EXEMPTION, SECTION 10 OF THE CARL IS CLEAR ON THIS POINT WHEN IT

PROVIDES THAT "ALL LANDS WITH EIGHTEEN PERCENT (18%) SLOPE AND OVER,
EXCEPT THOSE ALREADY DEVELOPED SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE
COVERAGE
OF
THIS
ACT"

Republic of the Philippines Rep. by the Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Hon. Court
of Appeals and Green City Estate Development Corporation
G.R. No. 139592 (October 5, 2000)
Facts:

The five (5) parcels of land in issue with a combined area of 112.0577 hectares situated
at Barangay Punta, Municipality of Jala-Jala, Province of Rizal were acquired by private
respondent through purchase on May 26, 1994 from Marcela Borja vda. de Torres. The tax
declarations classified the properties as agricultural. On June 16, 1994, petitioner DAR
issued a Notice of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition
pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II of R.A. No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Land Reform
Law of 1988 (CARL). Private respondent filed with the DAR Regional Office an application
for exemption of the land from agrarian reform pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No.
6, series of 1994 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990. The DAR Regional Director
recommended a denial of the said petition on the ground that private respondent "failed to
substantiate their (sic) allegation that the properties are indeed in the Municipality's
residential and forest conservation zone and that portions of the properties are not
irrigated nor irrigable".

Private respondent filed an Amended Petition for Exemption/Exclusion from CARP

coverage, this time alleging that the property is within the residential and forest
conservation zones and offering a portion of about 15 hectares of land (irrigated riceland)
to sell to farmer beneficiaries or to DAR. On October 19, 1995, the DAR Secretary issued
an Order denying the application for exemption. Private respondent moved for
reconsideration but the same was likewise denied. Appeal was made to the Court of
Appeals. The latter in turn created a commission to conduct ocular inspection and survey.
DAR likewise constituted its own team to conduct an inspection and thereafter objected to
the report filed by the commission.

On December 9, 1998, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision reversing the Assailed
DAR Orders and declaring the mountainous and residential portions of the petitioner's land
to be exempt from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Hence, this
petition for review.

Issue:

Whether or not the landholdings subject of this controversy are exempt from CARL
coverage?

Held:

There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the
tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry.
Furthermore, the tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of the
land. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 lists other documents, aside
from tax declarations, that must be submitted when applying for exemption from CARP. In
Halili vs. Court of Appeals, we sustained the trial court when it ruled that the classification
made by the Land Regulatory Board of the land in question outweighed the classification
stated in the tax declaration. The classification of the Board in said case was more recent
than that of the tax declaration and was based on the present condition of the property and
the community thereat.

The commissioner's report on the actual condition of the properties confirms the fact
that the properties are not wholly agricultural. In essence, the report of the commission
showed that the land of private respondent consists of a mountainous area with an
average 28 degree slope containing 66.5 hectares; a level, unirrigated area of 34 hectares
of which 5 to 6 hectares are planted to palay; and a residential area of 8 hectares. The
finding that 66.5 hectares of the 112.0577 hectares of land of private respondent have an
average slope of 28 degrees provides another cogent reason to exempt these portions of
the properties from the CARL. Section 10 of the CARL is clear on this point when it
provides that "all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act."

Petitioner DAR and the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG) contest the finding of the
Court of Appeals that the subject parcels of land have a mountainous slope on the ground
that this conclusion was allegedly arrived at in a manner not in accord with established
surveying procedures. They also bewail the consideration given by the Court of Appeals to
2

the "slope" issue since this matter was allegedly never raised before the DAR and the
Court of Appeals. Petitioner DAR and the OSG thus claim that laches had already set in.
As pointed out earlier, the crux of the controversy is whether the subject parcels of land in
issue are exempt from the coverage of the CARL. The determination of the classification and
physical condition of the lands is therefore material in the disposition of this case, for which
purpose the Court of Appeals constituted the commission to inspect and survey said
properties. Petitioner DAR did not object to the creation of a team of commissioners when it
very well knew that the survey and ocular inspection would eventually involve the
determination of the slope of the subject parcels of land. It is the protestation of petitioner that
comes at a belated hour. The team of commissioners appointed by respondent court was
composed of persons who were mutually acceptable to the parties. Thus, in the absence of
any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject properties, and none is alleged, the
report of the commissioners deserves full faith and credit and we find no reversible error in the
reliance by the appellate court upon said report.
EXEMPTION; EXEMPTION OF LIVESTOCK FROM CARP; CONDITIONS THEREOF;
RULES OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES MUST BE IN HARMONY WITH THE
CONSTITUTION

Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Vicente K. Uy

G.R. No. 169277 (February 9, 2007)
Facts:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
of the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 70541 and the
Resolution of the appellate court denying the motion for reconsideration thereof. The CA
reversed and set aside the Decision of the Office of the President (OP) which had affirmed
the Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) exempting only a portion (219.50
hectares) of respondent Vicente K. Uy's 349.9996-ha landholding from the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Some 44 farmers who occupied portions of the property owned by the respondent filed
petitions in the DAR, seeking to be declared as owners- beneficiaries. The DAR issued a
Notice of Coverage under the CARP over the property. Respondent, in behalf of the coowners, filed an Application for Exclusion, through Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
3

(PARO) Durante L. Ubeda citing the Luz Farms ruling as the property had been exclusively
used for livestock-raising for several years prior to June 15, 1988.

MARO Belen Babalcon made a Final Report, declaring that 346.000 ha, more or less,
is devoted to coconut and livestock farming; The MARO declared that while a total of 429
livestock heads are being raised in the property, "the total area for exclusion is
undetermined because there are portions occupied by tenants which should not be
excluded from CARP coverage."

Meanwhile, PARO Ubeda submitted a separate Report where he declared the following:
that the total number of Certificate[s] of Ownership is 434 which is more than the actual
headcount of 401; that the number of cattle 7 years old and above totaled 134 heads with
13 males and 121 females as of date of certification; and that 300 cattles were of ages 6
years old and below with 76 males and 234 females.

The applicants, through Uy, wrote a letter to DAR Region IV Director Percival C.
Dalugdug, requesting for a reinvestigation of the Report of PARO Ubeda. This request was
reiterated in a letter where the applicants requested, for the first time, the exclusion of
another parcel of land 22.2639 ha and covered by TCT No. T-11948 which is
contiguous to the 349.9996-ha lot covered by their earlier application.

The Regional Director issued an Order affirming the findings and recommendation of
PARO Ubeda. Respondent and his co-owners appealed. Arguing that the properties have
been devoted to livestock-raising even prior to 1977. Thus, the landholdings should be
excluded from CARP coverage. They further argued that for purposes of determining the
area for exclusion under A.O. No. 9, the entire number of livestock should be credited in
applying the ratio of one head to one hectare and that the landholdings totaled only 370 ha
and there are 429 heads of livestock, they have more than complied with A.O. No. 9,
Series of 1993.

The DAR issued an Order suspending the processing and issuance of Certificates of
Land Ownership Awards to the farmers-beneficiaries of the landholding covered by TCT
No. 160988 pending the resolution of the appeal. On October 7, 1996, the DAR issued an
Order partially granting the application for exclusion.

The applicants appealed the Order to the OP via an Appeal with Prayer for Status
Quo/Stay of Execution. The President, through then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato
C. Corona (now a member of the Court), rendered a decision dismissing the appeal for
4

lack of merit. Respondent and his co-owners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was
denied for being devoid of substantial merit.

The OP, issued a Memorandum for DAR Secretary Morales referring the case for the
Secretary's final disposition, on the matter of exemption from CARP coverage of the
subject landholding.

Respondent for himself and in behalf of other owners then filed a "Petition for Review
with Application/Prayer for Status Quo and/or Stay of Execution" before the CA, alleging
that the OP committed errors. Judgment was rendered affirming the decision of the OP
and, consequently, the October 7, 1996 DAR Order.

Respondent and his co-owners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision,
praying that the entire 349.9996 has. be exempted from CARP coverage. On May 24,
2004, the CA rendered an Amended Decision reversing and setting aside its previous
decision.

Issues:

Whether or not the 349.9996-hectare landholding of Vicente K. Uy used in raising

livestock, poultry and swine are exempted from the coverage following the Luz Farms
Doctrine?

Whether or not the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent tolled the
reglementary period to appeal?

Whether or not the application of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 on
the respondent's landholding of more or less 472 ha. is valid in light of the ruling of this
Court in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sutton, where DAR Administrative Order No. 9,
Series of 1993 was declared unconstitutional?

Held:

It must be shown that the entire landholding, and not just portions of it, should be
devoted to livestock raising. The words "regardless of age" in the order should be
interpreted to mean only those heads of cattle existing as of June 15, 1988. Accordingly,
the ratio of land to livestock should be based on those livestock found existing in the
landholding at the time R.A. No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988. This is consistent with
the intent of the law to prevent fraudulent declaration of areas actually, directly and
5

exclusively used for livestock as well as to protect the rights of agrarian beneficiaries
therein.

It is clear then that only one motion for reconsideration is allowed to be filed from a
decision, resolution or order of the OP. However, the filing of a second motion for
reconsideration is not absolutely prohibited. A second motion for reconsideration is allowed
in exceptionally meritorious cases.

It is doctrinal that rules of administrative bodies must be in harmony with the provisions
of the Constitution. They cannot amend or extend the Constitution. To be valid, they must
conform to and be consistent with the Constitution. In case of conflict between an
administrative order and the provisions of the Constitution, the latter prevails. The assailed
A.O. of petitioner DAR was properly stricken down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the
coverage of agrarian reform beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution.

The instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Amended Decision of the CA in CA-GR SP
No. 70541 exempting the parcel of land under TCT No. T-160988 with an area of 349.9996
hectares from coverage of the CARP is AFFIRMED. However, the Amended Decision
exempting the 22.2639-hectare landholding covered by TCT No. 11948 from the coverage of
the CARP is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.