A. Agrarian Reform v.

Land Reform

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

Section 3. Definitions. — For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise:

(a) Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced,
to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial
arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the
economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical
redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the
distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of
the fruits of the lands they work.

PD 27
October 21, 1972

DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF

THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY
TILL, AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR

In as much as the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and
legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict and social tension,

The redress of such legitimate grievances being one of the fundamental objectives of the
New Society,

Since Reformation must start with the emancipation of the tiller of the soil from his
bondage,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by

virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated
September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, as amended do
hereby decree and order the emancipation of all tenant farmers as of this day, October 21,
1972:

This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice
and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate
or not;

The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed
owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and
three (3) hectares if irrigated;
In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such
landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it;

For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer
pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one-half (2
1/2) times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the
promulgation of this Decree;

The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6) per centum per annum,
shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15) years of fifteen (15) equal annual amortizations;

In case of default, the amortization due shall be paid by the farmers' cooperative in which
the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member, with the cooperative having a right of recourse
against him;

The government shall guaranty such amortizations with shares of stock in government-
owned and government-controlled corporations;

No title to the land owned by the tenant-farmers under this Decree shall be actually
issued to a tenant-farmer unless and until the tenant-farmer has become a full-fledged
member of a duly recognized farmer's cooperative;

Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the
Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the
Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian
Reforms and other existing laws and regulations;

The Department of Agrarian Reform through its Secretary is hereby empowered to

promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this Decree.

All laws, executive orders, decrees and rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed and or modified accordingly.

Done in the City of Manila, this 21st day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-two.

C. Definition of Agrarian Reform

1. Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits

produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial
arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the
economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangement alternative to the physical
redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the
distribution of stock, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of
the lands they work. [Section 3(a) of RA 6657]

2. Distinguished from Land Reform

* Land Reform is the physical redistribution of land such as the program under
Presidential Decree No. 27. Agrarian reform means the redistribution of lands including
the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the
beneficiaries. Thus, agrarian reform is broader than land reform.

B. Lands Covered

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

Section 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for
agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be
undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological,
developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific
limits of the public domain.

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by
Congress in the preceding paragraph;

(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural
products raised or that can be raised thereon.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

Section 3. Definitions. — For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise:

(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act
and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
1. Natalia Realty v. DAR

NATALIA REALTY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, GR No. 103302,

1993-08-12

Facts:

Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of three (3)
contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal

On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land...
and located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite
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 townsite
reservation.

Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into low-cost housing
subdivisions within the reservation, petitioner Estate Developers and Investors
Corporation (EDIC, for brevity), as developer of NATALIA properties, applied for and
was granted preliminary... approval and locational clearances by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission.

On 15 June 1988, R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988" (CARL, for brevity), went into effect.

Conformably therewith, respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR, for

brevity),... issued... a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions

NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage.

EDIC also protested

NATALIA and EDIC both impute grave abuse of discretion to respondent DAR

They argue that NATALIA properties already ceased to be agricultural lands when they
were included in... the areas reserved by presidential fiat for townsite reservation

Public respondents through the Office of the Solicitor General dispute this contention.
They maintain that the permits granted petitioners were not valid and binding because
they did not comply with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D.
957,... otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective
Decree," in that no application for conversion of the NATALIA lands from agricultural to
residential was ever filed with the DAR. In other words, there was no valid conversion.
Issues:

Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as approved by
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precursor agencies[1] prior to 15

June 1988,[2] covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988

Ruling:

The petition is impressed with merit.

contrary to the claim of... public respondents, petitioners NATALIA and EDIC did in fact
comply with all the requirements of law.

We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL

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."

"Agricultural lands" are only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural
lands" and "do not include... commercial industrial and residential lands."

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots were
intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their...
inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation.

Even today, the areas in question continue to be developed as a low-cost housing

subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be gleaned from the fact that
SAMBA members even instituted an action to restrain petitioners... from continuing with
such development. The enormity of the resources needed for developing a subdivision
may have delayed its completion but this does not detract from the fact that these lands
are still residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL.

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 government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and
Regulations

Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses,[18] DAR

itself defined "agricultural land" thus -
"x x x x Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies,... and not classified in town
plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June

1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use."

Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is
bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped portions of
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.

ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW, GR No. 149548, 2009-12-04

Facts:

Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas,
namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of
Nasugbu, Batangas.

Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) of 1988.

Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a
voluntary offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No.
229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed... under compulsory acquisition
by ... DAR in accordance with the CARL.

Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas,
sent a letter to the Secretary of ...DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the... reclassification of
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed
respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from
agricultural to other uses.

The petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540 and 167543 nub on the interpretation of Presidential
Proclamation (PP) 1520 which was issued on November 28, 1975 by then President
Ferdinand Marcos.

The PP reads:
WHEREAS, certain areas in the sector comprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and
Ternate in Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas have potential tourism value...
hereby declare the area comprising the Municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in
Cavite Province and Nasugbu in Batangas Province as a... tourist zone under the
administration and control of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)

The PTA shall identify well-defined geographic areas within the zone with potential
tourism value,... Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application for conversion of its three
haciendas from argricultural 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 was issued on October 15, 1993
covering 513.983 hectares,... the subject of G.R. No. 167505.

The application for conversion of Roxas & Co. was the subject of the above-stated Roxas
& Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals which the Court remanded to the DAR for the observance
of proper acquisition proceedings. As reflected in the above-quoted statement of facts
in... said case, during the pendency before the DAR of its application for conversion
following its remand to the DAR or on May 16, 2000, Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR
an application for exemption from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program

(CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520 and of DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6,
Series of 1994[3] 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.

It bears mentioning at this juncture that on April 18, 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Nasugbu enacted Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4 (Nasugbu MZO No. 4) which was
approved on May 4, 1983 by the Human Settlements Regulation Commission, now the
Housing and Land Use

Regulatory Board (HLURB).

Issues:

1520

Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu

tourism zone to non-agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.'s three haciendas in
Nasugbu from CARP coverage
Whether Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of 1982 exempted certain lots in Hacienda Palico
from CARP coverage

Whether the partial and complete cancellations by the DAR of CLOA No. 6654 subject
of G.R. No. 167505 is valid

Ruling:

I. PP 1520 DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL

LANDS IN THE THREE MUNICIPALITIES INCLUDING NASUGBU TO NON-
AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared the three municipalities as each constituting
a tourism zone, reclassified all lands therein to tourism and, therefore, converted their use
to non-agricultural purposes.

The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only "certain areas in the sector
comprising the [three Municipalities that] have potential tourism value" and mandated the
conduct of "necessary studies" and the segregation of "specific geographic areas" to
achieve its purpose.

Which is why the PP directed the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) to identify what
those potential tourism areas are.

In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA,[9] the Court made it clear that the "power
to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural,
hence, exempt from the coverage of the [Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law] lies with the [Department of Agrarian Reform], not with this
Court.

The DAR, an administrative body of special competence, denied, by Order of October

22, 2001, the application for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it... finding that PP 1520
did not automatically reclassify all the lands in the affected municipalities from their
original uses. I... t appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time, identified the "specific
geographic areas" for tourism development and had no pending... tourism development
projects in the areas. Further, report from the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and
Implementation (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were planted with sugar cane and
other crops.[11]

Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 2004,[12] came up with
clarificatory guidelines and therein decreed that

B. Proclamations declaring general areas such as whole provinces, municipalities,

barangays, islands or peninsulas as tourist zones that merely:
(1) recognize certain still unidentified areas

(2) recognize the potential value of identified spots located within the general area
declared as tourist zone... could not be regarded as effecting an automatic reclassification
of the entirety of the land area declared as tourist zone. This is so because
"reclassification of lands" denotes their allocation into some specific use and "providing
for the manner of... their utilization and disposition (Sec. 20, Local Government Code) or
the "act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses
such as residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan."

A proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism value of certain areas within
the general area declared as tourist zone clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intend the
entirety of the land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said...
proclamation direct that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be used
for purposes other than agricultural.

C. There being no reclassification, it is clear that said proclamations/issuances, assuming

[these] took effect before June 15, 1988, could not supply a basis for exemption of the
entirety of the lands embraced therein from CARP coverage x x x x.

The DAR's reading into these general proclamations of tourism zones deserves utmost
consideration, more especially in the present petitions which involve vast tracts of
agricultural land. To reiterate, PP 1520 merely recognized the "potential tourism value"
of certain areas... within the general area declared as tourism zones. It did not reclassify
the areas to non-agricultural use.

Even so, Roxas & Co. turns to Natalia Realty v. DAR and NHA v. Allarde to support its
position. These cases are not even closely similar to the petitions in G.R. Nos. 167540
and 167543. The only time that these cases may find application to said petitions is...
when the PTA actually identifies "well-defined geographic areas within the zone with
potential tourism value."

II. ROXAS & CO.'S APPLICATION IN DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97
FOR CARP EXEMPTION IN HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO. 179650
CANNOT BE GRANTED IN VIEW OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE LOCATION AND
IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS OF

LAND.

Since PP 1520 did not automatically convert Haciendas Caylaway, Banilad and Palico
into non-agricultural estates, can Roxas & Co. invoke in the alternative Nasugbu MZO
No. 4,... which reclassified in 1982 the haciendas to... non-agricultural use to exclude six
parcels of land in Hacienda Palico from CARP coverage?

By Roxas & Co.'s contention,... n, the affected six parcels of land which are the subject of
DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 and nine parcels of land which... have
been reclassified to non-agricultural uses via... n, the affected six parcels of land which
are the subject of DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 and nine parcels of land
which are the subject of DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 involved in G.R.
No. 167505, all in

Hacienda Palico, have been reclassified t... ural uses via Nasugbu MZO No. 4 which was
approved by the forerunner of HLURB.

Roxas & Co.'s contention fails.

To be sure, the Court had on several occasions decreed that a local government unit has
the power to classify and convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the
effectivity of the CARL.

The DAR Secretary[26] denied the application for exemption of Roxas & Co.,
however,... [A] review of the titles, however, shows that the origin of T-49946 is T-783
and not

T-985. On the other hand, the origin of T-60034 is listed as 59946, and not T-49946. The
discrepancies were attributed by [Roxas & Co.] to typographical errors which were
"acknowledged and initialled" [sic] by the ROD. Per verification..., the discrepancies . .

. cannot be ascertained.

In denying Roxas & Co.'s motion for reconsideration, the DAR Secretary held:

The landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to the Certification
dated February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB] , the Certification dated September 12, 1996
issued by the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, and the Certifications...
dated July 31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National Irrigation Authority. The
certifications were issued for Lot Nos. 21, 24, 28, 31, 32 and 34. Thus, it was not even
possible to issue exemption clearance over the lots covered by TCT Nos. 60019 to 60023.

Furthermore, we also note the discrepancies between the certifications issued by the
HLURB and the Municipal Planning Development Coordinator as to the area of the
specific lots.[

In affirming the DAR Secretary's denial of Roxas & Co.'s application for exemption, the
Court of Appeals

But these certifications contain nothing to show that these lots are the same as Lots 125-
A, 125-B, 125-C, 125-D and 125-E covered by TCT Nos. 60019, 60020, 60021, 60022
and 60023, respetively. While [Roxas & Co.] claims that DAR Lot Nos. 21, 24 and

31 correspond to the aforementioned TCTs submitted to the DAR no evidence was

presented to substantiate such allegation... oreo
Moreover, [Roxas & Co.] failed to submit TCT 634 which it claims covers DAR Lot
Nos. 28, 32 and 24.

....a... scrutiny of the said Ordinance shows that only Barangays Talangan and
Lumbangan of the said municipality were classified as Industrial Zones...Barangay
Cogunan was not include

Its foregoing findings notwithstanding, the appellate court still allowed Roxas & Co. to
adduce additional evidence to support its application for exemption under Nasugbu MZO
No. 4.

In granting the application, the DAR Secretary[30] examined anew the evidence
submitted by Roxas & Co. which consisted mainly of certifications from various local
and national government agencies.

Even as the existence and validity of Nasugbu MZO No. 4 had already been established,
there remains in dispute the issue of whether the parcels of land involved in DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 subject of G.R. No. 179650 are actually within
the said zoning... ordinance.

The Court finds that the DAR Secretary indeed committed grave abuse of discretion
when he ignored the glaring inconsistencies in the certifications submitted early on by
Roxas & Co.

Notably, then DAR Secretary Horacio Morales, on one hand, observed that the
"landholdings covered by the aforesaid titles do not correspond to the Certification dated
February 11, 1998 of the [HLURB], the Certification dated September 12, 1996 issued by
the Municipal Planning... and Development Coordinator, and the Certifications dated July
31, 1997 and May 27, 1997 issued by the National Irrigation Authority." On the other
hand, then Secretary Hernani Braganza relied on a different set of certifications which
were issued later or on September

19, 1996.

In this regard, the Court finds in order the observation of DAMBA-NFSW that Roxas &
Co. should have submitted the comprehensive land use plan and pointed therein the exact
locations of the properties to prove that indeed they are within the area of coverage of
Nasugbu MZO

No. 4.

III. ROXAS & CO.'S APPLICATION FOR CARP EXEMPTION IN DAR

Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 FOR THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN
HACIENDA PALICO SUBJECT OF G.R. NO. 167505 SHOULD BE GRANTED.
The Court, however, takes a different stance with respect t... nine parcels of land... in
Hacienda Palico,... Location and vicinity maps of subject landholdings;

Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Reynaldo Garcia, Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator (MPDC) and Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu, Batangas,
stating that the subject parcels of land are within the Urban Core Zone as specified in
Zone A. VII of

Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), under Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;

Two (2) Certifications both dated 31 August 1998, issued by Alfredo Tan II, Director,
HLURB, Region IV, stating that the subject parcels of land appear to be within the
Residential cluster Area as specified in Zone VII of Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4,...
By Order of November 6, 2002, the DAR Secretary granted the application for exemption
b

DAMBA-NSFW moved for reconsideration but the DAR Secretary denied the same

IV. THE CLOAs ISSUED BY THE DAR in ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. A-9999-
008-98 SUBJECT OF G.R. No. 179650 TO THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
INVOLVING THE NINE PARCELS OF LAND IN HACIENDA PALICO MUST BE
CANCELLED.

Turning now to the validity of the issuance of CLOAs... ssuance of CLOAs in Hacienda
Palico vis-à-vis the present dispositions: It bears recalling that in DAR Administrative
Case Nos. A-9999-008-98 and A-9999-142-97 (G.R. No. 179650), the Court ruled for
Roxas & Co.'s grant of exemption... in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 but
denied the grant of exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 for
reasons already discussed. It follows that the CLOAs issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in
DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98 must be... cancelled.

But first, the Court digresses. The assertion of DAMBA-NSFW that the petitions for
partial and complete cancellations of the CLOAs subject of DARAB Case Nos. R-401-
003-2001 to R-401-005-2001 and No. 401-239-2001 violated the earlier order in Roxas v.
Court of Appeals does... not lie. Nowhere did the Court therein pronounce that the
CLOAs issued "cannot and should not be cancelled," what was involved therein being the
legality of the acquisition proceedings.

gs. The Court merely reiterated that it is the DAR which has primary jurisdiction to rule
on the... validity of CLOAs.

Unlike courts of justice, the DARAB, as a quasi-judicial body, is not bound to strictly
observe rules of procedure and evidence. To strictly enforce rules on appeals in this case
would render to naught the Court's dispositions on the other issues in these consolidated...
petitions.

In the main, there is no logical recourse except to cancel the CLOAs issued for the nine
parcels of land identified as Lot Nos. 20, 13, 37, 19-B, 45, 47, 49, 48-1 and 48-2 which
are portions of TCT No. 985 covering 45.9771 hectares in Hacienda Palico

(or those covered by DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98). As for the rest of
the CLOAs, they should be respected since Roxas & Co., as shown in the discussion in
G.R. Nos. 167540, 167543 and 167505, failed to prove that the other lots in Hacienda
Palico and the... other two haciendas, aside from the above-mentioned nine lots, are
CARP-exempt.

JOSE LUIS ROS v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, GR NO. 132477,

2005-08-31

Facts:

Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land located in Arpili,

Balamban, Cebu. By virtue of Municipal Ordinance No. 101 passed by the Municipal
Council of Balamban, Cebu, these lands were reclassified as industrial lands.[

As part of their preparation for the development of the subject lands as an industrial park,
petitioners secured all the necessary permits and appropriate government certifications.

Despite these permits and certifications, petitioner Matthias Mendezona received a letter
from Mr. Jose Llames, Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional
Office for Region 7, informing him that 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.

Petitioners were thus constrained to file with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo
City a Complaint dated 29 July 1996 for Injunction... the Court of Appeals rendered a
decision[18] affirming the Order of Dismissal issued by the RTC

In sum, petitioners are of the view that local governments have the power to reclassify
portions of their agricultural lands, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 20[22]
[23]of the Local Government Code.

According to them, if... the agricultural land sought to be reclassified by the local
government is one which has already been brought under the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and/or which has been distributed to
agrarian reform beneficiaries, then such reclassification must be... confirmed by the DAR
pursuant to its authority under Section 6522 of the CARL, in order for the reclassification
to become effective
If, however, the land sought to be reclassified is not covered by the CARL and not
distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries, then no... confirmation from the DAR is
necessary in order for the reclassification to become effective as such case would not fall
within the DAR's conversion authority.

tated otherwise, Section 65 of the CARL does not, in all cases, grant the DAR absolute,
sweeping and all-encompassing... power to approve or disapprove reclassifications or
conversions of all agricultural lands. Said section only grants the DAR exclusive
authority to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands which have already
been brought under the coverage of the CARL and which... have already been distributed
to farmer beneficiaries.

Issues:

(a) Whether or not 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

Ruling:

The petition lacks merit.

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.

The requirement that agricultural lands must go through the process of conversion despite
having undergone reclassification was underscored in the case of Alarcon v. Court of
Appeals,[24] where it was held that reclassification of land does not... suffice:

Rep. Act No. 6657 took effect on 15 June 1988. Municipal Ordinance No. 101 of
Balamban, Cebu, which reclassified the subject lands, was passed on 25 March 1992,...
To further clarify any doubt on its authority, the DAR issued Administrative Order No.
12 dated October 1994 which reads:

SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATED AND REVISED RULES AND PROCEDURES

GOVERNING CONVERSION OF ARICULTURAL LANDS TO NON-
AGRICULTURAL USES

II. LEGAL MANDATE

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to "approve or disapprove
applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-
agricultural uses," pursuant to Section 4(i) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987.

Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some
other use.

Reclassification of agricultural lands 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. It also includes the reversion of non-agricultural lands to...
agricultural use.

These rules shall cover all

It shall also include agricultural lands reclassified by LGUs into non-agricultural uses,
after June 15, 1988, pursuant to Memorandum

Circular (M.C.) No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President and those proposed
to be used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as provided in DAR Administrative
Order No. 9, Series of 1993.

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. The Code explicitly provides[26] that "nothing in this section... shall
be construed as repealing or modifying in any manner the provisions of Rep. Act No.
6657."

It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the
complaint for injunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and appellate courts under
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

Section 3. Definitions. — For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise:

(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of

the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish,
including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices
performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person
whether natural or juridical.

LUZ FARMS v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, GR

No. 86889, 1990-12-04
Facts:

President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, which includes the raising of
livestock, poultry and swine... retary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the Guidelines and
Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing as embodied in Sections 13 and
32 of R.A. No. 6657

Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated its Rules and Regulations implementing

Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657 (Commercial Farms)

Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry
business and together with others in the same business allegedly stands to be adversely
affected by the enforcement of Section 3(b),... Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law...
and of the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under
R.A. No. 6657 promulgated

Hence, this petition praying that aforesaid laws, guidelines and rules be declared
unconstitutional

Luz Farms questions the following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as they are made to
apply to it:

(a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock (and poultry)" in the definition
of "Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity."

The Constitutional provision under consideration reads as follows:

AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM

Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other... farmworkers, to receive a just
share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention
limits as the Congress may... prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining
retention limits, the State shall respect the rights of small landowners. The State shall...
further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

Luz Farms contended that it does not seek the nullification of R.A. 6657 in its entirety.
In fact, it acknowledges the correctness of the decision of this Court in the case of the
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform

It, however, argued that Congress in enacting the said law has transcended the mandate of
the Constitution,... in including land devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine
in its coverage (Rollo, p. 131). Livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop or tree
farming. Land is not the primary... resource in this undertaking and represents no more
than five percent (5%) of the total investment of commercial livestock and poultry
raisers.

On the other hand, the public respondent argued that livestock and poultry raising is
embraced in the term "agriculture" and the inclusion of such enterprise under Section 3(b)
of R.A. 6657 is proper. He cited that Webster's International

Dictionary, Second Edition (1954), defines the following words:

"Agriculture - the art or science of cultivating the ground and raising and harvesting
crops, often, including also, feeding, breeding and management of livestock, tillage,
husbandry, farming.

It includes farming, horticulture, forestry, dairying, sugarmaking x x x.

Livestock - domestic animals used or raised on a farm, especially for profit.

Issues:

The main issue in this petition is the constitutionality of Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of
R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), insofar as the said
law includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as... well as the
Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith.

Ruling:

The petition is impressed with merit.

The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the

meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of the
framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of...
the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.

The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under Section 186
of R.A. 3844, as land devoted to any growth. Including but not limited to crop lands,
saltbeds, fishponds, idle and... abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol.
III, p. 11).

The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of the word "agriculture."

It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes
"private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising" in
the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited... agro-
industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State.
There is simply no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of
agrarian reform (Rollo, p. 21).

Hence, there is merit in Luz Farms' argument that the requirement in Sections 13 and 32
of R.A. 6657 directing "corporate farms" which include livestock and poultry raisers to
execute and implement "production-sharing plans" (pending final redistribution of their...
landholdings) whereby they are called upon to distribute from three percent (3%) of their
gross sales and ten percent (10%) of their net profits to their workers as additional
compensation is unreasonable for being confiscatory, and therefore... violative of due
process (Rollo, p. 21).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. DELIA T. SUTTON, GR NO. 162070,

2005-10-19

Facts:

The case at bar involves a land in Aroroy, Masbate, inherited by respondents which has
been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding

On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect. It included in its
coverage farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine.

On December 4, 1990, in an en banc decision in the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of

DAR,[2] this Court ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not
included in the definition of agricultural land. Hence, we declared as... unconstitutional
certain provisions of the CARL insofar as they included livestock farms in the coverage
of agrarian reform.

In view of the Luz Farms ruling, respondents filed with petitioner DAR a formal request
to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and
thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL

On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993,[5] which provided that
only portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and
swine as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the CARL.

In determining the area of land to be excluded, the A.O. fixed the following retention
limits, viz: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per 1 head of animal shall be
retained by the landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for
every 21... heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded from the operations of the CARL.
On February 4, 1994, respondents wrote the DAR Secretary and advised him to consider
as final and irrevocable the withdrawal of their VOS as, under the Luz Farms doctrine,
their entire landholding is exempted from the CARL.

On September 14, 1995, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao issued an Order[7]
partially granting the application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of
CARL. Applying the retention limits outlined in the DAR A.O. No. 9, petitioner
exempted

1,209 hectares of respondents' land for grazing purposes, and a maximum of 102.5635
hectares for infrastructure. Petitioner ordered the rest of respondents' landholding to be
segregated and placed under Compulsory Acquisition.

Respondents moved for reconsideration. They contend that their entire landholding
should be exempted as it is devoted exclusively to cattle-raising. Their motion was denied

Issues:

The main issue in the case at bar is the constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, series of
1993, which prescribes a maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to
livestock raising.

Ruling:

Invoking its rule-making power under Section 49 of the CARL, petitioner submits that it
issued DAR A.O. No. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be retained by a
landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and private agricultural lands under
the coverage of... agrarian reform. Petitioner also contends that the A.O. seeks to remedy
reports that some unscrupulous landowners have converted their agricultural farms to
livestock farms in order to evade their coverage in the agrarian reform program.

Petitioner's arguments fail to impress.

Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature, i.e., the power to
make rules and regulations.

Delegated rule-making

However, while administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law,
they are not immune from judicial review.[12] They may be... properly challenged before
the courts to ensure that they do not violate the Constitution and no grave abuse of
administrative discretion is committed by the administrative body concerned.
The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules and
regulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not contravene the provisions
of the Constitution

Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the scope
intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what... rules and
regulations may be promulgated by administrative agencies and the scope of their
regulations.

In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the
Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the
coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their
ownership. However, the... deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a
clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and
poultry- raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and
poultry-raising are industrial... activities and do not fall within the definition of
"agriculture" or "agricultural activity."

Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been
exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its
power in issuing the assailed A.O.

The subsequent case of Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR[16] reiterated our ruling in the Luz
Farms case. In Natalia Realty, the Court held that industrial, commercial and residential
lands are not covered by the CARL.[17] We stressed anew that while Section 4 of R.A.
No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover all public and private agricultural lands, the
term "agricultural land" does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial.

Thus, in Natalia Realty, even portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision, which are arable
yet still undeveloped, could not be considered as agricultural lands subject to agrarian
reform as these lots were already classified as residential lands.

A similar logical deduction should be followed in the case at bar. Lands devoted to
raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial, not agricultural,
lands and thus exempt from agrarian reform. Petitioner DAR argues that, in issuing the
impugned A.O.,... it was seeking to address the reports it has received that some
unscrupulous landowners have been converting their agricultural lands to livestock farms
to avoid their coverage by the agrarian reform. Again, we find neither merit nor logic in
this contention. The undesirable... scenario which petitioner seeks to prevent with the
issuance of the A.O. clearly does not apply in this case. Respondents' family acquired
their landholdings as early as 1948. They have long been in the business of breeding
cattle in Masbate which is popularly known as the... cattle-breeding capital of the
Philippines.[18] 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 cattle after the enactment of the CARL... that may lead one to suspect that
respondents intended to evade its coverage. It must be stressed that what the CARL
prohibits is the conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes after the
effectivity of the CARL. There has been no change of business... interest in the case of
respondents.

Moreover, it is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that the reenactment of a

statute by Congress without substantial change is an implied legislative approval and
adoption of the previous law. On the other hand, by making a new law, Congress seeks to
supersede an... earlier one.[19] In the case at bar, after the passage of the 1988 CARL,
Congress enacted R.A. No. 7881[20] which amended certain provisions of the CARL.
Specifically, the new law changed the definition of the terms "agricultural... activity" and
"commercial farming" by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising.[21] With this significant modification,
Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the... intent of
the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of
agrarian reform.

In sum, it is doctrinal that rules of administrative bodies must be in harmony with the
provisions of the Constitution. They cannot amend or extend the Constitution. To be
valid, they must conform to and be consistent with the Constitution. In case of conflict
between an... administrative order and the provisions of the Constitution, the latter
prevails.[22] The assailed A.O. of petitioner DAR was properly stricken down as
unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverage of agrarian reform beyond the scope intended
by the 1987

Constitution.

MILESTONE FARMS v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, GR No. 182332, 2011-02-23

Facts:

Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) was incorporated with the Securities and
Exchange Commission... on on January 8, 1960.

secondary purposes... engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock... breed,
raise, and sell poultry... o import cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and animal food
necessary

On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took effect,... t, which
included the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. However, on
December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting... en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform[6] that agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry,
and/or swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP).
Thus, in May 1993, petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion

Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued
Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 (DAR A.O. No. 9), setting forth rules and
regulations to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and
swine raising

Acting on the said application, the DAR's Land Use Conversion and Exemption
Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted an ocular inspection on petitioner's
property

The LUCEC, thus, recommended the exemption of petitioner's 316.0422-hectare property

from the coverage of CARP.

. Adopting the LUCEC's findings and recommendation, DAR Regional Director Percival
Dalugdug (Director Dalugdug) issued an Order dated June 27, 1994, exempting...
petitioner's 316.0422-hectare property from CARP.[8]

(Pinugay Farmers), represented by Timiano Balajadia, Sr. (Balajadia), moved for the
reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied by Director Dalugdug

Pinugay Farmers filed a letter-appeal with the DAR Secretary.

Correlatively, on June 4, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against
Balajadia and company before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Teresa-
Baras, Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. 781-T.[10] The MCTC ruled in favor of...
petitioner, but the decision was later reversed by the Regional Trial Court

Ultimately, the case reached the CA, which, in its Decision[11] dated October 8, 1999,
reinstated the MCTC's ruling, ordering Balajadia and all... defendants therein to vacate

The DAR Secretary's Ruling

On January 21, 1997, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao (Secretary Garilao) issued
an Order exempting from CARP only 240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 hectares
previously exempted by Director Dalugdug, and declaring 75.0646 hectares of the
property to be covered by

CARP.[14]

Aggrieved, petitioner filed its Memorandum on Appeal[18] before the Office of the
President (OP).

The OP's Ruling

On February 4, 2000, the OP rendered a decision[19] reinstating Director Dalugdug's
Order dated June 27, 1994 and declared the entire 316.0422-hectare property exempt
from the coverage of CARP.

However, on separate motions for reconsideration

The OP held that, when it comes to proof of ownership, the reference is the Certificate of
Ownership of Large Cattle. Certificates of cattle ownership, which are readily available -
being issued by the appropriate government office - ought to match the number of heads
of cattle... counted as existing during the actual headcount. The presence of large cattle
on the land, without sufficient proof of ownership thereof, only proves such presence.

Taking note of Secretary Garilao's observations, the OP also held that, before an ocular
investigation is conducted on the property, the landowners are notified in advance; hence,
mere reliance on the physical headcount is dangerous because there is a possibility that
the... landowners would increase the number of their cattle for headcount purposes only.
The OP observed that there was a big variance between the actual headcount of 448
heads of cattle and only 86 certificates of ownership of large cattle.

Petitioner asseverates that lands devoted to livestock farming as of June 15, 1988 are
classified as industrial lands, hence, outside the ambit of the CARP; that Luz Farms,
Sutton, and R.A. No. 7881 clearly excluded such lands on constitutional grounds; that...
petitioner's lands were actually devoted to livestock even before the enactment of the
CARL; that livestock farms are exempt from the CARL, not by reason of any act of the
DAR, but because of their nature as industrial lands; that petitioner's property was
admittedly devoted to... livestock farming as of June 1988 and the only issue before was
whether or not petitioner's pieces of evidence comply with the ratios provided under
DAR A.O. No. 9; and that DAR A.O. No. 9 having been declared as unconstitutional,
DAR had no more legal basis to conduct a... continuing review and verification
proceedings over livestock farms.

Petitioner argues that, in cases where reversion of properties to agricultural use is proper,
only the DAR has the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the same; hence,
the CA, in this case,... committed serious errors when it ordered the reversion of the
property and when it considered pieces of evidence not existing as of June 15, 1988,
despite its lack of jurisdiction; that the CA should have remanded the case to the DAR
due to conflicting factual claims

On one hand, the farmer-groups, represented by the Espinas group, contend that they
have been planting rice and fruit-bearing trees on the subject property, and helped the
National Irrigation Administration in setting up an irrigation system therein in 1997,...
that petitioner came to court with unclean hands because, while it sought the exemption
and exclusion of the entire property, unknown to the CA, petitioner surreptitiously filed
for conversion of the property now known as Palo
Alto, which was actually granted by the DAR Secretary; that petitioner's bad faith is more
apparent since, despite the conversion of the 153.3049-hectare portion of the property, it
still seeks to exempt the entire property in this case;... and that the fact that petitioner
applied... for conversion is an admission that indeed the property is agricultural.

The farmer-groups also contend that petitioner's reliance on Luz Farms and Sutton is
unavailing because in these cases there was actually no cessation of the business of
raising cattle; that... what is being exempted is the activity of raising cattle and not the
property itself; that exemptions due to cattle raising are not permanent;

On the other hand, respondent OP, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
claims that the CA correctly held that the subject property is not exempt from the
coverage of the CARP, as substantial pieces of evidence show that the said property is
not exclusively devoted... to livestock, swine, and/or poultry raising;

Issues:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD

THAT LANDS DEVOTED TO LIVESTOCK FARMING WITHIN THE MEANING
OF LUZ FARMS AND SUTTON, AND WHICH ARE THEREBY EXEMPT FROM
CARL COVERAGE, ARE NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO DAR'S CONTINUING
VERIFICATION AS TO USE, AND,... ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VERIFICATION,
MAY BE ORDERED REVERTED TO AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION AND
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION[;]

Ruling:

The Petition is bereft of merit.

Indeed, as pointed out by the CA, the instant case does not rest on facts parallel to those
of Sutton because, in Sutton, the subject property remained a livestock farm. We even
highlighted therein the fact that "there has been no change of business interest in... the
case of respondents."[60] Similarly, in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Uy,[61] we
excluded a parcel of land from CARP coverage due to the factual findings of the MARO,
which were confirmed by the DAR, that the property... was entirely devoted to livestock
farming. However, in A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., represented by Carmen Z. Arnaiz v.
Office of the President; Department of Agrarian Reform; Regional Director, DAR Region
V, Legaspi City; Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR Provincial

Office, Masbate, Masbate; and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR Municipal
Office, Masbate, Masbate,[62] we denied a similar petition for exemption and/or
exclusion, by according respect to the CA's factual findings and its reliance on... the
findings of the DAR and the OP that the subject parcels of land were not directly,
actually, and exclusively used for pasture
Petitioner's admission that, since 2001, it leased another ranch for its own livestock is
fatal to its cause.[64] While petitioner advances a defense that it leased this ranch because
the occupants of the subject property harmed its cattle, like the CA, we... find it
surprising that not even a single police and/or barangay report was filed by petitioner to
amplify its indignation over these alleged illegal acts. Moreover, we accord respect to the
CA's keen observation that the assailed MARO reports and the Investigating Team's

Report do not actually contradict one another, finding that the 43 cows, while owned by
petitioner, were actually pastured outside the subject property.

Finally, it is established that issues of Exclusion and/or Exemption are characterized as

Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases which are well within the DAR Secretary's
competence and jurisdiction.

Thus, we cannot, without going against the law, arbitrarily strip the DAR Secretary of his
legal mandate to exercise jurisdiction and authority over all ALI cases. To succumb to
petitioner's contention that "when a land is declared exempt from the CARP on the
ground that it... is not agricultural as of the time the CARL took effect, the use and
disposition of that land is entirely and forever beyond DAR's jurisdiction" is dangerous,
suggestive of self-regulation. Precisely, it is the DAR Secretary who is vested with such
jurisdiction and authority... to exempt and/or exclude a property from CARP coverage
based on the factual circumstances of each case and in accordance with law and
applicable jurisprudence. In addition, albeit parenthetically, Secretary Villa had already
granted the conversion into residential and golf... courses use of nearly one-half of the
entire area originally claimed as exempt from CARP coverage because it was allegedly
devoted to livestock production.

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988

Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used
and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish
sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school
sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private
schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production
centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers
appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine
centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from the coverage of the Act.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS

SATELLITE CORP., GR NO. 152640, 2006-06-15

Facts:
The controversy involves a parcel of land owned by respondent PHILCOMSAT situated
within the area which had been declared a security zone under Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 1845, as amended by P.D. No. 1848, entitled "Declaring the Area within a Radius of
Three Kilometers... surrounding the Satellite Earth Station in Baras, Rizal, a Security
Zone."

SAT is the owner of a parcel of land situated in Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, where its
Philippine Space Communications Center (PSCC) is located. The PSCC, which
principally consist

PHILCOMSAT... principally consists of herein respondent's satellite earth station, serves

as the communications gateway of the

Philippines to more than two-thirds of the world.

Incidentally, the property had been planted with fruit trees, rice and corn by farmers
occupying the surrounding areas of the PSCC.

On April 30, 1982, P.D. No. 1845 was promulgated. This decree was amended on July
29, 1982 by P.D. No. 1848, Section 1 of which states:

Section 1. Declaration of Security Zone. - The entire area surrounding the satellite earth
station... within a radius of three kilometers, more or less, from the... main satellite... is
hereby declared a security zone.

The three-kilometer security zone covers an area of 5,654 hectares, which includes the
700 hectares owned by PHILCOMSAT that is being subjected to the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)[1] of the government.

Also included within this... three-kilometer radius is the 1.5 kilometers radius from the
antenna wherein local harmful Radio Frequency Interference resulting from ignition
systems, motor starters, high voltage discharges, and the like, is captured and amplified
which can hamper telecommunications... services

In 1992, a Notice of Coverage was sent to PHILCOMSAT by petitioner DAR informing

the former that the land in question shall be placed under CARP's compulsory acquisition
scheme.

PHILCOMSAT wrote to DAR seeking an exemption of the subject property from CARP
coverage, insisting that the land will be utilized for the expansion of its operations, and
for the following reasons:[3]... land is being used for national defense in accordance with
Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657... national defense... company should be free
from harmful Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) to maintain highest service reliability

Respondent's application for exemption from CARP coverage was evaluated by DAR.
gested that respondent enter into a usufructuary agreement with the occupants of... the
subject property until such time that it will have to use the property for its planned
expansion. The occupants, however, refused to enter into such an agreement.[

Meanwhile, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tanay, Rizal, in its Resolution No. 65-94 that was
endorsed to DAR, moved for the coverage of the 700-hectare PHILCOMSAT property
within the security zone under CARP. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Teresa,
Rizal further opined that... subjecting the surrounding agricultural area within the security
zone under CARP will not be detrimental to the operations of PHILCOMSAT.[6]

On May 25, 1998, an Order was issued by then Secretary Garilao rejecting
PHILCOMSAT's application for exemption from CARP, citing three main reasons:...
occupants in the area can be considered as bona fide tenants of the registered owner
before PHILCOMSAT acquired the same for its projected expansion of operations as
they have been tilling said area for several years;

Said occupants had been identified by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)
as potential CARP beneficiaries... term "security zone" is not embraced within the
definition of lands used for national defense

Issues:

e main issue in this case is whether or not the subject property of PHILCOMSAT which
had been declared a security zone under P.D. No. 1845, as amended by P.D. No. 1848,
can be subjected to CARP.

Ruling:

P.D. No. 1845, as amended by P.D. No. 1848, was issued way before the effectivity of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.

P.D. No. 1848, amending P.D. No. 1845, subjected the security zone to the authority of
the Ministry of National Defense, consequently conferring on the Minister of National
Defense the power and authority to determine who can occupy the areas within the
security zone

The law, in effect, by declaring the area a security zone, has granted to the Ministry of
National Defense the control and administration of the same. As a rule, where a general
power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of
one or the... performance of the other is also conferred

Upon the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which became effective
on July 15, 1988, all public and private agricultural lands,[11] and other lands of public
domain suitable for agriculture, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity...
produced, were declared subject to its coverage.[12]
The area in question which is included within the security zone is agricultural. It has
been planted with different crops and fruit trees by its occupants, and has been found by
DAR to be suitable for agriculture.

The area, however, should be exempt from CARP coverage by virtue of P.D. No. 1845,
as amended, which, as stated earlier, declared the area to be a security zone under the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Defense.

It is evident from the very wording of the law that the government recognized the crucial
role of PHILCOMSAT's operations to national security, thereby necessitating the
protection of its operations from unnecessary and even anticipated disruption. Thus,
every statute is... understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be
necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers,
privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary
consequences as may be fairly and... logically inferred from its terms.[13]

In this regard, the Court agrees with the Court of Appeals when it stated that:

The subject property is clearly within the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law, in accordance with Chapter II, section 4(d) thereof, had it not been decreed by P.D.
No. 1845 that it is a security zone.

Section 10 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or R.A. No. 6657,[15] as

amended, provides that lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national defense shall be exempt from the coverage of the Act. The
determination... as to whether or not the subject property is actually, directly, and
exclusively used for national defense usually entails a finding of fact which this Court
will not normally delve into considering that, subject to certain exceptions, in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 45... of the Rules of Court, the Court is called upon to review
only errors of law.[16] Suffice it to state, however, that as a matter of principle, it cannot
seriously be denied that the act of securing a vital communication facilities is an act of
national... defense. Hence, the law, by segregating an area for purposes of a security
zone for such facilities, in effect devoted that area to national defense.

SEC. 2. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.

“a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be
exempt from the coverage of this Act.

“b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds
shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and
fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)
issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.

“In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms deferment or
notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the actual regular
workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year from the effectivity
of this Act When the workers or tenants do not agree to this exemption the fishponds or
prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker-beneficiaries or tenants who
shall form a cooperative or association to manage the same.

“In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law the consent of the farm workers shall no longer be
necessary’ however, the provision of Section 32-A hereof on incentives shall apply.”

“c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national
defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by
public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot
production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and
Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal
colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private
research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over,
except those already developed, shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.”