Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2011
September 1, 2011
Further, you aver that the non-negotiability for conversion of irrigated and irrigable
lands was stressed in Administrative Order No. 20, s. 1992, reiterated in
Administrative Order No. 363, s. 1997, both of the Office of the President (OP),
and underscored anew in Section 22 of Republic Act No. 9700, or the "CARPER
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Extension and Reforms)
Law.
TSacAE
It is, however, your position that the aforesaid DOJ Opinion No. 181, s. 1990 and
Supreme Court decision should apply only to the Lungsod Silangan Townsite
Reservation and to highly urbanized areas, but not to other areas in the country,
especially to irrigated and irrigable prime agricultural lands. You further assert
that the reclassification of these irrigated or irrigable prime agricultural lands into
non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988 partakes the nature of conversion.
Therefore, DAR's approval of any request for exemption involving such lands
would not only be unconstitutional but would also be contrary to the two (2)
presidential issuances aforementioned as well as Section 22 of R.A. No. 9700. In
view thereof, you now elevated the matter to us for our opinion.
We agree.
In your cited case of Natalia Realty vs. DAR, the Supreme Court explained the
extent of the coverage of CARL, thus:
". . . Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement
and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. As to what constitutes
'agricultural land,' it is referred to as 'land devoted to agricultural activity' as defined in this Act and
not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission confirm limitation. 'Agricultural lands' are only those lands which are
arable are suitable agricultural lands" and do not include commercial, industrial, and residential
lands.
xxx
xxx
xxx
"Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include
lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by other
government agencies other than respondent DAR."
1
retained area which is tenanted, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws,
may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land: Provided, That the beneficiary shall
have fully paid his obligation."
DTEHIA
Evidently, and as stated by the Supreme Court in the aforecited case, reiterating
an Opinion of this Department, lands previously reclassified or converted from
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses prior to the enactment of the CARL fall
beyond the coverage thereof. For the same reason, and in view of Section 22 of
R.A. No. 9700 amending Section 65 of the CARL, the only logical conclusion is
that applications for exemption involving irrigated and irrigable lands,i.e., those
classified as not subject to and non-negotiable for conversion, but subsequently
reclassified into non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988, can no longer be
granted.
This conclusion finds support in the records of the congressional deliberations on
House Bill No. 40777, which gave birth to R.A. No. 9700, in which not only was
the limitation on what agricultural lands can be covered by the CARL
acknowledged, but the policy prohibiting conversion of all irrigated and irrigable
farmlands was also expressly made absolute and permanent.
3
To expand the wisdom of DOJ Opinion No. 181, Series of 1990 and the Court
ruling in Natalia Realty vs. DAR to the effect that agricultural lands coverable
under CARP do not include in its contemplation agricultural lands classified as
commercial, industrial, or residential prior to 15 June 1988 for they ceased to be
agricultural upon the approval of their classification/reclassification as could be
inferred from the definition of Agricultural Land in Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657,
as amended, would be an over-generalization and negates the state policy
against conversion of irrigated and irrigable lands. Thus, DOJ Opinion No. 181,
Series of 1990 and the Supreme Court Ruling in Natalia Realty vs. DAR should
not be made to generally apply to irrigated and irrigable prime agricultural lands.
The provisions of Section 65, as amended, are clear and categorical enough that
interpretation has no room. Thus, irrespective of whether the reclassification of
irrigated and irrigable prime agricultural lands was done before or after the
effectivity of the CARL, the terms of the present Section 65 leave no room for
doubt that the legislative intent is to ban any conversion of such agricultural
lands. Since exemption, for all intent and purposes, under these circumstances
has essentially the same legal effect as conversion, that is, removing the lands
from their potential agricultural use, the DAR may deny any application for
exemption involving irrigated or irrigable lands.
4
Footnotes
1.
2.
Emphasis supplied.
3.
4.
Secretary of Justice Op. No. 23, s. 2010, citing cases and opinions