the staff.
Under the terms of a 3-party Memorandum of Agreement 2 among the CMU,
the CMU-Integrated Development Foundation (CMU-IDF) and groups of
"seldas" of 5 CMU employees, the CMU would provide the use of 4 to 5
hectares of land to a selda for one (1) calendar year. The CMU-IDF would
provide researchers and specialists to assist in the preparation of project
proposals and to monitor and analyze project implementation. The selda in
turn would pay to the CMU P100 as service fee and P1,000 per hectare as
participant's land rental fee. In addition, 400 kilograms of the produce per year
would be turned over or donated to the CMU-IDF. The participants agreed not
to allow their hired laborers or members of their family to establish any house
or live within the vicinity of the project area and not to use the allocated lot as
collateral for a loan. It was expressly provided that no tenant-landlord
relationship would exist as a result of the Agreement.
Initially, participation in the CMU-IEP was extended only to workers and staff
members who were still employed with the CMU and was not made available
to former workers or employees. In the middle of 1987, to cushion the impart
of the discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar cane project on the lives of its
former workers, the CMU allowed them to participate in the CMU-IEP as
special participants.
Under the terms of a contract called Addendum To Existing Memorandum of
Agreement Concerning Participation To The CMU-Income Enhancement
Program, 3 a former employee would be grouped with an existing selda of his
choice and provided one (1) hectare for a lowland rice project for one (1)
calendar year. He would pay the land rental participant's fee of P1,000.00 per
hectare but on a charge-to-crop basis. He would also be subject to the same
In their complaint, docketed as DAR Case No. 5, filed with the DARAB,
complainants Obrique, et. al. claimed that they are tenants of the CMU and/or
landless peasants claiming/occupying a part of portion of the CMU situated at
Sinalayan, Valencia, Bukidnon and Musuan, Bukidnon, consisting of about
1,200 hectares. We agree with the DARAB's finding that Obrique, et. al. are
not tenants. Under the terms of the written agreement signed by Obrique, et.
al., pursuant to the livelihood program called "Kilusang Sariling Sikap
Program", it was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship
existed between the CMU and the faculty and staff (participants in the
project). The CMU did not receive any share from the harvest/fruits of the
land tilled by the participants. What the CMU collected was a nominal service
fee and land use participant's fee in consideration of all the kinds of assistance
given to the participants by the CMU. Again, the agreement signed by the
participants under the CMU-IEP clearly stipulated that no landlord-tenant
relationship existed, and that the participants are not share croppers nor
lessees, and the CMU did not share in the produce of the participants' labor.
In the same paragraph of their complaint, complainants claim that they are
landless peasants. This allegation requires proof and should not be accepted as
factually true. Obrique is not a landless peasant. The facts showed he was a
Physics Instructor at CMU holding a very responsible position and was
separated from the service on account of certain irregularities he committed
while Assistant Director of the Agri-Business Project of cultivating lowland
rice. Others may, at the moment, own no land in Bukidnon but they may not
necessarily be so destitute in their places of origin. No proof whatsoever
appears in the record to show that they are landless peasants. cdphil
The evidence on record establish without doubt that the complainants were
originally authorized or given permission to occupy certain areas of the CMU
property for a definite purpose to carry out certain university projects as
part of the CMU's program of activities pursuant to its avowed purpose of
giving training and instruction in agricultural and other related technologies,
using the land and other resources of the institution as laboratory for these
projects. Their entry into the land of the CMU was with the permission and
written consent of the owner, the CMU, for a limited period and for a
Dictionary, may give the ordinary reader a classroom meaning of the phrase
"is actually directly and exclusively", but in so doing they missed the true
meaning of Section 10, R.A. 6657, as to what lands are exempted or excluded
from the coverage of the CARP. cdrep
The pertinent provisions of R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, are as follows:.
SECTION 4.Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public an
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 for 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
Michigan State University, Penn State University and Illinois State University,
started as small land grant colleges, with meager funding to support their ever
increasing educational programs. They were given extensive tracts of
agricultural and forest lands to be developed to support their numerous
expanding activities in the fields of agricultural technology and scientific
research. Funds for the support of the educational programs of land grant
colleges came from government appropriation, tuition and other student fees,
private endowments and gifts, and earnings from miscellaneous sources. 7 It
was in this same spirit that President Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476,
withdrawing from sale or settlement and reserving for the Mindanao
Agricultural College (forerunner of the CMU) a land reservation of 3,080
hectares as its future campus. It was set up in Bukidnon, in the hinterlands of
Mindanao, in order that it can have enough resources and wide open spaces to
grow as an agricultural educational institution, to develop and train future
farmers of Mindanao and help attract settlers to that part of the country. LLjur
In line with its avowed purpose as an agricultural and technical school, the
University adopted a land utilization program to develop and exploit its 3,080hectares land reservation as follows: 8
No. of HectaresPercentage
a.Livestock and Pasture1,016.4033
b.Upland Crops61620
c.Campus and Residential
sites46215
d.Irrigated rice400.4013
e.Watershed and forest
reservation30810
f.Fruit and Tree Crops1545
g.Agricultural
Experimental stations123.204
3,080.00100%
The first land use plan of the CMU was prepared in 1975 and since then
it has undergone several revisions in line with changing economic
conditions, national economic policies and financial limitations and
availability of resources. The CMU, through Resolution No. 160 S.
1984, pursuant to its development plan, adopted a multidisciplinary
applied research extension and productivity program called the
"Kilusang Sariling Sikap Project" (CMU-KSSP). The objectives 9 of
this program were:
1.Provided researchers who shall assist in (a)
preparation of proposal; (b) monitor project
implementation; and (c) collect and analyze all data
and information relevant to the processes and results
of project implementation;
2.Provide the use of land within the University
reservation for the purpose of establishing a lowland
rice project for the party of the Second Part for a
period of one calendar year subject to discretionary
renewal by the Party of the First Part;
3.Provide practical training to the Party of the
Second Part on the management and operation of
their lowland project upon request of Party of the
Second Part; and
4.Provide technical assistance in the form of relevant
livelihood project specialists who shall extend
expertise on scientific methods of crop production
upon request by Party of the Second Part. cdphil
The portion of the CMU land leased to the Philippine Packing Corporation
(now Del Monte Phils., Inc.) was leased long before the CARP was passed.
The agreement with the Philippine Packing Corporation was not a lease but a
Management and Development Agreement, a joint undertaking where use by
the Philippine Packing Corporation of the land was part of the CMU research
program, with the direct participation of faculty and students. Said contracts
with the Philippine Packing Corporation and others of a similar nature (like
MM-Agraplex) were made prior to the enactment of R.A. 6657 and were
directly connected to the purpose and objectives of the CMU as an educational
institution. As soon as the objectives of the agreement for the joint use of the
CMU land were achieved as of June 1988, the CMU adopted a blue print for
the exclusive use and utilization of said areas to carry out its own research and
agricultural experiments.
As to the determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for
use by the CMU, the school is in the best position to resolve and answer the
question and pass upon the problem of its needs in relation to its avowed
objectives for which the land was given to it by the State. Neither the DARAB
nor the Court of Appeals has the right to substitute its judgment or discretion
on this matter, unless the evidentiary facts are so manifest as to show that the
CMU has no real need for the land.
It is our opinion that the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated August 20, 1990, is not
covered by the CARP because:
(1)It is not alienable and disposable land of the public
domain;
(2)The CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific
limits as determined by Congress;
Under Section 4 and Section 10 of R.A. 6657, it is crystal clear that the
jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to matters involving the
implementation of the CARP. More specifically, it is restricted to
agrarian cases and controversies involving lands falling within the
coverage of the aforementioned program. It does not include those
which are actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for, among such purposes, school sites and campuses for
setting up experimental farm stations, research and pilot production
centers, etc. LLphil
Consequently, the DARAB has no power to try, hear and adjudicate the
case pending before it involving a portion of the CMU's titled school
site, as the portion of the CMU land reservation ordered segregated is
actually, directly and exclusively used and found by the school to be
necessary for its purposes. The CMU has constantly raised the issue of
the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction and has questioned the respondent's
authority to hear, try and adjudicate the case at bar. Despite the law and
the evidence on record tending to establish that the fact that the DARAB
had no jurisdiction, it made the adjudication now subject of review.
Whether the DARAB has the authority to order the segregation of a
portion of a private property titled in the name of its lawful owner, even
if the claimant is not entitled as a beneficiary, is an issue we feel we
must resolve. The quasi-judicial powers of the DARAB are provided in
less", from the CMU land reservation, and directed the DAR Regional
Director to implement its order of segregation. Having found that the
complainants in this agrarian dispute for Declaration of Tenancy Status
are not entitled to claim as beneficiaries of the CARP because they are
not share tenants or leaseholders, its order for the segregation of 400
hectares of the CMU land was without legal authority. We do not believe
that the quasi-judicial function of the DARAB carries with it greater
authority than ordinary courts to make an award beyond what was
demanded by the complainants/petitioners, even in an agrarian dispute.
Where the quasi-judicial body finds that the complainants/petitioners are
not entitled to the rights they are demanding, it is an erroneous
interpretation of authority for that quasi-judicial body to order private
property to be awarded to future beneficiaries. The order segregating
400 hectares of the CMU land was issued on a finding that the
complainants are not entitled as beneficiaries, and on an erroneous
assumption that the CMU land which is excluded or exempted under the
law is subject to the coverage of the CARP. Going beyond what was
asked by the complainants who were not entitled to the relief prayed for,
constitutes a grave abuse of discretion because it implies such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. prLL
The education of the youth and agrarian reform are admittedly among
the highest priorities in the government socio-economic programs. In
this case, neither need give way to the other. Certainly, there must still
be vast tracts of agricultural land in Mindanao outside the CMU land
reservation which can be made available to landless peasants, assuming
the claimants here, or some of them, can qualify as CARP beneficiaries.
To our mind, the taking of the CMU land which had been segregated for
educational purposes for distribution to yet uncertain beneficiaries is a
gross misinterpretation of the authority and jurisdiction granted by law
to the DARAB.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the
decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated October 29, 2002 in CAG.R. SP No. 64378, which reversed the August 30, 2000 decision of
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, as well as the Resolution dated
May 7, 2003, which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.
2. Affirming the notice of coverage sent by the DAR Provincial Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including
Office, Negros Occidental dated November 23, 1994;
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture."
3. Directing the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of Negros More specifically, the following lands are covered by the
Occidental and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officers of Sagay Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
and Escalante to facilitate the acquisition of the subject landholdings
and the distribution of the same qualified beneficiaries.
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of
SO ORDERED.7
forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken
after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into
Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian account, ecological, developmental and equity considerations,
shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public
Reform which affirmed the Order of the Regional Director. 8
domain;
Aggrieved, respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, which set aside the decision of the Secretary of (b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific
limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
Agrarian Reform.9
Hence, the instant petition for review.
land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be
actually, directly and exclusively used for educational
purposes.
We agree with the petitioner.
Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands
which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the
purposes of their exemption, viz:
xxxxxxxxx
c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, , shall be exempt
from the coverage of this Act.13
xxxxxxxxx
The words of the law are clear and unambiguous. Thus, the "plain
meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is applicable
in this case. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free
from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation.14
of the land was found to be necessary for the present and future
educational needs of the CMU. On the other hand, the lands in
this case were not actually and exclusively utilized as school
sites and campuses, as they were leased to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation, not for educational purposes but for the
furtherance of its business. Also, as conceded by respondent
We are not unaware of our ruling in the case of Central Mindanao DECS, it was the income from the contract of lease and not the
University v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication subject lands that was directly used for the repairs and
Board,15 wherein we declared the land subject thereof exempt from renovations of the schools in the locality.
CARP coverage. However, respondent DECS reliance thereon is
misplaced because the factual circumstances are different in the case Anent the issue of whether the farmers are qualified
at bar.
beneficiaries of CARP, we disagree with the Court of Appeals
finding that they were not.
Firstly, in the CMU case, the land involved was not alienable and
disposable land of the public domain because it was reserved by the At the outset, it should be pointed out that the identification of
late President Carlos P. Garcia under Proclamation No. 476 for the actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the
use of Mindanao Agricultural College (now CMU). 16 In this case, Secretary of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Section 15, R.A. No.
however, the lands fall under the category of alienable and 6657, which states:
disposable lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. The DAR in
Secondly, in the CMU case, the land was actually, directly and coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
exclusively used and found to be necessary for school sites and (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all agricultural
campuses. Although a portion of it was being used by the Philippine lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be
Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Phils., Inc.) under a beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries with
"Management and Development Agreement", the undertaking was the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the
that the land shall be used by the Philippine Packing Corporation as following data:
part of the CMU research program, with direct participation of
faculty and students. Moreover, the land was part of the land (a) names and members of their immediate farm household;
utilization program developed by the CMU for its "Kilusang
Sariling Sikap Project" (CMU-KSSP), a multi-disciplinary applied (b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the
research extension and productivity program.17 Hence, the retention length of tenurial relationship;
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 103125. May 17, 1993.]
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR,
represented by GOV. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE
and HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA as Presiding
Judge of RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines Sur,
petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS
(THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN
JOAQUIN and EFREN SAN JOAQUIN,
respondents.
The Provincial Attorney for petitioners.
Reynaldo L. Herrera for Ernesto San Joaquin.
SYLLABUS
1.POLITICAL LAW; INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE;
EMINENT DOMAIN; PUBLIC PURPOSE; CONCEPT.
Modernly, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader
interpretation of "public purpose" or "public use" for which the
power of eminent domain may be exercised. The old concept was
that the condemned property must actually be used by the general
public (e.g. roads, bridges, public plazas, etc.) before the taking
thereof could satisfy the constitutional requirement of "public use".
10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d. 241).
6.ID.; ID.; ID.; DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC USE LODGED
WITH THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. To sustain the Court of
Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer
expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads,
bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying for
conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian
Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a
change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of
Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a
public purpose or public use. Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch
of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of
the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same
being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such
legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular
undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use
(United States Ex Rel Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch, 327 US
546, 90 L. ed. 843, 66 S Ct 715; State ex rel Twin City Bldg. and
Invest. Co. v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 1, 174 NW 885, 8 ALR 585).
There is also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes, no matter how
broad their terms are, do not embrace the sovereign unless the
sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto (Alliance of
Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 124
SCRA 1 [1983]). The Republic of the Philippine, as sovereign, or its
political subdivisions, as holders of delegated sovereign powers,
cannot be bound by provisions of law couched in general terms.
7.ID.; ID.; ID.; DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION,
GOVERNED BY THE RULES OF COURT. The fears of private
respondents that they will be paid on the basis of the valuation
DECISION
QUIASON, J p:
In this appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 20551 entitled "Ernesto N. San
Joaquin, et al., v. Hon. Benjamin V. Panga, et al.," this Court is
asked to decide whether the expropriation of agricultural lands
by local government units is subject to the prior approval of the
Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the implementor of the
agrarian reform program.
On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series
of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or
expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site,
development center;
"WHEREFORE, . . . ."
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur,
through its Governor, Hon. Luis R. Villafuerte, filed two
separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin
and Efren N. San Joaquin, docketed as Special Civil Action
Nos. P-17-89 and P-19-89 of the Regional Trial Court, Pili,
Camarines Sur, presided by the Hon. Benjamin V. Panga.
Forthwith, the Province of Camarines Sur filed a motion for the
issuance of a writ of possession. The San Joaquins failed to
appear at the hearing of the motion.
The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the
ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. In
an order dated December 6, 1989, the trial court denied the
motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines
Sur to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the
Clerk of Court of the amount of P5,714.00, the amount
provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that
private respondents may suffer in the event that the
expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ
of possession in an order dated January 18, 1990.
The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief from the order,
authorizing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession
of their property and a motion to admit an amended motion to
dismiss. Both motions were denied in the order dated February
26, 1990. cdll
of "public use". Under the new concept, "public use" means public
advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the
general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community, like a
resort complex for tourists or housing project (Heirs of Juancho
Ardano v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 [1983]; Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154
SCRA 461 [1987]).
The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned
resolution is for a public purpose. The establishment of a pilot
development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage
of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational,
the center would make available to the community invaluable
information and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage
industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen and
craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the
public purpose requirement of the Constitution. As held in
Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461, "Housing is a basic human
need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it
directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the
environment and in sum the general welfare."
It is the submission of the Province of Camarines Sur that its
exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be restricted by the
provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No.
6657), particularly Section 65 thereof, which requires the approval
of the Department of Agrarian Reform before a parcel of land can be
reclassified from an agricultural to a non-agricultural land.
The Court of Appeals, following the recommendation of the
Solicitor General, held that the Province of Camarines Sur must
comply with the provision of Section 65 of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law and must first secure the approval of the
Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the
lands of the San Joaquins.
In Heirs of Juancho Ardana v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220,
petitioners raised the issue of whether the Philippine Tourism
Authority can expropriate lands covered by the "Operation
Land Transfer" for use of a tourist resort complex. There was a
finding that of the 282 hectares sought to be expropriated, only
an area of 8,970 square meters or less than one hectare was
affected by the land reform program and covered by
emancipation patents issued by the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform. While the Court said that there was "no need under the
facts of this petition to rule on whether the public purpose is
superior or inferior to another purpose or engage in a balancing
of competing public interest," it upheld the expropriation after
noting that petitioners had failed to overcome the showing that
the taking of 8,970 square meters formed part of the resort
complex. A fair and reasonable reading of the decision is that
this Court viewed the power of expropriation as superior to the
power to distribute lands under the land reform program.
The Solicitor General denigrated the power to expropriate by
the Province of Camarines Sur by stressing the fact that local
government units exercise such power only by delegation.
(Comment, pp. 14-15; Rollo, pp. 128-129). cdrep
It is true that local government units have no inherent power of
eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly
authorized by the legislature (City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 281
US 439, 74 L.ed. 950, 50 S Ct. 360). It is also true that in
December 4, 2009
December 4, 2009
December 4, 2009
December 4, 2009
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 167540
December 4, 2009
G.R. No. 169163
December 4, 2009
December 4, 2009
DAMBA-NFSW, Petitioner,
vs.
ROXAS & CO., INC., Respondent.
DECISION
Before the laws effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.]
filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell [VOS]
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No.
The main subject of the seven consolidated petitions is the 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under
application of petitioner Roxas & Co., Inc. (Roxas & Co.) for compulsory acquisition by DAR in accordance with the
conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural use of its three CARL.
haciendas located in Nasugbu, Batangas containing a total area of
xxxx
almost 3,000 hectares. The facts are not new, the Court having
earlier resolved intimately-related issues dealing with these
haciendas. Thus, in the 1999 case of Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its
President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of
Appeals,1 the Court presented the facts as follows:
DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The
. . . Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly
owner of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from
Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner
respondent
DAR
that
it
was applying
Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and is registered under informed
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 985. This land is covered by for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to
Tax Declaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468, 0470, 0234 and 0354. other uses.
Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area, registered under TCT
x x x x2 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
No. 924 and covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0236, 0237 and 0390.
Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area and is registered
under TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665.
The petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543 nub on the
interpretation of Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1520 which
xxxx
was issued on November 28, 1975 by then President Ferdinand The PTA shall identify well-defined geographic areas within
Marcos. The PP reads:
the zone with potential tourism value, wherein optimum use
of natural assets and attractions, as well as existing facilities
and concentration of efforts and limited resources of both
DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF
government and private sector may be affected and realized in
MARAGONDON AND TERNATE IN CAVITE
order to generate foreign exchange as well as other tourist
PROVINCE AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF
receipts.
NASUGBU IN BATANGAS AS A TOURIST ZONE,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Any duly established military reservation existing within the
zone shall be excluded from this proclamation.
WHEREAS, certain areas in the sector comprising
the Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in
Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas have
All proclamation, decrees or executive orders inconsistent
potential tourism value after being developed into
herewith are hereby revoked or modified accordingly.
resort complexes for the foreign and domestic
(emphasis and underscoring supplied).
market; and
The incidents which spawned the filing of the petitions in G.R.
WHEREAS, it is necessary to conduct the necessary
Nos. 149548, 167505, 167845, 169163 and 179650 are stated
studies and to segregate specific geographic areas for
in the dissenting opinion of Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, the
concentrated efforts of both the government and
original draft of which was made the basis of the Courts
private sectors in developing their tourism potential;
deliberations.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby declare
the area comprising the Municipalities of
Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite Province and
Nasugbu in Batangas Province as a tourist zone
under the administration and control of the
Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) pursuant to
Section 5 (D) of P.D. 564.
The application for conversion of Roxas & Co. was the subject of
the above-stated Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals which the
Court remanded to the DAR for the observance of proper acquisition
proceedings. As reflected in the above-quoted statement of facts in
said case, during the pendency before the DAR of its application for
conversion following its remand to the DAR or on May 16, 2000,
Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an application for exemption from
the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520 and of DAR Administrative
Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 19943 which states that all lands already
classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before the
effectivity of CARP no longer need conversion clearance from the
DAR.
It bears mentioning at this juncture that on April 18, 1982, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu enacted Municipal Zoning
Ordinance No. 4 (Nasugbu MZO No. 4) which was approved on
May 4, 1983 by the Human Settlements Regulation Commission,
now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA, 9 the Court made
it clear that the "power to determine whether Haciendas Palico,
Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt
from the coverage of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law] lies with the [Department of Agrarian Reform], not with
this Court."10 The DAR, an administrative body of special
competence, denied, by Order of October 22, 2001, the
application for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it finding
that PP 1520 did not automatically reclassify all the lands in the
affected municipalities from their original uses. It appears that
the PTA had not yet, at that time, identified the "specific
The Court had in fact passed upon a similar matter before. Thus geographic areas" for tourism development and had no pending
tourism development projects in the areas. Further, report from
in DAR v. Franco,7 it pronounced:
the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation
Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were planted with sugar cane
Philippine Tourism Authority, has to determine precisely which and other crops.11
areas are for tourism development and excluded from the
Operation Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of
Program. And suffice it to state here that the Court has repeatedly 2004,12 came up with clarificatory guidelines and therein
ruled that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the decreed that
enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 do not need any conversion
clearance.8 (emphasis and underscoring supplied).
A. x x x x.
The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only "certain areas
in the sector comprising the [three Municipalities that] have
potential tourism value" and mandated the conduct of "necessary
studies" and the segregation of "specific geographic areas" to
achieve its purpose. Which is why the PP directed the Philippine
Tourism Authority (PTA) to identify what those potential tourism
areas are. If all the lands in those tourism zones were to be wholly
converted to non-agricultural use, there would have been no need for
the PP to direct the PTA to identify what those "specific geographic
areas" are.
Given these martial law-era decrees and considering the sociopolitical backdrop at the time PP 1520 was issued in 1975, it is
inconceivable that PP 1520, as well as other similarly worded
Indubitably, these proclamations, particularly those pertaining to the proclamations which are completely silent on the aspect of
Provinces of Ilocos Norte and Bataan, did not intend to reclassify all reclassification of the lands in those tourism zones, would
agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands in one fell swoop. The nullify the gains already then achieved by PD 27.
Court takes notice of how the agrarian reform program wasand
still isimplemented in these provinces since there are lands that do Even so, Roxas & Co. turns to Natalia Realty v. DAR and
not have any tourism potential and are more appropriate for NHA v. Allarde to support its position. These cases are not
agricultural utilization.
even closely similar to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and
167543. The only time that these cases may find application to
Relatedly, a reference to the Special Economic Zone Act of said petitions is when the PTA actually identifies "well-defined
199514 provides a parallel orientation on the issue. Under said Act, geographic areas within the zone with potential tourism value."
several towns and cities encompassing the whole Philippines were
readily identified as economic zones.15 To uphold Roxas & Co.s In remotely tying these two immediately-cited cases that
reading of PP 1520 would see a total reclassification of practically involve specific and defined townsite reservations for the
all the agricultural lands in the country to non-agricultural use. housing program of the National Housing Authority to the
Propitiously, the legislature had the foresight to include a bailout present petitions, Roxas & Co. cites Letter of Instructions No.
provision in Section 31 of said Act for land conversion. 16 The same 352 issued on December 22, 1975 which states that the survey
cannot be said of PP 1520, despite the existence of Presidential and technical description of the tourism zones shall be
Decree (PD) No. 27 or the Tenant Emancipation Decree, 17 which is considered an integral part of PP 1520. There were, however, at
the precursor of the CARP.
the time no surveys and technical delineations yet of the
intended tourism areas.
Interestingly, then President Marcos also issued on September 26,
1972 PD No. 2 which declared the entire Philippines as land reform On hindsight, Natalia and Allarde find application in the
area.18 Such declaration did not intend to reclassify all lands in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 179650 & 167505, which petitions are
entire country to agricultural lands. President Marcos, about a month anchored on the extenuating effects of Nasugbu MZO No. 4,
later or on October 21, 1972, issued PD 27 which decreed that all
but not in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 & 167543 bearing on came after the effectivity of the CARP on June 15, 1988. It
PP 1520, as will later be discussed.
labors on the supposition that PP 1520 had already reclassified
the lands encompassing the tourism zones; and that those
Of significance also in the present petitions is the issuance on subsequent issuances, even if applied in the present cases,
August 3, 2007 of Executive Order No. 64719 by President Arroyo cannot be applied retroactively.
which proclaimed the areas in the Nasugbu Tourism Development
Plan as Special Tourism Zone. Pursuant to said Executive Order, the Relevantly, while it may be argued that a remand to the DAR
PTA completed its validation of 21 out of 42 barangays as tourism would be proper in light of the recent formulation of a tourism
priority areas, hence, it is only after such completion that these development plan, which was validated by the PTA, that would
identified lands may be subjected to reclassification proceedings.
put the cases within the ambit of PP 1520, the Court sees
otherwise. Roxas & Co. can only look to the provisions of the
It bears emphasis that a mere reclassification of an agricultural land Tourism Act, and not to PP 1520, for possible exemption.
does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use since
there is still that process of conversion before one is permitted to use II. ROXAS & CO.S APPLICATION IN DAR
it for other purposes.20
Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 FOR CARP
EXEMPTION IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF
The recent passage of the Tourism Act of 200921 also impacts on the G.R. NO. 179650 CANNOT BE GRANTED IN VIEW OF
DISCREPANCIES IN THE LOCATION AND IDENTITY
present petitions since Section 32 thereof states that:
OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS OF LAND.
Sec. 32. x x x x. - Any other area specifically defined as a tourism
PP
1520
did
not
automatically
convert
area, zone or spot under any special or general law, decree or Since
presidential issuance shall, as far as practicable, be organized Haciendas Caylaway, Banilad and Palico into non-agricultural
into a TEZ under the provisions of this Act. x x x x. (italics and estates, can Roxas & Co. invoke in the alternative Nasugbu
MZO No. 4, which reclassified in 1982 the haciendas to nonemphasis supplied)
agricultural use to exclude six parcels of land in Hacienda
Furthermore, it is only under this same Act that it is explicitly Palico from CARP coverage?
declared that lands identified as part of a tourism zone shall qualify
By Roxas & Co.s contention, the affected six parcels of land
for exemption from CARP coverage.22
which are the subject of DAR Administrative Case No. AThe dissenting opinion ignores the supervening issuances mentioned 9999-142-97 and nine parcels of land which are the subject of
above during the pendency of the present petitions because they DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 involved in
G.R. No. 167505, all in Hacienda Palico, have been reclassified to Initially, CLUPPI-2 based [its] evaluation on the lot nos. as
non-agricultural uses via Nasugbu MZO No. 4 which was approved appearing in CLOA No. 6654. However, for purposes of clarity
by the forerunner of HLURB.
and to ensure that the area applied for exemption is indeed part
of TCT No. T-60034, CLUPPI-2 sought to clarify with [Roxas
& Co.] the origin of TCT No. T-60034. In a letter dated May
Roxas & Co.s contention fails.
28, 1998, [Roxas & Co.] explains that portions of TCT No. TTo be sure, the Court had on several occasions decreed that a local 985, the mother title, was subdivided into 125 lots pursuant
government unit has the power to classify and convert land from to PD 27. A total of 947.8417 was retained by the landowners
agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the and was subsequently registered under TCT No. 49946.
CARL.23 In Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. [[Roxas & Co.] further explains that TCT No. 49946 was
further subdivided into several lots (Lot 125-A to Lot 125-P)
Nicolas,24 it reiterated that
with Lot No. 125-N registered under TCT No. 60034. [A]
. . . the facts obtaining in this case are similar to those in Natalia review of the titles, however, shows that the origin of TRealty. Both subject lands form part of an area designated for non- 49946 is T-783 and not T-985. On the other hand, the origin
agricultural purposes. Both were classified as non-agricultural lands of T-60034 is listed as 59946, and not T-49946. The
discrepancies were attributed by [Roxas & Co.] to
prior to June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of CARL.
typographical errors which were "acknowledged and
initialled" [sic] by the ROD. Per verification, the
xxxx
discrepancies . . . cannot be ascertained.27 (emphasis and
In the case under review, the subject parcels of lands were underscoring supplied)
reclassified within an urban zone as per approved Official
Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Davao. The In denying Roxas & Co.s motion for reconsideration, the DAR
reclassification was embodied in City Ordinance No. 363, Series Secretary held:
of 1982. As such, the subject parcels of land are considered
"non-agricultural" and may be utilized for residential, The landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do not
commercial, and industrial purposes. The reclassification was correspond to the Certification dated February 11, 1998 of
later approved by the HLURB.25 (emphasis, italics and the [HLURB] , the Certification dated September 12, 1996
issued by the Municipal Planning and Development
underscoring supplied)
Coordinator, and the Certifications dated July 31, 1997 and
26
The DAR Secretary denied the application for exemption of Roxas May 27, 1997 issued by the National Irrigation
Authority. The certifications were issued for Lot Nos. 21, 24,
& Co., however, in this wise:
28, 31, 32 and 34. Thus, it was not even possible to issue exemption part of the zone classified as Industrial under Municipal
clearance over the lots covered by TCT Nos. 60019 to 60023.
Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982 of the Municipality of
Nasugbu, Batangas. .a scrutiny of the said Ordinance
Furthermore, we also note the discrepancies between the shows that only Barangays Talangan and Lumbangan of
certifications issued by the HLURB and the Municipal Planning the said municipality were classified as Industrial Zones
Development Coordinator as to the area of the specific Barangay Cogunan was not included. x x x x. In fact, the
TCTs submitted by [Roxas & Co.] show that the properties
lots.28 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
covered by said titles are all located at Barrio
In affirming the DAR Secretarys denial of Roxas & Co.s Lumbangan.29 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
application for exemption, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No.
Its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the appellate court still
63146 subject of G.R. No. 179650, observed:
allowed Roxas & Co. to adduce additional evidence to support
In the instant case, a perusal of the documents before us shows that its application for exemption under Nasugbu MZO No. 4.
there is no indication that the said TCTs refer to the same properties
applied for exemption by [Roxas & Co.] It is true that the Meanwhile, Roxas & Co. appealed the appellate courts
certifications refer, among others, to DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, decision in CA-G.R. No. SP No. 63146 affirming the DAR
31, 32 and 34But these certifications contain nothing to show that Secretarys denial of its application for CARP exemption in
these lots are the same as Lots 125-A, 125-B, 125-C, 125-D and Hacienda Palico (now the subject of G.R. No. 149548).
125-E covered by TCT Nos. 60019, 60020, 60021, 60022 and
60023, respetively. While [Roxas & Co.] claims that DAR Lot Nos. When Roxas & Co. sought the re-opening of the proceedings in
21, 24 and 31 correspond to the aforementioned TCTs submitted to DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 (subject of G.R.
the DAR no evidence was presented to substantiate such allegation. No. 179650), and offered additional evidence in support of its
application for CARP exemption, the DAR Secretary, this time,
Moreover, [Roxas & Co.] failed to submit TCT 634 which it claims granted its application for the six lots including Lot No. 36
covers DAR Lot Nos. 28, 32 and 24.(TSN, April 24, 2001, pp. 43- since the additional documents offered by Roxas & Co.
mentioned the said lot.
44)
In granting the application, the DAR Secretary30 examined
anew the evidence submitted by Roxas & Co. which consisted
[Roxas & Co.] also claims that subject properties are located at mainly of certifications from various local and national
Barangay Cogunan and Lumbangan and that these properties are government agencies.31 Petitioner in G.R. Nos. 167505,
xxxx
008-98FOR THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN HACIENDA Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu, Batangas, stating that
PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO. 167505 SHOULD the subject parcels of land are within the Urban Core Zone
BEGRANTED.
as specified in Zone A. VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance
No. 4, Series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlements
The Court, however, takes a different stance with respect to Roxas & Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land
Co.s application for CARP exemption in DAR Administrative Case Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), under Resolution No. 123,
No. A-9999-008-98 over nine parcels of land identified as Lot Nos. Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;
20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of
TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico, subject 6. Two (2) Certifications both dated 31 August 1998, issued
of G.R. No. 167505.
by Alfredo Tan II, Director, HLURB, Region IV, stating
that the subject parcels of land appear to be within the
In its application, Roxas & Co. submitted the following documents: Residential cluster Area as specified in Zone VII of
Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved
1. Letter-application dated 29 September 1997 signed by Elino SJ. under HSRC Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May
Napigkit, for and on behalf of Roxas & Company, Inc., seeking 1983;35
exemption from CARP coverage of subject landholdings;
x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
2. Secretarys Certificate dated September 2002 executed by
Mariano M. Ampil III, Corporate Secretary of Roxas & Company, By Order of November 6, 2002, the DAR Secretary granted the
Inc., indicating a Board Resolution authorizing him to represent the application for exemption but issued the following conditions:
corporation in its application for exemption with the DAR. The
same Board Resolution revoked the authorization previously granted 1. The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be
to the Sierra Management & Resources Corporation;
maintained in their peaceful possession and cultivation of their
respective areas of tillage until a final determination has been
3. Photocopy of TCT No. 985 and its corresponding Tax Declaration made on the amount of disturbance compensation due and
entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the PARAD of
No. 0401;
Batangas;
4. Location and vicinity maps of subject landholdings;
2. No development shall be undertaken within the subject
5. Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Reynaldo Garcia, parcels of land until the appropriate disturbance compensation
Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and has been paid to the farmer-occupants who are determined by
the PARAD to be entitled thereto. Proof of payment of disturbance farmer beneficiaries. x x x x. Anyhow, the
compensation shall be submitted to this Office within ten (10) days farmer[-]beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the rightful
from such payment; and
owner of the land."
3. The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer-beneficiaries Since subject landholding has been validly determined to be
shall be subject of a separate proceeding before the PARAD of CARP-exempt, therefore, the previous issuance of the CLOA
Batangas.36
of oppositors-movants is erroneous. Hence, similar to the
situation of the above-quoted Supreme Court Decision,
DAMBA-NSFW moved for reconsideration but the DAR Secretary oppositors-movants only hold the property in trust for the
denied the same and explained further why CLOA holders need not rightful owners of the land and are not the owners of subject
landholding who should be notified of the exemption
be informed of the pending application for exemption in this wise:
application of applicant Roxas & Company, Incorporated.
As regards the first ground raised by [DAMBA-NSFW], it should be
remembered that an application for CARP-exemption pursuant to Finally, this Office finds no substantial basis to reverse the
DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, as implemented by DAR assailed Orders since there is substantial compliance by the
Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, is non-adversarial or applicant with the requirements for the issuance of exemption
non-litigious in nature. Hence, applicant is correct in saying that clearance under DAR AO 6 (1994).37
nowhere in the rules is it required that occupants of a landholding
should be notified of an initiated or pending exemption application. On DAMBA-NSFWs petition for certiorari, the Court of
Appeals, noting that the petition was belatedly filed, sustained,
by Decision of December 20, 1994 and Resolution of May 7,
xxxx
2007,38 the DAR Secretarys finding that Roxas & Co. had
With regard [to] the allegation that oppositors-movants are already substantially complied with the prerequisites of DAR AO 6,
CLOA holders of subject propert[ies] and deserve to be notified, as Series of 1994. Hence, DAMBA-NFSWs petition in G.R. No.
owners, of the initiated questioned exemption application, is of no 167505.
moment. The Supreme Court in the case of Roxas [&] Co., Inc. v.
The Court finds no reversible error in the Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106, held:
assailed issuances, the orders of the DAR Secretary which it
"We stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the sustained being amply supported by evidence.
requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not
give this Court the power to nullify the CLOAs already issued to the
farmer-beneficiaries and their families. x x x x (underscoring Roxas & Co. is thus mandated to first satisfy the disturbance
supplied)
compensation of affected farmer-beneficiaries in the areas
covered by the nine parcels of lands in DAR AO No. A-9999Unlike courts of justice, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body, is not 008-98 before the CLOAs covering them can be cancelled. And
bound to strictly observe rules of procedure and evidence. To strictly it is enjoined to strictly follow the instructions of R.A. No.
enforce rules on appeals in this case would render to naught the 3844.
Courts dispositions on the other issues in these consolidated
petitions.
Finally then, and in view of the Courts dispositions in G.R.
Nos. 179650 and 167505, the May 27, 2001 Decision of the
In the main, there is no logical recourse except to cancel the CLOAs Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)44 in
issued for the nine parcels of land identified as Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, DARAB Case No. 401-239-2001 ordering the total
19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are portions of TCT No. 985 cancellation of CLOA No. 6654, subject of G.R. No. 169163, is
covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico (or those covered by SET ASIDE except with respect to the CLOAs issued for Lot
DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98). As for the rest of Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which are
the CLOAs, they should be respected since Roxas & Co., as shown portions of TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectares in
in the discussion in G.R. Nos. 167540, 167543 and 167505, failed to Hacienda Palico (or those covered by DAR Administrative
prove that the other lots in Hacienda Palico and the other two Case No. A-9999-008-98). It goes without saying that the
haciendas, aside from the above-mentioned nine lots, are CARP- motion for reconsideration of DAMBA-NFSW is granted to
thus vacate the Courts October 19, 2005 Resolution dismissing
exempt.
DAMBA-NFSWs petition for review of the appellate courts
Conformably, Republic Act No. 3844 (R.A. No. 3844), as Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 75952;45
amended,42 mandates that disturbance compensation be given to
tenants of parcels of land upon finding that "(t)he landholding is WHEREFORE,
declared by the department head upon recommendation of the
National Planning Commission to be suited for residential, 1) In G.R. No. 167540, the Court REVERSES and SETS
commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes."43 In addition, ASIDE the November 24, 2003 Decision46 and March 18, 2005
DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994 directs the payment of disturbance Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72131
compensation before the application for exemption may be which declared that Presidential Proclamation No. 1520
completely granted.
reclassified the lands in the municipalities of Nasugbu in
Batangas and Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite to nonagricultural use;
2) The Court accordingly GRANTS the Motion for Reconsideration parcels of lands in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008of the Department of Agrarian Reform inG.R. No. 167543 and 98 before the CLOAs therein can be cancelled, and is
REVERSES and SETS ASIDE its Resolution of June 20, 2005;
ENJOINED to strictly follow the mandate of R.A. No. 3844.
3) In G.R. No. 149548, the Court DENIES the petition for review No pronouncement as to costs.
of Roxas & Co. for lack of merit;
SO ORDERED.
4) In G.R. No. 179650, the Court GRANTS the petition for review
of DAMBA-NSFW and REVERSES andSETS ASIDE the October
31, 2006 Decision and August 16, 2007 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 82225;
5) In G.R. No. 167505, the Court DENIES the petition for review
of DAMBA-NSFW and AFFIRMS the December 20, 2004
Decision and March 7, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 82226;
6) In G.R. No. 167845, the Court DENIES Roxas & Co.s petition
for review for lack of merit and AFFIRMSthe September 10, 2004
Decision and April 14, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals;
7) In G.R. No. 169163, the Court SETS ASIDE the Decisions of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator in DARAB Case No. 401239-2001 ordering the cancellation of CLOA No. 6654 and DARAB
Cases Nos. R-401-003-2001 to No. R-401-005-2001 granting the
partial cancellation of CLOA No. 6654. The CLOAs issued for Lots
No. 21 No. 24, No. 26, No. 31, No. 32 and No. 34 or those covered
by DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97) remain; and
8) Roxas & Co. is ORDERED to pay the disturbance compensation
of affected farmer-beneficiaries in the areas covered by the nine