STA.

ROSA REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
VS. CA
367 SCRA 175,
OCT. 12, 2001
The case is a petition Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Boards
(DARAB) order of compulsory acquisition
of petitioners property under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP).
 FACTS:
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation was the
registered owner of two parcels of
land with a total area of 254.6
hectares. According to petitioner,
the parcels of land are
watersheds, which provide clean
potable water to the Canlubang
community and that 90 light
industries are located in that
area.
 Petitioner alleged that
respondents, Juan B.
Amante, et al., usurped its
rights over the property,
thereby destroying the
ecosystem.
Sometime in December 1985,
respondents filed a civil case
with the Regional Trial Court
seeking an easement of a right
of way to and from Barangay
Casile. By way of counterclaim,
however, petitioner sought the
ejectment of private
respondents.
After the filing of the ejectment
cases, respondents petitioned
the Department of Agrarian
Reform for the compulsory
acquisition of the SRRDC
property under the CARP. The
landholding of SRRDC was
placed under compulsory
acquisition.
Compulsory acquisition is the
power of the government to
acquire private rights in land
without the willing consent of
its owner or occupant in
order to benefit the society.
The said land was inspected
by the Municipal and
Agrarian Reform Officer, and
upon consensus of the
authorities concerned, they
decided that the said land
must be placed under
compulsory acquisition.
Petitioners filed an objection on the
ground that:
The area is not appropriate for
agricultural purposes.
The area was rugged in terrain with
slopes 18% and above (which falls
under the exception in compulsory
acquisition of CARP)
The occupants of the land were
illegal settlers or (squatters) who by
no means are entitled to the land as
beneficiaries.
The DARAB ruled against the
petitioner. On appeal the CA
affirmed the decision of DARAB.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the
property in question is covered
by CARP despite the fact that
the entire property formed part
of a watershed area prior to the
enactment of R. A. No. 6657
 RULING:
No, Watershed is one of
those enumerated by CARP to be
exempt from its coverage.
The disputed parcels of land
form a vital part of an area that
need to be protected for
watershed purposes.
Art. 67 of the Water Code: Any
watershed or any area of land
adjacent to any surface water or
overlying any ground water may
be declared by DENR as a
protected area.
 In this case, the DENR did
not declare the land as a
protected area. In the past the
municipality issued a resolution
that the said land is an
agricultural land.
The Supreme Court opines that
the area must be maintained for
watershed purposes for ecological
and environmental considerations
despite the 88 families who are
beneficiaries of the CARP. It is
important that a larger view of
the situation be taken because of
the thousands of residents
downstream if the watershed will
not be protected and maintained
for its natural purpose.
The protection of watersheds
ensures an adequate supply
of water for future
generations and the control of
flashfloods that not only
damage property but cause
loss of lives.
 Despite Supreme Courts
strong opinion of protection
of watersheds as an
intergenerational
responsibility, they, however
ordered to DARAB to
conduct a re-evaluation of
the case since the said land
falls under exception.