FIRST DIVISION

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN G.R. No. 165547

REFORM, as represented by its
Secretary, RENE C. VILLA, Present:
Petitioner,
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - CORONA,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
SARANGANI AGRICULTURAL
CO., INC., ACIL CORPORATION, Promulgated:
NICASIO ALCANTARA and
TOMAS ALCANTARA, January 24, 2007
Respondents.

x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION

AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for review[1] by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) seeking
the reversal of the Decision and Resolution, dated July 19, 2004 and September 24,
2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79899, entitled
Sarangani Agricultural Co, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Manuel Domingo, et al.

Respondents are the owners of the lands in question which have been reclassified
from agricultural into non-agricultural uses by virtue of a municipal zoning
ordinance, and are included in the comprehensive land use plan of the Municipality
of Alabel.
The antecedents are as follows:

The Province of Sarangani was created pursuant to Republic Act No. 7228 on March
16, 1992, composed of seven (7) municipalities, namely, Alabel, Glan, Maasin,
Maitum, Malapatan, Malungon and Kiamba which were segregated from the
Province of South Cotabato. Under said Act, the Municipality of Alabel was made
the capital of the new province where the capitol building and all other national and
provincial offices shall be established.[2]

On February 14, 1997, the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passed Resolution No. 97-
08 or Resolution Adopting and Endorsing the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive
Development Plan (MCDP 1995-2005) of the Municipality of Alabel and Its Land
Use Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Adoption and Approval of the
Provincial Governor, Honorable Priscilla L. Chiongbian, Thru The Honorable
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani Province.

On January 30, 1998, pursuant to Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 08, Series of
1997, and to accelerate the development and urbanization of Alabel, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passed Resolution No. 98-03 reclassifying lots that
were located within the built-up areas, based on the 1995-2005 Land Use Plan of the
municipality, from agricultural to non-agricultural uses.[3]

On March 2, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani approved

Resolution No. 98-018 or the Resolution Adopting the Ten-Year Municipal
Comprehensive Development Plan (MCDP 1995-2205) and the Land Use
Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Municipality of Alabel, Sarangani
Per Resolution No. 97-08 and Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08, S. of 1997 of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel. A portion of the area involving 376.5424 hectares,
however, was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657)
commercial farms deferment scheme.[4]

The Zoning Certification issued by the office of the Municipal Planning and
Development Council (MPDC) showed that respondents properties located at
Barangay Maribulan, Alabel were among those reclassified from agricultural and
pasture land to residential, commercial institutional, light industrial and open space
in the 1995-2005 land use plan of Alabel. [5]
On July 2, 1998, respondent Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI)
filed an application for land use conversion of the following parcels of land with an
aggregate area of 1,005 hectares:

Registered Owner TCT No. Lot No. Area Area Applied

(Ha.) (Ha.)
SACI T-7207 1-C 52.4365 52.4365
T -48807
SACI 2 181.3353 181.3353
(T-4807)
T -48808
SAC I 3 281.0874 281.0874
(T-4808)
T -48809
SACI 4 241.7880 241.7880
(T-4809)
T-48810
SAC I 5 40.6738 40.6738
(T-4810)
T -48811
SACI 6 137.0340 137.0340
(T-4811)
T-48812
SACI 7 12.3265 12.3265
(T-4812)
T-(10885)
Nicasio Alcantara 10 20.9149 20.9149
T-44538
SACI T-9210 2 12.1425 12.1425
T-14359
Tomas Alcantara 39 10.9390 10.9390
(T-1185)
Nicasio Alcantara Untitled 53 5.0672 5.0672
T-(41758)
ACIL Corporation 806 3.3115 3.3115
(T-4150)
SACI Untitled 807 6.7871 6.7871

Accompanying SACIs application for conversion were the documents required

under the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 7,
Series of 1997.[6]
Subsequently, a Site Inspection Report was prepared by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Office (Region XI) and was indorsed to
DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr.
On March 16, 1999, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the
Provincial Land Use Technical Committee (PLUTC)[7] conducted an inspection of
the subject properties. In a Memorandum dated July 9, 1999, the PLUTC
recommended that SACIs application be made subject to the following conditions:
1) presentation by SACI of its development plan; 2) submission of the lacking
documents; 3) re-survey and segregation of the property according to use or project
in coordination with the DAR Regional Office; and, 4) submission of the resulting
map indicating the technical description of the area per actual use/project attested by
the Regional Director.

Meanwhile, on March 22, 1999, members of the Sarangani Agrarian Reform

Beneficiaries Association, Inc. (SARBAI) sent a letter-petition to the DAR Secretary
oppposing the application for land use conversion filed by SACI. SARBAI alleged
that its members were merely forced to sign the waiver of rights, considering that
the commercial farm deferment period ended on June 15, 1998. Later, an Urgent
Petition for the Denial of Land Use Conversion Application of Banana Commercial
Farm of SACI was filed by SARBAI and was received by the PARC Secretariat
on July 14, 1999.

In the March 30, 2000 deliberation of the PLUTC, the committee agreed to
recommend the disapproval of 158.0672 hectares that had been planted with bananas
and coconuts. The committee noted that said portion of the property was still viable
for agriculture, irrigated, with Notice of Coverage, and under protest or with
opposition from SARBAI. It likewise recommended that the decision as to the rest
of the area applied for conversion shall be deferred subject to the submission of the
following within a period of thirty (30) days: 1) a five-year comprehensive
development plan; 2) a survey plan signed by the Regional Technical Director of
Land Management Service and noted by the DAR Regional Director (Region XI);
3) SACIs proof of undertaking, which will contain the package of benefits it intends
to give to the affected farm workers except those working in the banana plantation;
4) the concurrence of all the workers who would be affected by the proposed
conversion, which concurrence should be noted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Office (MARO) and acknowledged by a notary public.

On its part, SACI contended that 1) its projects were aligned to address the current
and anticipated commercial and residential needs of Sarangani province, and the
removal of any portion of its property included in its comprehensive development
plan will affect the viability of the plan; 2) the banana plantations will be transformed
into a socialized housing subdivision which will be made available to the displaced
workers and the other low income earners of Alabel; 3) the company will construct
and install power generation facilities in the entire area; 4) at the time the application
for land use conversion was filed, no Notice of Coverage was ever issued by DAR,
and the subsequent issuance of such notice was highly irregular because the same
may be issued only after the final resolution of the application for land use
conversion; and 5) the previous Order of Deferment cannot be a legal barrier to the
filing of an application for land use conversion.

On November 9, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied SACIs

application for land use conversion. The pertinent portion of the Order reads:
The proponent also submitted another DA certification stating that 12
parcels of land (Lot Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 807, 53, 10, 39 and 806) with an area
of 816.7401 hectares, located at Maribulan, Alabel, Sarangani are part of expansion
for urbanizing areas. Though discussed on several meetings, no decision was made
on the application since the applicant was not able to comply with the documentary
requirements and clarify the issues raised by the Committee.

[I]n [the] 30 March 2000 Meeting of the PLUTC, the Committee deliberated
again [on] the subject application and agreed to recommend the disapproval of
158.0672 hectares area planted to banana[s] and coconuts. The Committee noted
that said portion of the property is still viable for agriculture, irrigated, with Notice
of Coverage and with protest or opposition from SARBAI. The Committee also
agreed to request the DAR to determine the metes and bounds of the area planted
to banana[s] and coconuts vis--vis areas devoted to other enterprises. Relative to
the rest of the area applied for conversion, the committee deferred its decision
subject to the submission of a 5-year comprehensive development plan, showing
among others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific lots involved and
the corresponding proposed use.

The Committee acceded to the request of SACI and deferred its

recommendation to deny conversion of that portion of the property planted to
banana[s] and coconut[s] pending submission of a manifesto or SACIs proof of
undertaking that it will compensate farm workers affected by showing, among
others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific lots involved and the
corresponding proposed use [of] the conversion, concurred by the
workers/oppositors, noted by the MARO and duly notarized. The Committee also
requested SACI to submit details of the pomelo farm in Malandag being offered as
a replacement farm for the relocation of the farm workers. SACI was given a 30-
day period to submit these documents.
 SACI, however, failed to submit the oath of undertaking to pay disturbance
compensation to affected workers being required by the Committee and as provided
under DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999. Instead, SACI submitted
an undertaking executed by the affected workers stating that they are amenable to
the package of benefits offered by the company. Nevertheless, those who executed
the deed of undertaking did not represent the majority of the farm workers. Out of
the 95 regular banana workers only 45 and eight (8) supervisors including four (4)
workers who were not included in the workers master list of SACI executed a deed
of undertaking. As regards the 105-hectare pomelo farm, SACI failed to affirm
whether they are going to pursue their offer. Likewise, DAR Region XI reported
that coverage of the same area is on-going, and a different group of potential
beneficiaries have already been identified. Therefore, it could no longer be offered
as a relocation site. Foregoing considered, the Committee, during its 18 August
2000 Meeting, sustained its earlier recommendation to deny the conversion of that
portion of the property planted to bananas and coconuts.

With regard to the rest. of the area, the Committee deferred its decision
subject to the delineation by the SACI of the total area that they can develop within
the allowed five-year period. Likewise, the PLUTC is requesting the SACI to
submit a revised five-year development plan that will show the schedule of
development by phase, by year, and the proposed use for each parcel of land.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The application filed by the Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc.

(SACI), represented by Cynthia Adao-Prat, involving parcels of land planted to
banana[s] and coconut[s] and with Notice of Coverage identified as TCT Nos. T-
10885 (20.9149 ha.), T-14359 (10.9390 ha.), T-41718 (3.3115 ha.), OCT No. V-
19574 or T-9210 (12.1425 ha.), Lot 807 (6.7871 ha.) and portion of P-V-125 (95.00
ha.) and [an] area covered by Lot 53 (5.0672 ha.) with an aggregate area of 154.622
[actually it is 154.1622] hectares is hereby DENIED. The Dar Regional Office of
Region XI is hereby instructed to determine the metes and bounds of the area
subject for distribution to the qualified FWBs.

2. The resolution of the application involving the rest of the area applied for
conversion is DEFERRED pending submission by the applicant of a revised five-
year development plan indicating the specific use of each parcel of land.

SO ORDERED.[8]

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision but the
same was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution, dated September 24, 2004.
Their Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order having been denied,
respondents appealed to the Office of the President (O.P. Case No. 02-1-47.4,
alleging that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform committed serious errors in 1) finding
that a notice of coverage had been issued for the banana area of the landholdings; 2)
giving undue significance to the protest or opposition by SARBAI; 3) requiring a
deed of undertaking even after applicant-appellants written commitment to pay
whatever lawful obligation SACI may incur as a consequence of the conversion; 4)
holding that farms with commercial farm deferment cannot be applied for
conversion; 5) ruling that irrigated lands suitable for agriculture were disqualified
for conversion; and 6) ruling that applicant-appellant had not submitted a five-year
development plan.[9]

In a Decision dated June 30, 2003, the Office of the President through
Presidential Assistant Manuel C. Domingo dismissed the appeal and affirmed in
toto the challenged DAR Orders. Respondents motion for reconsideration was
denied,[10] so they filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review raising
substantially the same issues.

On July 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the
petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby

GIVEN DUE COURSE. Consequently, the assailed Decision and Order dated June
30, 2003 and September 12, 2003, respectively, of the Office of the President, as
well as the Orders dated November 9, 2000 and August 28, 2002 of the DAR
Secretary are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the DAR directs the
MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the distribution of the banana and
coconut areas subject of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage. The Secretary of
the Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby directed to issue a conversion order
covering the aforesaid area under the terms and conditions as provided in pertinent
guidelines of the department. As to the rest of the area applied for conversion,
action on which has been deferred, the DAR Regional Office (DAR Region No.
XI) is hereby DIRECTED to expedite the processing and evaluation of petitioners
land use conversion application in accordance with the provisions of DAR AO
 No.7, Series of 1997, and DAR AO No. 01-99 whenever the provisions of the latter
issuance are made applicable to those applications filed before its effectivity.

The DAR Secretary and all officers and employees acting on his behalf are
hereby enjoined from proceeding with the distribution of petitioners lands under
compulsory acquisition provided in Sec. 16 of R.A. No. 6657. Whatever actions
already taken in pursuance of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage under CARP
are hereby nullified for DARs failure to observe due process therein.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[11]

Hence, this petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred:

I
WHEN IT RULED THAT THE JUNE 16, 1998 NOTICE OF COVERAGE
WAS ILLEGAL AS DAR ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO OBSERVE DUE
PROCESS.
II
WHEN IT RULED THAT DAR SHOULD USE
THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS AND ACCOMPANYING
ORDINANCE OF THE LOCAL SANGGUNIAN AS PRIMARY REFERENCE
SO AS NOT TO DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNIT (LGU) CONCERNED IN RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN
AREAS TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS IN
PURSUANCE TO ITS MANDATE TOWARDS THE GENERAL WELFARE.

III
WHEN IT FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BASIC
PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO
THE REQUIREMENTS
OR PRECONDITIONS FOR LAND CLASSIFICATION/CONVERSION AND
THE BASIC MANDATE OF THE CARP.

With regard to the first issue on due process, this Court holds that, under the
circumstances, a notice of coverage is not an indispensable requirement before DAR
can acquire the subject lots or commercial farms, which are covered by a deferment
period[12] under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or R.A. No 6657
upon its effectivity on June 15, 1998. The pertinent provision of the law states:
 Sec. 11. Commercial Farming. Commercial farms, which are private
agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetables and cut-
flower farms, cacao, coffee and rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate
compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from the effectivity of
this Act.[13] In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first
year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During
the ten-year period, the Government shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these
lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land and the improvements
thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or associations, which shall
thereafter manage the said lands for the workers-beneficiaries. (AS amended by
R.A. 7881; Rules and regulations on the acquisition, valuation compensation and
distribution of deferred commercial farms DAR AO No. 09, s. 1998)

DAR Administrative Order No.9, Series of 1998,[14] on the Rules and

Regulations on the Acquisition, Valuation, Compensation and Distribution of
Deferred Commercial Farms applies to all commercial farms as defined under
Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657:[15]

SEC. 2. Statement of Policies. The acquisition, valuation, compensation,

distribution, operation and management of deferred commercial farms shall be
governed by the following policies:

(a) All commercial farms whose deferment expired as of June 15,

1998 shall be subject to immediate acquisition and distribution under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Those whose deferments have
yet to expire will be acquired and distributed only upon expiration of their
respective deferment period as originally determined by the Department of
Agrarian reform (DAR), or earlier if the DAR determines that the purpose for which
it was deferred no longer exists and revokes its deferment;
The process of acquisition of these commercial farms by DAR is specifically
provided under Article III, Section 9 of the above administrative order, to wit:

SEC. 9. Procedure for Acquisition.The acquisition of deferred commercial

farms shall be governed by the following procedures:

(a) Voluntary Offer to Sell/Compulsory Acquisition

1) The Order of Deferment previously issued over the landholding shall

serve, upon expiration of the deferment period of the subject commercial farm, as
the Notice of Coverage,[16]supported by the Compliance Work Program and
Summary of Exceptions (Form A) originally submitted with the approved
 deferment application. However, for record purposes, the landowner shall be served
a Notice of Expiration of Deferment (Annex 2) which shall contain a reminder of
his right of retention, should he wish to exercise the same;

2) In general, the procedure for acquisition shall follow DAR

Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1998, as amended by DAR Administrative
Order No. 02, Series of 1996, entitled Revised Rules and Procedures governing the
Acquisition of Agricultural Lands subject of Voluntary offer to Sell and
Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, subject to certain
modifications intended to expedite the process as provided herein.

Clearly, it was unnecessary for petitioner to issue a notice of coverage to

respondents in order to place the properties in question under CARP coverage.
Hence, the contention by respondents that due process was not duly observed by
petitioner must fail. Accordingly, the denial of the application for conversion must
be upheld.

As regards the second issue, DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997,
or the Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural
Lands to Non-agricultural Uses prescribes the guidelines for land use conversion:

VI. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

A.
B. General Guidelines
b) Conversion may be allowed if at the time of the application, the lands are
reclassified as commercial, industrial, residential or other non-agricultural
in the new or revised town plans promulgated by the local government unit
(LGU) and approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) or by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) after June 15, 1988, in
accordance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, as implemented by MC No.
54, and Executive Order No. 72, Series of 1993[17] of the Office of the
President.
 In connection with the afore-stated administrative order, Section 20 of
Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991,
empowers the local government units to reclassify agricultural lands:

Sec. 20. Reclassification of Lands. - (a) A city or municipality may, through an

ordinance passed by the Sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the
purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the
manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land
ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as
determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have
substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial
purposes, as determined by the Sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such
reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural
land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance:

(1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, FIFTEEN

PERCENT (15%);
(2) For component cities and first to third class municipalities, ten percent
(10%), and
(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%); Provided
further, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as The
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, shall not be affected by the said
reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall
be governed by Section 65 of said Act.
(c) The local government units shall in conformity with existing laws,
continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted
though zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases
for the future use of land

resources: Provided, That the requirements for food production, human

settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the
preparation of such plans.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing, amending or
modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.[18]

Memorandum Circular No. 54 Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section

20 of R.A. No. 7160 Otherwise Known as the Local Government Code of 1991
Authorizing Cities and Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands Into Non -
Agricultural Uses issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 8, 1993 specified the
scope and limitations on the power of the cities and municipalities to reclassify
agricultural lands into other uses. It provided that all ordinances authorizing
reclassification of agricultural lands shall be subject to the review and approval of
the province in the case of component cities or municipalities, or by the HLURB for
highly urbanized or independent component cities in accordance with Executive
Order No. 72, Series of 1993, thus:

SECTION 4. Use of the comprehensive land use plans[19] and ordinances

as primary reference documents in land use conversions. - Pursuant to RA 6657
and EO 129-A, actions on applications for land use conversions on individual
landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of DAR, which shall utilize as its
primary reference documents the comprehensive land use plans and accompanying
ordinance passed upon and approved by the LGUs concerned, together with the
National Land Use Policy.

Hence, with regard to agricultural lands that have been reclassified for non-
agricultural uses by the local government unit concerned, the CA is correct in
declaring that DAR should refer to the comprehensive land use plans and the
ordinances of the Sanggunian in assessing land use conversion applications, thus:

Construing Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code and the subsequent

administrative issuances implementing the same, we are of the opinion that while
the DAR retains the responsibility for approving or disapproving applications for
land use conversion filed by individual landowners on their landholdings, the
exercise of such authority should be confined to compliance with the requirements
and limitations under existing laws and regulations, such as the allowable
percentage of agricultural [area] to be reclassified, ensuring sufficient food
production, areas non-negotiable for conversion and those falling under
environmentally critical areas or highly restricted for conversion under the NIPAS
law. Definitely, the DARs power in such cases may not be exercised in such a
manner as to defeat the very purpose of the LGU concerned in reclassifying certain
areas to achieve social and economic benefits in pursuit of its mandate towards the
general welfare. Precisely, therefore, the DAR is required to use the comprehensive
land use plans and accompanying ordinances of the local Sanggunian as primary
 references in evaluating applications for land use conversion filed by individual
landowners. In this case, petitioners have already complied with the standard
requirements laid down under the applicable rules and regulations of the DAR....[20]

The conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses shall be strictly

regulated and may be allowed only when the conditions prescribed under R.A. No.
6657 are present.[21] In this regard, the Court agrees with the ratiocination of the CA
that DARs scope of authority in assessing land use conversion applications is limited
to examining whether the requirements prescribed by law and existing rules and
regulations have been complied with. This holds true in the present case where,
because of the creation of the Province of Sarangani and in view of its thrust to
urbanize, particularly its provincial capital which is the Municipality of Alabel, the
local government has reclassified certain portions of its land area from agricultural
to non-agricultural. Thus, to reiterate, in accordance with E.O. No. 72, Series
of 1993, and subject to the limitations prescribed by law, DAR should utilize the
comprehensive land use plans in evaluating the land use conversion application of
respondents whose lands have already been reclassified by the local government for
non-agricultural uses.

This is not to say, however, that every property of respondents which is

included in the comprehensive land use plan of the Municipality of Alabel shall be
automatically granted non-coverage. As mentioned earlier, said application is
subject to the limitations and conditions prescribed by law. One such limitation that
is present here is that a portion of respondents property of 376.5424 hectares, a
portion totaling 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares which are planted to bananas
and coconuts, are covered by CARLs ten-year deferment scheme, which has
expired on June 15, 1998. By law, these lands are subject to redistribution to
CARP beneficiaries upon the lapse of the ten-year period, counted from the
date of the effectivity of the CARL or R.A. No. 6657 on June 15, 1988, which
was way before the creation of the Province of Sarangani and the eventual
reclassification of the agricultural lands into non-agricultural in the
Municipality of Alabel where respondents properties are located.

In short, the creation of the new Province of Sarangani, and the

reclassification that was effected by the Municipality of Alabel did not
operate to supersede the applicable provisions of R.A. No. 6657.

Moreover, Section 20 of the LGC of 1991 on the reclassification of

lands explicitly states that [n]othing in this section shall be construed as
repealing, amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No.
6657. Thus, where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is
no room for interpretation. There is only room for application.[22]
In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the
third issue presented in the petition.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED insofar as the issue on

due process is concerned. In connection with this, the denial by the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) of respondents application for conversion with regard to
the 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares, the deferment period of which has already
expired, is AFFIRMED; and the Orders of the DAR dated November 9, 2000 and
August 28, 2002, directing the MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the
distribution of the banana and coconut areas subject of the June 16, 1998 Notice of
Coverage, are REINSTATED. The Decision and Resolution, dated July 19,
2004 and September 24, 2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 79899, are hereby MODIFIED accordingly.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

[1]
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2]
Rollo, p. 55.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Id.
[6]
These documents are the following: 1) certified true copies of Resolution No. 98-018 of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Alabel; 2) certification of the Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO); 3) zoning certification
issued by the MPDC of Alabel, Sarangani stating that the properties are included in the 1995-2005 Land Use
Plan, and reclassified according to SB Resolution No. 97-08; 4) certification issued by the Municipal
Agriculturist; 5) court clearance; 6) certification issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) that the area is within an agricultural zone; and, 7) certification issued by the National Irrigation
Administration (NIA) Regional Irrigation Manager, and field verification reports of the Provincial Irrigation
Manager that the area is not irrigated and not covered by an irrigation project (Rollo, pp. 56-57).
[7]
PLUTC is composed of representatives from the following government agencies: the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI), Department of Tourism (DOT), HLURB, and the PARC Secretariat.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 62-64.
[9]
Id. at 67.
[10]
In a Resolution dated September 12, 2003.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 83-84.
[12]
Sec. 3
(f) Deferment period refers to the ten (10) year period counted from the start of commercial production and
operation as provided in Sec. 11 of RA 6657, whereby the acquisition and distribution of commercial farms
has been postponed.
[13]
Emphasis supplied.
[14]
Issued on December 23, 1998.
[15]
As amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7881.
[16]
Emphasis supplied.
[17]
Executive Order No. 72 Providing for the Preparation and Implementation of the Comprehensive
Land Use Plans of Local Government Units Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 and
Other Pertinent Laws was issued on March 25, 1993.
[18]
Emphasis supplied.
[19]
Comprehensive Land Use Plan refers to a document accompanied by maps and similar illustrations which
represent the community-desired pattern of population distribution and a proposal for the future allocation of
land to the various land-using activities. It identifies the allocation, character and extent of the areas land
resources to be used for different purposes and includes the process and the criteria employed in the
determination of the land use (Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands
to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999).
[20]
Rollo, p. 82.
[21]
Article 1, Section l(c), DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999.
[22]
Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga, G.R. No. 24116, August 22, 1968,24 SCRA 708, 712.