Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corporation v.

Victorio Dela Cruz, Lorenzo Manalaysay, Ricardo

Marcelo, Jr. and Leonicio De Guzman,

Land on which no agricultural activity is being conducted is not subject to the coverage of either
Presidential Decree No. 27 RA no. 6657

The Dakila property used to be tenanted by Susana Surio and the others but the tenants freely and
voluntarily relinquished their tenancy rights in favor of Santiago through their respective sinumpaang
pahayagin exchange for some financial assistance and individual home lots titled and distributed in their
names. Holy Trinity purchased the remaining 208,050 sq.m. of the Dakila property from Santiago who
caused the transfer of the title to Holy Trinity and subdivided the Dakila property into 6 lots. Holy Trinity
then developthe property by dumping filing materials on the topsoil, erected a perimeter fence and
steel gate and later on established its field office on the property. The Sanggunian Bayan ng Malolos
passed Municipal Resolution 16-98 reclassifying four of the six subdivided lots belonging to the Holy
Trinity into residential lots. In 2006 Silvino Manalad and the alleged heirs of Felix Surio wrote to
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Bulacan to request an investigation of the sale of the Dakila
property. DAR Provincial Office of Bulacan filed a
petition to annul the sale of the Dakila property with the provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Bulacan. Was the Dakila property agricultural land within the coverage
of RA 6657or PD27?

No, Consequently, before land may be placed under the coverage of RA 6657, two requisites must be
met, namely: 1) that the land must be devoted to agricultural activity; and 2) that the land must not be
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. For land to be covered inder PD
27, it must be devoted to roce or corn crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy
obtaining therein. Unfortunately, the Dakila property did not meet these requirements.

G.R. No. 174588

December 11, 2013

DAVAO NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner,

vs.

SPOUSES GLORIA ESPINO SALIGA and CESAR SALIGA, and SPOUSES DEMETRIO EHARA and ROBERTA
SUGUE EHARA, Respondents.

Facts:

Two parcels of land 4.9964 hectares6 and 2.5574 hectares7 situated in Catalunan Pequeo, Davao City

Respondents Saligas and Eharas claims:

 They have been tenants of the property since 1965.
Executed 5-year lease contract with former owner Atty. Mendiola. Saligas and Eharas claimed
that the instrument was actually a device Mendiola used to evade the land reform law.
Saligas and Eharas claimed ownership based on PD No. 27 (The Land Reform Program of the
Government) covering agricultural lands

Petitioner DNTDC claims:

They purchased the property in good fair from Flores and Nepomuceno in 1995
Lease contract with Saligas and Eharas ended in 1986
Prior to the sale, the Davao City Office of the Zoning Administrator confirmed that the property
was not classified as agricultural
Affidavit of non-tenancy executed by the vendors affirmed the absence of any recognized
agricultural lessees on the property
Property had already been classified to be within an "urban/urbanizing zone" in the "1979-2000
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Davao City", duly adopted by the City Council of Davao City
and approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC) (now the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board [HLURB]).

Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) that ruled in favor of petitioner DNTDC, but ordered
DNTDC to pay Sps Saliga 20k and Sps Ehara 15k as disturbance compensation plua 150 sqm homelots
each. PARAD ruled that property has been reclassified from agri to non-agi when CARL took effect. Not
under coverage of CARL.

MTCC orders Saligas and Eharas to vacate premises upon DNTDC's complaint for unlawful detainer.

Respondents children raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the case involved an agrarian
dispute. They contended that the law considers them immediate members of the farm household, to
whom R.A. No. 3844 and R.A. No. 6657 extend tenurial security. Thus, they claimed that they, as
tenants, were entitled to continue occupying the disputed portion. Respondents' children and DNTDC
enter into compromise agreement. 20k for demolition of houses.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) reversed PARAD ruling. DARAB was not
convinced that the property had already been reclassified to non-agricultural uses so as to remove it
from the coverage of CARL. DARAB also pointed out that while Davao City Ordinance No. 363, series of
1982 (adopting the Comprehensive Development Plan of Davao City), reclassified the property to be
within the "urban/urbanizing zone," the DNTDC did not submit the required certifications from the
HLURB, adopting the zoning ordinance, and from the DAR, approving the conversion to make the
reclassification valid.

CA affirmed in toto the January 12, 2001 decision of the DARAB. The CA was also convinced that the
property was still agricultural and was, therefore, covered by R.A. No. 6657. While the CA conceded that
the conversion of the use of lands that had been reclassified as residential, commercial or industrial,
prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657, no longer requires the DARs approval, the CA pointed out that
the landowner must first comply with certain pre-conditions for exemption and/or conversion. Among
other requirements, the landowner must secure an exemption clearance from the DAR, HLURB.

Issue:

Whether the property had been reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural uses prior to June 15,
1988 so as to remove it from the coverage of CARL?

YES

Local government units have the power to reclassify lands from agricultural to nonagricultural uses. DAR
approval is not required.

City Council of Davao City has the authority to adopt zoning resolutions and ordinances. Under Section 3
of R.A. No. 226430 (the then governing Local Government Code), municipal and/or city officials are
specifically empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with
the National Planning Commission."

This power of the local government units to reclassify or convert lands to non-agricultural uses is not
subject to the approval of the DAR. (Pasong Bayabas Farmers Asso., Inc. v. Court of Appeals) In Junio v.
Secretary Garilao, SC clarified, once and for all, that "with respect to areas classified and identified as
zonal areas not for agricultural uses, the DARs clearance is no longer necessary for conversion.

Heirs of Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal Digest

G.R. No. 191545: November 22, 2010

HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR., represented by TERESITA D. SALAS, Petitioners v. MARCIANO

CABUNGCAL ET AL.,Respondents

Corona, C.J.:

FACTS:
Augusto Salas, Jr. is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land consisting of 148
hectares located in Barangays Pusil,Inosluban, Marawoy and Balintawak, Lipa City, Batangas.
In May 1987, Salas entered into an Owner-Contractor Agreement withLaperal Realty
Corporation for the development, subdivision and sale of the property.The HLURB allowed
Salas and Laperal Realty to develop the property and subdivide it into a farmlot subdivision
consisting of 80 saleable lots.The property was further subdivided into smaller lots for which
new TCTs were issued in the name of Salas.

Despite this, the HLURB included portions of the lots under its Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. Petitioners protested with DAR and applied for exemption. One of the petitions is the
instant case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not petitioners have a right to the land, thus necessitating a TRO.

HELD:

Petition Granted.

Civil Law: Prima facie right to property

Petitioners have shown aprima facieright to the exemption that they claim. Former DAR
Secretary Pagdanganan granted petitioners application for exemption upon finding that the
subject lots had already been converted to non-agricultural even prior to the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 6657,due to the propertys reclassification into farm lot subdivision through the
Land Use and Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City.

The consummation of acts leading to the disposition of the litigated property can make it difficult
to implement this Courts decision upon resolution of the case and can only prolong this
protracted battle even more. On the other hand, respondents would not be unduly deprived of
their livelihood as they can continue tilling the land pending the final disposition of this case.

Petition GRANTED. The status quo is maintained.

at March 30, 2013

Department of Agrarian Reform, represented by Secretary Jose Mari B. Ponce (OIC) vs. Delia T.Sutton,
Ella T. Sutton-Soliman and Harry T. Sutton G.R. No. 162070 (October 19, 2005)

FACTS: Respondents herein inherited a land which has been devoted exclusively to cow and
calf breeding. Pursuant to the then existing agrarian reform program of the government, respondents
made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives
under the law. 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. Thereafter, in an en banc decision in the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of
DAR 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. Thus, 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. However, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series
of1993 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. The DAR
Secretary issued an Order partially granting the application of respondents for exemption from the
coverage of CARL but applying the retention limits outlined in the DARA.O. No. 9. Respondents moved
for reconsideration. They contend that their entire land holding should be exempted as it is devoted
exclusively to cattle-raising and appealing that the DARA.O. No. 9 be declared unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Whether or not DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 which prescribes a maximum
retention for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional?

HELD: 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 is invalid as it contravenes the
Constitution. 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.

The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not
an agricultural activity. 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 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

Islanders CARP-Farmers Beneficiaries v. LADECO

DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES INC. EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE (DEARBC).
Petitioner vs. JESUS SANGUNAY and SONNY LABUNOS, respondents

Topic: Agrarian Disputes

Doctrine: Under Sec. 50 of RA 6657, DARAB is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform maters and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matter involving implementation of CARP.
Hence, at first instance, only DARAB can determine and adjudicate agrarian disputes.

Facts:

1. A 2M sq. m. landholding, covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, was awarded to petitioner
DEARBC, an agrarian cooperative and beneficiary under the CARP.
2. DEARBC claimed that:
a. Respondent Sangunay illegally entered a portion of its property called Field 34 and utilized a
portion of 1.5 hectares of such property wherein he planted corn, built a house and resided in such
from 1986 to present.
 b. Respondent Labunos also illegally entered same portion and tilled 8 hectares wherein he planted
trees, gmelina, mahogany andother crops as a source of his livelihood.
c. Both respondents failed to return the lands despite demand and such illegal occupation resulted in
deprivation of use of land and damages.
3. DEARBC filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Specific Performance with Damages with
DARAB Region Office against several people, among them were respondents.
4. The Adjudicator ruled in favor of DEARBC on the ground that respondents failed to prove ownership of
such portions of the landholding.
5. Respondents elevated the case to DARAB Central Office. They argued that:
a. Sangunays and Labunos position:
i. Land was an accrual deposit he inherited from his father in which he had been in open,
public, adverse, actual, physical and continuous possession of land as an owner.
ii. He cultivated such land with the knowledge of DEARBC. He presented Tax Declaration
and Real Property Historical Ownership issued by Municipal Assessor, showing that he
declared property for taxation even before DEARBC acquired it.
iii. He was a qualified farmer-beneficiary entitling him to security and tenure under CARP
6. DARAB dismissed DEARBCs case for lack of jurisdiction as such issue of ownership of subject land is a
regular case which falls within the jurisdiction of regular courts and not as an agrarian dispute.
a. The dispute does not relate to any tenurial agreement.
7. DEARBC appealed to the CA. CA dismissed the petition for procedural infirmities in it verification,
certification and attachments.
8. Hence, this petition.
9. DEARBC claims that DARAB has jurisdiction because it partakes of a boundary dispute or an ouster of an
intruder found under DARAB Rules of Procedure and AO 03.
10. Respondents argue that jurisdiction of DARAB is limited to agrarian disputes and implementation of
CARP. Issues of possession may be dealt with by DARAB only when they relate to agrarian disputes.

Issue: W/N DARAB has jurisdiction over the case of DEARBC

Held: No! DARAB does not have jurisdiction.

1. Jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, is determined by

allegations and relief prayed for.
2. Under Sec. 50 of RA 6657, DARAB is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform maters and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matter involving implementation of
CARP.
3. Hence, at first instance, only DARAB can determine and adjudicate agrarian disputes.
4. According to RA 6657, agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including
disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It
includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
5. Clearly, no agrarian dispute exists as DEARBC only prays for ejectment and does not involve tenurial
agreements. Both parties werecontending for the ownership of parcels of land.
6. The ruling of DAR v Abdulwahid is inapplicable as the dispute involved in such case was the terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to agra beneficiaries.
7. DEARBCs complaint lacks allegations to persuade Court in considering it as an agrarian dispute.

PETITION IS DENIED.
People v. Vanzuela, G.R. No. 178266, July 21, 2008
ALANGILAN REALTY & DVT CORP vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, GR 180471

FACTS: Petitioner is the owner/developer of a 17.4892-hectare land in Batangas City (Alangilan

landholding). On August 7, 1996, petitioner filed an Application and/or Petition for Exclusion/Exemption
from CARP Coverage of the Alangilan landholding with MARO-DAR. It averred that, in 1982, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Batangas City classified the subject landholding as reserved for residential under a
zoning ordinance, which was approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission. It further
alleged that, on May 17, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Batangas City approved the City Zoning
Map and Batangas Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Ordinance, reclassifying the landholding as
residential. Petitioner thus claimed exemption of its landholding from the coverage of the CARP. On May
6, 1997, then DAR deniedpetitioners application for exemption. The DAR Secretary noted that the
Alangilan landholding remained agricultural, reserved for residential. It was classified as residential only
on December 12, 1994 under Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 709, series of 1994. Clearly, the
subject landholding was still agricultural at the time of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657. The
qualifying phrase reserved for residential means that the property is still classified as agricultural, and is
covered by the CARP. On appeal, the Office of the President (OP) affirmed the decision of the DAR
Secretary. Petitioner went up to the CA via a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the OP decision
but CA dismissed the petition. The CA noted the report of MARO, Provincial Agrarian Reform Office
(PARO), and Regional Agrarian Reform Office (RARO) that the Alangilan landholding was devoted to
agricultural activities prior to the effectivity of the CARP on June 15, 1988 and even thereafter. Hence,
this appeal by petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners Alangilan landholding is subject to the coverage of CARP,
notwithstanding that the property has been converted to non-agricultural uses by the zoning ordinance
of the city of Batangas prior to the law.

HELD: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural, reserved for
residential in 1982, and was reclassified as residentiailn 1994. However, contrary to petitioners
assertion, the term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land from agricultural to
non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply
reflects the intended land use. It does not denote that the property has already been reclassified as
residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is not a land classification category. Indubitably,
at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still agricultural. This was
bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying
the landholding as residentia. If, indeed, the landholding had already been earmarked for residential use
in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994
Ordinance. In this case, however, petitioner failed to establish that the subject landholding had already
been converted into residential use prior to June 15, 1988. The court noted that the subject landholding
was still being utilized for agricultural activities at the time of the filing of the application for exemption.
The ocular inspection, jointly conducted by the MARO, PARO and RARO, disclosed that the landholding
was planted with mangoes and coconuts. Finally, it is well settled that factual findings of administrative
agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by
substantial evidence. The factual findings of the DAR Secretary, who, by reason of his official position,
has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without
justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified, or reversedI.n this case, petitioner utterly failed to
show justifiable reason to warrant the reversal of the decision of the DAR Secretary, as affirmed by the
OP and the CA
Case Digest: Heirs of Luna vs. Afable
G.R. No. 188299 : January 23, 2013

HEIRS OF LUIS A. LUNA and REMEGIO A. LUNA, and LUZ LUNA-SANTOS, as represented by their
Attorneys-in-Fact, AUREA B. LUBIS, Petitioners, v. RUBEN S. AFABLE, TOMAS M. AFABLE, FLORANTE A.
EVANGELISTA, LEOVY S. EVANGELISTA, JAIME M. ILAGAN, ET. AL., Respondents.

PEREZ, J.:

FACTS:

The heirs of Luis A. Luna and Remegio A. Luna, and Luz Luna-Santos (Heirs) are co-owners of a parcel of
land located in Brgy. Guinobatan, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro which was subjected to compulsory
acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Respondents Ruben Afable, Tomas
Afable, Florante Evangelista, Leovy Evangelista, Jaime Ilagan, et al. (Afable, et al.) were identified by the DAR
as qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Hence, Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were issued to them.
The heirs sought the cancellation of the said CLOAs before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) Calapan
City. Their petition was anchored mainly on the reclassification of the land in question into a light intensity
industrial zone pursuant to Municipal Ordinance No. 21, series of 1981, enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of
Calapan, thereby excluding the same from the coverage of the agrarian law. DARAB Calapan City ordered the
cancellation of the CLOAs.

Aggrieved, Afable et al. appealed to the DARAB Central Office and the latter ruled in their favour. The heirs
appealed the decision to the Office of the President which ruled that the parcel of land is excluded from the
coverage of CARP.

Then, Afable et al. appealed the Office of the Presidents decision to the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the
appeal. Hence, the heirs appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Municipal Ordinance No. 21 validly classified the parcel of land from
agricultural to non-agricultural, and therefore, exempt from CARP?

HELD: The land is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.

POLITICAL LAW: power of local governments; police power

Local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands. Sec. 345 of RA No.
2264 (The Local Autonomy Act of 1959) specifically empowers municipal and/or city councils to adopt
zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission. By
virtue of a zoning ordinance, the local legislature may arrange, prescribe, define, and apportion the land
within its political jurisdiction into specific uses based not only on the present, but also on the future
projection of needs.

The regulation by local legislatures of land use in their respective territorial jurisdiction through zoning and
reclassification is an exercise of police power. The power to establish zones for industrial, commercial and
residential uses is derived from the police power itself and is exercised for the protection and benefit of the
residents of a locality.

Petition granted. The Decision of the Office of the President is REINSTATED.

Heirs of Pacifico Gonzales vs. Juanito De Leon, et al.

Civil Law.

Subject of the controversy is a parcel of land located at Sitio Guinting, Brgy. Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna
covered by four (4) separate Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-68211, T-28288, T-434931
and T-68212 of the Registry of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna with a total combined area of 49.8 hectares,
registered under the name of Pacifico Gonzales, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest.

On 19 April 2001, the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) issued Inspection
Report declaring the subject properties exempt from CARP coverage on the following grounds:

The land is more than 18% in slope;

It is not irrigated;
70% of the land is not cultivated;
It is not planted to rice and corn;
That other appropriate government agencies had already been consulted, their approval sought
and was granted.

The Respondents alleged the existence of a tenancy relationship and their status as bonafide tenants
and farmer-beneficiaries. However, the MTC held that the evidence presented by the respondents
failed to prove the essential requisites of tenancy relationship between plaintiff and respondents.

What are agricultural lands? Requisites of agricultural. Agricultural activity. Qualified

beneficiaries. Is there a tenancy relationship between the parties?

What are the two conditions that must concur in order for land to be considered as not agricultural?

1) the land has been classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as residential, commercial
or industrial; and

2) the town plan and zoning ordinance embodying the land classification has been approved
by the HLURB or its predecessor agency prior to 15 June 1988.