A.

Coverage
01 Aninao v. Asturias
Facts: The subject landholding in this case is the 507 hectare land located at
Calatagan, Batangas formerly owned by Ceferino Ascue. A trust account was then
opened before the Land Bank of the Philippines, in favor of Ascue, in an amount
corresponding to the valuation of his property.
Sometime in 1995, the heirs of Ascue, with the approval of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) at Balayan, Batangas handling the settlement of his estate (sic), sold to
Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc. (Asturias) the 807 hectares of land referred to at the
outset.
Asturias then was bothered by the actions of DAR which they thought aims to
place the landholding they acquired under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. And so, Asturias sent a letter to DAR Region IV office making it known that its
Calatagan landholding could no longer be considered for CARP coverage, it having
already been declared as mineral land pursuant to a Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement (MPSA) between the government and Asturias and that there was an
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued for the establishment of a cement plan
within the area.
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) issued
resolution 2 cancelling the transaction between Ascue and Asturias if proven that it is
contrary to existing laws. A Task Force Baha was then formed by the PARO to
investigate whether the standard operating procedures were followed in accordance
with the policies and guidelines of PD 27 and CARL; to determine whether the property
was planted to rice/corn as of 1972 and to verify the existence of tenancy relationship.
Asturias formally protested the OLT coverage of portions of its Calatagan
property and the threatened cancellation of its titles on the following grounds:
(1) The Asturias Landholding is NOT AND NEVER WAS a RICE and CORN farm;
and
(2) The issuance of the alleged 818 EPs and the coverage of the Asturias property
under PD # 27 is ERRONEOUS, . . . AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Appended to
the letter-protest were the Batangas Census of Agriculture for years 1980 and
 1991 showing that only 261 hectares of the land in Calatagan are planted to
rice/corn.
The Secretary of Agrarian Reform sustained the appeals of the respondent Asturias,
stating that the subject landholding was not under the coverage of PD 27 and CARP
because the said land was said to be devoted to minerals and that it has long ceased
to be an agricultural land. The land was said to be made up of slopes, swamps, which
shows that its not suitable for agricultural purposes. And that the existence of tenancy
relations has not been established.

Subsequently, the petitioners averred that Emancipation Patents were issued in their
favor which involves the subject landholding. They alleged that the subject landholding
should be under the purview of PD 27, and should thus be given to them.

The DAR and Office of the President sustained the appeals of the respondents, which
ruled that the subject landholding is not under the purview of PD 27.

Court of Appeals: Denied the motion of the petitioners

Issue: Whether or not the subject landholding should be subject to the Operation Land
Transfer under PD 27
Held: No.
Ruling:
As may be noted, EPs were issued to petitioners as agrarian reform beneficiaries or
successors-ininterests pursuant to the OLT program under P.D. No. 27. To come within
the coverage of the OLT, there must be showing that the land is devoted to rice or corn
crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein
when P.D. No. 27 took effect on October 21, 1972. If either requisite is absent, exclusion
from the OLT coverage lies and EPs, if issued, may be recalled.

On the issue of whether the transaction between Ascue and Asturias is valid, the court
held that: For, what said Section 6 contextually prohibits is the sale or disposition of
private agricultural lands covered by CARP. The subject landholding was devoted to
minerals and is thus, not under the CARP.

B. Exclusions
a. Non Agricultural Lands (RA 6657, SECTION 3C),(DOJ Opinion No. 44)
02 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas
Facts: PhilBanking was the original owner of the two subject parcels of land located in
Mintal, Davao City. In 1989, DAR issued a notice of coverage to PhilBanking stating that
the land owned by Philbanking was under the purview of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program. Philbanking filed its protest and despite this, the DAR issued the order
of cancellation of the titles of the subject parcels of land, transferring its ownership to
the Republic of the Philippines. Also, the petitioners Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association (ARBA) were awared CLOAs.
On March 24, 1994, PhilBanking executed a deed of assignment in favor of
herein respondents Loreto G. Nicolas, et al. They continued the proceedings for the
repossession of the subject parcels of land. While Philbanking filed their complaints
before the RTC, the respondents filed their complaints before the DARAB (Tagum) for
the revocation of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA).

DARAB (Tagum) Ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring that the subject land is
exempted from CARP. The lands have already been reclassified as within the
Urban/Urbanizing Zone (UR/URB). This classification was subsequently approved by the
City Administrator and the HLURB Regional Office.
Petitioners appealed to the DARAB central office
DARAB (Central office) reversed the decision! The subject lands are covered by the
CARP. DAR followed proper procedures to effect compulsory land acquisition, from the
issuance of a notice of coverage to the actual distribution of CLOAs. The DARAB noted
that PhilBanking did not even pose any objection to the acquisition of the property for
inclusion in the CARP; and that as PhilBankings assignees, respondents could not argue
that they were not accorded due process.
Respondents appealed the decision to the CA
CA reversed the decision of DARAB (central office). The CA reiterated that the subject
parcels of lands have long been reclassified as being within an urban zone since 1982,
long before the enactment of RA No. 6657.
-The authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to reclassify or approve
conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses may be exercised only from the
date of effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988
-The CA applied DOJ Opinion No. 44 in their decision which defines what an
Agricultural Land is.

Issue: Whether or not the subject parcels of land are agricultural lands under the
comprehensive agrarian reform program
Held: No.
Ruling:
The court agreed to the findings of the CA which upheld the doctrine in the
Natalia case and the DOJ Opinion No. 44 which provides that all lands reclassified
from agricultural to non-agricultural land before the date of effectivity of the CARL,
June 15, 1988, shall be exempted from any certifications required for the re-
classification to Agricultural lands under the CARL.
The authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to reclassify or approve
conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses may be exercised only from the
date of effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988.
The Natalia ruling was not confined solely to agricultural lands located within
townsite reservations. It is also applicable to other agricultural lands converted to non-
agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL. This is subject to the condition that
the conversion was made with the approval of government agencies like the HLURB.
The findings of facts of the DARAB Central Office were not supported by
substantial evidence and cannot be deemed final and conclusive. Section 54 of the RA
No. 6657 provides that any [DAR] decision, order, award, or ruling on any agrarian
dispute or any matter pertaining to its application, implementation, enforcement, or
interpretation and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the CA
by certiorari. It also provides that the findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and
conclusive if based on substantial evidence.
02 Buklod ng Magbubukid v. EM Ramos and Sons, Inc.
Facts: The subject parcel of land is located at Dasmarinas, Cavite. This was owned by
EM Ramos and Sons, Inc. (EMRAS). The property is 303.39 hectares of the 372 hectare
property. Originally owned by the Manila Golf and Country Club, the property was
acquired by the [herein respondent EMRASON] in 1965 for the purpose of developing
the same into a residential subdivision known as Travellers Life Homes.
In May, 1972, [respondent] E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc., applied for an authority to
convert and develop its aforementioned 372-hectare property into a residential
subdivision, attaching to the application detailed development plans and
development proposals. The Municipal Council of Cavite approved the application.
Thereafter, the Aquino governments plan to convert the tenanted neighboring
property of the National Development Company (NDC) into an industrial estate to be
managed through a joint venture scheme by NDC and the Marubeni Corporation. Part
of the overall conversion package called for providing the tenant-farmers, opting to
remain at the NDC property, with three (3) hectares each. However, the size of the
NDC property turned out to be insufficient for both the demands of the proposed
industrial project as well as the governments commitment to the tenant-farmers. To
address this commitment, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was thus tasked
with acquiring additional lands from the nearby areas. The DAR earmarked for this
purpose the subject property of [EMRASON].
In 1990, the DAR secretary sent out Notices of Acquisition which includes the
303 hectare subject land. Thereafter, EMRASON protested the said notices of
acquisition before the DARAB who later on referred the case to the Office of the
Regional Director, Region IV. A hearing was conducted regarding the dispute.
Legal Division of DAR Region IV - declared the notices of acquisition null and
void. The subject property is covered by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No.
44, series of 1990. The DOJ Secretary Franklin Drilon clarified that lands already
converted to non-agricultural uses before June 15, 1988 were no longer covered by
CARP.

The Region IV DAR Regional Director motu propio elevated the case to the
Office of the Agrarian Reform Secretary ALLEGING THAT the Legal Division of DAR
Region IVs decision is contrary to the departments official position to pursue the
coverage of the same properties and its eventual distribution to qualified beneficiaries
particularly the Langkaan farmers in fulfillment of the commitment of the government to
deliver to them the balance of thirty-nine hectares.

DAR Secretary Garilao rendered a decision, declaring the subject property under the
purview of CARP.

The Respondents appealed to the Office of the President, who through Deputy
Executive Secretary Corona, denied the respondents claim, stating that the subject
land remains to be agricultural, on the basis of the following: (1) EMRASON failed to
comply to mandatory requirements: namely the need for approval of the National
Planning Commission through the Highway District Engineer, and the Bureau of Lands
before final submission to the Municipal Council and Municipal Mayor; (2) [EMRASON]
failed to comply with Administrative Order No. 152, dated December 16, 1968, and (3)
The certification of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) in 1981 and
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLRB) in 1992 that the property of
[EMRASON] is agricultural.

The Respondents then appealed the said decision to the Court of Appeals.
During this time, there are supposedly Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOA) to
be issued in favor of 300 farmer beneficiaries, which were then respresented by
petitioners Buklod nang Magbubukid. The issue of the following CLOAs were prevented
in line with the decision of the CA.

CA declared the parcels of land owned by respondents as non-agricultural because

the subject property was already converted/classified as residential by the Municipality
of Dasmarias prior to the effectivity of the CARL. That the municipality, conformably
with its statutory-conferred local autonomy, had passed a subdivision measure, i.e.,
Ordinance No. 1, and had approved in line thereto, through the medium of Ordinance
No. 29-A, [EMRASONs] application for subdivision, or with like effect approved the
conversion/classification of the lands in dispute as residential. Significantly, the
Municipal Mayor of Dasmarias, Cavite, in his letter of September 23, 1988 to
[EMRASON], clarified that such conversion conforms with the approved development
plan of the municipality.
Buklod ng Mangbubukid later on intervened during the pendency of the case,
wherein they represented the 300 farmer beneficiaries who are petitioners in this case.
DAR argues that the act by the local government of Dasmarinas of reclassifying
lands from agricultural to non-agricultural is not valid since there is a need for review
and approval of such an ordinance by the National Planning Commission (NPC).

Issue: Whether or not the subject property is an agricultural land under the CARP
Held: No.
Ruling:
Section 3(c), Chapter I of the CARL further narrows down the definition of agricultural
land that is subject to CARP to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this
Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
To be exempt from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), all that is
needed is one valid reclassification of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural by a
duly authorized government agency before June 15, 1988, when the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) took effect.
Never is it justified to give preference to the poor simply because they are poor,
or to reject therich simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served for
poor and rich alike, according to the mandate of the law.

03 Heirs of Luna v. Afable

Facts: The subject land in this case is a 100 hectare land owned by petitioner heirs of
Luna, located at Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. The said land was subjected to
Compulsory Acquisition under the CARP through a notice of land valuation dated
August 20 1998 issued by PARO.
Respondents were identified by the DAR as qualified farmer-beneficiaries;
hence, the corresponding Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were
generated, issued to respondents and duly registered in their names on 12 October
1998
 Petitioners filed before the DARAB a petition for the cancellation of the CLOAs,
Revocation of Notice of Valuation and Acquisition and Upholding and Affirming the
Classification of Subject Property and declaring the same outside the purview of RA No.
6657. - The petition was based on the reclassification of the subject land into a light
intensity industrial zone pursuant to Municipal Ordinance No. 21, series of 1981, enacted
by the Sangguniang Bayan of Calapan, thereby excluding the same from the
coverage of the agrarian law.

DARAB (Calapan): petitioners property is exempt from the CARP as it has been
reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657.
According to the DARAB, the records of the case indicate that subject parcel of land
was classified as within the residential, commercial and industrial zone by the
Sangguniang Bayan of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The Office of the City Assessor has
also classified the property as residential, commercial and industrial in use under the tax
declaration covering the same.
The DARAB cited Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990,
which provides that a parcel of land is considered non-agricultural and, therefore,
beyond the coverage of the CARP, if it had been classified as residential, commercial,
or industrial in the city or municipality where the Land Use Plan or zoning ordinance has
been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) before 15 June
1988, the date of effectivity of RA No. 6657. The DOJ Opinion No. 44 further states that all
lands falling under this category, that is, lands already classified as commercial,
industrial or residential, before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance
from the DAR.

DARAB Central Office: Reversed the decision of DARAB (Calapan). The DARAB
concluded, the issue of whether or not petitioners land is indeed exempt from CARP
coverage is still an administrative matter to be determined exclusively by the DAR
Secretary or his authorized representative. Thus, an exemption clearance from the DAR
is still required. In this connection, the DARAB Central Office emphasized that[a]ny
landowner or his duly authorized representative whose lands are covered by DOJ
Opinion No. 44-S-1990, and desires to have an exemption clearance from the DAR,
should file the application with the Regional Office of the DAR where the land is
located.

In response to the above ruling, the petitioners filed a petition for exclusion from CARP
before the DAR.

DAR: Granted the petitioners application for exemption, wherein they acknowledged
the certifications issued by the HLURB exempting all of the 158 hectares of land owned
by the petitioner. The approval of the application was subject to the condition, among
others, that disturbance compensation shall be paid to affected tenants, farm workers,
or bona fide occupants of the land.

The Respondents filed for a motion for consideration.

The DAR approved the motion for reconsideration, ruling that the HLURB did not place
the entire landholding under the exception. The DAR ruled that the subject property is
still within the ambit of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program since the same
were reclassified only in 1998 through Resolution No. 151, City Ordinance No. 6, and was
approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan only in 2001 through Resolution No. 218,
Series of 2001 long after the effectivity of RA 6657

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration before he DAR. This was subsequently
denied, citing that upon inspection of the subject property, there were no billboards
but there were grasslands and fruit trees were planted, and there were tenants present
during the said inspection.

Petitioners filed an appeal before the office of the president, which ruled in favor of the
petitioners.

The respondents filed an appeal before the CA.

CA: the CA granted the appeal based on a finding that the ruling of the Office of the
President is not supported by substantial evidence. The CA further held that the fact
that the Sangguniang Panlungsod of the City of Calapan later on enacted
Resolution No. 151 as City Ordinance No. 6 on 23 June 1998, declaring the whole area
of Barangay Guinobatan as residential, commercial and institutional areas and site of
the new City Government Center for the City of Calapan does not automatically
convert the property into a non-agricultural land exempt from the coverage of the
agrarian law. It bears stressing that the 1998 Ordinance was enacted after the
effectivity of the CARL and, in order to be exempt from CARP coverage, the land must
have been classified as industrial/residential before 15 June 1988.

Issue: whether the land subject of this case had been reclassified as non-agricultural as
early as 1981, that is, prior to the effectivity of the CARL and, therefore, exempt from its
coverage
Held: YES.
Ruling:
The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL was explained further by the
DAR in its AO No. 1, Series of 1990, dated 22 March 1990, entitled Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Land to Non- Agricultural
Uses, issued pursuant to Section 49 of the CARL. Thus Agricultural land refers to those
devoted to agricultural activity as defined in RA 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
competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use.
Accordingly, since specialized agencies, such as the HUDCC and the Office of
the Deputized Zoning Administrator tasked to determine the classification of parcels of
land have already certified that the subject land is industrial, the Court must accord
such pronouncements great respect, if not finality, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.
The court is inclined to give more evidentiary weight to the certification of the
zoning administrator being the officer having jurisdiction over the area where the land
in question is situated and is, therefore, more familiar with the property in issue. Besides,
this certification carried the presumption of regularity in its issuance and respondents
have the burden of overcoming this presumption. Respondents, however, failed to
present any evidence to rebut that presumption.

b. Poultry and Livestock Farms

01 Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Facts: Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and
poultry business and together with others in the same business allegedly stands to be
adversely affected by the enforcement of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section
16(d) and 17 and Section 32 of R.A. No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law and of the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production
and Profit Sharing under R.A. No. 6657 promulgated on January 2,1989 and the Rules
and Regulations Implementing Section 11 thereof as promulgated by the DAR on
January 9,1989 (Rollo, pp. 2-36). Hence, this petition praying that aforesaid laws,
guidelines and rules be declared unconstitutional. Meanwhile, it is also prayed that a
writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order be issued enjoining public respondents
from enforcing the same, insofar as they are made to apply to Luz Farms and other
livestock and poultry raisers.
The following provisions of RA 6657 assailed are the following:
(1) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock (and poultry)" in the definition
of "Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity."
(2) Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as "private agricultural lands
devoted to commercial, livestock, poultry and swine raising
(3) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing plan.
(4) Section 16(d) and 17 which vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the
authority to summarily determine the just compensation to be paid for lands
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Section 32 which spells
out the production-sharing plan mentioned in Section 13

The constitutional provision under consideration reads as follows: ARTICLE XIII

AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
 Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right 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, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation.
In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the rights of small landowners. The
State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Issue: Whether or not the said provisions are constitutional
Held: No.
Ruling:
Ang inilagay naming dito ay farm workers, kayat hindi kasama ang piggery, poultry
and livestock workers
It is evident from the foregoing discussion between then commissioners Regalado and
Tadeo that Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes "private agricultural lands, devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising" in the definition of "commercial farms" is
invalid, to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be
covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply no reason to
include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform.
The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on
the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of
the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the cove rage
of the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.

02 Republic v. Salvador B. Lopez Agri-Business Corporation

Facts:
Issue: The main issue for resolution by the Court is whether the Lopez and Limot lands of
SNLABC can be considered grazing lands for its livestock business and are thus
exempted from the coverage of the CARL
Held:
Ruling: Lopez are exempted from the CARP
Limot lands are not exempted from CARP. The Limot lands were not directly, actually
and exclusively used for livestock raising. The Limot lands were only used as seasonal
extension of the applicants grazing lands during the summer. Thus, it is not essential
for the grazing of land essential for raising livestock.

c. Landowners Right of Retention

01 Daez v. Court of Appeals
Facts: The petitioner Daez application for exemption of the inclusion of the land she
owns from the CARP was denied. Thus, she then decided to apply for retention of the
landholding under Section 6 of the CARP Law (RA 6657). DAR Region III OIC director
granted the application of Daez for retention, but denied her children retention
because they did not personally till or directly manage the agricultural land.
The DAR secretary reversed the decision, which denied Daez retention.
Daez then appealed the decision to the Office of the President which r
uled in her favor.
The CA ruled otherwise. Thus, the petition.
Issue: Whether or not the application for exemption and retention are one and the
same thing, wherein when a landowner applied for one, he or she is barred to apply for
the other
Held: No.
Ruling:
Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an
application for retention are one and the same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of
judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent institution of the other. There was,
thus, no procedural impediment to the application filed by Eudosia Daez for the
retention of the subject 4.1865-hectare riceland, even after her appeal for exemption
of the same land was denied in a decision that became final and executory.
Petitioner heirs of Eudosia Daez may exercise their right of retention over the
subject 4.1685 riceland.
02 Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao
Facts

C. Lands Exempted from Carp Coverage

a. Education
01 Decs v. DAR
Facts: The records of the case show that the subject properties were formerly private
agricultural lands owned by the late Esteban Jalandoni, and were donated to
respondent DECS. From that time until they were leased to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation, the lands continued to be agricultural primarily planted to sugarcane,
albeit part of the public domain being owned by an agency of the government.
Moreover, there is no legislative or presidential act, before and after the enactment of
R.A. No. 6657, classifying the said lands as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land. Indubitably, the subject lands fall under the classification of lands of the
public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture.
Respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground that all the
income derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were
actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs
and renovations of schools in the nearby locality. Petitioner DAR, on DAR, on the other
hand, argued that the lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP coverage
because the same are not actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or
campuses, as they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to be
exempt from the coverage, it is the land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that
must be actually/directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.

Issue: Whether or not the subject property owned by DECS is exempted from the CARP
Held: No.
Ruling:
Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are exempted
from the coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption, viz: xxx xxx xxx c)
Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national
defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by
public or private schools for educational purposes, . . . , shall be exempt from the
coverage of this Act. xxx xxx xxx Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in
order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the land must be actually, directly, and
exclusively used and found to be necessary; and 2) the purpose is for school sites and
campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools
for educational purposes

b. National Defense
01 DAR v. PhilCommSat
Facts: The controversy involves a parcel of land owned by respondent PHILCOMSAT
situated within the area which had been declared a security zone under Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 1845, as amended by P.D. No. 1848, entitled Declaring the Area
within a Radius of Three Kilometers surrounding the Satellite Earth Station in Baras, Rizal,
a Security Zone. Incidentally, the property had been planted with fruit trees, rice and
corn by farmers occupying the surrounding areas of the PSCC.
The three-kilometer security zone covers an area of 5,654 hectares, which
includes the 700 hectares owned by PHILCOMSAT that is being subjected to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)1 of the government. Also included
within this three-kilometer radius is the 1.5 kilometers radius from the antenna wherein
local harmful Radio Frequency Interference resulting from ignition systems, motor
starters, high voltage discharges, and the like, is captured and amplified which can
hamper telecommunications services.
Pursuant to the decree, the Ministry of National Defense promulgated the
Revised Rules and Regulations to Implement P.D. No. 1845 dated 30 April 1982, as
amended, Declaring the Philippine Earth Station (PES) Security Zone.Inviewofthis, the
metes and bounds of PHILCOMSATs satellite earth station in Baras, Rizal, were
delineated. In 1992, a Notice of Coverage was sent to PHILCOMSAT by petitioner DAR
informing the former that the land in question shall be placed under CARPs compulsory
acquisition scheme. PhilComSat wrote a lettr to DAR averring section 10 of RA 6657, that
the said land is devoted for national defense.
 Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tanay, Rizal, in its Resolution No. 65-94
that was endorsed to DAR, moved for the coverage of the 700-hectare PHILCOMSAT
property within the security zone under CARP. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of
Teresa, Rizal further opined that subjecting the surrounding agricultural area within the
security zone under CARP will not be detrimental to the operations of PHILCOMSAT.
DAR Secretary denied the application of PhilComSat for exemption.
The CA ruled otherwise.

Issue: whether or not the subject property of PHILCOMSAT which had been declared a
security zone under P.D. No. 1845, as amended by P.D. No. 1848, can be subjected to
CARP
Held: NO.
Ruling:
The subject property is clearly within the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law, in accordance with Chapter II, section 4(d) thereof, had it not been decreed by
P.D. No. 1845 that it is a security zone. The very purpose by which P.D. No. 1845 was
passed declaring the area within a radius of three kilometers surrounding the satellite
earth station in Baras, Rizal a security zone is to protect and insure the safety and
uninterrupted operation of the modern media of international communications in the
said property, as indicated in the whereas clause of said law. Thus, to subject said
security zone to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government would negate the very
purpose by which P.D. 1845, as revised by P.D. 1848, was decreed. These laws have
never been repealed.
P.D. 1848 is also specific in that occupation of the area, either by the owners or
their bona fide tenants, require a prior written permission or authority from the Ministry of
the National Defense, now Department of National Defense. It is therefore the
Department of National Defense which will determine [x x x] who can occupy the
subject property, and not the Department of Agrarian Reform. To subject the property
in question to agrarian reform is indirectly giving the Department of Agrarian Reform
authority to determine [x x x] who can occupy the property, in violation of the mandate
of P.D. 1848. We find it not necessary to determine whether or not the subject property
is actually, directly, and exclusively used for national defense, to be exempted from the
coverage of R.A. 6657. The law which decreed the areas a security zone is very clear in
its purpose.

c. Watersheds
Sta. Rosa Development Corporation v. Amante
Facts:
Issue: Whether or not the said land is exempted from the compulsory acquisition by the
CARP because of the property being considered a watershed
Held: Yes.
Ruling: Watersheds may be defined as an area drained by a river and its tributaries
and enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds.
Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why was the Casile
property titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of the titling, the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources had not the declared the property as
watershed area.
Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land in dispute is a watershed or
part of the protected area for watershed purposes. Ecological balances and
environmental disasters in our day and age seem to be interconnected. Property
developers and tillers of the land must be aware of this deadly combination. In the
case at bar, DAR included the disputed parcels of land for compulsory acquisition
simply because the land was allegedly devoted to agriculture and was titled to SRRDC,
hence, private and alienable land that may be subject to
CARP. However, the scenario has changed, after an in-depth study, survey and
reassessment. We cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital
part of an area that need to be protected for watershed purposes.
The Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination
of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its coverage by the
Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
d. Fishponds and Prawn Farms
Atlas Fertilizer Corporation v. Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform
Facts: Petitioners Atlas Fertilizer Corporation,2 Philippine
Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc. and petitioner-in-intervention Archies
Fishpond, Inc. and Arsenio Al. Acuna3 are engaged in the aquaculture industry
utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. They assail Sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16(d), 17 and
32 of R.A. 6657, as well as the implementing guidelines and procedures contained in
Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 issued by public respondent
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform as unconstitutional.
Petitioners claim that the questioned provisions of CARL violate the
Constitution in the following manner:
Sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16(d), 17 and 32 of CARL extend agrarian reform to
aquaculture lands even as Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution limits agrarian
reform only to agricultural lands.
The questioned provisions similarly treat of aquaculture lands and
agriculture lands when they are differently situated, and differently treat
aquaculture lands and other industrial lands, when they are similarly
situated in violation of the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of
the laws.
The questioned provisions distort employment benefits and burdens in
favor of aquaculture employees and against other industrial workers even as
Sections 1 and 3, Article XIII of the Constitution mandate the State to
promote equality in economic and employment opportunities.
The questioned provisions deprive petitioner of its government-induced
investments in aquaculture even as Sections 2 and 3, Article XIII of the
Constitution mandate the State to respect the freedom of enterprise and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion
and growth.
Issue:
Held:
Ruling:

e. Tourism Purposes
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Ruling:

f. Lands with 18% Slope