dar vs. sarangani

7/28/2019 DAR vs. Sarangani

1/9

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 165547 January 24, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by its Secretary, RENE C.VILLA, Petitioner,vs.SARANGANI AGRICULTURAL CO., INC., ACIL CORPORATION, NICASIO ALCANTARA andTOMAS ALCANTARA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

This is a petition for review1by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) seeking the reversal of theDecision and Resolution, dated July 19, 2004 and September 24, 2004, respectively, of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79899, entitled "Sarangani Agricultural Co, Inc., et al. v. Hon. ManuelDomingo, et al."

Respondents are the owners of the lands in question which have been reclassified from agriculturalinto non-agricultural uses by virtue of a municipal zoning ordinance, and are included in thecomprehensive land use plan of the Municipality of Alabel.

The antecedents are as follows:

The Province of Sarangani was created pursuant to Republic Act No. 7228 on March 16, 1992,

composed of seven (7) municipalities, namely, Alabel, Glan, Maasin, Maitum, Malapatan, Malungonand Kiamba which were segregated from the Province of South Cotabato. Under said Act, theMunicipality of Alabel was made the capital of the new province where the capitol building and allother national and provincial offices shall be established.2

On February 14, 1997, the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passed Resolution No. 97-08 or"Resolution Adopting and Endorsing the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive Development Plan(MCDP 1995-2005) of the Municipality of Alabel and Its Land Use Development Plan and ZoningOrdinance for Adoption and Approval of the Provincial Governor, Honorable Priscilla L. Chiongbian,Thru The Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani Province."

On January 30, 1998, pursuant to Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, and to

accelerate the development and urbanization of Alabel, the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passedResolution No. 98-03 reclassifying lots that were located within the built-up areas, based on the1995-2005 Land Use Plan of the municipality, from agricultural to non-agricultural uses.3

On March 2, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani approved Resolution No. 98-018 orthe "Resolution Adopting the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive Development Plan (MCDP 1995-2205) and the Land Use Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Municipality of Alabel,Sarangani Per Resolution No. 97-08 and Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08, S. of 1997 of theSangguniang Bayan of Alabel." A portion of the area involving 376.5424 hectares, however, was
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt1


2/9

covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) commercial farms defermentscheme.4

The Zoning Certification issued by the office of the Municipal Planning and Development Council(MPDC) showed that respondents properties located at Barangay Maribulan, Alabel were amongthose reclassified from agricultural and pasture land to residential, commercial institutional, light

industrial and open space in the 1995-2005 land use plan of Alabel.5

On July 2, 1998, respondent Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI) filed an application forland use conversion of the following parcels of land with an aggregate area of 1,005 hectares:

Registered Owner TCT No. Lot No. Area (Ha.) Area Applie(Ha.)

SACI T-7207 1-C 52.4365 52.4365

SACI T -48807 (T-4807) 2 181.3353 181.3353

SAC I T -48808 (T-4808) 3 281.0874 281.0874

SACI T -48809 (T-4809) 4 241.7880 241.7880

SAC I T-48810 (T-4810) 5 40.6738 40.6738

SACI T -48811 (T-4811) 6 137.0340 137.0340

SACI T-48812 (T-4812) 7 12.3265 12.3265

Nicasio Alcantara T-(10885) T-44538 10 20.9149 20.9149

SACI T-9210 2 12.1425 12.1425

Tomas Alcantara T-14359 (T-1185) 39 10.9390 10.9390

Nicasio Alcantara Untitled 53 5.0672 5.0672

ACIL Corporation T-(41758) (T-4150) 806 3.3115 3.3115

SACI Untitled 807 6.7871 6.7871

Accompanying SACIs application for conversion were the documents required under theDepartment of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997.6

Subsequently, a Site Inspection Report was prepared by the Housing and Land Use RegulatoryBoard (HLURB) Regional Office (Region XI) and was indorsed to DAR Secretary Horacio R.Morales, Jr.

On March 16, 1999, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the Provincial Land UseTechnical Committee (PLUTC)7conducted an inspection of the subject properties. In aMemorandum dated July 9, 1999, the PLUTC recommended that SACIs application be madesubject to the following conditions: 1) presentation by SACI of its development plan; 2) submission ofthe lacking documents; 3) re-survey and segregation of the property according to use or project incoordination with the DAR Regional Office; and, 4) submission of the resulting map indicating thetechnical description of the area per actual use/project attested by the Regional Director.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt4


3/9

Meanwhile, on March 22, 1999, members of the Sarangani Agrarian Reform BeneficiariesAssociation, Inc. (SARBAI) sent a letter-petition to the DAR Secretary oppposing the application forland use conversion filed by SACI. SARBAI alleged that its members were merely forced to sign thewaiver of rights, considering that the commercial farm deferment period ended on June 15, 1998.Later, an "Urgent Petition for the Denial of Land Use Conversion Application of Banana CommercialFarm of SACI" was filed by SARBAI and was received by the PARC Secretariat on July 14, 1999.

In the March 30, 2000 deliberation of the PLUTC, the committee agreed to recommend thedisapproval of 158.0672 hectares that had been planted with bananas and coconuts. The committeenoted that said portion of the property was still viable for agriculture, irrigated, with Notice ofCoverage, and under protest or with opposition from SARBAI. It likewise recommended that thedecision as to the rest of the area applied for conversion shall be deferred subject to the submissionof the following within a period of thirty (30) days: 1) a five-year comprehensive development plan; 2)a survey plan signed by the Regional Technical Director of Land Management Service and noted bythe DAR Regional Director (Region XI); 3) SACIs proof of undertaking, which will contain thepackage of benefits it intends to give to the affected farm workers except those working in thebanana plantation; 4) the concurrence of all the workers who would be affected by the proposedconversion, which concurrence should be noted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO)and acknowledged by a notary public.

On its part, SACI contended that 1) its projects were aligned to address the current and anticipatedcommercial and residential needs of Sarangani province, and the removal of any portion of itsproperty included in its comprehensive development plan will affect the viability of the plan; 2) thebanana plantations will be transformed into a socialized housing subdivision which will be madeavailable to the displaced workers and the other low income earners of Alabel; 3) the company willconstruct and install power generation facilities in the entire area; 4) at the time the application forland use conversion was filed, no Notice of Coverage was ever issued by DAR, and the subsequentissuance of such notice was highly irregular because the same may be issued only after the finalresolution of the application for land use conversion; and 5) the previous Order of Deferment cannotbe a legal barrier to the filing of an application for land use conversion.

On November 9, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied SACIs application for landuse conversion. The pertinent portion of the Order reads:

The proponent also submitted another DA certification stating that 12 parcels of land (Lot Nos. 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 807, 53, 10, 39 and 806) with an area of 816.7401 hectares, located at Maribulan,

Alabel, Sarangani are part of expansion for urbanizing areas. Though discussed on severalmeetings, no decision was made on the application since the applicant was not able to comply withthe documentary requirements and clarify the issues raised by the Committee.

[I]n [the] 30 March 2000 Meeting of the PLUTC, the Committee deliberated again [on] the subjectapplication and agreed to recommend the disapproval of 158.0672 hectares area planted tobanana[s] and coconuts. The Committee noted that said portion of the property is still viable for

agriculture, irrigated, with Notice of Coverage and with protest or opposition from SARBAI. TheCommittee also agreed to request the DAR to determine the metes and bounds of the area plantedto banana[s] and coconuts vis--vis areas devoted to other enterprises. Relative to the rest of thearea applied for conversion, the committee deferred its decision subject to the submission of a 5-year comprehensive development plan, showing among others, the schedule of development byphase, the specific lots involved and the corresponding proposed use.

The Committee acceded to the request of SACI and deferred its recommendation to denyconversion of that portion of the property planted to banana[s] and coconut[s] pending submission of


4/9

a manifesto or SACIs proof of undertaking that it will compensate farm workers affected by showing,among others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific lots involved and thecorresponding proposed use [of] the conversion, concurred by the workers/oppositors, noted by theMARO and duly notarized. The Committee also requested SACI to submit details of the pomelo farmin Malandag being offered as a replacement farm for the relocation of the farm workers. SACI wasgiven a 30-day period to submit these documents.

SACI, however, failed to submit the oath of undertaking to pay disturbance compensation to affectedworkers being required by the Committee and as provided under DAR Administrative Order No. 01,Series of 1999. Instead, SACI submitted an undertaking executed by the affected workers statingthat they are amenable to the package of benefits offered by the company. Nevertheless, those whoexecuted the deed of undertaking did not represent the majority of the farm workers. Out of the 95regular banana workers only 45 and eight (8) supervisors including four (4) workers who were notincluded in the workers master list of SACI executed a deed of undertaking. As regards the 105-hectare pomelo farm, SACI failed to affirm whether they are going to pursue their offer. Likewise,DAR Region XI reported that coverage of the same area is on-going, and a different group ofpotential beneficiaries have already been identified. Therefore, it could no longer be offered as arelocation site. Foregoing considered, the Committee, during its 18 August 2000 Meeting, sustainedits earlier recommendation to deny the conversion of that portion of the property planted to bananasand coconuts.

With regard to the rest. of the area, the Committee deferred its decision subject to the delineation bythe SACI of the total area that they can develop within the allowed five-year period. Likewise, thePLUTC is requesting the SACI to submit a revised five-year development plan that will show theschedule of development by phase, by year, and the proposed use for each parcel of land.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The application filed by the Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI), represented byCynthia Adao-Prat, involving parcels of land planted to banana[s] and coconut[s] and withNotice of Coverage identified as TCT Nos. T-10885 (20.9149 ha.), T-14359 (10.9390 ha.), T-

41718 (3.3115 ha.), OCT No. V-19574 or T-9210 (12.1425 ha.), Lot 807 (6.7871 ha.) andportion of P-V-125 (95.00 ha.) and [an] area covered by Lot 53 (5.0672 ha.) with anaggregate area of 154.622 [actually it is 154.1622] hectares is hereby DENIED. The DarRegional Office of Region XI is hereby instructed to determine the metes and bounds of thearea subject for distribution to the qualified FWBs.

2. The resolution of the application involving the rest of the area applied for conversion isDEFERRED pending submission by the applicant of a revised five-year development planindicating the specific use of each parcel of land.

SO ORDERED.8

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied by theCourt of Appeals in a Resolution, dated September 24, 2004.

Their Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order having been denied, respondents appealed tothe Office of the President (O.P. Case No. 02-1-47.4, alleging that the Secretary of Agrarian Reformcommitted serious errors in 1) finding that a notice of coverage had been issued for the banana areaof the landholdings; 2) giving undue significance to the protest or opposition by SARBAI; 3) requiringa deed of undertaking even after applicant-appellants written commitment to pay whatever lawfulobligation SACI may incur as a consequence of the conversion; 4) holding that farms with
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt8


5/9

commercial farm deferment cannot be applied for conversion; 5) ruling that irrigated lands suitablefor agriculture were disqualified for conversion; and 6) ruling that applicant-appellant had notsubmitted a five-year development plan.9

In a Decision dated June 30, 2003, the Office of the President through Presidential Assistant ManuelC. Domingo dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the challenged DAR Orders. Respondents

motion for reconsideration was denied,10

so they filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for reviewraising substantially the same issues.

On July 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the petition, the dispositiveportion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE.Consequently, the assailed Decision and Order dated June 30, 2003 and September 12, 2003,respectively, of the Office of the President, as well as the Orders dated November 9, 2000 and

August 28, 2002 of the DAR Secretary are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the DARdirects the MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the distribution of the banana and coconutareas subject of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage. The Secretary of the Department of Agrarian

Reform is hereby directed to issue a conversion order covering the aforesaid area under the termsand conditions as provided in pertinent guidelines of the department. As to the rest of the areaapplied for conversion, action on which has been deferred, the DAR Regional Office (DAR RegionNo. XI) is hereby DIRECTED to expedite the processing and evaluation of petitioners land useconversion application in accordance with the provisions of DAR AO No.7, Series of 1997, and DAR

AO No. 01-99 whenever the provisions of the latter issuance are made applicable to thoseapplications filed before its effectivity.

The DAR Secretary and all officers and employees acting on his behalf are hereby enjoined fromproceeding with the distribution of petitioners lands under compulsory acquisition provided in Sec.16 of R.A. No. 6657. Whatever actions already taken in pursuance of the June 16, 1998 Notice ofCoverage under CARP are hereby nullified for DARs failure to observe due process therein.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.11

Hence, this petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred:

I

WHEN IT RULED THAT THE JUNE 16, 1998 NOTICE OF COVERAGE WAS ILLEGAL AS DARALLEGEDLY FAILED TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS.

II

WHEN IT RULED THAT DAR SHOULD USE THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS ANDACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE OF THE LOCAL SANGGUNIAN AS PRIMARY REFERENCE SOAS NOT TO DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT (LGU)CONCERNED IN RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN AREAS TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMICBENEFITS IN PURSUANCE TO ITS MANDATE TOWARDS THE GENERAL WELFARE.

III
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt9


6/9

WHEN IT FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BASIC PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLESOF LAW WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OR PRECONDITIONS FORLAND CLASSIFICATION/CONVERSION AND THE BASIC MANDATE OF THE CARP.

With regard to the first issue on due process, this Court holds that, under the circumstances, a noticeof coverage is not an indispensable requirement before DAR can acquire the subject lots or

commercial farms, which are covered by a deferment period12

under the Comprehensive AgrarianReform Law (CARL) or R.A. No 6657 upon its effectivity on June 15, 1998. The pertinent provision ofthe law states:

Sec. 11. Commercial Farming. Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted tosaltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetables and cut-flower farms, cacao, coffee and rubberplantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) yearsfrom the effectivity of this Act.13In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from thefirst year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During the ten-yearperiod, the Government shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of justcompensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organizedcooperatives or associations, which shall thereafter manage the said lands for the workers-beneficiaries. (AS amended by R.A. 7881; Rules and regulations on the acquisition, valuationcompensation and distribution of deferred commercial farms DAR AO No. 09, s. 1998)

DAR Administrative Order No.9, Series of 1998,14on the Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition,Valuation, Compensation and Distribution of Deferred Commercial Farms applies to all commercialfarms as defined under Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657:15

SEC. 2. Statement of Policies. The acquisition, valuation, compensation, distribution, operationand management of deferred commercial farms shall be governed by the following policies:

(a) All commercial farms whose deferment expired as of June 15, 1998 shall be subject to immediateacquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Thosewhose deferments have yet to expire will be acquired and distributed only upon expiration of their

respective deferment period as originally determined by the Department of Agrarian reform (DAR),or earlier if the DAR determines that the purpose for which it was deferred no longer exists andrevokes its deferment;

The process of acquisition of these commercial farms by DAR is specifically provided under ArticleIII, Section 9 of the above administrative order, to wit:

SEC. 9. Procedure for Acquisition.The acquisition of deferred commercial farms shall be governedby the following procedures:

(a) Voluntary Offer to Sell/Compulsory Acquisition

1) The Order of Deferment previously issued over the landholding shall serve, uponexpiration of the deferment period of the subject commercial farm, as the Notice ofCoverage,[16]supported by the Compliance Work Program and Summary ofExceptions (Form A) originally submitted with the approved deferment application.However, for record purposes, the landowner shall be served a Notice of Expirationof Deferment (Annex 2) which shall contain a reminder of his right of retention,should he wish to exercise the same;
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt12


7/9

2) In general, the procedure for acquisition shall follow DAR Administrative Order No.01, Series of 1998, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of1996, entitled "Revised Rules and Procedures governing the Acquisition of

Agricultural Lands subject of Voluntary offer to Sell and Compulsory AcquisitionPursuant to Republic Act No. 6657," subject to certain modifications intended toexpedite the process as provided herein.

Clearly, it was unnecessary for petitioner to issue a notice of coverage to respondents inorder to place the properties in question under CARP coverage. Hence, the contention byrespondents that due process was not duly observed by petitioner must fail. Accordingly, thedenial of the application for conversion must be upheld.

As regards the second issue, DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997, orthe Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses prescribes the guidelines for land use conversion:

VI. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

A.

B. General Guidelines

b) Conversion may be allowed if at the time of the application, the lands are reclassified ascommercial, industrial, residential or other non-agricultural in the new or revised town planspromulgated by the local government unit (LGU) and approved by the Housing and LandUse Regulatory Board (HLURB) or by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) after June 15,1988, in accordance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, as implemented by MC No. 54, andExecutive Order No. 72, Series of 199317of the Office of the President.

In connection with the afore-stated administrative order, Section 20 of Republic Act No.7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, empowers the localgovernment units to reclassify agricultural lands:

Sec. 20. Reclassification of Lands. - (a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinancepassed by the Sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize thereclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization ordisposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible andsound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) wherethe land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, orindustrial purposes, as determined by the Sanggunian concerned: Provided, That suchreclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area

at the time of the passage of the ordinance:

(1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, FIFTEEN PERCENT(15%);

(2) For component cities and first to third class municipalities, ten percent (10%), and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt17


8/9

(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%); Provided further, Thatagricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic

Act No. 6657, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law," shallnot be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands intoother purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act.

(c) The local government units shall in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare theirrespective comprehensive land use plans enacted though zoning ordinances which shall bethe primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided, That therequirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall betaken into consideration in the preparation of such plans. 1avvphi1.net

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing, amending or modifying in anymanner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.18

Memorandum Circular No. 54 "Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160Otherwise Known as the Local Government Code of 1991 Authorizing Cities and Municipalities toReclassify Agricultural Lands Into Non-Agricultural Uses" issued by President Fidel V. Ramos onJune 8, 1993 specified the scope and limitations on the power of the cities and municipalities toreclassify agricultural lands into other uses. It provided that all ordinances authorizing reclassificationof agricultural lands shall be subject to the review and approval of the province in the case ofcomponent cities or municipalities, or by the HLURB for highly urbanized or independent componentcities in accordance with Executive Order No. 72, Series of 1993, thus:

SECTION 4. Use of the comprehensive land use plans19and ordinances as primary referencedocuments in land use conversions. - Pursuant to RA 6657 and EO 129-A, actions on applicationsfor land use conversions on individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of DAR, whichshall utilize as its primary reference documents the comprehensive land use plans andaccompanying ordinance passed upon and approved by the LGUs concerned, together with theNational Land Use Policy.

Hence, with regard to agricultural lands that have been reclassified for non-agricultural uses by thelocal government unit concerned, the CA is correct in declaring that DAR should refer to thecomprehensive land use plans and the ordinances of the Sanggunian in assessing land useconversion applications, thus:

Construing Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code and the subsequent administrative issuancesimplementing the same, we are of the opinion that while the DAR retains the responsibility forapproving or disapproving applications for land use conversion filed by individual landowners on

their landholdings, the exercise of such authority should be confined to compliance with therequirements and limitations under existing laws and regulations, such as the allowable percentageof agricultural [area] to be reclassified, ensuring sufficient food production, areas non-negotiable forconversion and those falling under environmentally critical areas or highly restricted for conversionunder the NIPAS law. Definitely, the DARs power in such cases may not be exercised in such amanner as to defeat the very purpose of the LGU concerned in reclassifying certain areas to achievesocial and economic benefits in pursuit of its mandate towards the general welfare. Precisely,therefore, the DAR is required to use the comprehensive land use plans and accompanyingordinances of the local Sanggunian as primary references in evaluating applications for land use
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt18


9/9

conversion filed by individual landowners. In this case, petitioners have already complied with thestandard requirements laid down under the applicable rules and regulations of the DAR....20

The conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses shall be strictly regulated and may beallowed only when the conditions prescribed under R.A. No. 6657 are present.21In this regard, theCourt agrees with the ratiocination of the CA that DARs scope of authority in assessing land use

conversion applications is limited to examining whether the requirements prescribed by law andexisting rules and regulations have been complied with. This holds true in the present case where,because of the creation of the Province of Sarangani and in view of its thrust to urbanize, particularlyits provincial capital which is the Municipality of Alabel, the local government has reclassified certainportions of its land area from agricultural to non-agricultural. Thus, to reiterate, in accordance withE.O. No. 72, Series of 1993, and subject to the limitations prescribed by law, DAR should utilize thecomprehensive land use plans in evaluating the land use conversion application of respondentswhose lands have already been reclassified by the local government for non-agricultural uses.

This is not to say, however, that every property of respondents which is included in thecomprehensive land use plan of the Municipality of Alabel shall be automatically granted non-coverage. As mentioned earlier, said application is subject to the limitations and conditionsprescribed by law. One such limitation that is present here is that a portion of respondents propertyof 376.5424 hectares, a portion totaling 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares which are planted tobananas and coconuts, are covered by CARLs ten-year deferment scheme, which has expired onJune 15, 1998. By law, these lands are subject to redistribution to CARP beneficiaries upon thelapse of the ten-year period, counted from the date of the effectivity of the CARL or R.A. No. 6657 onJune 15, 1988, which was way before the creation of the Province of Sarangani and the eventualreclassification of the agricultural lands into non-agricultural in the Municipality of Alabel whererespondents properties are located.

In short, the creation of the new Province of Sarangani, and the reclassification that was effected bythe Municipality of Alabel did not operate to supersede the applicable provisions of R.A. No. 6657.

Moreover, Section 20 of the LGC of 1991 on the reclassification of lands explicitly states that

"[n]othing in this section shall be construed as repealing, amending or modifying in any manner theprovisions of R.A. No. 6657." Thus, where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there isno room for interpretation. There is only room for application.22

In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the third issue presented in thepetition.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED insofar as the issue on due process is concerned.In connection with this, the denial by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of respondentsapplication for conversion with regard to the 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares, the deferment period ofwhich has already expired, is AFFIRMED; and the Orders of the DAR dated November 9, 2000 and

August28, 2002, directing the MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the distribution of the

banana and coconut areas subject of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage, are REINSTATED. TheDecision and Resolution, dated July 19, 2004 and September 24, 2004, respectively, of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79899, are hereby MODIFIED accordingly.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jan2007/gr_165547_2007.html#fnt20

dar vs. sarangani

Documents