Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Respondents’ family acquired their landholdings as early as 1948. They have long been in the Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developer and Investors Corp vs DAR
business of breeding cattle in Masbate which is popularly known as the cattle-breeding capital GR No 103302 August 12, 1993
of the Philippines. Petitioner DAR does not dispute this fact. Indeed, there is no evidence on
record that respondents have just recently engaged in or converted to the business of breeding Facts:
cattle after the enactment of the CARL that may lead one to suspect that respondents intended Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205
to evade its coverage. It must be stressed that what the CARL prohibits is the conversion of hectares and 2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares, which are covered by TCT No.
agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes after the effectivity of the CARL. There has 31527. Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land as townsite
been no change of business interest in the case of respondents. 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
It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that the reenactment of a statute by Congress townsite reservation. Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into
without substantial change is an implied legislative approval and adoption of the previous law. low-cost housing subdivisions with the reservation, petitioner EDIC as developer of Natalia
On the other hand, by making a new law, Congress seeks to supersede an earlier one. In the applied for and was granted preliminary approval and location clearances by the Human
case at bar, after the passage of the 1988 CARL, Congress enacted R.A. No. 7881 which Settlements Regulatory Commission, which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills
amended certain provisions of the CARL. Specifically, the new law changed the definition of Subdivision. On June 15 1988, Ra 6657 went to effect. Respondent issed a Notice of
the terms “agricultural activity” and “commercial farming” by dropping from its coverage lands Coverage on the undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Natalia and EDIC
that are devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising. With this significant immediately registered its objection to the notice of coverage and requested the cancellation of
modification, Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the the Notice of Coverage.
intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of
agrarian reform. 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.
Alita v CA 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
Facts:Private respondents' predecessors-in-interest acquired the subject parcel of lands and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), and that there was no valid conversion of the
throughhomestead patent under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Private properties.
respondentsherein are desirous of personally cultivating these lands, but petitioners refuse to
vacate, relyingon the provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316. On June 18, 1981, private Issue:
respondents instituted acomplaint for the declaration of P.D. 27 and all other Decrees, Letters Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved by the Housing and Land
of Instructions and GeneralOrders issued in connection therewith as inapplicable to lands Use Regulatory Board and its agencies prior to June 15, 1988 covered by RA 6657.
obtained through homestead law.The RTC dismissed the complaint but on motion for
reconsideration it declared that P.D. 27 isnot applicable to homestead lands. On appeal to the Ruling:
CA, the decision of the RTC was sustained.Issue:Whether or not lands acquired through
No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and property as tourist, not agricultural. The power to classify its territory is given by law to the local
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. And agricultural lands is referred governments.
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 Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board 215
Subdivision cannot be considered as agricultural lands for this land was intended for SCRA 86 (1992) Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
residential use. They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of the Presidential Proclamation Board 215 SCRA 86 (1992)
No. 1637.
Facts:
G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999 ROXAS & CO., INC. vs. THE HONORABLE COURT On 16 January 1958, President Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation No. 467 reserving for the
OF APPEALS, PUNO, J.: Mindanao Agricultural College, now the CMU, a piece of land to be used as its future campus.
In 1984, CMU embarked on a project titled "Kilusang Sariling Sikap" wherein parcels of land
FACTS: (1) Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three were leased to its faculty members and employees. Under the terms of the program, CMU will
haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality assist faculty members and employee groups through the extension of technical know-how,
of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda Palico is  1,024 hectares in Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 training and other kinds of assistance. In turn, they paid the CMU a service fee for use of the
hectares in area. Hacienda Caylaway is  867.4571 hectares in area. (2) Before the law's land. The agreement explicitly provided that there will be no tenancy relationship between the
effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell lessees and the CMU.
[VOS]Â Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and When the program was terminated, a case was filed by the participants of the "Kilusang
Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by . . . DAR in accordance with the Sariling Sikap" for declaration of status as tenants under the CARP. In its resolution, DARAB,
CARL. (3) Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, Eduardo J. ordered, among others, the segregation of 400 hectares of the land for distribution under
Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of . . . DARÂ withdrawing its VOSÂ of Hacienda CARP. The land was subjected to coverage on the basis of DAR's determination that the lands
Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the do not meet the condition for exemption, that is, it is not "actually, directly, and exclusively
reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, used" for educational purposes.
petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda
Caylaway from agricultural to other uses. Issue:
Is the CMU land covered by CARP? Who determines whether lands reserved for public use by
ISSUE: Whether the Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all situated in Nasugbu, presidential proclamation is no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and necessary for
Batangas, are non-agricultural and outside the scope of Republic Act No. 665 the purpose for which they are reserved?
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court held that The DAR itself has issued administrative circulars Held:
governing lands which are outside of CARP and may not be subjected to land reform. The land is exempted from CARP. CMU is in the best position to resolve and answer the
Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1996 declares in its policy statement what landholdings question of when and what lands are found necessary for its use. The Court also chided the
are outside the coverage of CARP. The AO is explicit in providing that such non-covered DARAB for resolving this issue of exemption on the basis of "CMU's present needs." The Court
properties shall be reconveyed to the original transferors or owners. These non-covered lands stated that the DARAB decision stating that for the land to be exempt it must be "presently,
are: a. Land, or portions thereof, found to be no longer suitable for agriculture and, therefore, actively exploited and utilized by the university in carrying out its present educational program
could not be given appropriate valuation by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); b. Those with its present student population and academic faculty" overlooked the very significant factor
were a Conversion Order has already been issued by the DAR allowing the use of the of growth of the university in the years to come.
landholding other than for agricultural purposes in accordance with Section 65 of R.A. No.
6657 and Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994; c. Property determined to be exempted DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE
from CARP coverage pursuant to Department of Justice Opinion Nos. 44 and 181; or d. Where AND SPORTS (DECS). G.R. No. 158228 Â Â Â Â Â Â March 23, 2004 FACTS: Lot No.
a Presidential Proclamation has been issued declaring the subject property for certain uses 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to respondent
other than agricultural. In the present case, Proclamation 1520 dated November 20, 1975 is DECS (formerly Bureau of Education). Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the
part of the law of the land. It declares the area in and around Nasugbu, Batangas, as a Tourist name of respondent DECS . Respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural
Zone. It has not been repealed, and has in fact been used by DAR to justify conversion of Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from 1984-1994. The contract of lease
other contiguous and nearby properties of other parties. Furthermore, the Sangguniang Bayan was subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop years or until 2005. On June 10,
of Nasugbu, affirmed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas, expressly defines the 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 December 1988, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of CamSur authorized the provincial governor to
with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante. After investigation, MARO purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site in order to establish a
Jacinto R. Piosa, sent a "Notice of Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that the subject pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for
lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a conference with the provincial government employees.
farmer beneficiaries. The recommendation for coverage was approved by DAR Regional
Director Dominador B. Andres approved the r, the dispositive portion of which reads: Pursuant to the resolution, Gov. Villafuerte filed two separate cases for expropriation against
Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which affirmed the Ernesto San Joaquin and Efren San Joaquin. Upon motion for the issuance of writ or
Order of the Regional Director. Respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of possession, San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing.
Appeals, which set aside the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Hence, the instant
petition for review. San Joaquins later moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price
offered for their property. The court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the province
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of Republic Act to take possession of the properties.
No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).
San Joaquins filed for motion for relief, but denied as well. In their petition. Asked by the CA,
HELD: No. While respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground Solicitor General stated that there is no need for the approval of the president for the province
that all the income derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were to expropriate properties, however, the approval of the DAR is needed to convert the property
actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs and from agricultural to non-agricultural (housing purpose).
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 CA set aside the decision of the trial court suspending the possession and expropriation of the
not actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as they are in fact property until th province has acquired the approval of DAR. Hence, this petition.
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 exclusively Ruling:
used for educational purposes. Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive
which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of
specifying those lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to
national defense, Â school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated which it would be devoted by the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the
by public or private schools for educational purposes, shall be exempt from the coverage of Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions
this Act. Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be exempt from the of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is limited to
coverage: 1) the land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be the applications for reclassification submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries.
necessary; 2) the purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm
stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes." To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer
expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals,
etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of
Friday, November 25, 2016 Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land
G.R. No. 103125 Case Digest use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993 expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.
Province of Camarines Sur
vs Court of Appeals
Ponente: Quiason Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether
the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an
Facts: expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will
This is an appeal for certiorari on the decision on the issue on whether the expropriation of intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public
agricultural lands by LGU is subject to prior approval of the DAR. use.
G.R. No. 149548 December 14, 2010 ROXAS & COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, HELD: No. While the Court acknowledged the passage of the Tourism Act as another vehicle
vs.
DAMBA-NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents. for potential tourism areas to be exempted from CARP coverage, that did not in any way
pronounce as meritorious Roxas & Co.’s subsequent application with the TIEZA to declare its
FACTS: properties as tourism enterprise zones. That is for the TIEZA, not this Court, to determine.
Whatever decision the TIEZA renders in Roxas & Co.’s application does not in any way affect
Roxas and Company, Inc. vs. DAMBA-NSFW and DAR the merits of these consolidated cases. Roxas & Co. is merely nitpicking on the issue. Since
FACTS: the DAR had initially issued CLOAs to the farmer-beneficiaries of the nine parcels of land in
Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas. On July Hacienda Palico, the assailed Decision merely reiterated the original designation of the
27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power affected individuals as farmer-beneficiaries who should be entitled to disturbance
from the President. This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive compensation before the cancellation of their respective CLOAs is effected. This is in
pursuance of the directive of DAR Administrative Order No. 6 (Series of 1994) which mandates
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 the payment of disturbance compensation before Roxas & Co.’s application for exemption may
and took effect on June 15, 1988. Before the law’s effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] be completely granted. With regard [to] the allegation that oppositors-movants are already
filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the CLOA holders of subject propert[ies] and deserve to be notified, as owners, of the initiated
provisions of E.O. No. 229.Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory questioned exemption application, is of no moment. The Supreme Court in the case of Roxas
acquisition by DAR in accordance with the CARL. On August 6, 1992 [Roxas & Co.], through [&] Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106, held: "We stress that the failure of
its President, sent a letter to the Secretary of DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings
does not give this Court the power to nullify the CLOA’s already issued to the farmer
Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the
beneficiaries. x x x x. Anyhow, the farmer[-]beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the
reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural As a result, rightful owner of the land." Since subject landholding has been validly determined to be CARP-
petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda exempt, therefore, the previous issuance of the CLOA of oppositors-movants is erroneous.
Caylaway from agricultural to other uses. The petitions nub on the interpretation of Presidential Hence, similar to the situation of the above-quoted Supreme Court Decision, oppositors-
Proclamation (PP) 1520 reads: DECLARING THEMUNICIPALITIES OF MARAGONDON AND movants only hold the property in trust for the rightful owners of the land and are not the
TERNATE IN CAVITE PROVINCE AND THEMUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU IN BATANGAS owners of subject landholding who should be notified of the exemption application of applicant
AS A TOURISTZONE, AND FOR OTHERPURPOSES Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its Roxas & Company, Incorporated.1avvphi1
application for conversion of its three haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural on the
assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourism
zone, reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its pending application notwithstanding, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs)
to the farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas including CLOA No. 6654 which wasissued
on October 15, 1993 covering 513.983 hectares, the subject of G.R.
No.167505. Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an application for exemption from thecoverage of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988 on thebasis of PP 1520 and of
DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 19943 which states that all lands already
classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before the effectivity of CARP no longer
need conversion clearance from the DAR.
ISSUE: Whether the subject lands are exempt from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) coverage.