REPUBLIC VS CA

G.R. No. 139592

October 5, 2000

FACTS: The five parcels of land in issue which is situated in Jala-Jala were acquired

by private respondent by purchase from Marcela Borja vda. De Torres. The tax

declarations classified the properties as agricultural. DAR issued a Notice of Coverage of

the said land under compulsory acquisition pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II of R.A. 6657

or the Comprehensive Land Reform Law of 1998 (CARL). Private respondent however,

filed with the DAR Regional Office an application for exemption of the land from agrarian

reform. DAR Regional Director recommended a denial of the said petition, on the ground

that private respondent failed to substantiate their 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

this time alleging that the property is within the residential and forest conservation zones

of the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala and that a portion of about 15 hectares of

the land is irrigated Riceland.

DAR Secretary denied the application on the grounds that the certification issued by

the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) is not definite and specific; and

that the certification issued by the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) that the area is not

irrigated nor programmed for irrigation, is not conclusive on the DAR. The motion for

reconsideration filed by private respondent was likewise denied by the DAR Secretary.

On Appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the assailed DAR orders.

ISSUE: Whether the parcels of land in issue are exempt from the coverage of the CARL
HELD: No. The determination of the classification and physical condition of the lands is

material in the disposition of this case, for which purpose the Court of Appeals constituted

the commission to inspect and survey said properties. The survey revealed 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. Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL)

of 1998 covers all public and private agricultural lands. 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.

Petitioner DAR’s contention that the subject properties have already been

classified as agricultural based on the tax declarations and once the classification of lands

is determined by law may not be varied or altered by the results of a mere ocular or aerial

inspection is without merit. 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 land use map is the more appropriate document to

consider than tax declarations.

 BUKLOD NG MAMBUBUKID SA LUPAIN NG RAMOS VS E.M. RAMOS & SONS

645 SCRA 401

FACTS: Respondent acquired the parcels of land in issue located at Dasmarinas, Cavite

from its original owner, Manila Golf Club for purpose of developing the same into a

residential subdivision. The Municipal Council of Dasmarinas Cavite, enacted M.O. No. 1

“An Ordinance Providing Subdivision Regulation and Providing Penalties for Violation

Thereof”. In 1972, Respondents applied for authority to convert and develop the parcels

of land in question into a residential subdivision. Attached in the application is the detailed

development plans and proposals. Municipal Council approved the application in

conformity with the Development Plan and Municipality of Dasmarinas, Cavite.

Under the Aquino government, however, a plan to convert neighboring property of

the National Development Company into an industrial estate was commenced. And due

to the insufficiency of the NDC property the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was

thus tasked with acquiring additional lands from the nearby areas thereby covering the

property of respondents. Notices of acquisition are sent to the respondents each drew

protest from the respondents thus they filed with the DAR separate petitions to nullify said

notices. A hearing was conducted for the matter. DAR Region IV decided in favor of

respondents thereby annulling all the notices of acquisition declaring that the parcels of

land in question were already converted to non-agricultural land before 1988 thus they

are exempt from the coverage of CARP.

The regional Director of DAR elevated the case to the Office of Agrarian Reform

Secretary. DAR Secretary reversed the decision and affirmed the Notices of Acquisition
directing the OAR to pursue the said notices. Motion for reconsideration by the

respondents were denied thus they appealed to the Office of the President. The appeal

was dismissed. After the denial of a motion for reconsideration, petition for review was

filed by respondents before the CA. CA issued a temporary retraining order to the

implementation of the decision of the OP. Subsequently, respondents’ prayer for the

issuance of writ of preliminary injunction was granted.

At this juncture, the DAR had already prepared Certificates of Land Ownership

Award (CLOAs) to distribute the subject property to farmer-beneficiaries. However, the

writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals enjoined the release of the

CLOAs. Buklod, on behalf of the alleged 300 farmer-beneficiaries of the subject property,

filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion, wherein it moved that it be allowed to intervene

in the case and prayed for the immediate dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction

as it violates Section 55 of CARL. CA allowed the intervention of Buklod but sustained

their decision in favor of the respondents because the subject property was already

converted/classified as residential by the Municipality of Dasmariñas prior to the effectivity

of the CARL. The case was aaleviated for the resolution by the Supreme Court.

ISSUEs: (1) Whether or not Resolution No. 29-A of the Municipality of Dasmariñas

dated July 9, 1972, which approved the subdivision of the subject property for residential

purposes, had also reclassified the same from agricultural to residential.

(2) Whether or not the parcels of land in question is covered under CARP.
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA and ruled in favor of

respondents.

(1) YES. The Municipal Council of Dasmariñas approved Ordinance No.

1 on July 13, 1971, which laid down the general subdivision regulations for the

municipality; and Resolution No. 29-A on July 9, 1972, which approved the application

for subdivision of the subject property. Zoning classification is an exercise by the local

government of police power, not the power of eminent domain. A zoning ordinance is

defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes,

defines, and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present

and future projection of needs. According to the definition of reclassification, the specified

non-agricultural use of the land must be embodied in a land use plan, and the land use

plan is enacted through a zoning ordinance. Thus, zoning and

planning ordinances take precedence over reclassification. The reclassification of land

use is dependent on the zoning and land use plan, not the other way around. It may,

therefore, be reasonably presumed that when city and municipal boards and councils

approved an ordinance delineating an area or district in their cities or municipalities as

residential, commercial, or industrial zone, pursuant to the power granted to them under

Section 3 of the Local Autonomy Act of 1959, they were, at the same time, reclassifying

any agricultural lands within the zone for non-agri cultural use; hence, ensuring the

implementation of and compliance with their zoning ordinances.

(2) No. Section 4 of CARP outlines the scope of the said law. The CARL took

effect on June 15, 1988. To be exempt from the CARP, the subject property should have
already been reclassified as residential prior to said date. The parcel of land in question

falls under this exemption.

 HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE

G.R. No. 169913

June 8, 2011

FACTS: A parcel of agricultural land situated in Tambo, Iligan City were owned by

spouses Gregorio and Hilaria. Virgilio, son of Gregorio from another woman whom they

were raising since he was 2 years old. When Gregorio died, Hilaria and Virgilio

administered the subject property and on 1954, sold the same the Dr, Deleste for P16,000

and from the transfer of ownership, the latter had been paying the taxes of said property.

When Hilaria died, Gregorios brother, Juan was appointed as special administrator of the

estate of the deceased spouses and Noel was appointed as regular administrator of the

joint estate. As the administrator of the intestate estate, Noel filed an action against

Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject property. Court ruled that the latter could

only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste. As a result, Deleste,

who died in 1992, and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of

the subject property, each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it. While the case was pending

on the CFI, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued on October 21, 1972 mandating

tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer and awarded

to farmer-beneficiaries. The subject property was placed under the said program.

However, only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by the (DAR) as the landowners thus,

the notices and processes relative to the coverage were sent to these heirs.

In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the Zoning

Regulation of Iligan City, reclassifying the subject property as commercial/residential.

 Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer in

favor of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject

property. In 1991 the property was surveyed

USSUE: Whether or not the land in question is covered by agrarian reform given that the

city of Iligan Passed City Ordinance 1313 reclassifying the area into a strictly residential

area in 1975.

HELD: YES. Lot No.1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view

of the enactment by the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance, City Ordinance No.

1313. It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural

into non-agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, this

Court held that pursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local

Government Code, municipal and/or city councils are empowered to adopt zoning and

subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning

Commission. It was also emphasized therein that [t]he power of the local government to

convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage

of RA 6657] is not subject to the approval of the DAR. Thus, by virtue of City Ordinance

No. 1313, said land is reclassified the subject land into a residential area thereby

exempting it from the coverage of agrarian reform.

 CMU vs. DARAB

G.R. No. 100091

October 22, 1992

FACTS: President Carlos P. Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476 withdrawing from sale

of settlement and reserving for Mindanao Agricultural College, a 3, 401 hectares site

which would be the future campus of what is now the CMU. To cope with the increase in

its enrollment, it has expanded and improved its educational facilities partly from

government appropriation and partly by self-help measures or implementation of the

“Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program”. Under this written contract, the land resources of the

University were leased to its faculty and employees. Among the participants in this

program were Alvin Obrique, Felix Guinanao, Joven Caballero, Nestor Pulao, Danilo

Vasquez, Aronio Pelayo and other complainants. Obrique was a Physics Instructor at the

CMU while the others were employees in the lowland rice project. When petitioner Dr.

Leonardo Chua became President of the CMU in July 1986, he discontinued the agri-

business project for the production of rice, corn and sugar cane known as Agri-Business

Management and Training Project, due to losses incurred while carrying on the said

project. Obrique was found guilty of mishandling the CMU funds and was separated from

service by virtue of Executive Order No. 17, the re-organization law of the CMU.

In their complaint, docketed as DAR Case No. 5, filed with the DARAB,

complainants Obrique, et al. claimed that they are tenants of the CMU and/or landless

peasants claiming/occupying a part or portion of the CMU. It is found out however, by

DARAB that based on their written contract, it is stipulated that there exist no tenant-

Landlord relationship.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complainants are tenants of CMU, hence, beneficiaries of

CARP.

HELD: No. Complainants were not tenants of CMU considering the terms and conditions

of their written agreement pursuant to the livelihood program called “Kilusang Sariling

Sikap Program”. The express stipulation that no “landlord-tenant” relationship exist

between CMU and the faculty and staff disqualifies the complainants for the benefits

under CARP.
 DAR vs. DECS

G.R. No. 158228

March 23, 2004

FACTS: Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D were donated by the late Jalandoni to

respondents DECS, thus, titles were transferred in the latter’s name. On 1985,

respondents leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10 years and was

extended for another 10 agricultural crop years. On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and

several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers of the subject lands,

filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the

Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante. After investigation, MARO

Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that the

subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a conference

with the farmer beneficiaries. In 1998, DAR RD Andres approved the coverage of the

landholdings subjecting the land under CARL. DECS appealed but the same was denied

by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. On petition for certiorari, CA set aside the decision

of the SAR.

ISSUE: Whether or not the parcels of land in question is exempt from the coverage of

CARL

HELD: No. The general policy under CARL is to cover as much lands suitable for

agriculture as possible. Specifically, the following lands are covered by the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:

 (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.

The records of the case show that the subject properties were formerly private

agricultural lands owned by the late 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. 12 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. Thus, the subject property is still under the coverage of CARL.
 MILESTONE FARMS vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

G.R. No. 170018

FACTS: Some of the pertinent secondary purposes of Milestone Farms is to raise

cattle, pigs, and other livestock; breed, raise and sell poultry; and import cattle, pigs, and

other livestock, and animal food necessary for raising said cattle, pigs, and other

livestock. On June 10, 1998, CARL took effect. In 1993, petitioner applied for the

exemption of its 316.0422-hectare property pursuant to the ruling of Luz Farms Case.

Meanwhile, DAR issued AO. No.9 series of 1993 setting regulations to govern the

exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP

coverage. Thus, Milestone re-documented their application in consonance with the said

AO. Inspection was conducted on the petitioner’s property and exemption of said portion

was recommended. The Regional Director of DAR Dalugdug adopted the

recommendation. Pinugay Framers moved for the reconsideration of the approval but

was denied by RD Dalugdug. Hence, they appealed to the DAR Secretary. Dar Secretary

issued an order of exemption only to the 240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 hectares of

the subject property. Upon a motion for reconsideration, the Office of the president

reinstated the decision of DAR Secretary. Subsequently, DAR AO no. 9 was declared

unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Whether or not Milestone property should be exempted from the coverage of

CARP.
HELD: No. It was found put by the CA that unlike in the LUZ Farm Case, the land was

exempted because the same does not fall under the definition of agricultural land while

the subject property under the present case was not exclusively used or devoted to

livestock, swine, and, or poultry raising hence, fall under the coverage of CARP.
 STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. CA

G.R. No. 112526.

October 12, 2001

FACTS: Petitioner Sta. Realty Development was the registered owner of two parcels of

land which according to them are watersheds which provide clean potable water to the

Canlubang community. They alleged that respondents usurped their right over the

property thereby destroying the ecosystem. Sometime on December 1985, respondents

filed a civil case seeking for right of way to and from barangay Casille. By way of a

counterclaim, petitioner sought the ejectment of the respondents. After the filing of

ejectment cases, respondent petitioned the DAR for the compulsory acquisition of the

petitioner’s property under the CARP. The landholding of the petitioner’s property was

placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner protested alleging that the subject

property was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged with terrain

and slopes of 18% and above and that the occupants were squatters, who were not

entitled to any land as beneficiaries. The DARAB rule in favor of the petitioners. On

appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of DARAB.

ISSUE: Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP

HELD: Watershed is one of those enumerated by CARP to be exempt from its coverage.

We cannot ignore the fact that parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be

protected for watershed purposes. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate

supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damaged

property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an intergeneration

responsibility that needs to be answered now.