PRIVATE LANDS- Susi Case ntbk
         Existing Property Rights Regimes. — Property rights within the
DOJ Opinion No. 100 (2012)
When the conditions specified in Section 48 (b) 15 of the Public Land Act are
complied with, the possessor is deemed to have acquired, by operation of law, a
right to a grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. The
land, therefore, ceases to be of the public domain, and beyond the authority of
the director of lands to dispose of. The application for confirmation is a mere
formality, the lack of which does not affect the legal sufficiency of the title as
would be evidenced by the patent and the Torrens title to be issued upon the
strength of said patent. 16 This means that once title to alienable public land
passes to a private individual, it is segregated from the lands of the public
domain and becomes private land subject to the rights of private ownership.
Nevertheless, for reasons of public interest, the state may follow such lands into
private hands and impose limitations on them. One such limitation is found in
Section 122, supra, of the Public Land Act.  Minority of the Cordillera Administrative Region, filed a Petition3 for Redemption
The Supreme Court held that Section 122 of the Public Land Act which allowed
an individual to acquire a maximum of 144 hectares of alienable public land has
been amended by Section 11, Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution by reducing
the said area to not more than 24 hectares. 18 This limitation has been further
reduced to 12 hectares pursuant to Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution and
R.A. No. 9176. The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions,
is to transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public
domain to a qualified individual.   DICcTa
 
Having settled that the limitation is now 12 hectares, Section 31, supra, of the
Public Land Act is the applicable provision on the treatment of the excess area.
To repeat, Section 31 provides that any excess in area over this maximum and all
right, title, interest, claim or action held by any person, corporation, association,
or partnership resulting directly or indirectly in such excess shall revert to the
State. This interpretation is in accord with the Regalian doctrine and its
concomitant assumption that all lands owned by the State, although declared
alienable or disposable, remain as such and ought to be used only by the
Government.  of the requisites of a tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondents.
Exemption
Ancestral Domain
-R.A. No. 6657 SECTION 9. Ancestral Lands. —For purposes of this Act,
ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall include, but not be
limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation
of the community and its members: Provided, That the Torrens Systems shall
be respected. The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be
protected to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with
the principles of self-determination and autonomy, the systems of land
ownership, land use, and the modes of settling land disputes of all these
communities must be recognized and
respected.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the
implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose
of identifying and delineating such lands: Provided, That in the autonomous
regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own laws on ancestral
domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles
enunciated in this Act and other national laws.
-R.A. No. 8371
a)              Ancestral Domains — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refer to all areas
generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas,
and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or
possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or
individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present except when
interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as
a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered
into by government and private individuals/corporations, and which are
necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include
ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands
individually owned whether alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting
grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other
natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by
ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and
traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still
nomadic and/or shifting cultivators;
b)              Ancestral Lands — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land
occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are
members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group
ownership, continuously, to the present except when interrupted by war, force
majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth, or as a consequence of
government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into by government
and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to, residential
lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots;
SECTION 56.
ancestral domains already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of this Act,
shall be recognized and respected.
CMU v. Executive Secretary (ntbk)
Tanenglian v. Lorenzo
This case involves two parcels of land (subject properties), located and adjacent
to the Sto. Tomas Baguio Road, with areas of 7,860 square meters and 21,882
square meters, covered respectively by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) No. T-
29281 and T-29282 registered in the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City both in the
name of petitioner.
Respondents Silvestre Lorenzo, et al., members of the Indigenous Cultural
under Sec. 12, Republic Act No. 3844 4 dated 29 July 1998 before the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying that: (1) they be allowed
to exercise their right of redemption over the subject properties; (2) TCTs No. T-
29281and T-29282 in the name of petitioner be declared null and void; (3) the
subject properties be declared as ancestral land pursuant to Section 9 of
Republic Act No. 6657;5 and (4) petitioner be ordered to pay disturbance
compensation to respondents.
The issue involved in this case is no less than the jurisdiction of the Regional
Arbitrator to render its Decision dated 16 August 1999 declaring the subject
properties as ancestral lands. As well, it is too flagrant to be ignored that these
lands are covered by a Torrens title in the name of the petitioner. The Court of
Appeals should have looked past rules of technicality to resolve the case on its
merits.
In this case, respondents did not allege much less prove that they are tenants of
the subject properties. There is likewise no independent evidence to prove any
What they insist upon is that they are occupying their ancestral lands covered by
the protection of the law.
The third claim of herein Petitioners as prayed for is their right to "ancestral
lands" under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6657. The rights of these communities
of their ancestral land shall be protected to insure their economic, social and
cultural well-being. In line with the principles of self-determination and
autonomy, the system of land ownership, land use and the modes of settling
land disputes of all these communities must be recognized and respected.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the
implementation of the act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of
identifying and delineating such lands; Provided, that in the autonomous regions,
the respective legislatures may enact their own laws in ancestral domain subject
to the provisions of the constitution and the principles enumerated, initiated in
this Act and other (sic).
Applying the aforecited provisions of law, it is clear without fear of contradiction
that herein Petitioners are members of the indigenous cultural community (the
Kankanais and Ibalois) of the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR). It is also
clear that they have been in the actual, continuous and in open possession and
occupation of the community as evidenced by residential houses, tax
declarations and improvements as seen during the ocular inspection (the
property in question).
Republic Act No. 8371 creates the National Commission on Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous People (NCIP) which shall be the primary government
agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and
programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the indigenous
cultural communities/indigenous people (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their
ancestral domains as well as their rights thereto.33
Prior to Republic Act No. 8371, ancestral domains and lands were delineated
under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and
governed by DENR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1993. Presently, the
process of delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and lands is guided
by the principle of self-delineation and is set forth under Sections 52 and 53,
Chapter VIII of Republic Act No. 8371;34 and in Part I, Rule VII of NCIP
Administrative Order No. 01-98 (Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic
Act No. 8371).35 Official delineation is under the jurisdiction of the Ancestral
Domains Office (ADO) of the NCIP.36
It is irrefragable, therefore, that the Regional Adjudicator overstepped the
boundaries of his jurisdiction when he made a declaration that the subject
properties are ancestral lands and proceeded to award the same to the
respondents, when jurisdiction over the delineation and recognition of the same
is explicitly conferred on the NCIP. P=GRANT
Homestead Patent
R.A. 6657 SECTION 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in
this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or
private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors
governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the
landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to
the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2)
that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That
landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall
be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided,
further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who
still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall
retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact
or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case
the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall
have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the
same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case
the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a
leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the
tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right
as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise
this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention. In all cases, the security of tenure
of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall
be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease,
management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the
original landowner in violation of the Act shall be null and void: Provided,
however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when
registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after
the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction
involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
Danilo Almero v. Heirs of Miguel Pacquing
In January 1992, respondent Linda Pacquing-Fadrilan, sole heir of the spouses
Pacquing, executed an affidavit adjudicating to herself ownership of the
property. In August of the sameyear, she filed an application for retention with
the DAR Regional Directorwho denied Linda’s application in an order dated
December 14, 1993. The order denying Linda’s application for retention later
became final and executory.
On June 25, 1994, certain individuals, including the present petitioners who were
earlier identified as farmer-beneficiaries of the subject land, were issued CLOAs
over their respective cultivated portions of the property.
In a resolution dated June 29, 2001, the DARAB nullified the TCTs issued to
Napoleon Villa Sr. et. al. and reinstated Linda’s title to the property. At the same
time, the DARAB ordered the generation and issuance of titles to the petitioners
and other farmer-beneficiaries of the subject land. In a subsequent resolution
dated September 28, 2001, the DARAB validated the TCTs issued to the following
individuals: Danilo Almero, Celia Bulaso, Ludy Ramada, Isidro Lazarte, Cepriano
Lazarte, Thelma Emorque, Domingo Juanico, Candido Labeste and Renato
Benimate.
In this case, it is undisputed that the subject landholdings were still owned by the
original homestead grantees at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657.
However,the said homestead grantees no longer cultivate the same. Therefore,
on this score, the subject landholdings cannot be exempted from CARP coverage
The subject land, being agricultural in nature, is clearly not exempt from CARP
coverage.
But Linda argues that the subject land is exempt from CARP primarily because it
was acquired by her father viaa homestead patent. She claims that the rights of
homestead grantees have been held superior to those of agrarian reform
tenants and, thus, her right to the subject land must be upheld. The OP, agreeing
with the respondent, stated that:
"There can be no question that, weighed against each other, the rights of a
homesteader prevail over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by agrarian
reform laws.
Thus, in order for the homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs to
retain or keep their homestead, the following conditions must first be satisfied:
(a) they must still be the owners of the original homestead at the time of the
CARL's effectivity, and (b) they must continue to cultivate the homestead land.
In this case, Linda, as the direct compulsory heir of the original homestead
grantee, is no longer cultivating the subject homestead land. The OP
misinterpreted our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche 20 when it held that Linda's mere
expression of her desire to continue or to start anew with the cultivation of the
land would suffice to exempt the subject homestead land from the CARL
"Indisputably, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and
retain the original homestead, only for "as long as they continue to cultivate"
them. That parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not
automatically exempt them from the operation of land reform. It is the fact of
continued cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
that shall exempt their lands from land reform coverage.
Undeveloped 18% Slope
P.D. 705 Section 15. Topography. No land of the public domain eighteen per cent
(18%) in slope or over shall be classified as alienable and disposable, nor any
forest land fifty per cent (50%) in slope or over, as grazing land.
Lands eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over which have already been declared
as alienable and disposable shall be reverted to the classification of forest lands
by the Department Head, to form part of the forest reserves, unless they are
already covered by existing titles or approved public land application, or actually
occupied openly, continuously, adversely and publicly for a period of not less
than thirty (30) years as of the effectivity of this Code, where the occupant is
qualified for a free patent under the Public Land Act: Provided, That said lands,
which are not yet part of a well-established communities, shall be kept in a
vegetative condition sufficient to prevent erosion and adverse effects on the
lowlands and streams: Provided, further, That when public interest so requires,
steps shall be taken to expropriate, cancel defective titles, reject public land
application, or eject occupants thereof.
Slope gradient is a key factor in influencing the relative stability of a slope. It
determines the degree to which gravity acts upon a soil mass. Slopes are often
irregular and complex, with gradients varying greatly throughout a given
shoreline profile. Each slope profile section should be treated as a separate
management and restoration site unit. Slope gradient can be expressed in
several ways. The slope determination formulas (Figure 1) and common slope
gradients table (Figure 2) illustrate the three commonly used notations (ratio,
percent and angle).
Reyes v. Fil-Estate Properties Inc. and CA
Central to the controversy is a portion of Hacienda Looc consisting of ten parcels
of land with an aggregate area of 1,219.0133 hectares which was previously
awarded to petitioners as evidenced by their Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs). At the instance of private respondent Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.
(Fil-Estate), however, which sought the exclusion of the parcels of land from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the CLOAs were cancelled by
the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) on the ground that the lands
were agriculturally undeveloped and had an average slope of more than 18%.
Petitioners are the tenants of the disputed portion of Hacienda Looc which has
been the subject of application for exclusion from CARP coverage pursuant to
Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1994.3
Hacienda Looc is an 8,650-hectare property located in Nasugbu, Batangas
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-28719 of the Registry of
Deeds for the Province of Batangas. It is comprised of four barangays, namely,
Calayo, Looc, Papaya and Bulihan, and has a total population of more than
10,000. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 14 issued on February 3, 1987 by
President Corazon C. Aquino, certain assets and liabilities of DBP were
transferred to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. Among the
properties that were transferred was Hacienda Looc.
On October 17, 1995, MSDC, Carmona Realty and private respondent executed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to enable MSDC and private respondent to
have a joint venture agreement relative to the development of Hacienda Looc
into a mixed-use residential, commercial, resort, leisure and recreational
complex. Likewise, under the agreement, MSDC and private respondent shall
immediately develop about 1,269 hectares of the hacienda, comprised largely of
the afore-mentioned ten parcels of land.
Between the months of January and June of 1996, the DAR Regional Adjudicator
issued three Partial Summary Judgments canceling the fifteen (15) CLOAs issued
to the farmers, including those covering the ten parcels of land. The cancellation
was grounded on the waiver allegedly executed by the farmer-beneficiaries who
declared that the lands they were tilling were not suitable for agriculture.
On October 4, 1996, private respondent, by virtue of a Joint Venture Agreement
with MSDC for the purpose of developing the area covered by the ten cancelled
CLOAs, filed a Petition for Exclusion5 of the subject lots from CARP coverage on
the ground that they had an average slope of more than eighteen percent (18%),
and the area "has no semblance of agricultural development whatsoever."
In relation to the instant petition, Section 10 of R.A. No 6657 states that "all
lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act."
One of the reasons why petitioners are objecting to the cancellation of their
CLOAs and the exclusion of the ten parcels of land from CARP coverage is
because these lots are agricultural and developed. While it is true that the DAR
officials have generally found the lots to have an average slope of 18%, the
contention that the same have been cultivated and are actually agriculturally
developed so as to make them subject to CARP is a factual matter that must be
looked into. As indicated by Undersecretary Soliman in his fact-finding
report:1awphi1.net
[A]s a general rule, lands which are above 18% slope are exempt from CARP,
but their land use should be compatible with the underlying basis for
exemption, meaning reforestation and soil conservation. Therefore, as a
general rule also, these areas should not be converted to uses other than agro-
forestry, reforestation, or other environmentally sustainable uses. Otherwise,
the very purpose of their exemption from CARP (and their shifting to the
DENR’s reforestation and soil conservation program) would be circumvented
all the more.
Having clearly stated the position, we now come to the discussion of the 1,152
hectares more or less of developed areas within the 25 titles. It could be
generally conceded that the areas which are subject of the 25 CLOA titles are
sloping areas, and are above 18% in slope. However, under Sec. 10 of RA 6657, if
the area is developed, then they could still be covered by CARP. It is also a fact
that the Task Force Hacienda Looc … did not recommend the cancellation of all
the titles, but only 2,829 hectares, contending that some 1,152 hectares are
developed and therefore could be covered by CARP. Moreover, this
recommendation has been approved by then Regional Director, Percival
Dalugdug.
A quick perusal of the records reveals that this very outstanding fact that some
1,152 hectares of land which are spread out over 25 titles under CLOA, was in
fact recommended to be covered under CARP but somehow, this fact was lost in
the process. What was primarily relied upon by the adjudicator was the waivers
signed by the farmers who declared that the land they are tilling is not suitable
for agriculture.
We beg to disagree with the waivers signed by the farmers in this particular case,
considering their uniform phraseology and format. They have obviously been
prepared y persons who are interested in having the titles cancelled, and the
farmers have been merely asked to sign the same. The primordial authority of
the DAR, that of making an administrative determination of whether the land is
suitable for agriculture or not, has been supplanted in this case by a
determination of the farmers whether the land is suitable or not for agriculture…
Guerrero v. CA (weh)
Sometime in the early part of 1973, plaintiff was refrained from gathering nuts
from the 10-hectare portion of the 16-hectare part of the plantation from where
he used to gather nuts. He felt aggrieved by the acts of defendants and he
brought the matter to the attention of the Office of Special Unit in the Office of
the President in Malacanang, Manila. This led to an execution of an agreement,
now marked as Exh. D, whereby defendants agreed, among others, to let plaintiff
work on the 16-hectare portion of the plantation as tenant thereon and that
their relationship will be guided by the provisions of republic Act No. 1199. The
Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines.
Then in July, 1973, he was again refrained from gathering nuts from the 10-
hectare portion of the plantation with threats of bodily harm if he persists to
gather fruits therefrom. Defendant spouses, the Guerreros, then assigned
defendants Rogelio and Paulino Latigay to do the gathering of the nuts and the
processing thereof into copra. Defendants Guerreros also caused to be
demolished a part of the cottage where plaintiff and his family lived, thus,
making plaintiffs feel that they (defendants) meant business. Hence, this case for
reinstatement with damages.
The respondent's status as agricultural tenant should be without question.
Once a tenancy relationship is established, the tenant has the right to continue
working until such relationship is extinguished according to law.
The respondent has been unlawfully deprived of his right to security of tenure
and the Court of Agrarian Reforms did not err in ordering the reinstatement of
respondent as tenant and granting him damages therefor.
Before we close this case, it is pertinent to reiterate that the respondent's right
as share tenant do not end with the abolition of share tenancy. As the law seeks
to "uplift the farmers from poverty, ignorance and stagnation to make them
dignified, self-reliant, strong and responsible citizens ... active participants in
nation-building", agricultural share tenants are given the right to leasehold
tenancy as a first step towards the ultimate status of owner-cultivator, a goal
sought to be achieved by the government program of land reform.
It is true that leasehold tenancy for coconut lands and sugar lands has not yet
been implemented. The policy makers of government are still studying the
feasibility of its application and the consequences of its implementation.
Legislation still has to be enacted. Nonetheless, wherever it may be
implemented, the eventual goal of having strong and independent farmers
working on lands which they own remains. The petitioners' arguments which
would use the enactment of the Agrarian Reform Code as the basis for setting
back or eliminating the tenurial rights of the tenant have no merit.
Fishponds
Public Policy
R.A. 6657 SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. —Lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and
mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental
farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes,
seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and
convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant
thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and
quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over,
except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of the Act.
DAR V. DECS
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. 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. 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 petitioner’s
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 public or private schools for educational purposes."
exclusively used for Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were donated by the late Esteban
educational purposes. Jalandoni to
Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of Education).
exempted from the
coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption specifying those Consequently, titles thereto were transferred
“lands actually, in the name of respondent DECS .
directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, Respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10
school sites and agricultural crop
campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or years, commencing from 1984-1994. The contract of lease was
private schools for subsequently renewed for
educational purposes, …, shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.” another 10 agricultural crop years or until 2005. On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar
Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be exempt from the and several
coverage: 1) the others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers of the subject lands,
land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;" filed a petition
and 2) the for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal
purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations Agrarian Reform
operated by Office (MARO) of Escalante.
public or private schools for educational purposes." After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of Coverage" to
Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were donated by the late Esteban respondent DECS,
Jalandoni to stating that the subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its
respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of Education). representatives for a
conference with the farmer beneficiaries. The recommendation for coverage was
Consequently, titles thereto were transferred approved by
in the name of respondent DECS . DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres approved the r, the dispositive
Respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10 portion of which
agricultural crop reads:
years, commencing from 1984-1994. The contract of lease was Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which
subsequently renewed for affirmed the
another 10 agricultural crop years or until 2005. On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar Order of the Regional Director. Respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari
and several with the Court of
others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers of the subject lands, Appeals, which set aside the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
filed a petition Hence, the instant
for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal petition for review.
Agrarian Reform ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of
Office (MARO) of Escalante. Republic Act No.
After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of Coverage" to 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998
respondent DECS, (CARL).
stating that the subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its HELD: No.
representatives for a While respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground
conference with the farmer beneficiaries. The recommendation for coverage was that all the
approved by income derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation
DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres approved the r, the dispositive were actually,
portion of which directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs
reads: and renovations
Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which of schools in the nearby locality, the court is inclined with the petitioner’s
affirmed the argument that the
Order of the Regional Director. Respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP coverage because
with the Court of the same are not
Appeals, which set aside the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as they are in
Hence, the instant fact leased to
petition for review. Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to be exempt from the coverage,
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of it is the land per
Republic Act No. se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and
6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 exclusively used for
(CARL). educational purposes.
HELD: No. Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are
While respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground exempted from the
that all the coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption specifying those
income derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation “lands actually,
were actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense,
directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs school sites and
and renovations campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or
of schools in the nearby locality, the court is inclined with the petitioner’s private schools for
argument that the educational purposes, …, shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.”
lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP coverage because Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be exempt from the
the same are not coverage: 1) the
actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as they are in land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;"
fact leased to and 2) the
Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to be exempt from the coverage, purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations
it is the land per operated by
se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and public or private schools for educational purposes."
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

Lung Center v. Quezon City
FACTS: The petitioner Lung Center of the Philippines is the registered owner of a
parcel of land located at Quezon City and erected in the middle is a hospital
known as the Lung Center of the Philippines.
The petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients. It also renders medical
services to out-patients, both paying and non-paying, as well as private leases.
Both the land and the hospital building of the petitioner were assessed for real
property taxes in the amount of P4,554,860 by the City Assessor of Quezon City.
The petitioner filed a Claim for Exemption5 from real property taxes with the City
Assessor, stating that it is a charitable institution within the context of Section
28(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the petitioner is a charitable institution within the context
of Presidential Decree No. 1823 and the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and
Section 234(b) of Republic Act No. 7160; and (2) whether the real properties of
the petitioner are exempt from real property taxes.
RULING: (1) Yes. The Court held that the petitioner is a charitable institution
within the context of the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
The test whether an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry
out a purpose reorganized in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for
gain, profit, or private advantage. Hence, the Lung Center was organized for the
welfare and benefit of the Filipino people.
As a general principle, a charitable institution does not lose its character as such
and its exemption from taxes simply because it derives income from paying
patients, so long as the money received is devoted to charitable objects and no
money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the
institution. As well as the reason of donation in the form of subsidies granted by
the government.
(2) No. Those portions of its real property that are leased to private entities are
not exempt from real property taxes as these are not actually, directly and
exclusively used for charitable purposes.
The petitioner failed to prove that the entirety of its real property is actually,
directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes. While portions of the
hospital are used for the treatment of patients and the dispensation of medical
services to them, whether paying or non-paying, other portions thereof are
being leased to private individuals for their clinics and a canteen.
Hence, the portions of the land leased to private entities as well as those parts of
the hospital leased to private individuals are not exempt from such taxes. On the
other hand, the portions of the land occupied by the hospital and portions of the
hospital used for its patients, whether paying or non-paying, are exempt from
real property taxes.
EXCLUSIVELY - Under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions and Rep.
Act No. 7160 in order to be entitled to the exemption, the petitioner is
burdened to prove, by clear and unequivocal proof, that (a) it is a
charitable institution; and (b) its real properties
are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY used for charitable
purposes. "Exclusive" is defined as possessed and enjoyed to the
exclusion of others; debarred from participation or enjoyment; and
"exclusively" is defined, "in a manner to exclude; as enjoying a
privilege exclusively."40 If real property is used for one or more
commercial purposes, it is not exclusively used for the exempted
purposes but is subject to taxation. 41 The words "dominant use" or
"principal use" cannot be substituted for the words "used exclusively"
without doing violence to the Constitutions and the law. 42 Solely is
synonymous with exclusively.43
What is meant by actual, direct and exclusive use of the property for
charitable purposes is the direct and immediate and actual application
of the property itself to the purposes for which the charitable institution
is organized. It is not the use of the income from the real property that
is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt
purposes.
Coverable
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres v. Sec. of Agrarian
Reform
Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur,
with a total area of 268.5668 hectares. Of that land, 249.0236 hectares are
planted with rice and corn, while the remaining 19.5432 hectares are
planted with coconut trees.
In 1985, Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office
No. 19, Naga City, Camarines Sur several petitions for exemption of certain
properties located in various towns of Camarines Sur from the coverage of
Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27. [2] Two
of these petitions were denied in an Order dated November 6, 1986, issued
by the Regional Director of DAR, Region V, Juanito L. Lorena.[3]
Archbishop appealed from the order of the Regional Director, and sought
exemption from OLT coverage of all lands planted with rice and corn which
were registered in the name of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Caceres,
then Denied.
The matter was then raised to the CA via Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Archbishop argued that even if the lands in question are registered in his
name, he holds the lands in trust for the benefit of his followers as cestui
que trust. Archbishop further argued that the deeds of donation by which
the lands were transferred to him imposed numerous fiduciary obligations,
such that he cannot sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber, or mortgage
the subject lands. By this reasoning, Archbishop concluded that he is not the
landowner contemplated by PD 27 and Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, the
CARL of 1988. He then prayed that the assailed orders of the DAR be
reversed, or in the alternative, that the alleged beneficiaries of the trust be
each allowed to exercise rights of retention over the landholdings.
He claims that the CA erred in holding that he is only entitled to assert one right
of retention as the subject properties are registered in his name. He further
claims that an express trust had been created wherein he only held naked title to
the subject properties on behalf of the beneficiaries. He argues that it is not the
landowner contemplated by the law, but merely a trustee, and as such is entitled
to as many rights of retention on behalf of the beneficiaries of each particular
property. He then raises the question of the applicability of the ruling in The
Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. The Land Registration
Commission and the Register of Deeds of Davao City,[10] which, he cites, ruled
that properties held by the Church are held by it as a mere administrator for the
benefit of the members of that particular religion. As Archbishop claims to be
merely an administrator of the subject properties, he argues that these subject
properties should have been exempt from the OLT.
NO merit!
Archbishop was found to be the registered owner of the lands in question,
and does not contest that fact. For the purposes of the law, this makes him
the landowner, without the necessity of going beyond the registered
titles. He cannot demand a deeper examination of the registered titles and
demand further that the intent of the original owners be ascertained and
followed. To adopt his reasoning would create means of sidestepping the
law, wherein the mere act of donation places lands beyond the reach of
agrarian reform.

The provisions of PD 27 and RA 6657 are plain and require no further

interpretation there is only one right of retention per landowner, and no
multiple rights of retention can be held by a single party. Furthermore, the
scheme proposed by Archbishop would create as many rights of retention
as there are beneficiaries, which could in effect protect the entire available
land area from agrarian reform. Under Archbishops reasoning, there is not
even a definite landowner to claim separate rights of retention, and no
specific number of rights of retention to be claimed by the
landowners. There is simply no basis in the law or jurisprudence for his
argument that it is the beneficial ownership that should be used to
determine which party would have the right of retention.

Archbishop cannot claim exemption in behalf of the millions of Filipino

faithful, as the lands are clearly not exempt under the law. He should not
fear that his followers are simply being deprived of land, as under both PD
27 and RA 6657, he is entitled to just compensation, which he may then use
for the benefit of his followers. His situation is no different from other
landowners affected by agrarian reform they are somewhat deprived of
their land, but it is all for a greater good.

As Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of

Agrarian Reform recognized the revolutionary character of the
expropriation under the agrarian reform law, we follow such lofty ideal for
the resolution of this case. This grand purpose under the CARL must not be
hindered by the simple expedient of appending conditions to a donation of
land, or by donating land to a church. This is not to cast aspersions on
religious organizations, but it is not fitting for them to be used as vehicles
for keeping land out of the hands of the landless. The law is indubitably in
line with the charitable ideals of religious organizations to ensure that the
land they own falls into the hands of able caretakers and owners. As a
religious leader, Archbishop can take solace in the fact that his lands are
going to be awarded to those who need and can utilize them to the fullest.