CREBA vs. Sec.

of Agrarian Reform, GR 183409, June 18, 2010

FACTS: The Sec of Agrarian reform issued an A.O that governs the conversion of agricultural lands
to non-agricultural use. In lieu with this, the secretary also issued a memorandum which temporarily
suspended the processing and approval of all land use conversion applications. The petitioner now
files a petition for certiorari because there is an actual slow down of housing projects, which, in turn,
aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment and illegal squatting problems to the substantial
prejudice not only of the petitioner and its members but more so of the whole nation. Moreover, the
petitioner asserts that the enlarging of the definition of agriculture to “lands not reclassified as
residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988” is against the
law.

ISSUE: W/N the Sec of Agrarian Reform gravely abused its discretion.

HELD:

No. Executive Order No. 129-A37 vested upon the DAR the responsibility of implementing the
CARP. Pursuant to the said mandate and to ensure the successful implementation of the CARP,
Section 5(c) of the said executive order authorized the DAR to establish and promulgate operational
policies, rules and regulations and priorities for agrarian reform implementation. Section 4(k) thereof
authorized the DAR to approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of
agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses. Similarly, Section 5(l) of the same executive order has
given the DAR the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for
residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law. Section 7 of
the aforesaid executive order clearly provides that "the authority and responsibility for the exercise of
the mandate of the [DAR] and the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform x x x."

Under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, "lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial
or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988" have been included in the definition of
agricultural lands. In so doing, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform merely acted within the scope of his
authority stated in the aforesaid sections of Executive Order No. 129-A, which is to promulgate rules
and regulations for agrarian reform implementation and that includes the authority to define
agricultural lands for purposes of land use conversion. Further, the definition of agricultural lands
under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, merely refers to the category of agricultural lands that may
be the subject for conversion to non-agricultural uses and is not in any way confined to agricultural
lands in the context of land redistribution as provided for under Republic Act No. 6657.

Sta. Rosa vs. CA, GR 112526, Oct. 12, 2001

FACTS: The petitoner filed a protest against the coverage of its proprties in CARP because the properties
are not suitable for agriculture because of its slope, they had been classified as watershed area and
were the subject of a pending petition for land conversion. Moreover, petitioner claims that the
inhabitants in the area are not qualified to become beneficiaries of the CARP because they are informal
settlers.
ISSUE: (1) W/N the properties can become a valid subject CARP .

HELD:

No. Watersheds are generally outside the commerce of man. Clearing and tilling of the lands are
totally inconsistent with sound watershed management. More so, the introduction of earth
disturbing activities like road building and erection of permanent infrastructures. Unless the
pernicious agricultural activities of the Casile farmers are immediately stopped, it would not be
long before these watersheds would cease to be of value. The impact of watershed degredation
threatens the livelihood of thousands of people dependent upon it. Toward this, we hope that
an acceptable comprehensive watershed development policy and program be immediately
formulated and implemented before the irreversible damage finally happens. It is the opinion of
this office that the area in question must be maintained for watershed purposes for ecological
and environmental considerations, among others. Although the 88 families who are the
proposed CARP beneficiaries will be affected, it is important that a larger view of the situation
be taken as one should also consider the adverse effect on thousands of residents downstream
if the watershed will not be protected and maintained for watershed purposes. The foregoing
considered, it is recommended that if possible, an alternate area be allocated for the affected
farmers, and that the Canlubang Estates be mandated to protect and maintain the area in
question as a permanent watershed reserved

Ros vs. DAR, GR 132477, Aug. 31, 2005

FACTS: By virtue of Municipal Ordinance No. 101 passed by the Municipal Council of Balamban,
Cebu, these lands were reclassified as industrial lands.Ros, the owner of the subject land that was
classified as an industrial land, was preparing the necesary requirements for the creation of an
industrial park in his land. However, the DAR was disallowing the conversion of the subject lands for
industrial use and directed him to cease and desist from further developments on the land to avoid
the incurrence of civil and criminal liabilities.

ISSUE: W/N t the reclassification of the subject lands to industrial use by the Municipality of
Balamban, Cebu pursuant to its authority under Section 20(a) of Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local
Government Code of 1991 (the LGC) has the effect of taking such lands out of the coverage of the
CARL and beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR;

HELD:

No. After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of
conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR. However, agricultural lands already
reclassified before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657 are exempted from conversion. Conversion is
the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved
by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Reclassification, on the other hand, is the act of specifying
how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial,
commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land
use conversion. Accordingly, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not automatically allow
a landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment of the tenants. He has to undergo the
process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes. The
authority of the DAR to approve conversions of agricultural lands covered by Rep. Act No. 6657 to
non-agricultural uses has not been pierced by the passage of the Local Government Code.

Fortich vs. Corona, Apr. 24, 1998

FACTS: The property owned by Quisumbing, which measure 144 hectares was declared by the
DAR to be covered by the CARP. However, Quisumbing filed a protest against it, and the DARAB
acted favorably on the motion. In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of
Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6,[8] dated January 7,
1993, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-
Industrial Zones where the subject property is situated. Because of that, the farmers protested
and this led the Office of the President, through then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C.
Corona, to issue the so-called Win-Win Resolution[2] on November 7, 1997,
substantially modifying its earlier Decision after it had already become final and
executory. The said Resolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial
area only to the extent of forty-four (44) hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred (100)
hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.

ISSUE: