Answer for number 1 Agrarian Reform

The petitioner seeks to annul the sale of the tenanted land covered by TCT
No. T-0006 executed by the Pedro and Sunshine Mall Corporation. The sale is void
because it violated the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 which forbids the
transfer or alienation of agricultural lands after 12 October 1972 save only for the
tenant beneficiary. (Sta. Monica Industrial and Development Corporation vs. DAR
Regional Director for Region III 555 SCRA 97 and Heirs of Batongbacal v. CA 438
Phil. 283). Moreover, as the factual circumstances point out the, the subject sale
was executed on 30 January 1991 or 19 years after the effectivity of the Presidential
Decree. The lack of an issued emancipation patent is not a ground for the sale of
the landholding to Sunshine Mall Corporation. The ground for transfer or alienation
of the agricultural land is limited only to the tenant beneficiaries. Thus, the sale to
Sunshine Mall Corporation is null and void.
As to the contention of the respondent that the opinion of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Program Officer (PARPO) is sufficient to reclassify the agricultural
land to non-agricultural use. That contention lacked any legal basis. Reclassification
is different from that of Conversion. Conversion is the act of changing the current
use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the
Department of Agrarian Reform. Reclassification, on the other hand, is the act of
specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for nonagricultural uses such as
residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the
requirements and procedure for land use conversion. (Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals,
405 SCRA 440). First, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer is without
authority to reclassify lands. As it is the local government units that can reclassify
lands as provided in Section 3 of RA No. 2264 (The Local Autonomy Act of 1959)
specifically empowers municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and
subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning
Commission (Espiritu et. al vs. Del Rosario G.R. No. 204964). Second, assuming that
there was a proper reclassification such reclassification is unsatisfactory. There is
still a need to secure a clearance with the Department of Agrarian Reform for the
use of the land for non-agricultural purpose. As decided in Ros vs. Department of
Agrarian Reform that after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, agricultural lands,
though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over
which is vested in the DAR. Thus, mere opinion of the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer is insufficient to convert the landholding. Executive Order No. 129A vested
upon the DAR the responsibility of implementing the CARP. Similarly, Section 5(l) of
the same executive order has given the DAR the exclusive authority to approve or
disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial,
and other land uses as may be provided for by law. (Chamber of Real Estate and
Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform 621 SCRA
295).