G.R. No.

78517 February 27, 1989 resources, including lands of public domain under
lease or concession suitable to agriculture,
GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small
JULIAN, SR., PEDRO RICALDE, VICENTE settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities
RICALDE and ROLANDO to their ancestral lands.
SALAMAR, petitioners,
vs. Nota Bene, Sec. 6 of CARL provides that original
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory
ENRIQUE M. REYES, PAZ M. REYES and FE heirs who still own the original homestead at the
M. REYES, respondents time of the approval of this Act shall retain the
same areas as long as they continue to cultivate
The Reyeses acquired two parcels of land in said homestead.
Zamboanga del Sur through their predecessors-
in-interest who were originally granted homestead [G.R. No. 103302. August 12, 1993.]
patents. They desired to cultivate these lands
personally, but Alita et.al. refused to vacate,
relying on the provisions of the agrarian reform
law back then, PD 27. Thus, the Reyeses filed a
complaint against the Minister of Agrarian NATALIA REALTY, INC., and ESTATE
Reform, the MAR Regional Director, and Alita et. DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS
al. for the declaration of PD 27 and appurtenant CORP., petitioners,vs. DEPARTMENT OF
regulations as inapplicable to homestead lands. AGRARIAN REFORM, SEC. BENJAMIN T.
LEONG and DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR-
REGION IV, respondents.
The CA declared that PD 27 is inapplicable to
homestead; that the Reyeses will cultivate their
farmholding as owners thereof; and ejectment of NATALIA owns three contiguous parcels of land
the so-called tenants Alita et. al. in Antipolo totaling 125 hectares. In 1979, PD
1637 set aside lands in Antipolo, San Mateo
and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the
ISSUE: Should agrarian reform under PD 27 be population overspill, known as the Lungsod
applicable to homestead lands? Silangan Townsite, and this included the
NATALIA properties, which eventually became
HELD: No. The contention that PD 27 decreeing Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of
the soil and transferring to them ownership of the In 1990, the DAR issued a Notice of Coverage
land they till is a sweeping social legislation on the undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills,
CANNOT BE INVOKED to defeat the very which NATALIA immediately objected to. In
purpose of the Public Land Act (CA 141). 1991, the Sammahan ng Magsasaka sa
Bundok (SAMBA) filed a complaint against
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the NATALIA and its developer EDIC before the
welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives DAR to restrain them from developing the areas
a needy citizen a piece of land where he may that the farmers are cultivating.
build a modest house for himself and family and
plant what is necessary for subsistence and for It is later proved that NATALIA and EDIC did in
the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of fact comply with the law on conversion of lands
the citizens to their homes and to the things (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers
necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the Protective Decree, PD 957).
right to life itself. They have a right to live with a
certain degree of comfort as become human
beings, and the State which looks after the ISSUE: Are lands already classified for
welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty residential, commercial or industrial use, as
to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right. approved by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board and its precursor agencies
prior to 15 June 1988, covered by R.A. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988?
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of
agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever HELD: Yes. The NATALIA properties were
applicable in accordance with law, in the already set aside for the Lungsod Silangan
disposition or utilization of other natural Reservation pursuant to PD 1637 for the
purpose of providing additional housing to the In 1988, a new law, CARL, took effect, which
burgeoning population of Metro Manila. Thus, included farms used for raising livestock under its
the lands were validly converted to residential coverage. In light of the Luz Farms ruling, the
use. Suttons filed a formal request to withdraw their
VOS as their land was outside the coverage of
Moreover, PD 1637 is a special law which must CARL. The DAR ignored their request.
prevail over a general law, PD 957.
In 1993 the DAR issued AO 9-1993, which
provides that only lands used for raising livestock,
The lands are also not subject to CARL, as poultry and swine are outside the coverage of
agricultural land means land devoted to CARL. And in 1995, the DAR ordered a part of
agricultural activity as defined in this Act the Suttons landholdings to be segregated and
and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, placed under Compulsory Acquisition.
commercial or industrial land.
ISSUE: Constitutionality of the assailed AO
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity
are outside the coverage of CARL. These HELD: Unconstitutional.
include lands previously converted to non-
agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL Administrative agencies are endowed with
by government agencies other than respondent powers legislative in nature, i.e.,the power to
DAR. make rules and regulations. They have been
granted by Congress with the authority to issue
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to rules to regulate the implementation of a law
15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such entrusted to them. Delegated rule-making has
conversion. It was therefore error to include the become a practical necessity in modern
undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills governance due to the increasing complexity and
Subdivision within the coverage of CARL. The variety of public functions. However, while
Secretary of Justice, responding to a query by the administrative rules and regulations have the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, noted in an force and effect of law, they are not immune from
Opinion 19 that lands covered by Presidential judicial review They may be properly challenged
Proclamation No. 1637, inter alia, of which the before the courts to ensure that they do not
NATALIA lands are part, having been reserved for violate the Constitution and no grave abuse of
townsite purposes "to be developed as human administrative discretion is committed by the
settlements by the proper land and housing administrative body concerned.
agency," are "not deemed 'agricultural lands' To be valid, administrative rules and
within the meaning and intent of Section 3 (c) of regulations must be issued by authority of a law
R.A. No. 6657." Not being deemed "agricultural and must not contravene the provisions of the
lands," they are outside the coverage of CARL. Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the
Anent the argument that there was failure to power of the administrative agency beyond
exhaust administrative remedies in the instant the scope intended. Constitutional and
petition, suffice it to say that the issues raised in statutory provisions control with respect to
the case filed by SAMBA members differ from what rules and regulations may be
those of petitioners. The former involve promulgated by administrative agencies and
possession; the latter, the propriety of including the scope of their regulations.
under the operation of CARL lands already The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is
converted for residential use prior to its effectivity. different from crop or tree farming. It is an
industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great
DAR represented by Secretary Jose Mari portion of the investment in this enterprise is in
Ponce vs. Delia Sutton, et. al. the form of industrial fixed assets.
G.R. No. 162070 October 19, 2005 Lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry and
Sutton and her siblings inherited a parcel of land swine have been classified as industrial, not
in Masbate devoted exclusively to cow and calf agricultural, lands and thus exempt from agrarian
breeding. Pursuant to the agrarian reform reform. Petitioner DAR argues that, in issuing
program at the time, they made a voluntary offer the impugned A.O., it was seeking to address the
to sell their holding to DAR to avail of the reports it has received that some unscrupulous
incentives in 1987. landowners have been converting their
agricultural lands to livestock farms to avoid their
coverage by the agrarian reform. Again, we find counted as existing during the actual
neither merit nor logic in this contention. The headcount. The presence of large cattle on the
undesirable scenario which petitioner seeks land, without sufficient proof of ownership thereof,
to prevent with the issuance of the A.O. only proves such presence.
clearly does not apply in this
case. Respondents family acquired their Taking note of Secretary Garilaos observations,
landholdings as early as 1948. They have long the OP also held that, before an ocular
been in the business of breeding cattle in investigation is conducted on the property, the
Masbate which is popularly known as the cattle- landowners are notified in advance; hence, mere
breeding capital of the Philippines. Petitioner reliance on the physical headcount is dangerous
DAR does not dispute this fact. Indeed, there is because there is a possibility that the landowners
no evidence on record that respondents have just would increase the number of their cattle for
recently engaged in or converted to the business headcount purposes only. The OP observed that
of breeding cattle after the enactment of the there was a big variance between the actual
CARL that may lead one to suspect that headcount of 448 heads of cattle and only 86
respondents intended to evade its coverage. It certificates of ownership of large cattle.
must be stressed that what the CARL prohibits is
the conversion of agricultural lands for non- Consequently, petitioner sought recourse from the
agricultural purposes after the effectivity of the CA.
CARL. There has been no change of business However, the CA found out that part of the land
interest in the case of respondents. was converted to non-agricultural uses (golf
course and residential) and the subject of the
Milestone Farms Inc. vs. Office of the controversy is only 162 Ha. The farmers groups
President prayed that the remaining area be brought under
G.R. No. 182332 February 23, 2011 the CARP.
Relying on the Sutton decision, Milestone prayed
that it be exempted from coverage.
Milestone Farms Inc. is engaged with the raising
of cattle, pigs and other livestock and is a HELD: Petition denied. Reliance on Sutton ruling
corporation organized and registered with the is unavailing.
SEC as such in 1960. It owns 316 Ha land in Milestones bad faith is apparent in its
Baras, Rizal which it uses for livestock raising. surreptitious conversion of part of its land, now
Pursuant to Luz Farms, it applied for the known as Palo Alto. Moreover, only 153 Ha was
exclusion from coverage from CARL. converted, and not the entire property. 43 cows
The Southern Pinugay Farmers Multipurpose were also found grazing outside the property.
Cooperative however contests such exclusion. It is the DAR Secretary who is vested with such
They were sued with Forcible Entry which the jurisdiction and authority to exempt and/or
MCTC granted but the RTC reversed. CA upheld exclude a property from CARP coverage based
MCTC, which became final and executory. on the factual circumstances of each case and in
Meanwhile, DAR Secretary Garilao issued an accordance with law and applicable
order exempting only 240 Ha of the land from jurisprudence. In addition, albeit parenthetically,
CARP. The remaining 72 Ha are not. Applying the Secretary Villa had already granted the
animal-land ratio (1 hectare for grazing for every conversion into residential and golf courses use
head of cattle/carabao/horse) and the of nearly one-half of the entire area originally
infrastructure-animal ratio (1.7815 hectares for 21 claimed as exempt from CARP coverage because
heads of cattle/carabao/horse, and 0.5126 it was allegedly devoted to livestock production.
hectare for 21 heads of hogs) under DAR A.O.
No. 9, Secretary Garilao exempted 240.9776 Central Mindanao State University vs. DARAB,
hectares. et. al.

The OP held that, when it comes to proof of G.R. No. 100091 October 22, 1992
ownership, the reference is the Certificate of Bukidnon Free Farmers Agricultural Laborers
Ownership of Large Cattle. Certificates of cattle Organization led by Obrique and Hermoso claim
ownership, which are readily available being that they are landless peasants.
issued by the appropriate government office
ought to match the number of heads of cattle
CMU is an agricultural university that tries to avowed purpose of giving training and instruction
answer the need to develop the agricultural in agricultural and other related technologies,
potential of Mindanao. It was granted 3,080 Ha. It using the land and other resources of the
had a program, Kilusang Sariling SIkap Program, institution as a laboratory for these projects. Their
where part of its property was leased to its entry into the land of the CMU was with the
teachers and employees for cultivation. This permission and written consent of the owner, the
program was conceived as a multidisciplinary CMU, for a limited period and for a specific
applied research extension and productivity purpose. After the expiration of their privilege to
program to utilize the land, train people in modern occupy and cultivate the land of the CMU, their
agricultural technology, and give the faculty and continued stay was unauthorized and their
staff opportunities to augment their salaries. settlement on the CMU's land was without legal
Among the participants are the BUFFALO authority. A person entering upon lands of
members. another, not claiming in good faith the right to do
so by virtue of any title of his own, or by virtue of
Under the terms of a 3-party Memorandum of some agreement with the owner or with one
Agreement 2 among the CMU, the CMU- whom he believes holds title to the land, is a
Integrated Development Foundation (CMU-IDF) squatter. Squatters cannot enter the land of another
and groups or "seldas" of 5 CMU employees, the surreptitiously or by stealth, and under the umbrella of
CMU would provide the use of 4 to 5 hectares of the CARP, claim rights to said property as landless
land to a selda for one (1) calendar year. The peasants. Under Section 73 of R.A. 6657, persons
CMU-IDF would provide researchers and guilty of committing prohibited acts of forcible entry or
specialists to assist in the preparation of project illegal detainer do not qualify as beneficiaries and may
proposals and to monitor and analyze project not avail themselves of the rights and benefits of
implementation. The selda in turn would pay to agrarian reform. Any such person who knowingly and
the CMU P100 as service fee and P1,000 per wilfully violates the above provision of the Act shall be
hectare as participant's land rental fee. In punished with imprisonment or fine at the discretion of
addition, 400 kilograms of the produce per year the Court.
would be turned over or donated to the CMU-IDF.
The participants agreed not to allow their hired the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to
laborers or member of their family to establish matters involving the implementation of the
any house or live within vicinity of the project area CARP. More specifically, it is restricted to agrarian
and not to use the allocated lot as collateral for a cases and controversies involving lands falling
loan. It was expressly provided that no tenant- within the coverage of the aforementioned
landlord relationship would exist as a result of the program. It does not include those which are
Agreement. actually, directly and exclusively used and found
to be necessary for, among such purposes,
The non-renewal of the contracts, the school sites and campuses for setting up
discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar cane experimental farm stations, research and pilot
project, the loss of jobs due to termination or production centers, etc.
separation from the service and the alleged
harassment by school authorities, all contributed Consequently, the DARAB has no power to try,
to, and precipitated the filing of the complaint. hear and adjudicate the case pending before it
involving a portion of the CMU's titled school site,
On the basis of the above facts, the DARAB as the portion of the CMU land reservation
found that the private respondents were not ordered segregated is actually, directly and
tenants and cannot therefore be beneficiaries exclusively used and found by the school to be
under the CARP. At the same time, the DARAB necessary for its purposes. The CMU has
ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of constantly raised the issue of the DARAB's lack
suitable, compact and contiguous portions of the of jurisdiction and has questioned the
CMU land and their inclusion in the CARP for respondent's authority to hear, try and adjudicate
distribution to qualified beneficiaries. the case at bar. Despite the law and the evidence
on record tending to establish that the fact that
HELD: DARAB correct. the DARAB had no jurisdiction, it made the
The evidence on record establish without doubt adjudication now subject of review.
that the complainants were originally authorized The education of the youth and agrarian reform
or given permission to occupy certain areas of the are admittedly among the highest priorities in the
CMU property for a definite purpose to carry government socio-economic programs. In this
out certain university projects as part of the case, neither need give way to the other.
CMU's program of activities pursuant to its Certainly, there must still be vast tracts of
agricultural land in Mindanao outside the CMU DAR insists, the land per se must be used and
land reservation which can be made available to not the income derived therefrom.
landless peasants, assuming the claimants here,
or some of them, can qualify as CARP HELD: Court rules for DAR.
beneficiaries. To our mind, the taking of the CMU
land which had been segregated for educational c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used
purposes for distribution to yet uncertain and found to be necessary for national
beneficiaries is a gross misinterpretation of the defense,school sites and campuses, including
authority and jurisdiction granted by law to the experimental farm stations operated by public or
DARAB. private schools for educational purposes, ,
shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.
Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in
[G.R. No. 158228. March 23, 2004]
order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the land
must be actually, directly, and exclusively used
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN and found to be necessary; and 2) the purpose is
REFORM, as represented by its for school sites and campuses, including
experimental farm stations operated by public or
Secretary, ROBERTO M. private schools for educational purposes.
PAGDANGANAN, petitioner, vs. The importance of the phrase actually, directly,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, and exclusively used and found to be
necessary cannot be understated, as what
CULTURE AND SPORTS respondent DECS would want us to do by not
(DECS), respondent. taking the words in their literal and technical
definitions. The words of the law are clear and
unambiguous. Thus, the plain meaning rule
The lands in question are located at Hacienda Fe or verba legis in statutory construction is
in Negros Occidental donated by the late Esteban applicable in this case. Where the words of a
Jalandoni to the DECS, and have an aggregate statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it
size of 189 Ha. must be given its literal meaning and applied
The DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural without attempted interpretation.[14]
Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years (from We are not unaware of our ruling in the case
1984-85 to 2004-05). of Central Mindanao University v. Department of
[15]
From the time of the donation to the time of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, wherein
lease, the lands were agricultural devoted to the we declared the land subject thereof exempt from
planting of sugarcane. CARP coverage. DECS reliance thereon is
misplaced because the factual circumstances
In 1993 however, Alpar and several others are different in the case at bar.
claiming to be regular farmworkers of the lands
filed a petition for compulsory agrarian reform Firstly, in the CMU case, the land involved was
coverage with the MARO. The MARO found after not alienable and disposable land of the public
investigatin that the lands should be covered by domain because it was reserved by the late
CARP, so it invited representatives of DECS and President Carlos P. Garcia under Proclamation
the farmers for a conference. No. 476 for the use
of Mindanao Agricultural College (now CMU).
DECS appealed to the Secretary of Agrarian In this case, however, the lands fall under the
Reform, which affirmed the MARO and the DAR category of alienable and disposable lands of the
Regional Director. public domain suitable for agriculture.

DECS sought exemption from CARL on the
ground that the income derived from the lease
with Anglo Agricultural were actually, directly and
exclusively used for educational purposes, e.g.,
repairs of schools in their locality.
DAR said that the lands are not exempt as they
are not actually, directly and exclusively used as
school sites or campuses, and they are in fact
leased to Anglo. To be exempt from the coverage,
Secondly, in the CMU case, the land was
actually, directly and exclusively used and
found to be necessary for school sites and
campuses. Although a portion of it was being
used by the Philippine Packing Corporation (now
Del Monte Phils., Inc.) under a Management and
Development Agreement, the undertaking was
that the land shall be used by the Philippine
Packing Corporation as part of the CMU research
program, with direct participation of faculty and
students. Moreover, the land was part of the land The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the
utilization program developed by the CMU for its complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the
Kilusang Sariling Sikap Project (CMU-KSSP), a price offered for their property. he trial court
multi-disciplinary applied research extension and denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the
productivity program. Hence, the retention of the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of
land was found to be necessary for the present the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of
and future educational needs of the CMU. On the Court of the amount of P5,714.00, the amount
other hand, the lands in this case were not provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for
actually and exclusively utilized as school damages that private respondents may suffer in
sites and campuses, as they were leased to the event that the expropriation cases do not
Anglo Agricultural Corporation, not for prosper. The trial court issued a writ of
educational purposes but for the furtherance possession in an order dated January 18, 1990.
of its business. Also, as conceded by
respondent DECS, it was the income from the Province of Camarines Sur claimed that it has the
contract of lease and not the subject lands authority to initiate the expropriation proceedings
that was directly used for the repairs and under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government
renovations of the schools in the locality. Code (B.P. Blg. 337) and that the expropriations
are for a public purpose.
Anent the issue of whether the farmers are
qualified beneficiaries of CARP, we disagree with Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his
the Court of Appeals finding that they were not. Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General
stated that under Section 9 of the Local
The BARC certified that herein farmers were Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no
potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject need for the approval by the Office of the
properties. Further, on November 23, 1994, the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang
Secretary of Agrarian Reform through the Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain.
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued However, the Solicitor General expressed the
a Notice of Coverage placing the subject view that the Province of Camarines Sur must
properties under CARP. Since the identification first secure the approval of the Department of
and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the
involving strictly the administrative lands of petitioners for use as a housing project.
implementation of the CARP,[19] it behooves the
courts to exercise great caution in substituting its The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the
own determination of the issue, unless there is trial court, allowing the Province of Camarines
grave abuse of discretion committed by the Sur to take possession of private respondents'
administrative agency. In this case, there was lands and the order denying the admission of the
none. amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered the
trial court to suspend the expropriation
Province of Camarines Sur represented by proceedings until after the Province of Camarines
Gov. Villlafuerte and Judge Panga of RTC vs. Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of
CA, San Juan and San Joaquin the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the
classification of the property of the private
G.R. No. 103125. May 17, 1993. respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural
land.
On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur Hence this petition.
passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988,
authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase It must be noted that in the Court of Appeals,
or expropriate property contiguous to the the San Joaquins asked for: (i) the dismissal of
provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot the complaints for expropriation on the ground of
farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural the inadequacy of the compensation offered for
crops and a housing project for provincial the property and (ii) the nullification of Resolution
government employees. No. 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of
Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis The Court of Appeals did not rule on the
R. Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for validity of the questioned resolution; neither did it
expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and dismiss the complaints. However, when the Court
Efren N. San Joaquin before the RTC presided by of Appeals ordered the suspension of the
Judge Panga. proceedings until the Province of Camarines
Sur shall have obtained the authority of the
Department of Agrarian Reform to change the
classification of the lands sought to be
expropriated from agricultural to non-
agricultural use, it assumed that the
resolution is valid and that the expropriation
is for a public purpose or public use.
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". 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 Resolution No. 219, Series of 1988, was
Reform before a parcel of land can be promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg.
reclassified from an agricultural to a non- 337, the Local Government Code, which
agricultural land. provides:
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).
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 delegating the power to expropriate, the
legislature may retain certain control or impose
certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the
local governments (Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence,
262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684). While
such delegated power may be a limited authority,
it is complete within its limits. Moreover, the
limitations on the exercise of the delegated power
must be clearly expressed, either in the law
conferring the power or in other legislations.
"A local government unit may, through its head Statutes conferring the power of eminent
and acting pursuant to a resolution of its domain to political subdivisions cannot be
sanggunian exercise the right of eminent domain broadened or constricted by implication
and institute condemnation proceedings for public (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E.
use or purpose." 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d. 241).
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not To sustain the Court of Appeals would
intimate in the least that local government mean that the local government units can no
units must first secure the approval of the longer expropriate agricultural lands needed
Department of Land Reform for the for the construction of roads, bridges,
conversion of lands from agricultural to non- schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying
agricultural use, before they can institute the for conversion of the use of the lands with the
necessary expropriation proceedings. Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of
these projects would naturally involve a
Likewise, there is no provision in the change in the land use. In effect, it would then
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which be the Department of Agrarian Reform to
expressly subjects the expropriation of scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a
agricultural lands by local government units to the public purpose or public use.
control of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The closest provision of law that the Court of Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the
Appeals could cite to justify the intervention of the local government unit that shall determine
Department of Agrarian Reform in expropriation whether the use of the property sought to be
matters is Section 65 of the Comprehensive expropriated shall be public, the same being an
Agrarian Reform Law, which reads: expression of legislative policy. The courts defer
to such legislative determination and will
"SECTION 65. Conversion of Lands. After intervene only when a particular undertaking has
the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when no real or substantial relation to the public use.
the land ceases to be economically feasible and
sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has There is also an ancient rule that restrictive
become urbanized and the land will have a statutes, no matter how broad their terms are, do
greater economic value for residential, not embrace the sovereign unless the sovereign
commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon is specially mentioned as subject thereto (Alliance
application of the beneficiary or the landowner, of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and
with due notice to the affected parties, and Employment, 124 SCRA 1 [1983]). The Republic
subject to existing laws, may authorize the of the Philippine, as sovereign, or its political
reclassification or conversion of the land and its subdivisions, as holders of delegated sovereign
disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall powers, cannot be bound by provisions of law
have fully paid his obligation." couched in general terms.
The opening, adverbial phrase of the The fears of private respondents that they
provision sends signals that it applies to lands will be paid on the basis of the valuation declared
previously placed under the agrarian reform in the tax declarations of their property, are
program as it speaks of "the lapse of five (5) unfounded. This Court has declared as
years from its award." unconstitutional the Presidential Decrees fixing
the just compensation in expropriation cases to
The rules on conversion of agricultural lands be the value given to the condemned property
found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive either by the owners or the assessor, whichever
Order No. 129 - A, Series of 1987, cannot be the was lower ([Export Processing Zone Authority v.
source of the authority of the Department of Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 [1987]). As held
Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a inMunicipality of Talisay Ramirez, 183 SCRA 528
parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to [1990]7 the rules for determining just
which it would be devoted by the expropriating compensation are those laid down in Rule 67 of
authority. While those rules vest on the the Rules of Court, which allow private
Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive respondents to submit evidence on what they
authority to approve or disapprove conversions of consider shall be the just compensation for their
agricultural lands for residential, commercial or property.
industrial uses, such authority is limited to the
applications for reclassification submitted by the WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
land owners or tenant beneficiaries. and the questioned decision of the Court of
Appeals is set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the
trial court's order allowing the Province of declared as tourism zones. It did not reclassify
Camarines Sur to take possession of private the areas to non-agricultural use.
respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court to
suspend the expropriation proceedings; and (c) Perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only
requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain certain areas which have potential tourism value
the approval of the Department of Agrarian and mandated the conduct of necessary studies
Reform to convert or reclassify private and segregation of specific geographic areas to
respondents' property from agricultural to non- achieve its purpose. If all the lands in those
agricultural use. tourism zones were to be wholly converted to
non-agricultural use, there would have been
The decision of the Court of Appeals is no need for the PP to direct the PTA to identify
AFFIRMED insofar as it sets aside the order of what those specific geographic areas
the trial court, denying the amended motion to are.
dismiss of the private respondents.
In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA, the
SO ORDERED. Court made it clear that the power to determine
whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and
Roxas & Company, Inc. vs. DAMBA-NFSW and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt
DAR from the coverage of the [Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law] lies with the [Department
G.R. Nos. 149548, 167505, December 4, 2009 of Agrarian Reform], not with this Court. The
DAR, an administrative body of special
Seven consolidated petitions for the application of competence, denied, by Order of October 22,
Roxas & Co. for conversion from agricultural to 2001, the application for CARP exemption of
non-agricultural use of its three Nasugbu Roxas & Co., it finding that PP 1520
haciendas with an aggregate size of almost 3,000 did not automatically reclassify all the lands in the
Ha. affected municipalities from their original uses. It
appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time,
In the 1999 case of Roxas & Co. vs. CA, it was identified the specific geographic areas for
alleged that Hacienda Caylaway was reclassified tourism development and had no pending tourism
to non-agricultural by the Sangguniang Bayan of development projects in the areas.
Nasugbu. Moreover, PP 1520 of Marcos in 1975
declared certain areas in Nasugbu, inter alia, as A proclamation that merely recognizes the
tourist zone. potential tourism value of certain areas within the
general area declared as tourist zone
Its pending application notwithstanding, the clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intend the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued entirety of the land area of the zone for non-
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to agricultural purposes. Neither does said
the farmer-beneficiaries in the proclamation direct that otherwise CARPable
three haciendas includingCLOA No. 6654 which lands within the zone shall already be used for
was issued on October 15, 1993 covering purposes other than agricultural.
513.983 hectares, the subject of G.R. No.
167505.
The application for conversion of Roxas & Co. 2. Whether Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of
was the subject of the above-stated Roxas & Co., 1982 exempted certain lots in Hacienda
Inc. v. Court of Appeals which the Court Palico from CARP coverage.
remanded to the DAR for the observance of
proper acquisition proceedings. No. True, a local government unit has the power
to classify and convert land from agricultural to
ISSUES/HELD: non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the
CARL. But Court finds in order the observation of
1. Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all DAMBA-NFSW that Roxas & Co. should have
lands in the Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu submitted the comprehensive land use plan and
tourism zone to non-agricultural use to pointed therein the exact locations of the
exempt Roxas & Co.s three haciendas in properties to prove that indeed they are within the
Nasugbu from CARP coverage. area of coverage of Nasugbu MZO No. 4. Read
PP 1520 merely recognized the potential tourism further below.
value of certain areas within the general area
 3. Whether the partial and complete been made on the amount of disturbance
cancellations by the DAR of CLOA No. 6654 compensation due and entitlement of such
subject of G.R. No. 167505 is valid. farmer-occupants thereto by the PARAD of
Batangas
Yes. 1999 ruling, the FWBs hold the property in 2. No development shall be undertaken within
trust for the rightful owner of the land. the subject parcels of land until the
appropriate disturbance compensation has
In the nine parcels of land, the Municipal been paid to the farmer-occupants who are
Planning and Development Coordinator determined by the PARAD to be entitled
(MPDC) and Zoning Administrator of thereto. Proof of payment of disturbance
Nasugbu, Batangas certified that the subject compensation shall be submitted to this
parcels of land are within the Urban Core Office within ten (10) days from such
Zone as specified in Zone A. VII of Municipal payment; and
Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, 3. The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the
approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory farmer-beneficiaries shall be subject of a
Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land separate proceeding before the PARAD of
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), under Batangas.
Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May
1983.
Thus, the CLOAs in nine parcels of land Roxas & Co. is thus mandated to first satisfy the
Hacienda Palico should be cancelled. disturbance compensation of affected farmer-
beneficiaries in the areas covered by
As for the rest of the CLOAs, they should be the nine parcels of lands in DAR AO No. A-9999-
respected since Roxas & Co., as shown in the 008-98 before the CLOAs covering them can be
discussion in G.R. Nos. 167540, 167543 and cancelled. And it is enjoined to strictly follow the
167505, failed to prove that the other lots instructions of R.A. No. 3844.
in Hacienda Palico and the other
two haciendas, aside from the above-
mentioned nine lots, are CARP-exempt.
Be that as it may, the DAR Secretary made the
following conditions before exempting the nine
parcels of land:
1. The farmer-occupants within subject parcels
of land shall be maintained in their peaceful
possession and cultivation of their respective
areas of tillage until a final determination has