Case Digest: Natalia Realty, Inc.

and Estate Developer and Investors Corp vs DAR GR No 103302

Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developer and Investors Corp vs DAR

GR No 103302 August 12, 1993

Facts:

Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares
and 2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares, which are covered by TCT No. 31527. Presidential P
roclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land as townsite areas to absorb the population overs
pill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The Natalia properties ar
e situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. Since private landowners were allowed t
o develop their properties into low-cost housing subdivisions with the reservation, petitioner EDIC as de
veloper of Natalia applied for and was granted preliminary approval and location clearances by the Hum
an Settlements Regulatory Commission, which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills Subdivision. On J
une 15 1988, Ra 6657 went to effect. Respondent issued a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped porti
ons of Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Natalia and EDIC immediately registered its objection to the notice of c
overage and requested the cancellation of the Notice of Coverage.

Natalia and EDIC both argued that the properties ceased to be agricultural lands when they were include
d in the areas reserved by Presidential Proclamation for the townsite reservation. DAR then contended t
hat the permits granted were not valid and binding since they did not comply with t he implementing St
andards, Rules and Regulations of PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree),
and that there was no valid conversion of the properties.

Issue:

Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regul
atory Board and its agencies prior to June 15, 1988 covered by RA 6657.

Ruling:

No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private agricultural lands. And agricultural lands is referred to as land devoted t
o agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. Thu
s, the underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot be considered as agricultural lan
ds for this land was intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of the Pres
idential Proclamation No. 1637.