Lowie O.

Santiaguel

10. HEIRS OF DELESTE vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011

VELASCO, JR., J.:

Facts:

Spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of
agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan City, consisting of 34.7 hectares. On February 16, 1954,
Hilaria and Virgilio (Gregorios son from another woman) sold the subject property to Dr. Jose Deleste
(Deleste) for PhP 16,000. The deed of sale was notarized on February 17, 1954 and registered on
March 2, 1954. Also, the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new tax
declaration was issued in the name of Deleste

On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates that tenanted
rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to
farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property was placed under the said program. However, only
the heirs of Gregorio were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners.

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.

DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of private respondents who were tenants
and actual cultivators of the subject property. , the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify private
respondents Emancipation Patents.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the subject property is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program

(2) Whether or not respondents acquired vested rights over the land under PD 27

Ruling:

1. Yes it 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. (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 the 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.

2. No. PD 27 is not to be construed as automatically vesting upon these tenant-farmers absolute

ownership over the land they were tilling. Certain requirements must also be complied with, such as
payment of just compensation, before full ownership is vested upon the tenant-farmers.
Land transfer under PD 27 is effected in two (2) stages. The first stage is the issuance of a CLT to a
farmer-beneficiary as soon as the DAR transfers the landholding to the farmer-beneficiary in
recognition that said person is its deemed owner. And the second stage is the issuance of an EP as
proof of full ownership of the landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or lease
rentals by the farmer-beneficiary.

In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it was only
in 1984 that private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an inchoate right
over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements. Considering that the
local zoning ordinance was enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978,
private respondents still had no vested rights to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that
private respondents were issued the CLTs and were deemed owners.

The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since reclassification had taken
place twenty-six (26) years prior to their issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued prior to
reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is
outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
Lowie O. Santiaguel

11. Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

G.R. No. 100091 October 22, 1992

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

Facts:

A piece of land was reserved for CMU by Proclamation No. 467 of President Carlos Garcia. CMU
embarked on a project titled "Kilusang Sariling Sikap" wherein parcels of land were leased to its
faculty members and employees. Under the terms of the program, CMU will assist faculty members
and employee groups through the extension of technical know-how, training and other kinds of
assistance. In turn, they paid the CMU a service fee for use of the land. The agreement explicitly
provided that there will be no tenancy relationship between the lessees and the CMU. A case was
filed by the participants of the "Kilusang Sariling Sikap" for declaration of status as tenants under the
CARP. In its resolution, DARAB, ordered, among others, the segregation of 400 hectares of the land
for distribution under CARP. The land was subjected to coverage on the basis of DAR's determination
that the lands do not meet the condition for exemption, that is, it is not "actually, directly, and
exclusively used" for educational purposes.

Issue:

Is the CMU land covered by CARP?

Who determines whether lands reserved for public use by presidential proclamation is no
longer actually, directly and exclusively used and necessary for the purpose for which they are
reserved?

Ruling:

1. No, it is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A. 6657 because the lands are actually,
directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for school site and campus, including
experimental farm stations for educational purposes, and for establishing seed and seedling research
and pilot production centers.

It was in this same spirit that President Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476, withdrawing from sale or
settlement and reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural College (forerunner of the CMU) a land
reservation of 3,080 hectares as its future campus. It was set up in Bukidnon, in the hinterlands of
Mindanao, in order that it can have enough resources and wide-open spaces to grow as an
agricultural educational institution, to develop and train future farmers of Mindanao and help attract
settlers to that part of the country.

2. By the nature of the CMU, which is a school established to promote agriculture and industry, the
need for a vast tract of agricultural land and for future programs of expansion is obvious
Lowie O. Santiaguel

12. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS
(DECS).

G.R. No. 158228. March 23, 2004

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS: Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS
(formerly Bureau of Education). Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the name of respondent DECS .

Respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing
from 1984-1994. The contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop years or until
2005. 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. Piosa, 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. The recommendation for coverage was approved by DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres
approved the r, the dispositive portion of which reads:

Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which affirmed the Order of the Regional
Director. Respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the decision of
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Hence, the instant petition for review.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).

HELD: No.

While 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, the court is inclined with the
petitioners argument 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.

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 specifying those 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.

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."