DOJ OPINION NO. 043, s.

2011
September 1, 2011

Secretary Virgilio R. Delos Reyes

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City
Dear Secretary Delos Reyes :
This refers to your request for our opinion on whether the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) can grant applications for exemption involving irrigated and
irrigable lands, i.e., those classified as not subject to and non-negotiable for
conversion, reclassified into non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988, the date
Republic Act No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took
effect.
You state that pursuant to this Department's Opinion (No. 44, s. 1990) to the
effect that the authority of DAR to act upon applications for conversion of
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses may be exercised on or after June 15,
1988, previous DAR Administrations had adopted the position that all agricultural
lands already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before said date
no longer need a conversion clearance but only an exemption clearance from
DAR.
You also say that in another Opinion (No. 181, s. 1990) of this Department and in
the Supreme Court ruling in Natalia Realty vs. DAR, 225 SCRA 278, it was
pointed out that "agricultural lands coverable under the CARP do not include in its
contemplation agricultural lands classified as commercial, industrial, or residential
prior to 15 June 1988 for they ceased to be agricultural upon approval of their
classification/reclassification as could be inferred from the definition of
Agricultural Land in Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657."

Further, you aver that the non-negotiability for conversion of irrigated and irrigable
lands was stressed in Administrative Order No. 20, s. 1992, reiterated in
Administrative Order No. 363, s. 1997, both of the Office of the President (OP),
and underscored anew in Section 22 of Republic Act No. 9700, or the "CARPER
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Extension and Reforms)
Law.
TSacAE

It is, however, your position that the aforesaid DOJ Opinion No. 181, s. 1990 and
Supreme Court decision should apply only to the Lungsod Silangan Townsite
Reservation and to highly urbanized areas, but not to other areas in the country,
especially to irrigated and irrigable prime agricultural lands. You further assert
that the reclassification of these irrigated or irrigable prime agricultural lands into
non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988 partakes the nature of conversion.
Therefore, DAR's approval of any request for exemption involving such lands
would not only be unconstitutional but would also be contrary to the two (2)
presidential issuances aforementioned as well as Section 22 of R.A. No. 9700. In
view thereof, you now elevated the matter to us for our opinion.
We agree.
In your cited case of Natalia Realty vs. DAR, the Supreme Court explained the
extent of the coverage of CARL, thus:
". . . Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement
and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. As to what constitutes
'agricultural land,' it is referred to as 'land devoted to agricultural activity' as defined in this Act and
not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission confirm limitation. 'Agricultural lands' are only those lands which are
arable are suitable agricultural lands" and do not include commercial, industrial, and residential
lands.
xxx

xxx

xxx

"Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include
lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by other
government agencies other than respondent DAR."
1

Moreover, Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, provides:

"Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land
ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become
urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes, the DAR upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner with respect only to his/her

retained area which is tenanted, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws,
may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land: Provided, That the beneficiary shall
have fully paid his obligation."

Section 22 of R.A. No. 9700, amending the above-quoted legal provision,

pertinently reads:
"Section 22. Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read
as follows:
'Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when
the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the
locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the
landowner with respect only to his/her retained area which is tenanted, with due notice to the
affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion
of the land: Provided, That if the applicant is a beneficiary under the agrarian laws and the
land sought to be converted is the land awarded to his/her or any portion thereof, the
applicant, after the conversion is granted, shall invest at least ten percent (10%) of the
proceeds coming from the conversion in government securities: Provided, further, That the
applicant upon conversion shall fully pay the price of the land: Provided, furthermore, That
irrigated and irrigable lands shall not be subject to conversion: Provided, finally, That the
National Irrigation Administration shall submit a consolidated data on the location nationwide
of all irrigable lands within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act."

DTEHIA

Evidently, and as stated by the Supreme Court in the aforecited case, reiterating
an Opinion of this Department, lands previously reclassified or converted from
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses prior to the enactment of the CARL fall
beyond the coverage thereof. For the same reason, and in view of Section 22 of
R.A. No. 9700 amending Section 65 of the CARL, the only logical conclusion is
that applications for exemption involving irrigated and irrigable lands,i.e., those
classified as not subject to and non-negotiable for conversion, but subsequently
reclassified into non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988, can no longer be
granted.
This conclusion finds support in the records of the congressional deliberations on
House Bill No. 40777, which gave birth to R.A. No. 9700, in which not only was
the limitation on what agricultural lands can be covered by the CARL
acknowledged, but the policy prohibiting conversion of all irrigated and irrigable
farmlands was also expressly made absolute and permanent.
3

To expand the wisdom of DOJ Opinion No. 181, Series of 1990 and the Court
ruling in Natalia Realty vs. DAR to the effect that agricultural lands coverable
under CARP do not include in its contemplation agricultural lands classified as
commercial, industrial, or residential prior to 15 June 1988 for they ceased to be
agricultural upon the approval of their classification/reclassification as could be
inferred from the definition of Agricultural Land in Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657,
as amended, would be an over-generalization and negates the state policy
against conversion of irrigated and irrigable lands. Thus, DOJ Opinion No. 181,
Series of 1990 and the Supreme Court Ruling in Natalia Realty vs. DAR should
not be made to generally apply to irrigated and irrigable prime agricultural lands.
The provisions of Section 65, as amended, are clear and categorical enough that
interpretation has no room. Thus, irrespective of whether the reclassification of
irrigated and irrigable prime agricultural lands was done before or after the
effectivity of the CARL, the terms of the present Section 65 leave no room for
doubt that the legislative intent is to ban any conversion of such agricultural
lands. Since exemption, for all intent and purposes, under these circumstances
has essentially the same legal effect as conversion, that is, removing the lands
from their potential agricultural use, the DAR may deny any application for
exemption involving irrigated or irrigable lands.
4

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LEILA M. DE LIMA

Secretary

Footnotes
1.

At pp. 282-283; Emphasis supplied.

2.

Emphasis supplied.

3.

May 27, 2008, p. 194; June 3, 2008, pp. 441-442.

4.

Secretary of Justice Op. No. 23, s. 2010, citing cases and opinions