Hermoso v. CA – GR No. 166748 (GAB V.)  Sec.

3 of RA 6657 defined agricultural land as those land devoted to agricultural

DOCTRINE: For land to be under the ambit of PD 27, there must be a determination on
whether the land is agricultural.
In the case where the condition imposed on the landowner to implement conversion within
a certain period was deleted, the remedy left is disturbance compensation.
activity as defined in thie s act and NOT classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.
o Since the lots were reclassified by the DAR for those purposes, it cannot be
considered as part of PD 27, therefore, he is not entitled to an
emancipation patent.

FACTS:
 2 parcels of land in Bulacan named Lot 3257 and 3415 measuring 2.5 and 1.5850 hec.
were owned by the Francias and was part of a 32 hec land co-owned by other
Francias.
 Since 1978, Hermoso and Banag were tenants occupying and cultivating the lots so
they filed with the DAR a petition for coverage stating that Francias owned the land
and that an emancipation patent must be issued for Hermoso and Banag.
 DAR affirmed and modified which held in abeyance the processing of emancipation
patent until tenancy relationship is established.
 Hermoso relied heavily on the fact that the respondents were not able to realize that
actual conversion of land into residential purposes based on Sec. 36 (1) of RA 3844
which provided that if the landholder does not cultivate the land himself for 3 years
or fail to carry out conversion within a year after dispossession of the tenant, it shall
be presumed that he acted in bad faith and tenant shall have the right to demand
possession of the land and recover damages of loss.
 However, said provision was already amended, deleting the conversion period. The
remedy left was disturbance compensation.
 Case was remanded to the PARAD for computation of disturbance compensation.

 The issue on whether or not they were tenants was upheld and MR was denied.
 1997: Emancipation patent was granted.
 MR was filed contending that the lands were approved for conversion to urban
purposes and that they were not covered by PD 27.

 They filed a petition for review to the CA contending that PD27 does not cover the
land pursuant to the DAR Secretary Order reclassifying the lands and declaring the
same as suited for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, and
that HLURB reclassified the lands in 1978.

 Hermoso claims that he is a tenant and may avail of right granted by PD 27 and that
in effect, the lots are agricultural lands.
 Respondents aver that the lands were already declared for other purposes in 1973.

ISSUES:
 WN the lots are under the ambit of PD 27, entitling him to an emancipation patent.
 NO!
 WN the tenants had the right to demand possession of land.  NO!

HELD:
 Art. XII Sec. 3 of the Constitution mandates that alienable lands of public domain
shall be limited to agricultural lands

 2 types of classification:
o Primary – agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks
(Art. XII Sec. 3)
o Secondary – Lands of public domain may further be classified by law
according to the uses to which they may be devoted.