SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 191545, March 29, 2017
HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR., REPRESENTED BY TERESITA D. SALAS, Petitioners, v. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL, SERAFIN CASTILLO, DOMINGO M. MANTUANO, MANOLITO D. BINAY, MARIA M. CABUNGCAL, REMON C. RAMOS, NENITA R. BINAY, DOMINGO L. MANTUANO, NENITA L. GUERRA, ROSALINA B. MANTUANO, DOMINADOR C. CASTILLO, LEALINEM. CABUNGCAL, ALBERTO CAPULOY, ALFREDO VALENCIA, MARIA L. VALENCIA, GERARDO GUERRA, GREGORIO M. LATAYAN, REMEDIOS M. GUEVARRA,JOSE C. BASCONCILLO, APLONAR TENORIO, JULIANA V. SUMAYA, ANTONIO C. HERNANDEZ, VERONICA MILLENA, TERSITA D.C. CASTILLO, DANTE M. LUSTRE, EFIPANIO M. CABUNGCAL, NESTOR V. LATINA, NENITA LLORCA, ROMEL L. LOMIDA, MARILOU CASTILLO, RUBEN CASTILLO, ARNOLD MANALO, RICARDO CAPULOY, AMELITA CALIMBAS, ROSALITA C. ELFANTE, LANIE CAMPIT, RODILLO RENTON, RUSTICO AMAZONA, LUZVIMINDA DE OCAMPO, DANILO DE OCAMPO, JOSE DARWIN LISTANCO, NEMESIO CABUNGCAL, RENATO ALZATE, BERNARDO AQUINO, RODRIGO CABUNGCAL, CHONA G. AGUILA, ROSA M. MANTUANO, ALLAN M. LUSTRE, FELIPE LOQUEZ, DOMINGO MANALO, DOMINADOR M. MANALO, JENNIFER H. MALIBIRAN, FELIXBERTO RITAN, LEONILA FERRER, TOMAS M. LORENO, CELSO VALENCIA, CONSTANTINO LUSTRE, REYNALDO C. MALIBIRAN, ORLANDO C. MALIBIRAN, RICARDO LLAMOSO AND SANTA DIMAYUGA, REPRESENTED BY JOSE C. BASCONILLO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law generally covers all public and private agricultural lands.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Petition1 is an offshoot of the Court of Appeals Second Division's Decision2 dated October 26, 2009 and Resolution3 dated March 1, 2010 in the case docketed as CA-G.R SP No 103703. Augusto Salas, Jr. (Salas) was the registered owner of a vast tract of agricultural land4 traversing five barangays—Pusil, Bulacnin, Balintawak, Marawoy, and Inosluban—in Lipa City, Batangas.5 Respondents Marciano Cabungcal, Serafm Castillo, Domingo M. Mantuano, Manolito D. Binay, Maria M. Cabungcal, Remon C. Ramos, Nenita R. Binay, Domingo L. Mantuano, Nenita L. Guerra, Rosalina B. Mantuano, Dominador C. Castillo, Lealine M. Cabungcal, Alberto Capuloy, Alfredo Valencia, Maria L. Valencia, Gerardo Guerra, Gregorio M. Latayan, Remedios M. Guevarra, Jose C. Basconcillo, Aplonar Tenorio, Juliana V. Sumaya, Antonio C. Hernandez, Veronica Millena, Tersita D.C. Castillo, Dante M. Lustre, Efipanio M. Cabungcal, Nestor V. Latina, Nenita llorca, Romel L. Lomida, Marilou Castillo, Ruben Castillo, Arnold Manalo, Ricardo Capuloy, Amelita Calimbas, Rosalita C. Elfante, Lanie Campit, Rodillo Renton, Rustico Amazona, Luzviminda De Ocampo, Danilo De Ocampo, Jose Darwin Listanco, Nemesio Cabungcal, Renato Alzate, Bernardo Aquino, Rodrigo Cabungcal, Chona G. Aguila, Rosa m. Mantuano, Allan M. Lustre, Felipe Loquez, Domingo Manalo, Dominador M. Manalo, Jennifer H. Malibiran, Felixberto Ritan, Leonila Ferrer, Tomas M. Loreno, Celso Valencia, Constantino Lustre, Reynaldo C. Malibiran, Orlando C. Malibiran, Ricardo Llamoso and Santa Dimayuga, represented by Jose C. Basconillo were tenant farmers in his agricultural land6 and are agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
According to Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2807,7 the agricultural land of Salas had an aggregate area of 148.4354 hectares (roughly 1.5 million square meters),8 covering Lots 1 and 2.9 Lot 1 spanned 56.1361 hectares,10 while Lot 2 spanned 92.2993 hectares.11
Under Section 312 of Republic Act No. 2264,13 the applicable law at that time, municipal and city councils were empowered to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations, in consultation with the National Planning Commission.
On February 19, 1977, then President Ferdinand Marcos created the National Coordinating Council for Town Planning, Housing and Zoning (National Coordinating Council) to prepare and oversee all government town plans, housing, and zoning measures.14
After a year, the National Coordinating Council was dissolved and replaced by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.15 Under Letter of Instruction No. 729, the power of the local government to convert or reclassify agricultural lands became subject to the approval of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.16
The Human Settlements Regulatory Commission was tasked to "[r]eview, evaluate and approve or disapprove comprehensive land use development plans and zoning ordinances of local governments]."17
On December 2, 1981, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission issued Resolution No. 35,18 approving the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City, Batangas.19 Pursuant to the approved town plan of Lipa City, Salas' agricultural land was reclassified as a farmlot subdivision20 for cultivation, livestock production, or agro-forestry.21
Sometime in May 1987, Salas entered into an Owner-Contractor Agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation (Laperal Realty) for the development, subdivision, and sale of his land.22
On November 17, 1987, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, now Housing and Land Use Regularoty Board (HLURB),23 issued Development Permit No. 7-0370, granting Laperal Realty a permit for a Nature Farmlots subdivision.24
Salas subdivided Lot 1 into Lots A to C under Psd-04-0262541,25 and Lot 2 into Lots A to K under Psd-04-0262542.26 A total of 14 subdivided lots were titled in his name, as follows:27
Under Psd-04-027665, Salas further subdivided Lot J into 23 smaller lots, with areas ranging from .1025 to 2.1663 hectares each.28 Then, he consolidated Lots F, G, and H and subdivided them into 17 smaller lots under Psd-04-003573, with areas ranging from .1546 to 2.0101 hectares each.29
Former Lot 1 Description Area in square meters New Titles Issued Lot A (Bgy. Inosluban) 234,967 (23.4967 ha.) TCT No. 67660 Lot B (Bgy. Inosluban) 9,366 (.9366 ha.) TCT No. 67661 Lot C (Bgy. Marawoy) 317,028 (31.7028 ha.) TCT No. 67662 Total 561,361 (56.1361 ha.)
Former Lot 2 Description Area in square meters New Titles Issued Lot A (Bgy. Balintawak) 3,058 (.3058 ha.) TCT No. 67663 Lot B (Bgy. Balintawak) 90,587 (9.0587 ha.) TCT No. 67664 Lot C (Bgy. Bulacnin) 2,925 (.2925 ha.) TCT No. 67665 Lot D (Bgy. Bulacnin) 75,934 (7.5934 ha.) TCT No. 67666 Lot E (Bgy. Bulacnin) 13,909 (1.3909 ha.) TCT No. 67667 Lot F (Bgy. Pusil) 106,509 (10.6509 ha.) TCT No. 67668 Lot G (Bgy. Pusil) 60,121 (6.0121 ha.) TCT No. 67669 Lot H (Bgy. Pusil) 89,202 (8.9202 ha.) TCT No. 67670 Lot I (Bgy. Pusil) 9,086 (.9086 ha.) TCT No. 67671 Lot J (Bgy. Pusil) 460,633 (46.0633 ha.) TCT No. 67672 Lot K (Bgy. Pusil) 11,029 (1.1029 ha.) TCT No. 67673Total 922,993 (92.2993 ha.)
Petitioners Heirs of Salas assailed the inclusion of their landholdings, i.e. the 16 lots, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.46 They filed protest letters before the Department of Agrarian Reform on January 8, 1991, and before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board on April 12, 1991.47
Salas' remaining lots Area (in hectares) TCT No. Lot A 23.4967 67660 Lot B 0.9366 67661 Lot C 31.7028 67662 Lot B 9.0587 67664 Lot J-7 1.2159 68223 Lot J-8 1.0757 68224 Lot J-9 1.2158 68225 Lot J-10 1.3356 68226 Lot J-11 1.0000 68227 Lot J-12 1.0000 68228 Lot J-13 1.4802 68229 Lot J-14 2.0443 68230 Lot J-15 1.8060 68231 Lot J-16 2.1663 68232 Lot J-17 1.5454 68233 Lot J-18 1.4769 68234 Total 82.5569 hectares
The 14th lot, Lot C from the former Lot 1, consisting of 31.7028 hectares, was also distributed to the beneficiaries.54
Lot Former TCT No. Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Area
(has.) CLOA No. Lot A 67660Romeo Mantuano 0.0252 00189533Respondent Rustico G. Amazona 0.0277Jaime Latayan 0.0308Rogelio Q. Valencia 0.0252 00189534Jose B. Guerra 0.0359 00189535Respondent Gerardo Guerra 0.0327 00189536Alberto B. Guerra 0.0384 00189537Respondent Nenita M. Llorca 0.0457 00189538Respondent Maria L. Valencia 0.0383 00189539(Church/basketball court) 0.0843Respondent Marciano V. Cabungcal 0.0686 00189542Ernesto Latayan 0.0509Feliciano Cuenca 0.0578Respondent Gregorio M. Latayan 0.0509 00189541Francisco Cabungcal 0.0696 00189540Antonina Mantuano 0.0729Lorenzo Ritan 0.0934Bernardo P. Loza 0.0678 00189543Respondent Domingo M. Manalo 0.5979 00189544Eduardo Castillo 0.5979 00189545Respondent Nestor V. Latina 1.1958 00189546Romeo Mantuano 1.1958Respondent Alfredo L. Valencia 1.1958 00189547Sergio I. Valencia 1.1959 00189548Maximo M. Loza 1.1959 00189549Manuel L. Castillo 1.1958 00189550Respondent Nenita M. Llorca 1.1959 00189551Jose V. Malibiran 1.1959 00189552Alberto B. Guerra 1.1958 00189553Jose B. Guerra 1.1958 00189554Respondent Gregorio M. Latayan 1.1957 00189555Rustico O. Roxas 1.1959 00189556Dominador C. Castillo 0.5979 00189557Nemesio V. Cabungcal 0.5957 00189558Francisco V. Cabungcal 1.1951 00189559Marciano V. Cabungcal 1.1958 00189560Mario Castillo 1.1985 00189561Mario Castillo 1.1958 00189562Rosemarie C. De Guzman 0.5976 00189563Rosemarie C. De Guzman 0.5976 00189563Ronnie D. Binay 0.5976 00189564 Lot J-7 68223Jaime and Clemente Latayan 1.2159 00305426 Lot J-8 68224Amado Conrado Latayan and Clemente Latayan 1.0757 00305427 Lot J-9 68225Amado Conrado Latayan and Clemente Latayan 1.2158 00305428 Lot J-10 68226Candido L. Amazon, et al. 1.3356 00305429 Lot J-11 68227Ernesto M. and Diomedes H. Latayan 1 00305430 Lot J-12 68228Ernesto M. Latayan 1 00305431 Lot J-13 68229 1.4802 Lot J-14 68230Conchita M. Latayan 2.0443 00305417 Lot J-15 68231Eugenia V. Latina and Conchita M. Latayan 1.8060 00305433 Lot J-16 68232Eugenia V. Latina and Gabino Latayan 2.1663 00305418 Lot J-17 68233Gabino Latayan 1.5454 00305419 Lot J-18 68234Gabino Latayan 1.4769 00305434Total 40.8588 Hectares
The Estate of Salas claimed that the property had been reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657.76 It anchored the alleged exclusion of the 17 lots on Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990.77
Lots Area (has.) TCT No.From the former Lot 1 (subdivided under Psd-04-0262541)
1. Lot A 23.4967 67660 2. Lot B 0.9366 67661 3. Lot C 31.7028 67662From the former Lot 2 (subdivided under Psd-04-0262542) 4. Lot B 9.0587 67664 5. Lot C 0.2925 67665 6. Lot J-7 1.2159 68223 7. Lot J-8 1.0757 68224 8. Lot J-9 1.2158 68225 9. Lot J-10 1.3356 68226 10. Lot J-11 1.0000 68227 11. Lot J-12 1.0000 68228 12. Lot J-13 1.4802 68229 13. Lot J-14 2.0443 68230 14. Lot J-15 1.8060 68231 15. Lot J-16 2.1663 68232 16. Lot J-17 1.5454 68233 17. Lot J-18 1.4769 68234
Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that with respect to conversions of agricultural lands covered by [Republic Act] No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of [Department of Agrarian Reform] to approve such conversions may be exercised from the date of the law's effectivity on June 15, 1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal interpretation of [Republic Act] No. 6657 in the light of [Department of Agrarian Reform's] mandate and extensive coverage of the agrarian reform program.79On November 21, 2002, the farmer-beneficiaries opposed the estate's petition for exemption,80 arguing that they had already received Certificates of Land Ownership Award over the properties.81
2. The southern points, specifically Lot Nos. A [Psd-04-262541 of the former Lot 1], B [Psd-04-0262542 of the former Lot 2], A and J-18 [of the former Lot 2] are planted to corn. Most of the rest of the area have been cleared in preparation for planting. Patches of grass and shrubs were also noted;On October 15, 2003, the HLURB issued Board Resolution No. 750, stating that "[f]or Farmlot Subdivision . . . there is no change in principal use."86
3. Topography is flat;
4. Land uses of adjacent areas are agricultural and idle agricultural;
5. A dialogue with the farmer-beneficiaries was also conducted. The result of which, among others[,] are:6. Per information given by the DAR Municipal Office, with the exception of Lots B [Psd-04-0262541] and C [Psd-04-02625241][,] which were never covered [i.e. not distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries,] and Lot B [Psd-04-0262542][,] the Claim Folder (CF) of which is still at the DAR Provincial Office, the rest have been distributed to beneficiaries.85 (Emphasis supplied)
- they have been tilling the properties for several years;
- they are recipients of [Certificates of Land Ownership Award]; and
- payments of land amortization are continuously being made to the Land Bank of the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for exemption clearance involving the herein described parcels of land with an aggregate area of 82.8294 hectares, located at Barangays Bulacnin and Insoluban-Maraouy, Lipa City[,] Batangas[,] is hereby GRANTED pursuant to [Department of Agrarian Reform] Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994. Further, petitioner is directed to maintain in peaceful possession the farmer-beneficiaries therein pending the payment of disturbance compensation due them.According to respondents, they were neither informed nor furnished copies of the petitioners' application for exemption and the Regional Trial Court's January 7, 2004 Order.90 They learned about the application for exemption91 and the ruling on it only from concerned neighbors92 and from Marawoy, Lipa City Municipal Agrarian Reform Office personnel,93 who showed them a copy of the January 7, 2004 Order.94
SO ORDERED.89
WHEREFORE, premises considered the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (MR) filed by the movant-oppositors, Mariano Cabungacal, et al., is hereby GRANTED SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER dated 07 January 2004 issued by then Secretary Roberto M. Pagdanganan to Mr. Augusto Salas, Jr. The CLOA holders on the area of 40.8588 hectares shall continue the maintenance of the land while the [Provincial Agrarian Reform Office] and the [Municipal Agrarian Reform Office] is directed to look into the possibility of covering the remaining portion of the subject property.Petitioners appealed the September 19, 2006 Order before the Office of the President.103
SO ORDERED.102
(a) | Whether Republic Act No. 6657 covers lands classified into non- agricultural uses prior to its effectivity; |
(b) | Whether Salas' farmlot subdivision falls under an "agricultural land" as defined by applicable laws; and |
(c) | Whether the 17 lots are covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. |
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the rights of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, talcing into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was enacted to fulfill this constitutional mandate.
III. CoverageSection 65 of Republic Act No. 6657,129 as reiterated by Administrative Order No. 01-90, states that reclassification or conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural lands is subject to the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The law has given the Department of Agrarian Reform the power to "approve or disapprove applications for conversion . . . of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses[,]"130 such as "residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses. . ."131
Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in [Republic Act No.] 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial, or industrial use.
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law]. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] by government agencies other than respondent [Department of Agrarian Reform]...
. . . .
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law].139
. . . .Under the HLURB Regulations, a farmlot for varied farm activities, such as milking cow and raising poultry,142 is allowed only on a "backyard scale"143 or a small-scale operation, and not for mass production. In a farmlot for agro-industrial purposes, the maximum buildable area for food processing or preservation is limited144 to only twenty-five percent (25%) of the total lot area.145 Likewise, a rice mill must be less than 300 square meters in size, and must be more than one hectare away from another mill.146
d. A Farmlot Subdivision - is a planned community intended primarily for intensive agricultural activities and secondarily for housing. A planned community consists of the provision for basic utilities judicious allocation of areas, good layout based on sound planning principles. (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 7. SITE CRITERIA. Farmlots subdivision shall conform to the following criteria:Even succeeding HLURB issuances affirm the agricultural use of a farmlot subdivision.
A. Accessibility.The site must be accessible to transportation lines. Road, railroad facilities should add to the site's proximity to market center and industries where farm produce maybe utilized.
B. Availability of Community Services and FacilitiesBasic utilities like roads and water sources must be found and readily available to adequately serve the needs of the intended/prospective farm activities. Where available, subdivision development must include the provision of power lines to the farm lots.
C. Distance from the Urban CentersFarmlot subdivisions must be away from the center of Metro Manila and/or in the fringes of the urban core of the metropolis and of cities and municipalities. However, they shall be accessible from employment centers and population centers where the products of the farmlots can be readily marketed.
D. Physical suitability of the site varies with respect to the intended farm activities within the subdivisions. Natural features considered for varied activities are slope, climate/temperature and types of soil.
III. CoverageWe parse this definition into its three elements. Agricultural lands consist of lands:
Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in [Republic Act No.] 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial, or industrial use.
(1) | Devoted to agricultural activity, as defined in Republic Act No. 6657; |
(2) | Not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources; and |
(3) | Prior to June 15, 1988, not classified for residential, commercial, or industrial use under a local government town plan and zoning ordinance, as approved by the HLURB (or its predecessors, the National Coordinating Council and the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission). |
Agrarian reform is a perceived solution to social instability. The edicts of social justice found in the Constitution and the public policies that underwrite them, the extraordinary national experience, and the prevailing national consciousness, all command the great departments of government to tilt the balance in favor of the poor and underprivileged whenever reasonable doubt arises in the interpretation of the law. But annexed to the great and sacred charge of protecting the weak is the diametric function to put every effort to arrive at an equitable solution for all parties concerned: the jural postulates of social justice cannot shield illegal acts, nor do they sanction false sympathy towards a certain class, nor yet should they deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and justice happen to be on her side. In the occupation of the legal questions in all agrarian disputes whose outcomes can significantly affect societal harmony, the considerations of social advantage must be weighed, an inquiry into the prevailing social interests is necessary in the adjustment of conflicting demands and expectations of the people, and the social interdependence of these interests, recognized.196 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)The general policy of Republic Act No. 6657 is to cover as many lands suitable for agricultural activities as may be allowed.197
Endnotes:
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated March 15, 2017.
1Rollo, pp. 3-34.
2 Id. at 35-57.
3 Id. at 58-61.
4 Id. at 37.
5 Id. at 37-39.
6 Id. at 82, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated September 19, 2006. They claimed to have so worked even before Republic Act No. 6657 took effect in 1988.
7 Id. at 137, OSG Comment.
8 Id. at 37-38.
9 Id. at 6-8.
10 Id. at 38.
11 Id. at 39.
12 Republic Act No. 2264, sec. 3 provides:
Section 3. Additional Powers of Provincial Boards, Municipal Boards or City Councils and Municipal and Regularly Organized Municipal District Councils. -
. . . .
Power to adopt zoning and planning ordinances. - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, Municipal Boards or City Councils in cities, and Municipal Councils in municipalities are hereby authorized to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations for their respective cities and municipalities subject to the approval of the City Mayor or Municipal Mayor, as the case may be. Cities and municipalities may, however, consult the National Planning Commission on matters pertaining to planning and zoning.
13 An Act Amending The Laws Governing Local Governments By Increasing Their Autonomy And Reorganizing Provincial Governments. Also known as the Local Autonomy Act of 1959
14 L.O.I. No. 511 (1977).
15Ong v. Imperial, G.R. No. 197127, July 15, 2015, [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
16See Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 64 (2004) [Per J. Callejo Sr., Second Division].
17 Exec. Order No. 648 (1981), art. IV, sec. 5(b).
18Rollo, p. 44.
19 Id. at 114, Comment.
20 Id. at 47.
21 Id. at 140, Comment.
22 Id. at 38.
23 Executive Order No. 90 (1996), sec. 1 (c).
24Rollo, p. 87, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
25 Id. at 38.
26 Id. at 38-39.
27 Id. at 38.
28 Id. at 39.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 39-40.
31 Id. at 82, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated September 19, 2006.
32 An Act Instituting A Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program To Promote Social Justice And Industrialization, Providing The Mechanism For Its Implementation, And For Other Purposes. Also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
33Rollo, pp. 40-41.
34 Id. at 41.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 40.
37 Under Section 12 of Rule III of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB) Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot Subdivision Plan, farmlots may only be disposed of pursuant to a license to sell by the HLURB.
38Rollo, p. 40.
39 Id.
40Heirs of Salas, Jr. v. Laperal Realty Corporation, 378 Phil. 369, 372 (1999) [Per J. De Leon Jr., Second Division].
41Heirs of Salas, Jr. v. Laperal Realty Corporation, 378 Phil. 369, 372 (1999) [Per J. De Leon Jr., Second Division].
42 Id. at 373.
43 Id.
44Rollo, p. 40.
45 Id.
46 Id. at 41.
47 Id.
48 Id. at 41-42.
49Rollo, p. 41.
50 Id. at 42.
51 Id.
52 Id. at 42-43.
53 Id.
54 Id. at 89, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
55 Id. at 40, Court of Appeals Decision.
56 Id. at 51.
57 Id.
58 Id. at. 39.
59 Id. at 89, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
60 Id. at 42, Court of Appeals Decision.
61Heirs of Salas v. Laperal Realty Corporation, 378 Phil. 369, 372 (1999) [Per J. De Leon Jr., Second Division].
62Rollo, p. 41.
63Heirs of Salas v. Laperal Realty Corporation, 378 Phil. 369, 372 (1999) [Per J. De Leon Jr., Second Division].
64Rollo, p. 41.
65 Id. at 42.
66 Id. at 43.
67 Id.
68 Id. at 89, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
69 Id. at 90, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
70 Id.
71 Id. at 96.
72 The CLUPPI is a "'one-stop-shop' [that] handles all matters regarding land use conversion, exemption and exclusion." (Adm. Order No. 02-02, Institutionalization of the Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and Implementation)
73 Id. at 87.
74 Id. at 92, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
75 Id. at 86, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
76Rollo, p. 11.
77 Id. at 10.
78 Id. at 49.
79 Id.
80 Id. at 89.
81 Id.
82 Id. at 51.
83 Id. at 52.
84 Id. at 51.
85 Id. at 51-52.
86 Id. at 53.
87 Id. at 86-93.
88 Id. at 44.
89 Id. at 92.
90 Id. at 111.
91 Id. at 110-118.
92 Id. at 111.
93 Id. at 81.
94 Id. at 111.
95 Id. at 81.
96 Id. at 45.
97 Id. at 83.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id. at 80-85. Order penned by Officer-In-Charge Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman.
102 Id. at 84.
103 Id. at 46.
104 Id. at 70-76. The Decision was penned by Executive Secretary Edimrdo R. Ermita of the Office of the President.
105 Id. at 77. The Resolution was penned by Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita of the Office of the President.
106 Id. at 62-69.
107 Id. at 35-57. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon R. Garcia of the Second Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
108 Id. at 58-61. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon R. Garcia of the Former Second Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
109 Id. at 3-34.
110 On April 26, 2010, this Court required (Rollo, p. 105) respondents to file their Comment. On June 15, 2010, respondents filed a Motion to Admit Comment (Rollo, pp. 108-109) and their Comment (Rollo, pp. 110-118). The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment (Rollo, pp. 137-151) on July 16, 2010. In a Resolution dated July 28, 2010, this Court granted (Rollo, p. 126) and noted respondents' Motion to Admit Comment and their Comment. On April 18, 2010, petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File Attached Reply (Rollo, pp. 155-156) and their Reply (Rollo, pp. 159-167). In a Resolution dated September 15, 2010, this Court noted the Office of the Solicitor General's Comment, granted petitioners' leave to file Reply, noted their Reply, dispensed with the filing of the memorandum, and gave due course to the petition (Rollo, p. 171).
111Rollo, pp. 175-184.
112 Id. at 185-186.
113 Id. at 185.
114 Id. at 191-198. The Resolution was penned by Chief Justice Renato Corona and concurred in by Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta, and Jose Portugal-Perez of the First Division of the Supreme Court.
115 Id. at 196-197.
116 Id. at 219.
117 Id. at 239-246.
118 Id. at 239.
119 Id. at 244-245.
120 Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (1987) provides:
....
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON COJUANGCO AQUINO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Scope. — Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is hereby instituted which shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced all public and private agricultural lands as provided in the Constitution, including whenever applicable in accordance with law, other lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture.
121 Providing the Mechanisms for the Implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (1987).
122 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 4, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700 provides:
SEC. 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
123 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 6-A, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700 provides:
Section 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. — Provincial, city and municipal government units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section and Sections 70 and 73(a) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended: Provided, That lands subject to CARP shall first undergo the land acquisition and distribution process of the program: Provided, further, That when these lands have been subjected to expropriation, the agrarian reform beneficiaries therein shall be paid just compensation.
124 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 4, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700 provides:
Section 4. Scope. —
....
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or 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 regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.
125 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 10 provides:
Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.
126 Provided, that said prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the actual regular workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act. When the workers or tenants do not agree to this exemption, the fishponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker-beneficiaries or tenants who shall form a cooperative or association to manage the same.
127 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 3(c).
128 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 3(b).
129 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 65 provides:
SECTION 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
130 DAR Adm. O. No. 01 -90, II(A).
131 DAR Adm. O. No. 01-90, II(B).
132 Rep. Act No. 2264, sec. 3 provides:
....
Power to adopt zoning and planning ordinances. — Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, Municipal Boards or City Councils in cities, and Municipal Councils in municipalities are hereby authorized to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations for their respective cities and municipalities subject to the approval of the City Mayor or Municipal Mayor, as the case may be. Cities and municipalities may, however, consult the National Planning Commission on matters pertaining to planning and zoning.
133 Sec. of Justice Op. No. 44, s. 1990, p. 1.
134 Sec. of Justice Op. No. 44, s. 1990.
135 Sec. of Justice Op. No. 44, s. 1990.
136 Guidelines for the Issuance of Exemption Clearances Based on Sec. 3(c) of Republic Act No. 6657 and the Sec. of Justice Op. No. 44, s. 1990.
137 Adm. Order No. 06-94 provides:
II.
Legal Basis
Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 states that agricultural lands refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 series of 1990 has ruled that with respect to the conversion of agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands that already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.
However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27, which have vested prior to June 15, 1988.
138Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 296-A Phil. 271 (1993) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc]. See also Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 64 (2004) [Per J. Callejo Sr., Second Division].
139 Id. at 278-279.
140 Before Republic Act No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988, the HLURB had the authority to approve a local government's reclassification of an agricultural land into non-agricultural uses (See Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 64 (2004) [Per J. Callejo Sr., Second Division]. After Republic Act No. 6657 was implemented, that authority came under the Department of Agrarian Reform (See Section 65 of Rep. Act No. 6657).
141Rollo, pp. 146-149.
142 See HLURB Regulations, Rule II, sec. 7(D).
143 HLURB Regulations, Rule II, sec. 9 G(2) - (8).
144 HLURB Regulations, Rule II, sec. 9 G (7) and (7.1).
145 HLURB Regulations, Rule II, sec. 8 (B)(3).
146 HLURB Regulations, Rule II, sec. 9 G (7) and (7.1).
147 HLURB Regulations, Rule II, sec. 7.
148 HLURB Regulations, Rule V, sec. 18(d).
149 HLURB Board Resolution No. 750 (2003), Liberalizing the Requirements for the Issuance of Certification of Registration and License to Sell for Farmlot Subdivisions.
150Rollo, p. 83, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated September 19, 2006.
151 HLURB Board Res. No. 922-14, Rule 1, sec. 4(4.15).
152 HLURB Board Res. No. 926-15, sec. 4(4.8).
153 HLURB Board Res. No. 921-14, sec. 4(4.13).
154 Section 4 (4.15).
155Rollo, p. 52.
156 Id.
157 Id. at 87, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January 7, 2004.
158Rollo, p. 52, Court of Appeals Decision.
159Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 296-A Phil. 271 (1993) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc].
160Rollo, pp. 26-27.
161 Id.
162Junio v. Garilao, 503 Phil. 154 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division]; Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 473 Phil. 64 (2004) [Per J. Callejo Sr., Second Division].
163De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 535 Phil. 248 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
164Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas, 588 Phil. 827 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, R.T., Third Division].
165 296-A Phil. 271 (1993) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc].
166 535 Phil. 248 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
167 588 Phil. 827-844 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, R.T., Third Division].
168 HLURB Regulations, Rule V, sec. 18(d).
169 HLURB Regulations , Rule II, sec. 7(c).
170 Agricultural Land Reform Code (1963).
171 Rep. Act No. 3844, sec. 2(6).
172 Rep. Act No. 3844, sec. 49.
173 Rep. Act No. 3844, sec. 51(1) in relation to sec. 166.
174 Rep. Act No. 3844, sec. 51(1).
175 Emphasis supplied.
176 Rep. Act No. 3844, sec. 76.
177 HLURB Regulations, Rule V, sec. 18(d).
178Rollo, p. 29.
179 Id.
180Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 635 Phil. 372, 392 (2010) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
181 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 166(1).
182 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 3(c).
183 HLURB Regulations, Rule V, sec. 18(e).
184Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 635 Phil. 372, 392 (2010) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
185 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 76 provides:
Section 76. Repealing Clause. — Section 35 of Republic Act No. 3834, Presidential Decree No. 316, the last two paragraphs of Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, Presidential Decree No. 1038, and all other laws, decrees executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
186 Rep. Act No. 6657, sec. 3(b).
187Rollo, p. 51.
188 Id.
189 Id. at 54.
190 DAR Adm. O. No. 01-03 (2003).
191Rollo, p. 51.
192 Id. at 48. As shown in the HLURB Board Secretariat Officer-in-Charge Carolina Casaje's Certification dated May 5, 1997 and HLURB City Planning and Development Coordinator Dante Villanueva's Certification dated October 5, 1998.
193Perez-Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 526 Phil. 562, 586 (2006) [Per J. Martinez, First Division].
194Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 534 Phil. 496, 516-517 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
195Perez-Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 526 Phil. 562 (2006) [Per J. Martinez, First Division].
196 Id. at 586.
197 DAR Adm. O. No. 01-90, Part IV.