G.R. No.

188299 : January 23, 2013

Heirs of Luna v. Afable, G.R. No. 188299, January 23, 2013

PEREZ, J.:

FACTS:

The heirs of Luis A. Luna and Remegio A. Luna, and Luz Luna-Santos (“Heirs”) are co-
owners of a parcel of land located in Brgy. Guinobatan, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro
which was subjected to compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). Respondents Ruben Afable, Tomas Afable, Florante
Evangelista, Leovy Evangelista, Jaime Ilagan, et al. (Afable, et al.) were identified by
the DAR as qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Hence, Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) were issued to them. The heirs sought the cancellation of the said
CLOAs before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) Calapan City. Their petition was
anchored mainly on the reclassification of the land in question into a light intensity
industrial zone pursuant to Municipal Ordinance No. 21, series of 1981, enacted by the
Sangguniang Bayan of Calapan, thereby excluding the same from the coverage of the
agrarian law. DARAB Calapan City ordered the cancellation of the CLOAs.

Aggrieved, Afable et al. appealed to the DARAB Central Office and the latter ruled in
their favour. The heirs appealed the decision to the Office of the President which ruled
that the parcel of land is excluded from the coverage of CARP.

Then, Afable et al. appealed the Office of the President’s decision to the Court of
Appeals. The CA granted the appeal. Hence, the heirs appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Municipal Ordinance No. 21 validly classified the parcel of
land from agricultural to non-agricultural, and therefore, exempt from CARP?

HELD: The land is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.

Agricultural land" is defined under Section 3(c) of the CARL as that which is "devoted to
agricultural activity x x x and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land."

The meaning of "agricultural lands" covered by the CARL was explained further by the
DAR in its AO No. 1, Series of 1990, dated 22 March 1990, entitled "Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural
Uses," issued pursuant to Section 4941 of the CARL.42 Thus:
Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in RA 6657
and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and
zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential,
commercial or industrial use. (Emphasis supplied)43?r?l1

It is clear from the last clause of the afore-quoted provision that a land is not
agricultural, and therefore, outside the ambit of the CARP if the following conditions
concur:

1. the land has been classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as residential,
commercial, or industrial; and

2. the town plan and zoning ordinance embodying the land classification has been
approved by the HLURB or its predecessor agency prior to 15 June 1988.

It is undeniable that local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural into
non-agricultural lands.44 Section 345 of RA No. 2264 (The Local Autonomy Act of 1959)
specifically empowers municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and subdivision
ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission. 46 By
virtue of a zoning ordinance, the local legislature may arrange, prescribe, define, and
apportion the land within its political jurisdiction into specific uses based not only on the
present, but also on the future projection of needs. 47 It may, therefore, be reasonably
presumed that when city and municipal boards and councils approved an ordinance
delineating an area or district in their cities or municipalities as 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-agricultural use; hence, ensuring the implementation of and
compliance with their zoning ordinances. 48?r?l1

POLITICAL LAW: power of local governments; police power

Local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands.
Sec. 345 of RA No. 2264 (The Local Autonomy Act of 1959) specifically empowers
municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations
in consultation with the National Planning Commission. By virtue of a zoning ordinance,
the local legislature may arrange, prescribe, define, and apportion the land within its
political jurisdiction into specific uses based not only on the present, but also on the
future projection of needs.

March 29, 2017 G.R. No. 191545 HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR. v. MARCIANO
CABUNGCAL, et al. LEONEN, J.:
FACTS: Petitioners are the heirs of the registered owner of a vast tract of land, while
respondents are agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP. Pursuant to the
approved town plan (Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance), the subject land was reclassified as
farmlot subdivision for cultivation, livestock production, or agro-forestry. While portion of
the land was sold, more than half remained unsold. Hence, petitioner heirs assailed the
inclusion of their landholdings from CARP.
ISSUES: Whether the reclassification of petitioners' agricultural land as a farmlot
subdivision exempts the Estate of Salas from the coverage of the CARP
HELD: NO, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law covers all agricultural lands, save
for those not used or suitable for agricultural activities. The reclassification of Salas'
landholding into a farmlot subdivision, although effected before Republic Act No. 6657,
has not changed the nature of these agricultural lands, the legal relationships existing
over such lands, or the agricultural usability of the lands. Thus, these lots were properly
subjected to compulsory coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
This case involves a land that was reclassified as a "farmlot subdivision," intended for
"intensive agricultural activities." Likewise, located away from the city center, the farmlot
subdivision has not been developed into an urban zone.
When Salas' agricultural land was reclassified as a farmlot subdivision, the applicable
law was Republic Act No. 3844, as amended. Section 166 (1) of Republic Act No. 3844
defined an agricultural land as "land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to
crop lands[.]" The law neither made reference to a "farmlot subdivision," nor did it
exclude a farmlot from the definition of an agricultural land. Not being excluded, Salas'
landholdings were thus contemplated in the definition of an agricultural land under
Republic Act No. 3844. Likewise, Republic Act No. 6657 does not exclude a farmlot
subdivision from the definition of an agricultural land. Section 3(c) of Republic Act No.
6657 states that agricultural lands refer to "land devoted to agricultural activity . . . and
not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land." Section 76
expressly provides that any other definition inconsistent with Republic Act No. 6657 has
been repealed by this law.
Agricultural lands consist of lands:
(1) Devoted to agricultural activity, as defined in Republic Act No. 6657;
(2) Not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources; and
(3) Prior to June 15, 1988, not classified for residential, commercial, or industrial use
under a local government town plan and zoning ordinance, as approved by the BLURB
(or its predecessors, the National Coordinating Council and the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission). Salas' farmlot subdivision fulfills these elements. For the first
element, the lots are devoted to agricultural activity. Agricultural activity refers to the
"cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock,
poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities
and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done
by persons whether natural or juridical." Petitioners never denied the continued
existence of agricultural activity within these lots. For the second element, it is
undisputed that the lots have not been declared as mineral or forest lands by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. No application has been filed to
declare the landholdings as mineral or forest lands, and neither has the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ever declared the properties as such. As to the
third element, the lands were not classified by the Lipa City Town Plan/Zoning
Ordinance as commercial, residential, or industrial lands prior to June 15, 1988. Rather,
the reclassification, which was approved by HLURB's predecessor agency, was that of
a "farmlot subdivision."

Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developer and Investors Corp vs DAR
GR No 103302                                                                                     August 12, 1993

Facts:
Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of 120.9793 hectares,
1.3205 hectares and 2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares, which are
covered by TCT No. 31527. Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312
hectares of land as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis
which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The Natalia properties are
situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. Since private landowners
were allowed to develop their properties into low-cost housing subdivisions with the
reservation, petitioner EDIC as developer of Natalia applied for and was granted
preliminary approval and location clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission, which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills Subdivision. On June 15
1988, Ra 6657 went to effect. Respondent issed a Notice of Coverage on the
undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Natalia and EDIC immediately
registered its objection to the notice of coverage and requested the cancellation of the
Notice of Coverage.

Natalia and EDIC both argued that the properties ceased to be agricultural lands when
they were included in the areas reserved by Presidential Proclamation for the townsite
reservation. DAR then contended that the permits granted were not valid and binding
since they did not comply with t he implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of
PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), and that there
was no valid conversion of the properties.

Issue:
Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved by the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board and its agencies prior to June 15, 1988 covered by RA
6657.

Ruling:
No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. And
agricultural lands is referred to as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified
as mineral, forst, residential, commercial or industrial land. Thus, the underdeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot be considered as agricultural lands for
this land was intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue
of the Presidential Proclamation No. 1637.

 
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs  Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, G.R. No. 78742,
Jul 14, 1989,

Facts:

On September 3, 1986, the petitioner protested the erroneous inclusion of his small
landholding under Operation Land transfer and asked for the recall and cancellation of
the Certificates of Land Transfer in the name of the private respondents.

The petitioner contends that the issuance of E.0. Nos. 228 and 229 shortly before
Congress convened is anomalous and arbitrary, besides violating the doctrine of
separation of powers.
The petitioner also invokes his rights not to be deprived of his property without due
process of law and to the retention of his small parcels of rice holding as guaranteed
under Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution

Issue:
Whether or not CARL violates due process because landowner is divested of his
property even before actual payment to him in full of just compensation, in contravention
of a well- accepted principle of eminent domain

Held:
NO. The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass
from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation.
Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here and in other democratic
jurisdictions.
It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as
October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land
consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title to the land owned by him was to be
actually issued to him unless and until he had become a full-fledged member of a duly
recognized farmers' cooperative." It was understood, however, that full payment of the
just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
requirement.
HACIENDA V PARC
 I.      THE FACTS

On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (11-0) to

DISMISS/DENY the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the
resolutions of the PARC revoking HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the
subject lands in Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government.

The Court however did not order outright land distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court
noted that there are operative facts that occurred in the interim and which the Court
cannot validly ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SDP must, by
application of the operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original 6,296
qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether they want to remain as
HLI stockholders or [choose actual land distribution]. It thus ordered the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) to “immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs
and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their
choice, after which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in
the ballot, signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be,
over their printed names.”

       The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court
decision.

ISSUE: (3)  Can’t the Court order that DAR’s compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita
cover the full 6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by
Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered
by HLI’s SDP?
 NO, the Court CANNOT order that DAR’s compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita
cover the full 6,443 hectares and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLI’s
SDP.

[Since what is put in issue before the Court is the propriety of the revocation of
the SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then
the Court is constrained to rule only as regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural
land. Nonetheless, this should not prevent the DAR, under its mandate under the
agrarian reform law, from subsequently subjecting to agrarian reform other agricultural
lands originally held by Tadeco that were allegedly not transferred to HLI but were
supposedly covered by RA 6657.

However since the area to be awarded to each FWB in the July 5, 2011 Decision
appears too restrictive – considering that there are roads, irrigation canals, and other
portions of the land that are considered commonly-owned by farmworkers, and these
may necessarily result in the decrease of the area size that may be awarded per FWB –
the Court reconsiders its Decision and resolves to give the DAR leeway in adjusting the
area that may be awarded per FWB in case the number of actual qualified FWBs
decreases. In order to ensure the proper distribution of the agricultural lands of
Hacienda Luisita per qualified FWB, and considering that matters involving strictly the
administrative implementation and enforcement of agrarian reform laws are within the
jurisdiction of the DAR, it is the latter which shall determine the area with which each
qualified FWB will be awarded.

On the other hand, the majority likewise reiterated its holding that the 500-
hectare portion of Hacienda Luisita that have been validly converted to industrial use
and have been acquired by intervenors Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC)
and Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), as well as the separate 80.51-hectare
SCTEX lot acquired by the government, should be excluded from the coverage of the
assailed PARC resolution. The Court however ordered that the unused balance of the
proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectare converted land and of the 80.51-hectare land
used for the SCTEX be distributed to the FWBs.]