Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
At this juncture, the DAR had already prepared Certificates of Land Ownership
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
their decision in favor of the respondents because the subject property was already
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
(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 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
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
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
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
(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
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
favor of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject
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
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
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
“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
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
between CMU and the faculty and staff disqualifies the complainants for the benefits
under CARP.
DAR vs. DECS
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
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
shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damaged