Case: KASAMAKA-Canlubang, Inc.

Vs Laguna Estate Development Corporation

Date: June 9, 2014
Ponente: J. Peralta

DOCTRINE
The power of the cities and municipalities to adopt zoning ordinances or regulations
converting lands into nonagricultural cannot be denied. Section 3 of R.A. No. 2264,
otherwise known at the Local Autonomy Act empowers a Municipal Council “to adopt
zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations” for the municipality. The law does not
restrict the exercise of such power through an ordinance.

FACTS:
Laguna Estate Development Corporation (LEDC) filed a request with the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform [now Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)] for the conversion of ten (10) parcels of land
located in the Province of Laguna from agricultural to residential land pursuant to Republic Act
No. 3844 which was granted by the Minister on June 4, 1979 provided that certain conditions are
complied with, one of which was that the development of the site shall commence within two (2)
years from receipt of the order of conversion.
On July 4, 2004, KASAMAKA-Canlubang filed a petition for the revocation of the conversion
order alleging that there was a failure to develop the subject parcels of land. Of the ten (10)
parcels of land, conversion order as to eight (8) lands were partially revoked as the two (2) were
excluded from the revocation by virtue of a DAR Exemption order issued on June 26, 1992.
LEDC filed a motion for reconsideration alleging that the eight (8) parcels of land are likewise
outside the ambit of CARL on the basis of zoning ordinances issued by the municipalities
concerned reclassifying said lands as non-agricultural.
DAR Secretary, through its Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI)
Committee, conducted an ocular inspection and declare that, with the exception of one (1) parcel
of land, LEDC failed to substantially comply with the condition of the conversion order to develop
the eight (8) parcels of land,
On appeal, the Office of the President declared that the remaining seven (7) parcels of land
were exempt from the coverage of the CARL and reinstated the Conversion Order.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the conversion order and the municipal ordinances reclassifying the
landholding to non-agricultural land prior to the passage of R.A. 6657 ipso facto change the nature
of existing agricultural lands.
HELD:
The Court ruled in affirmative.
The disputed lands have already been removed from the ambit of CARL on the basis of zoning
ordinances of the municipalities reclassifying said lands as non-agricultural. The power of the
cities and municipalities to adopt zoning ordinances or regulations converting lands into
nonagricultural cannot be denied. In the case of Buklod Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc vs E.M.
Ramos and Sons, Inc., the Court recognized such power in the following manner: Section 3 of R.A.
No. 2264, otherwise known at the Local Autonomy Act empowers a Municipal Council “to adopt
zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations” for the municipality. Clearly, the law does not
restrict the exercise of such power through an ordinance.
By virtue of zoning ordinances issued by the Municipality of Calamba, Laguna, as accepted by
the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao and approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission, the subject lands were effectively converted into residential areas. As such, the
properties herein can no longer be subject to compulsory coverage of the CARL.