0.

R4publikangnIpWas
KAGAWARANNGICATARUNGAN
DepartmentofJustke
Manila
OPINION NOIRLSPlits
October 19, 1990

Secretary Benjamin T. Leong

Department of Agrarian Reform
Dilisan, Quezon City

S ir:
This has reference to your request for opinion
on the applicability of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program ("CARP") upon the estate of the late
Alfonso J. Doronila.

It appears that in 1974, Presidential

Proclamation No 1283 segregated a certain portion of
land from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo,
Rizal and ed said area for townsite purposes,
that in 1977, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637
increased the size of the aforesaid townsite
reservation (designated as Lungsod Silangan Townsite)
and revised its technical description so as to
include other lands in the municipalities of
Antipolo. San Mateo and Montalbanp that to implement
the development plan of the Lungsod 8ilangan
Townsite, L tor of Instructions No. 625, inter alga,
directed the Solicitor General to institute
condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of
private lands found thereinp that consequently, the
said official filed in 1978 with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal an expropriation case against the
landholdings of Alfonso Doronilap that nine years
later, the Solicitor General and the Strategic
Investment Development Corporation (formerly, the
Human Settlements Development Corporation), by
separate motions, requested the dismissal of the
expropriation proceedings against the Doronila Estate
citing, as grounds thereof, the abolition of the
Ministry of Human Settlements and the exclusion of
the Strategic Investment Development Corporation from
the government's housing and shelter program; and
that in an order dated September 18, 1987, the court
dismissed the said expropriation case.

You state that the Doronila landholdings were

brought y - der CARP coverage, but that the
administrator of the Doronila Estate is seeking
exemption of said properties from CARP coverage on
the bases of the abovementioned Presidential
Proclamations and Letter of Instructions. You now
pose 'the following queries for your guidance in
evaluating the said request for exemption, to wits

b 0-
V.

2 -OPINION NO 141-1 Mr
-(a) What is the legal effect of the
dismissal of the expropriation proceedings
on the townsite reservation created under
the aforesaid proclamations and letter of
instruction?"
"(b) With the passage of RA 6657 or
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, are
these proclamations deemed superseded?"

With respect to the first query, it is believed

that the dismissal of the expropriation case against
the Doronila properties did not adversely affect the
continuing enforceability of Proclamations Nos. 1283
and 1637 and LOI No. 625. Hence, the status of
subject properties as being embraced within a
townsite reservation is still valid and subsisting.
It is noted that the ground for the diemlesal of the
condemnation proceedings did not involve the legality
of the abovementioned executive issuances. Thus,
pursuant to Section 3, Article XVIII of the
Constitution, which provides that all proclamations,
letters of instructions and other executive
issuances, among others, existing at the time of the
Charter's effectivity which are not inconsistent
with this Constitution shall remain operative until
emended, repealed or resolved", the said executive
issuances remain operative until now. LOI No. 625
expressly states that the Lungsod Silangan Townsite
was designed "to absorb the population overspill in
the Greater Manila Area", an objective which is
consistent with the constitutional mandate for the
State to undertake "a continuing program of urban
land reform and housing which will make available at
affordable cost decent housing and basic services to
underprivileged and homeless citizens- (Sec. 9,
Article XIII, Constitution). Moreover, we are not
aware of any issuance by the incumbent President
revoking or repealing the Proclamations and the LOI
under consideration.

As regards the second query, neither

Proclamation No 1283 nor Proclamation No. 1637 has
been expressly repealed by R.A. No. 6657 (see Seo. 76
thereof). Thus, any allegation that the
Proclamations have been superseded by R.A. No. 6657
must perforce be premised upon an inconsistency
between them. But we do not see any repugnancy
between the aforesaid Proclamations and R.A. No.
6657; indeed, the statute implicitly recognizes the

(02-
 OrMITIN 18/ S i4V
3

legal effect of the Proclamations. Thus, Section

3(c) of R.A. 6657 defines an "agricultural land- as
such lands an not having been previously classified
an "minera1. forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land". Noren'ttr, Administrative Order
Na. 61, series 1990 of that Department (Revised Rules
and Regulations Governing Convereion of Private
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Ones) provides
that said rules do not cover Janda previously
classified in town plans and pertinent zoning
ordinances as having been approved by the Housing and
Land Doe Regulatory Board and its predeceesor
authorities prior to June 15. 1988 for residential,
commercial or indnetrial uses. Since
the lands
covered by the two Proclamations in question have
been reserved for townsite purposes to be developed
an human eettlemente by the proper land and housing
agency, the same are not deemed "agricultural lands"
within the meaning and intent of Section 3(c) of R.A.
No. 0657 and are beyond the purview of A.O. No.. 01.

Wherefore, your queries are answered

accordingly.

Very truly yours,

I H. DRILON
I cretary