Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
RESOLUTION
CORONA, C.J.:
This latest application for exemption gave rise to the instant petition.
Petitioner’s application for exemption has been ruled upon at least four times
before the instant petition in this Court. On January 7, 2004, then DAR
Secretary Roberto Pagdanganan granted the application for exemption of
the 17 lots (Pagdanganan order). On reconsideration, however, DAR
Secretary Nasser Pangandaman, who had by then replaced Pagdanganan,
ruled in favor of respondents and set aside the Pagdanganan order
(Pangandaman order).8This order prompted petitioners to appeal to the
Office of the President which set aside the Pangandaman order and
reinstated the Pagdanganan order. However, this decision was reversed by
the Court of Appeals on October 26, 2009.
In a resolution dated, September 15, 2010, this Court gave due course to
this petition and dispensed with the filing of memoranda. The case has been
calendared for deliberation.
Petitioners have shown a prima facie right to the exemption that they claim.
Former DAR Secretary Pagdanganan granted petitioners’ application for
exemption upon finding that the subject lots had already been converted to
non-agricultural even prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657,11 due
to the property’s reclassification into farmlot subdivision through the Land
Use and Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City.12 This ordinance was approved by
the HLURB in Resolution No. 35, s. 1981,13 with a certification issued by
HLURB Secretariat OIC Carolina Casaje that the Town Plan/Zoning
Ordinance of Lipa City was approved by the National Coordinating Council
for Town Planning, Housing and Zoning.14 1avv phi 1
Furthermore, the HLURB’s Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot
Subdivision Plan15 categorizes a farmlot subdivision as different from
agricultural land as "it is without the intended qualities of an agricultural land
and is never intended to be exclusively used for cultivation, livestock
production and agro-forestry."16
Finally, the HLURB development permit and license to sell were "indications
of the locational viability and the non-exclusivity for agricultural purposes of
the subject lots."17 All these arguments were in fact adopted by the Office of
the President on appeal.
The parties in this case are directed to maintain the status quo and to refrain
from all actions which may affect the ownership or present possession of the
contested properties until further orders of this Court.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
* Per Special Order No. 913 dated November 2, 2010.
1Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 103703 dated October 26,
2009. Rollo, p. 37.
2 CA decision. Rollo, p. 38.
3 Id.
4 CA decision. Rollo, p. 38.
5Claim of the estate in its application for exemption as cited in the CA
decision. Rollo, p. 41.
6CA decision. Rollo, p. 41. DOJ Opinion No. 44 s. 1990 by then Justice
Secretary Franklin Drilon opined that the authority of the DAR to approve
conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses could be exercised
only from the date of the effectivity of RA No. 6657.
7 CA decision. Rollo, pp. 43-44.
8 Order dated September 19, 2006.
9 Rollo, p. 178.
10 Id.
11 The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
12 CA decision. Rollo, p. 44.
13 Id, pp. 44 and 48.
14 Supra note 12.
15 Promulgated on December 28, 1981 as cited by the CA decision. Id.
16 CA decision. Rollo, pp. 44-45.
17 CA decision. Rollo, p. 44.