COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM

1
 Alfonso v. Land Bank of the Philippines
G.R. Nos. 181912 & 183347, November 29, 2016
JARDELEZA, J
Facts:
Cynthia Palomar (Palomar) was the registered owner of two (2) parcels of land. One is located in San Juan,
Sorsogon City, with an area of 1.6530 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-21136,
and the other in Bibincahan, Sorsogon City, with an area of 26.2284 hectares covered by TCT No. T-23180.
Upon the effectivity of RA 6657, the DAR sought to acquire Palomar's San Juan and Bibincahan properties
at a valuation of ₱36,066.27 and ₱792,869.06, respectively. Palomar, however, rejected the valuations.

Land Valuation Case Nos. 68-01 and 70-01 were consequently filed before the DAR Provincial
Adjudication Board (Board) for summary determination of just compensation. In the meantime, or on
April 16, 2001, Palomar sold her rights over the two properties to petitioner Ramon M. Alfonso (Alfonso ).
Upon orders from the Board, the parties submitted their position papers and evidence to support their
respective proposed valuations. On June 20, 2002, Provincial Adjudicator Manuel M. Capellan issued
Decisions in Land Valuation Case Nos. 68-01 and 70-01.

Applying DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998, (DAR AO No. 5 [1998]), Provincial
Adjudicator Capellan valued the properties at 103,955.66 for the San Juan Property and 2,314,115.73 for the
Bibincahan Property. Respondent LBP, as the CARP financial intermediary pursuant to Section 64 of RA
6657, filed a motion seeking for a reconsideration of the Provincial Adjudicator's valuations.

SAC: Php 442,830 for the first site; and Php 5,650,680 for the second site, amounting to Php 6,094,000 for
the grand total.

CA: SAC failed to observe the procedure and guidelines provided under DAR AO No. 5 (1998). It
consequently granted the petitions filed by the LBP and the DAR and ordered the remand of the case
to the SAC for the determination of just compensation in accordance with the DAR basic formula.

Issue:
WON the courts obliged to apply the DAR formula in cases where they are asked to
determine just compensation for property covered by RA 6657

Ruling:
YES.

Out of regard for the DAR's expertise as the concerned implementing agency, courts should henceforth
consider the factors stated in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, as translated into the applicable DAR
formulas in their determination of just compensation for the properties covered by the said law. If, in
the exercise of their judicial discretion, courts find that a strict application of said formulas is not warranted
under the specific circumstances of the case before them, they may deviate or depart therefrom, provided
that this departure or deviation is supported by a reasoned explanation grounded on the evidence on
record. In other words, courts of law possess the power to make a final determination of just compensation.

Evidence must be taken to determine whether, given the scale of the government's agrarian reform
program, the DAR and the LBP (and later, Congress) acted justly and within reason in choosing to
implement the law with the enumeration of factors in Section 17 and the use of a basic formula, or,
whether, under the facts, it is more just and reasonable to employ a case to case method of valuation. A
core and triable question of fact is whether the DAR and the LBP can effectively and fairly implement a
large scale land reform program without some guide to canalize the discretion of its employees tasked to

2
undertake valuation. Otherwise stated, how can the DAR and the LBP commence CARP implementation if
the different DAR and LBP employees tasked with making the offer, and spread nationwide, are each given
complete discretion to determine value from their individual reading of Section 17? This will resolve
the factual underpinnings of the argument advanced that the valuation factors enumerated in Section 17
apply only where there is agreement on value as between the DAR/LBP and the landowner. But not when
there is disagreement.

The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The "justness" of the enumeration of
valuation factors in Section 17, the "justness" of using a basic formula, and the "justness" of the
components (and their weights) that flow into the basic formula, are all matters for the courts to decide.
As stressed by Celada, however, until Section 17 or the basic formulas are declared invalid in a proper case,
they enjoy the presumption of constitutionality. This is more so now, with Congress, through RA
9700, expressly providing for the mandatory consideration of the DAR basic formula. In the meantime,
Yatco, akin to a legal safety net, has tempered the application of the basic formula by providing for
deviation, where supported by the facts and reasoned elaboration. While concededly far from perfect, the
enumeration under Section 17 and the use of a basic formula have been the principal mechanisms to
implement the just compensation provisions of the Constitution and the CARP for many years. Until a
direct challenge is successfully mounted against Section 17 and the basic formulas, they and the collective
doctrines in Banal, Celada and Yatco should be applied to all pending litigation involving just
compensation in agrarian reform.

The petition is partially granted; remanded to the SAC for proper determination of just
compensation

3
 Natalia Realty Inc v. Department of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993
BELLOSILLO, J.

Facts:
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of three (3) contiguous parcels of
land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, with areas of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares and 2.7080
hectares, or a total of 125.0078 hectares, and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31527 of
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal.

On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land 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. The necessary permit for Phase I of the subdivision project, which
consisted of 13.2371 hectares, was issued sometime in 1982; for Phase II, with an area of 80,000
hectares, on 13 October 1983; and for Phase III, which consisted of the remaining 31.7707 hectares, on 25
April 1986. Petitioner were likewise issued development permits after complying with the requirements.
Thus the NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.

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), through its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued on 22 November 1990 a
Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of
roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the notice of Coverage.

EDIC also protested to respondent Director Wilfredo Leano of the DAR Region IV Office and twice
wrote him requesting the cancellation of the Notice of Coverage. On 17 January 1991, members of the
Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA, for the brevity), filed a complaint against
NATALIA and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain petitioners from developing
areas under cultivation by SAMBA members. The Regional Adjudicator temporarily restrained
petitioners from proceeding with the development of the subdivision. Petitioners then moved to dismiss
the complaint; it was denied. Instead, the Regional Adjudicator issued on 5 March 1991 a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.

Petitioners NATALIA and EDIC elevated their cause to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB); however,
on 16 December 1991 the DARAB merely remanded the case to the Regional Adjudicator for further
proceedings.

In the interim, NATALIA wrote respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform reiterating its request to set
aside the Notice of Coverage. Neither respondent Secretary nor respondent Director took action on the
protest-letters, thus compelling petitioners to institute this proceeding more than a year thereafter.

NATALIA and EDIC both impute grave abuse of discretion to respondent DAR for including
undedeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of the CARL.

Issue:

4
WON lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as approved by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precursor agencies prior to 15 June 1988, covered by R.A.
6657?

Ruling:
NO.

Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it
is referred to as "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land." The deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission confirm this limitation. "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 continued 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. 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.

5
 Heirs of Luna v. Afable
G.R. No. 188299, January 23, 2013
PEREZ, J.

Facts:
Petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. J-7205
(T-54199), with an area of 158.77 hectares, located in Barangay Guinobatan, Calapan City, Oriental
Mindoro. 100.2856 hectares of the landholding was subjected to compulsory acquisition under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) through a Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition
dated 20 August 1998 issued by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) and published in a
newspaper of general circulation on 29, 30 and 31 August 1998.

Respondents were identified by the DAR as qualified farmer-beneficiaries; hence, the corresponding
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were generated, issued to respondents and duly
registered in their names on 12 October 1998. On 21 October 1998, petitioners filed before the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB) Oriental Mindoro a Petition for "Cancellation of CLOAs, Revocation of
Notice of Valuation and Acquisition and Upholding and Affirming the Classification of Subject Property and
Declaring the same outside the purview of RA No. 6657." The 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: petitioners’ property is exempt from the CARP as it has been reclassified as
non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657. DARAB Central Office: its local
office in Calapan City erred in declaring petitioners’ property outside the coverage of the CARP by relying
solely on the assertion of the landowners that the land had already been reclassified from agricultural
to non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988; Accordingly, the DARAB set aside the Decision dated 26 August
1999 of the DARAB Calapan City for lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Regional Office of
DAR Region IV for final determination as to whether the land covered by TCT No. J-7205 (T-54199) in the
names of Luis Luna, et al. is exempt from CARP coverage.

DAR: granted petitioners’ application for exemption

DAR (On Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration): Subject property is still within the ambit of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program since the same were [sic] reclassified only in 1998 through
Resolution No. 151, City Ordinance No. 6, and was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan only in
2001 through Resolution No. 218, Series of 2001 long after the effectivity of RA 6657.

DAR (On Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration): petitioners failed to offer substantial evidence that
would warrant reversal of the Order.

Office of the President: found petitioners’ appeal impressed with merit; the area where subject property is
situated was really intended to be classified, not as agricultural, as in fact it was declared as residential,
commercial and institutional in 1998. The motion for reconsideration and second motion for
reconsideration of respondents were respectively denied by the Office of the President.

CA: granted the appeal of the respondents based on a finding that the ruling of the Office of the President is
not supported by substantial evidence.

Issue:

6
WON the land subject of this case had been reclassified as non-agricultural as early as 1981, that is, prior
to the effectivity of the CARL and, therefore, exempt from its coverage.

Ruling:
YES.

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. Ordinance No. 21 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Calapan
was issued pursuant to Section 3 of the Local Autonomy Act of 1959 and is, consequently, a valid exercise
of police power by the local government of Calapan. Based on the foregoing, there is no doubt that
Ordinance No. 21 validly reclassified the area identified therein as "100 meters deep west and 200
meters deep east of Sto. Niño-Lumangbayan-Sapul Road from the Teachers’ Village Subdivision to
Barangay Guinobatan" into a light intensity industrial zone, making the same exempt from CARL coverage.

The exemption order of Secretary Pagdanganan found petitioners’ application to have fully complied with
the documentary requirements for exemption set forth under AO No. 6, the more important of which are the
Certifications from the Deputized Zoning Administrator and the HUDCC stating that petitioners’ property
falls within the Light Intensity Industrial Zone of Calapan City.

Incidentally, what AO No. 6 requires is a certification from the HLURB. Although what petitioners
submitted was a certification from the HUDCC, Secretary Pagdanganan apparently considered the
same as sufficient compliance with the requirements of AO No. 6 and in fact never referred to the
certification as coming from the HUDCC but was consistently identified as "certification from the HLURB"
throughout his order. We see nothing irregular in this considering that the HLURB is an agency under
the HUDC and especially since the Certification of the HUDCC is itself "based on the Zoning
Ordinance approval by HLURB Resolution No. R-39-4 dated 31 July 1980."

In contrast to the exemption order issued by Secretary Pagdanganan, the resolution and order,
respectively, of OIC Secretaries Ponce and Pangandaman – which the CA cited with approval – relied
mainly on certifications declaring that the property is irrigated or has a slope of below 18% and on an
ocular inspection report stating that the property is generally covered with rice and that the
surrounding areas are still agricultural, as bases for their conclusion that subject land is agricultural and,
therefore, covered by the CARL. These matters, however, no longer bear any significance in the light of the
certifications of the Deputized Zoning Administrator and the HUDCC testifying to the non-agricultural
nature of the landholding in question.

The CARL, as amended, is unequivocal that only lands devoted to agricultural activity and not classified
as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land are within its scope. Thus, the slope of the
land or the fact of its being irrigated or non-irrigated becomes material only if the land is agricultural, for
purposes of exempting the same from the coverage of the agrarian law. However, if the land is non-
agricultural – as is the case of the property here under consideration – the character and topography of the
land lose significance.

In any case, an examination of the records of this case show that the earliest document evidencing coverage
under the CARP of the land subject of this dispute is the published Notice of Land Valuation and
Acquisition dated 20 August 1998. Prior thereto, all documents in connection with the compulsory
acquisition of land for agrarian reform pertain to land covered by TCT No. T-18192 with an area of 161
hectares, purportedly in the name of Mariquita A. Luna. Clearly, this land is different from the land subject
of this case which is covered by TCT No. J-7205 (T-54199). It may, therefore, be reasonably

7
presumed that the report adverted to refers to the land covered by TCT No. T-18192 and not to the property
under consideration herein.

The Office of the President was, consequently, correct when it revoked the resolution and order,
respectively, of former OIC Secretaries Ponce and Pangandaman and declared that the Order of then
Secretary Pagdanganan was more in accord with the facts and the law applicable to the case at bar. Thus, the
CA clearly erred when it held that the findings and conclusion of the Office of the President are not
supported by substantial evidence.

8
DECLARATIONS OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

9
 Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 79310,
Jul 14, 1989,
175 SCRA 343 (1989)

Facts:
In G.R. No. 79777, the subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned
by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by
petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. The tenants were declared full owners of these lands by E.O. No. 228 as
qualified farmers under P.D. No. 27.

Petitioners are questioning constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229. Moreover, the just
compensation contemplated by the Bill of Rights is payable in money or in cash and not in the form of
bonds or other things of value. However, in an amended petition, petitioners contended that P.D. No. 27,
E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 (except Sections 20 and 21) have been impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 6657.
Nevertheless, this statute should itself also be declared unconstitutional because it suffers from substantially
the same infirmities as the earlier measures

Section 18 of the CARP Law providing in full as follows:

SEC. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. — The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such
amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP, in accordance with the
criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally
determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land.

The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes, at the option of the landowner:
(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions:
(a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess
hectarage is concerned — Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in
government financial instruments negotiable at any time
(b) For lands above twenty-four (24) hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares — Thirty percent (30%)
cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time.
(c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below — Thirty-five percent (35%) cash, the balance to
be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time.
2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred shares, physical assets or
other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set by the PARC;
(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;
(4) LBP bonds

Issue:
Whether or not Sec. 18 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional insofar as it requires the owners of the expropriated
properties to accept just compensation therefor in less than money, which is the only medium of payment
allowed.

Ruling:
No. It cannot be denied from these case that the traditional medium for the payment of just compensation is
money and no other. And so, conformably, has just compensation been paid in the past solely in that
medium. However, we do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is

10
not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken
by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.

What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.

The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as
long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners.

the Court hereby declares that the content and manner of the just compensation provided for in the afore-
quoted Section 18 of the CARP Law is not violative of the Constitution. We do not mind admitting that a
certain degree of pragmatism has influenced our decision on this issue, but after all this Court is not a
cloistered institution removed from the realities and demands of society or oblivious to the need for its
enhancement.

Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is not always required to be made fully in
money, we find further that the proportion of cash payment to the other things of value constituting the total
payment, as determined on the basis of the areas of the lands expropriated, is not unduly oppressive upon the
landowner. It is noted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in money, primarily because the
small landowner will be needing it more than the big landowners, who can afford a bigger balance in bonds
and other things of value. No less importantly, the government financial instruments making up the balance
of the payment are "negotiable at any time." The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner
at his option, are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, other
properties or assets, tax credits, and other things of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation.

11
 Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI)vs PARC
G.R. No. 171101
April 24, 2012
670 SCRA 392 (2012)

Facts:
Before the Court are the Motion to Clarify and Reconsider Resolution of November 22, 2011 dated
December 16, 2011 filed by petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) and the Motion for Reconsideration/
Clarification dated December 9, 2011 filed by private respondents.
Hacienda Luisita Inc. maintains that the Notice of Coverage issued on January 2, 2006 may, at the very least,
be considered as the date of "taking" as this was the only time that the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita
were placed under compulsory acquisition in view of its failure to perform certain obligations under the
SDP. January 2, 2006, was the date when the Notice of Coverage was issued by the DAR pursuant to PARC
Resolution No. 2006-34-01 recalling/revoking the approval of the Stock Distribution Plan(DSP).

Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA) contends that if HLI or Tadeco is,
at all, entitled to just compensation, the "taking" should be reckoned as of November 21, 1989, the date
when the SDP was approved, and the amount of compensation should be PhP 40,000 per hectare as this was
the same value declared in 1989 by Tadeco to ensure that the FWBs will not control the majority
stockholdings in HLI.

Issue:
Whether or not in determining the just compensation, the date of "taking" is November 21, 1989, when
PARC approved HLI’s SDP [stock distribution plan] "in view of the fact that this is the time that the FWBS
were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita”

Ruling:
We maintain that the date of "taking" is November 21, 1989, the date when PARC approved HLI’s SDP per
PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2, in view of the fact that this is the time that the FWBs were considered to
own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. To be precise, these lands became subject of the
agrarian reform coverage through the stock distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is,
November 21, 1989. Thus, such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory
acquisition.

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, the Court held that "the ‘time of taking’ is the time when the
landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the
Republic." It should be noted, however, that "taking" does not only take place upon the issuance of title
either in the name of the Republic or the beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). "Taking" also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved
by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, as in the instant case. Thus, HLI’s
submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural lands of Hacienda
Luisita are covered by CARP. However, it was the PARC approval which should be considered as the
effective date of "taking" as it was only during this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP
coverage of these lands.

12
 

B.]. Dh. =;:675, Ludc =2, =;?0

S]MODH @. CVU]CIIO v. []JVFJIIO [. @]ODFJVFH

@ofts< Frjsthmoi wos tgc hwdcr h` o porfci h` ]jfciode. Cstrciio wos tgc rcbjstcrce obrjfuituroi tcdodt-
@ofts< Frjsthmoi
icsscc h` tgc sumlcft iodeghiejdb. Hd Vcpt ?::2, Frjsthmoi shie tgc iodeghiejdb th tgc rcsphdecdt
wjtghut dh `yjdb Cstrciio. Sphd ejsfhvcrjdb tgc soic, Cstrciio scdt o ecnode ic cr eotce Norfg 6?,

?::7, `hr tgc rcturd h` tgc sumlcft iodeghiejdb. Gc oish scdt @rodfjsfh o sjnjior ecnode ic cr eotce Luiy
6?, ?::7. Dcjtgcr Frjsthmoi dhr @rodfjsfh rcsphdece th Cstrciio's ecnodes.

Hd @cmruory ?=, =;;?, Cstrciio ice o fhnpiojdt obojdst Frjsthmoi ode @rodfjsfh `hr icboi rcecnp hd,
rcfhvcry, ode nojdtcdodfc h` pcofc`ui phsscssjhd mc`hrc tgc H fc h` tgc [rhvjdfjoi Obrorjod ]c`hrn
Oeluejfothr ([O]OE).

Cstrciio oiicbce tgot tgc soic mctwccd Frjsthmoi ode @rodfjsfh wos noec scfrctiy ode jd moe `ojtg, jd
vjhio hd h` ]cpumijf Oft Dh. (].O.) 6755, tgc Obrjfuituroi Iode ]c`hrn Fhec (tgc Fhec). Gc jdsjstce tgot
gc dcvcr wojvce gjs rjbgts os o rcbjstcrce tcdodt hvcr tgc prhpcrty ode tgot gc wos wjiijdb th notfg tgc
soic prjfc. Cstrciio fhdfiuece tgot os tgc rcbjstcrce tcdodt, gc js cd tice th icboiiy rceccn tgc prhpcrty
`rhn @rodfjsfh. Gc oish nodj`cstce gjs omjijty ode wjiijdbdcss th ecphsjt tgc onhudt h` [3;;,;;;.;; wjtg
tgc [O]OE os tgc rcecnp hd prjfc.

Oeluejfothr) rcdecrce jts ecfjsjhd rcfhbdjzjdb Cstrciio's rjbgt h`

[O]OE ([rhvjdfjoi Obrorjod ]c`hrn Oeluejfothr) rcdecrce
rcecnp hd. Ugc [O]OE `hude tgot dcjtgcr Frjsthmoi dhr @rodfjsfh dh ce Cstrciio jd wrj db h` tgc soic.
Jd tgc omscdfc h` sufg dh fc, od obrjfuituroi icsscc gos o rjbgt th rceccn tgc iodeghiejdb `rhn tgc
muycr pursuodt th Vcf hd ?= h` tgc Fhec.

EO]OM (Ecportncdt h` Obrorjod ]c`hrn Oeluejfo hd)  rcvcrsce tgc [O]OE's ecfjsjhd ode ecdjce
hd) rcvcrsce
Cstrciio tgc rjbgt h` rcecnp hd. Fj db Vcf hd ?= h` tgc Fhec os oncdece, tgc EO]OM gcie tgot tgc
rjbgt h` rcecnp hd noy mc cxcrfjsce wjtgjd ?7; eoys `rhn wrj cd dh fc h` tgc soic. Fhdsjecrjdb tgot 
nhrc tgod tgrcc ycors goe iopsce mctwccd Cstrciio's ejsfhvcry h` tgc soic ode gjs ijdb h` tgc fosc `hr
rcecnp hd, tgc EO]OM fhdfiuece tgot Cstrciio sicpt hd gjs rjbgts ode ihst tgc rjbgt th rceccn tgc
iodeghiejdb.

FO ejsnjssce Cstrciio's pc hd `hr rcvjcw `hr `ojiurc th sghw ody rcvcrsjmic crrhr jd tgc EO]OM's
ecfjsjhd.

Jssuc<
?. Rgctgcr hr dht tgc rjbgt h` rcecnp hd h` tgc pc hdcr gos prcsfrjmce wgcd dcjtgcr tgc icsshr-
sciicr dhr tgc muycr gos bjvcd gjn wrj cd dh fc h` tgc soic.

=. Ros jt voijeiy cxcrfjsce

 

]uijdb< Zcs. Dh. Mcfousc @rodfjsfh `ojice th scrvc Cstrciio wrj cd dh fc h` tgc soic, Cstrciio's ?7;-eoy
]uijdb<
rcecnp hd pcrjhe wos jdtoft wgcd gc ice tgc fhnpiojdt mc`hrc tgc [O]OE. Ugc ijdb h` tgc fhnpiojdt
prcvcdtce tgc ruddjdb h` tgc (?7; eoy) prcsfrjp hd pcrjhe ode bovc Cstrciio nc th furc tgc ec`cft h`
gjs rcecnp hd tgrhubg fhdsjbdncdt h` tgc rcecnp hd prjfc.

Ghwcvcr, o cr tgc iopsc h` sjxty eoys (Ody

(Ody pc hd hr rcqucst `hr rcecnp hd sgoii mc rcshivce wjtgjd
sjxty eoys `rhn tgc ijdb tgcrch`1 htgcrwjsc, tgc soje pcrjhe sgoii stort
s tort th rud obojd ), Cstrciio's ?7;-eoy
obojd),
rcecnp hd pcrjhe mcbod ruddjdb pursuodt th Vcf hd ?= h` tgc Fhec. Dcvcrtgcicss, Cstrciio fhuie s ii
govc fhdsjbdce poyncdt wjtgjd tgjs ?7;-eoy pcrjhe.

Sd`hrtudotciy, cvcd o cr tgc iopsc h` tgc =5; eoys (tgc

(tgc 0;-eoy `rcczc pcrjhe ode tgc ?7;-eoy
pcrjhe), tgcrc wos dcjtgcr tcdecr dhr luejfjoi fhdsjbdo hd h` tgc rcecnp hd prjfc (Mosmos
rcecnp hd pcrjhe),
v. Cdtcdo< voije cxcrfjsc h` tgc rjbgt h` rcecnp hd rcqujrcs cjtgcr tcdecr h` tgc purfgosc prjfc hr
Fhurt .) Cvcd tghubg Cstrciio rcpcotceiy nodj`cstce gjs wjiijdbdcss th
voije fhdsjbdo hd tgcrch` jd Fhurt.)
fhdsjbd tgc rcecnp hd prjfc, gc dcvcr oftuoiiy eje.

Rgjic Cstrciio cxcrfjsce gjs rjbgt h` rcecnp hd jd o nciy noddcr, tgc rcecnp hd wos jdc cf vc
mcfousc gc `ojice th cxcrfjsc tgjs rjbgt jd offhreodfc wjtg tgc iow.

**dhtc< O cr tgc oncdencdt h` Vcf hd ?= h` tgc Fhec, o fcr fo hd `rhn tgc Iode Moda tgot jt wjii
dodfc tgc rcecnp hd wjii oish su fc jd ijcu h` tcdecr h` poyncdt hr fhdsjbdo hd.

motos<
Vthry nc so ponodbajd do nogjijb so motos<
Frjsthmoi goe obrjfuituroi iode, [c hdcr js tgc tcdodt-icsscc. Frjsthmoi shie tgc prhpcrty th rcsphdecdt
wjtghut dh `yjdb pc hdcr. [c hdcr bht pjssce o cr dejdb hut ode ice o fosc obojdst Frjsthmoi ode

]csphdecdt. Noy rjbgt h` rcecnp hd eow sjyo udecr ]O 067: (gc wodts th govc tgc iode).

Vh jth do yudb jssuc, somj dj rcsphdecdt, offhrejdb th scf ?= h` ]O 067:, dob prcsfrjmc do yudb ?7; eoys
(prcvjhus fhurts tcfgdjfoiiy obrcce) tgcd jthdb sj pc hdcr punudto db VF tophs somj djyo wgot tgc
gcii8 J wos dht jd`hrnce cg. Ej po dob prcsfrjmc ?7; eoys ah.

VF gcie tgot ycs yhu orc rjbgt, tgc ?7; eoys jd scf ?= wjii dht stort ud i yhu bct o wrj cd dh fc.
ghwcvcr, hdfc yhu ic o pc hd, o 0; eoy `rcczc nc pcrjhe whuie stort wgcrcjd tgc pc hd hr
rcqucst sghuie mc rcshivce. `rhn tgcrc, audb ej do rcshivc, tgc ?7; eoys wjii stort.

cg gjdej do rcshivc aosj th govc o voije cxcrfjsc h` tgc rjbgt h` rcecnp hd yhu dcce th govc o tcdecr h`
tgc purfgosc prjfc h` tgc iode jd qucs hd hr voije fhdsjbdo hd tgcrch` jd Fhurt. Zhu goe =5; eoys th

cxcrfjsc yhur rjbgt mut yhu ejed‚t hr yhu fhuied‚t shhh myc myc FO js o rnce.
 DEFINITIONS

13
 

ZEJONH H@S@Z@ON 
Amrjf <0, <2=; 
K.\. No. =0=585

FE@\Z OC MUKUZXO ZMIMZ, D\,  Ret`t`oners vs AM\J@MNO JMLUNKJMI, \esponhents

CMJXZ4 Jmse `s m pet`t`on cor rev`ew on Jert`ormr` unher \uie 85 oc tfe =00; \uies oc J`v`i oc projehure wf`jf
hej`s`on oc tfe JM‐s <nh h`v`s`on hmteh Ojt <3 <220. M jertm`n Mukusto Zmims Dr. wms tfe rek`stereh
steas croa tfe hej`s`on
owner oc m vmst trmjt oc mkr`juiturmi imnh wf`jf trmverses c`ve-lmrmnkmys. \esponhents mre tenmnt cmraers `n f`s
mkr`juiturmi imnh mnh soae were mkrmr`mn recora lenec`j`mr`es unher tfe JM\R. Mjjorh`nk to tfe XJX, tfe
mkr`juiturmi imnhs oc Zmims‐ spmnneh 53.=:3= mnh 0<.<00: fejtmres. Unher Zej : \M <<38, wf`jf wms tfe
mppi`jmlie imw mt tfe t`ae, aun`j`pmi mnh j`ty jounj`is w
were
ere eapowereh
eapowereh to mhopt zon`nk mnh sulh`v` s`on orh`nm
orh`nmnjes
njes
or rekuimt`ons. Coraer Rres`hent Amrjos estmli`sfeh tfe Nmt`onmi joorh`nmt`nk jounj`i lut wms imter on h`ssoiveh
mnh repimjeh ly tfe Fuamn Zettieaents \ekuimtor Joaa`ss`on, tfe power oc tfe IKU to jonvert or rejimss`cy
mkr`juiturmi imnhs lejmae suldejt to tfe mpprovmi oc tfe Fuamn Zettieaents \ekuimtory Jounj`i.

On Hejealer =06=, tfe Fuamn Zettieaents \ekuimtory Jounj`i mpproveh tfe townpimn mnh zon`nk oc I`pm
wf`jf rejimss`c`eh ms m cmraiot sulh`v`s`on cor juit`vmt`on, i`vestojg prohujt`on, or mkro-corestry
mkro-corestry Zmims‐ mkr`juiturmi
imnh. Zmims tfen entereh `nto mn mkreeaent w`tf Impermi \emity Jorp cor tfe heveiopaent , sulh`v`s`on, mnh smie oc
f`s imnh. Xfe FZ\J, wf`jf wms imter on jonverteh to FIU\L, krmnteh m pera`t cor m nmture cmraiots sulh`v`s`on to
Impermi \emity. Imter on \M 335; wms s`kneh `nto imw eccejt`ve Dune =5 =066, tf`s imw soukft tfe expmnh tfe
jovermke oc tfe kovernaent‐s mkrmr`mn recora prokrma. Zmims‐ imnhfoih`nks were maonk tfose jonteapimteh cor
mjqu`s`t`on mnh h`str`lut`on to qumi`c`eh cmraer lenec`j`mr`es. Zmims mppi`eh cor m pera`ss`on to seii f`s sulh`v`heh iots
wf`jf tfe FIU\L krmnteh. On Dune =2 =060 Zmims went on m lus`ness tr`p lut never jmae lmjg. Rursumnt to tfe
ZRM k`ven ly Zmims to Impermi \emity, Impermi \emity soih Zmims‐ property to severmi jorpormt`ons mnh `nh`v`humis.

Ret`t`oners Fe`rs oc Zmims mssm`ieh tfe `njius`on oc tfe`r imnhfoih`nks, tfey c`ieh protest ietters lecore tfe
HM\. Lecore tfe protests were resoiveh tfe Aun`j`pmi Mkrmr`mn \ecora Occ`jer oc I`pm sent m Not`je oc Jovermke oc
tfe imnhfoih`nks wf`jf `nh`jmteh tfe imnhfoih`nks tfmt wouih le suldejt to mjqu`s`t`on mnh h`str`lut`on to qumi`c`eh
cmraer lenec`j`mr`es. Xfe HM\ hen`eh tfe pet`t`oners‐ protest
prote st cor imjg oc aer`t mnh tfe HM\ Mhduh`jmt`on lomrh
h`sa`sseh `t cor imjg oc dur`sh`jt`on. HM\ hen`eh tfe pet`t`oners‐ mjt`on cor tfe jmnjeiimt`on oc responhents‐
Jert`c`jmtes oc Imnh Ownersf`p Mwmrh.

On Duiy <0 =00;, Xeres`tm Zmims, mha`n`strmtor oc tfe estmte, c`ieh mn Mppi`jmt`on cor Exeapt`on / Exjius`on
croa tfe JM\R wf`jf wms not mjteh upon. Xfe Estmte oc Zmims jim`aeh tfmt tfe property fmh leen rejimss`c`eh ms
non-mkr`juiturmi pr`or to tfe eccejt`v`ty oc \epuli`j Mjt No. 335;. @t mnjforeh tfe miiekeh exjius`on oc tfe =; iots on
Hepmrtaent oc Dust`je Op`n`on No. 88, ser`es oc =002. Xfe cmraer-lenec`j`mr`es opposeh tfe estmte's pet`t`on cor
exeapt`on, mrku`nk tfmt tfey fmh miremhy reje`veh Jert`c`jmtes oc Imnh Ownersf`p Mwmrh over tfe propert`es. Xfe
\XJ krmnteh tfe mppi`jmt`on cor exeapt`on, mjjorh`nk to responhents, tfey were ne`tfer `ncoraeh nor curn`sfeh
jop`es oc tfe pet`t`oners' mppi`jmt`on cor exeapt`on mnh tfe \ek`onmi Xr`mi Jourt's Dmnumry ;, <228 Orher.
\esponhents aoveh cor rejons`hermt`on on Celrumry =6, <228. Xfey msserteh tfmt tfe iots were mkr`juiturmi mnh
teea`nk w`tf mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`ty, ms hec`neh unher \epuli`j Mjt No. 335;. Xfen tfe Aot`on cor rejons`hermt`on c`ieh
ly tfe responhents were krmnteh ly tfe HM\. Xfe Ret`t`oners‐ mppemieh to tfe Occ`je oc tfe Rres`hent wf`jf `n t urn
reverseh tfe hej`s`on oc tfe HM\, tfe sulsequent Aot`on cor rejons`hermt`on oc tfe responhents wms hen`eh, wf`jf
ieh tfea to eievmte `t to tfe JM wf`jf overturneh tfe hej`s`on oc tfe Occ`je oc tfe Rres`hent mnh re`nstmteh tfe orher
oc tfe HM\. Xfe pet`t`oners aot`on cor rejons`hermt`on wms hen`eh ly tfe JM, fenje, tf`s pet`t`on.

@ZZUE4 [fetfer tfe rejimss`c`jmt`on oc pet`t`oners' mkr`juiturmi imnh ms m cmraiot sulh`v`s`on exeapts tfe Estmte oc
Zmims croa tfe jovermke oc tfe Joaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora Rrokrma unher \epuli`j Mjt No. 335;. Zulsuaeh
`n tf`s amtter mre tfe coiiow`nk @ssues4

(m) [fetfer \epuli`j Mjt No. 335; jovers imnhs jimss`c`eh `nto nonmkr`juiturmi
nonmkr`juiturmi uses pr`or to `ts eccejt`v`ty7

(l) [fetfer Zmims' cmraiot sulh`v`s`on cmiis unher mn "mkr`juiturmi imnh" ms hec`neh ly mppi`jmlie imws7 mnh

(j) [fetfer tfe =; iots mre jovereh unher tfe Joaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora Rrokrma.
 

FEIH4 Xfe Jourt feih tfmt @nheeh, imnhs not hevoteh to mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`ty mre outs`he tfe jovermke oc
WJoaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora ImwQ. Xfese `njiuhe imnhs prev`ousiy jonverteh to non-mkr`juiturmi uses pr`or to
tfe eccejt`v`ty oc WJoaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora ImwQ ly kovernaent mkenj`es otfer tfmn responhent HM\.

Xfe Joaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora Imw jovers mii puli`j mnh pr`vmte mkr`juiturmi imnhs, ms prov`heh `n
Rrojimamt`on No. =:==<2 mnh Exejut`ve Orher No. <<0, `njiuh`nk otfer imnhs oc tfe puli`j hoam`n su`tmlie cor
mkr`juiture, rekmrhiess oc tenur`mi mrrmnkeaent mnh joaaoh`ty prohujeh. Xfe Joaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora
Rrokrma jovers tfe coiiow`nk imnhs4 (=) mii mi`enmlie mnh h`sposmlie imnhs oc tfe puli`j hoam`n hevoteh to or
su`tmlie cor mkr`juiture7 (<) mii imnhs oc tfe puli`j hoam`n exjeeh`nk tfe totmi mrem oc c`ve fejtmres mnh leiow to le
retm`neh ly tfe imnhowner7 (:) mii kovernaent-owneh imnhs tfmt mre hevoteh to or su`tmlie cor mkr`juiture7 mnh (8) mii
pr`vmte imnhs hevoteh to or su`tmlie cor mkr`juiture, rekmrhiess oc tfe mkr`juiturmi prohujts rm`seh or jmn le rm`seh on
tfese imnhs. [f`ie tfere were exjius`ons unher Zejt`on =2 oc tfe imw.

Xfe Joaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora Imw jovers mii mkr`juiturmi imnhs, smve cor tfose not useh or su`tmlie
cor mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`t`es. Xfe imw hec`nes mkr`juiturmi imnh ms "imnh hevoteh to mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`ty ... mnh not
jimss`c`eh ms a`nermi, corest, res`hent`mi, joaaerj`mi or `nhustr`mi imnh." Cor mkr`juiturmi imnh to le jons`hereh
hevoteh to mn mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`ty, tfere aust le "juit`vmt`on oc tfe so`i, pimnt`nk oc jrops, krow`nk oc cru`t trees,
rm`s`nk oc i`vestojg, pouitry or c`sf, `njiuh`nk tfe fmrvest`nk oc sujf cmra prohujts, mnh otfer cmra mjt`v`t`es mnh
prmjt`jes percoraeh ly m cmraer `n jondunjt`on w`tf sujf cmra`nk opermt`ons hone ly persons wfetfer nmturmi or
 dur`h`jmi."

 Ms m kenermi ruie, mkr`juiturmi imnhs

i mnhs tfmt were rejimss`c`eh ms joaaerj`mi, res`hent`mi, or `nhustr`mi
`nhustr`mi ly t fe
iojmi kovernaent, ms mpproveh ly tfe FIU\L, lecore Dune =5, =066, M cmraiot `s not `njiuheh `n mny oc tfese
jmtekor`es. \esponhents jorrejtiy mrkue tfmt tfe =; iots mre st`ii jimss`c`eh mnh hevoteh to mkr`juiturmi uses. [fen
Zmims' mkr`juiturmi imnh wms rejimss`c`eh ms m cmraiot sulh`v`s`on, tfe mppi`jmlie imw wms \epuli`j Mjt No. :688, ms
maenheh. \epuli`j Mjt No. :6 :688,
88, soukft "to amge tfe samiisamii cmraers aore `nhepenhen
`nhepenhent, t, seic-rei`mnt
seic-rei `mnt mnh
respons`lie j`t`zens, mnh m sourje oc kenu`ne strenktf `n our heaojrmt`j soj`ety." Xfus, \epuli`j Mjt No. :688
estmli`sfeh tfe Imnh Mutfor`ty to `n`t`mte projeeh`nks cor tfe mjqu`s`t`on oc pr`vmte mkr`juiturmi imnhs, mnh tfe
sulh`v`s`on oc tfese imnhs `nto ejonoa`j cma`iy-s`ze cmra un`ts cor resmie to lonm c`he tenmnts, ojjupmnts, mnh
qumi`c`eh cmraers. \epuli`j Mjt No. 335; hoes not exjiuhe m cmraiot sulh`v`s`on
sulh`v`s `on croa tf
tfe
e hec`n`t`on oc mn mkr`juiturmi
mkr`jui turmi
imnh. Zejt`on :(j) oc \epuli`j Mjt No. 335; stmtes tfmt mkr`juiturmi imnhs recer to "imnh hevoteh to mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`ty
. . . mnh not jimss`c`eh ms a`nermi, corest, res`hent`mi, joaaerj`mi, or `nhustr`mi imnh." Zejt`on ;3 expressiy prov`hes
tfmt mny otfer hec`n`t`on `njons`stent w`tf \epuli`j Mjt No. 335; fms leen repemieh ly tf`s imw.

Ret`t`oners mrkue tfmt, to le jons`hereh mn mkr`juiturmi imnh, tfe property aust le useh exjius`veiy cor
mkr`juiturmi purposes mnh jmnnot le useh sejonhmr`iy cor fous`nk. Ret`t`oners mre a`stmgen. C`rst, mn exejut`ve
rekuimt`on jmnnot ko leyonh tfe imw. \epuli`j Mjt No. :688 (=03:) lromhiy hec`neh mn mkr`juiturmi imnh ms "imnh
hevoteh to mny krowtf, `njiuh`nk lut not i`a`teh to jrop imnhs." \epuli`j Mjt No. 335;, ms maenheh, miso lromhiy
hec`nes mkr`juiturmi imnh ms imnh hevoteh to mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`ty. @n jontrmst, tfe FIU\L \ekuimt`ons restr`jt tfe

hec`n`t`on oc mkr`juiturmi imnhs to tfose imnhs "exjius`veiy or prehoa`nmntiy useh cor juit`vmt`on," not le`nk m cmraiot
sulh`v`s`on.

 Mkr`juiturmi imnh
imnh recers to tf
tfose
ose hevoteh
hevoteh to mkr`juiturm
mkr`juiturmii mjt`v`ty ms hec`neh `n W\epuli`j Mjt N
No.Q
o.Q 335;
335; mnh not
jimss`c`eh ms a`nermi or corest ly tfe Hepmrtaent oc Env`ronaent mnh Nmturmi \esourjes (HEN\) mnh `ts
prehejessor mkenj`es mnh not jimss`c`eh `n town pimns mnh zon`nk orh`nmnjes ms mpproveh ly tfe Fous`nk mnh Imnh
Use \ekuimtory Lomrh (FIU\L) mnh `ts prejeh`nk mutfor`t`es pr`or to =5 Dune =066 cor res`hent`mi, joaaerj`mi, or
`nhustr`mii use.
`nhustr`m

[e pmrse tf`s hec`n`t`on `nto `ts tfree eieaents. Mkr`juiturmi imnhs jons`st oc imnhs4

(=) Hevoteh to mkr`juiturmi mjt`v`ty, ms hec`neh `n \epuli`j Mjt No. 335;7

(<) Not jimss`c`eh ms a`nermi or corest ly tfe Hepmrtaent oc Env`ronaent mnh Nmturmi \esourjes7 mnh

(:) Rr`or to Dune =5, =066, not jimss`c`eh cor res`hent`mi, joaaerj`mi, or `nhustr`mi use unher m iojmi kovernaent town
pimn mnh zon`nk orh`nmnje, ms mpproveh ly tfe LIU\L (or `ts prehejessors, tfe Nmt`onmi Joorh`nmt`nk Jounj`i mnh
tfe Fuamn Zettieaents \ekuimtory Joaa`ss`on).
 

Zmims' cmraiot sulh`v`s`on cuic`iis tfese eieaents. Cor tfe c`rst eieaent, tfe iots mre hevoteh to mkr`juiturmi
mjt`v`ty. Cor tfe sejonh eieaent, `t `s unh`sputeh tfmt tfe iots fmve not leen hejimreh ms a`nermi or corest imnhs ly
tfe Hepmrtaent oc Env`ronaent mnh Nmturmi \esourjes. Ms to tfe tf`rh eieaent, tfe imnhs were not jimss`c`eh ly tfe
I`pm J`ty Xown Rimn/Ton`nk Orh`nmnje ms joaaerj`mi, res`hent`mi, or `nhustr`mi imnhs pr`or to Dune =5, =066. \mtfer,
tfe rejimss`c`jmt`on, wf`jf wms mpproveh ly FIU\L's prehejessor mkenjy, wms tfmt oc m "cmraiot sulh`v`s`on."

C`nmiiy, wfenever tfere `s remsonmlie unjertm`nty `n tfe `nterpretmt`on oc tfe imw, tfe lmimnje aust le t`iteh
`n cmvor oc tfe poor mnh unherpr`v`
unherpr`v`iekeh.
iekeh. \epuli`j Mjt No. 335; wms enmjteh ms soj`mi iek`simt`on,
iek`simt` on, pursumnt to tfe
poi`jy oc tfe Ztmte to pursue m Joaprefens`ve Mkrmr`mn \ecora Rrokrma. Mkrmr`mn recora `s tfe aemns towmrhs m
v`mlie i`vei`fooh mnh, uit`amteiy, m hejent i`ce cor tfe imnhiess cmraers.

[FE\ECO\E, tfe pet`t`on c`ieh ly Fe`rs oc Mukusto Zmims `s HEN@EH, mnh tfe Hej`s`on oc tfe Jourt oc Mppemis
Zejonh H`v`s`on, Amn`im, proauikmteh on Ojtoler <2, <220 `n JM-K.\. ZR No. =2:;2:, `s MCC@\AEH. 

Xfe teapormry restrm`n`nk orher hmteh Novealer <<, <2=2 `s RE\AMNENXIP I@CXEH. 
 Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 170018
September 23, 2013

FACTS:
BATCO was the owner of several parcels of agricultural land. On September 20, 1989, the aforesaid lands were
voluntarily offered for sale (VOS) to the government pursuant to Section 19 of Republic Acts No. (RA) 6657
otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998”

On May 6, 1997, BATCO received a Notice of Land valuation and acquisition from DAR, however BATCO rejected
the valuation and opposed the same before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)

On May 6, 1998, BATCO filed before the DAR Regional Office a petition for the exemption of the subject portion
from the coverage of the government's Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). It alleged that almost all of
the entire subject lands have been devoted to cattle and livestock production since their acquisition in1987.

The DAR Regional Director’s Ruling : Director Tamin issued an Order dismissing BATCO's petition, holding that
based on the DAR's ocular inspection/investigation, the subject portion was "not exclusively, directly and actually
used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising as of June15, 1988, the date of effectivity of RA 6657, and contrary to
the spirit and intent of DAR AO 09-93.“ Hence, the subject portion is not exempt from CARP coverage. Accordingly,
new certificates of title were issued in favor of MCFARMCO.

BATCO appealed to the Office of the DAR Secretary, reiterating its claim that the subject portion was devoted to
cattle production prior to June 15, 1988. But subsequently, BATCO further admitted that only a portion of the subject
lands was devoted to livestock raising, for which the corresponding exemption was prayed

DAR Secretary’s Ruling On August 31, 1999, Secretary Morales issued an Order denying BATCO's motion for
reconsideration. BATCO's appeal was initially dismissed but subsequently reinstated by the CA

On September 6, 2005, the CA issued a Decision reversing and setting aside Secretary Morales’ February 25, 1999
Order.The CA gave credence to BATCO's documentary evidence to support its claim of the existence and presence of
livestock in the lands in question starting the year 1987 The CA cancelled TCT in the name of MCFARMCO and
directed the Basilan RD to issue a new set of titles in BATCO's favor.

ISSUE
Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in excluding/exempting the subject lands from CARP coverage
despite BATCO's admission that only a portion thereof was devoted to livestock raising and considering its previous
voluntary offer of the lands to the government under the VOS scheme.

Ruling:
The CA gravely abused its discretion in declaring the subject lands as exempt from CARP coverage and ordering the
cancellation of MCFARMCO's certificates of title and the issuance of new titles in BATCO's favor.The determination
of the land’s classification as either an agricultural or industrial land – and, in turn, whether or not the land falls under
agrarian reform exemption – must be preliminarily threshed out before the DAR, particularly, before the DAR
Secretary. Verily, issues of exclusion or exemption partake the nature of Agrarian Law Implementation cases which are
well within the competence and jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.Towards this end, the latter is ordained to exercise
his legal mandate of excluding or exempting a property from CARP coverage based on the factual circumstances of
each case and in accordance with the law and applicable jurisprudence. Thus, considering too his technical expertise
on the matter, courts cannot simply brush aside his pronouncements regarding the status of the land in dispute, i.e., as
to whether or not it falls under CARP coverage.

CARP; Lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising are classified as industrial, not agricultural lands and,
thus, exempt from agrarian reform. As such, the DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms.Under RA 6657, the
CARP shall cover all public and private agricultural lands, including other lands of the public domain suitable for
agriculture, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced.75 Section 3(c) thereof defines “agricultural
land” as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial
land. Lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising are classified as industrial, not agricultural lands
and, thus, exempt from agrarian reform. As such, the DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms.76

Nevertheless, the determination of the land’s classification as either an agricultural or industrial land – and, in turn,
whether or not the land falls under agrarian reform exemption – must be preliminarily threshed out before the DAR,
particularly, before the DAR Secretary. Verily, issues of exclusion or exemption partake the nature of Agrarian Law
Implementation (ALI) cases which are well within the competence and jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.77 Towards
this end, the latter is ordained to exercise his legal mandate of excluding or exempting a property from CARP

14
coverage based on the factual circumstances of each case and in accordance with the law and applicable
jurisprudence.78 Thus, considering too his technical expertise on the matter, courts cannot simply brush aside his
pronouncements regarding the status of the land in dispute, i.e., as to whether or not it falls under CARP coverage. As
held in DAR v. Oroville Development Corp.:79

It is settled that in order to be entitled to exclusion/exemption, it must be shown that the land is exclusively devoted to
livestock, swine or poultry raising.80 The land must be shown to have been used for such purposes as of the effectivity
of RA 6657, or on June 15, 1988,81 in order to prevent any fraudulent declaration of areas supposedly used for these
purposes as well as to protect the rights of agrarian beneficiaries therein. This is in consonance with Section 73(c) of
RA 6657 which prohibits the conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with
intent to avoid the application of RA 6657 to his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by
them

15
 Luz Farms v Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Gr 86889
Dec 04, 1990

Facts:
On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines, which includes, among others,
the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in
the livestock and poultry business, avers that it would be adversely affected by the enforcement of sections
3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of the said law. Hence, it prayed that the said law be declared
unconstitutional. The mentioned sections of the law provies, among others, the product-sharing plan,
including those engaged in livestock and poultry business.

Luz Farms further argued that livestock or poultry raising is not similar with crop or tree farming. That the
land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and represents no more than 5% of the total investments
of commercial livestock and poultry raisers. That the land is incidental but not the principal factor or
consideration in their industry. Hence, it argued that it should not be included in the coverage of RA 6657
which covers “agricultural lands.

Issue:
Whether or not 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 are constitutional.

Ruling:
NO. 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 166
of R.A. 3844, as land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands, salt beds, 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." Commissioner Jamir proposed to insert the
word "ARABLE" to distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands as commercial and industrial
lands and residential properties because all of them fall under the general classification of the word
"agricultural". This proposal, however, was not considered because the Committee contemplated that
agricultural lands are limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include
commercial, industrial and residential lands.
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.

16
 Republic vs. Salvador N. Lopez Agri Business Corp.
G.R. No. 178895, Jan. 10, 2011,
639 SCRA 49 (2011)

Facts:
Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 160.1161 hectares registered in
the name of Salvador N. Lopez AgriBusiness Corporation. Said parcels of land are hereinafter described as
follows:Lot No. 1293-B Psd-65835 under TCT No. T12639 except Lot No. 1298, Cad. 286 of TCT No.
T12637 which is already covered under the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Scheme and had already been
valued by the Land Valuation Office, Land Bank of the Philippines.

On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T12635 covering Lots 1454A and 1296 was cancelled and a new one issued in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP T16356. On February 7, 1994, petitioner through its
President, Salvador N. Lopez, Jr., executed a letter affidavit addressed to the respondent Secretary requesting
for the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454A and 1296 on the ground that they needed the
additional area for its livestock business. On March 28, 1995, petitioner filed before the DAR Regional
Director of Davao City an application for the exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454A and 1296
stating that it has been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15, 1988 and that the said two (2) lots form
an integral part of its grazing land.

The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order dated March 5, 1997 denying
the application for exemption of Lots 1454A and 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly shown that the
same were actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising since in its application, petitioner
itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. The application for exemption, however of
the other two (2) parcels of land was approved.

On its partial motion for reconsideration, petitioner argued that Lots 1454A and 1296 were taken beyond the
operation of the CARP pursuant to its reclassification to a Pollutive Industrial District (Heavy Industry) per
Resolution No. 39 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mati, Davao Oriental, enacted on April 7, 1992. The DAR
Regional Director denied the Motion.

The petitioner appealed the Regional Directors Orders to respondent DAR. On June 10, 1998, the latter
issued its assailed Order affirming the Regional Directors ruling on Lots 1454A and 1296 and further
declared Lots 1298 and 1293B as covered by the CARP.
On October 17, 2002, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent prompting the
former to file the instant petition.

The Court of Appeals partially granted the SNLABC Petition and excluded the two (2) parcels of land
(Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] Nos. T12637 and T12639) located in Barrio Don Enrique Lopez (the
Lopez lands) from coverage of the CARL.

However, it upheld the Decisions of the Regional Director and the DAR Secretary denying the application
for exemption withrespect to Lots 1454A and 1296 (previously under TCT No. T12635) in Barrio Limot (the
Limot lands). These lots were already covered by a new title under the name of the Republic of the
Philippines (RP T16356). The DAR and SNLABC separately sought a partial reconsideration of the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals, but their motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied.

17
Issue:
Whether or not the Lopez and Limot lands of SNLABC can be considered grazing lands for its livestock
business and are thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL under the Court’s ruling in Luz Farms v.
DAR.

Ruling:
The Lopez lands of SNLABC are actually and directly being used for livestock and are thus exempted from
the coverage of the CARL. However, the Limot lands of SNLABC are not actually and directly being used
for livestock and should thus be covered by the CARL.

In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Court declared unconstitutional the
CARL provisions that included lands devoted to livestock under the coverage of the CARP.In the instant
case, the MARO in its ocular inspection found on the Lopez lands several heads of cattle, carabaos, horses,
goats and pigs, some of which were covered by several certificates of ownership. There were likewise
structures on the Lopez lands used for its livestock business, structures consisting of two chutes where the
livestock were kept during nighttime. The existence of the cattle prior to the enactment of the CARL was
positively affirmed by the farm workers and the overseer who were interviewed by the MARO. Considering
these factual findings and the fact that the lands were in fact being used for SNLABC’s livestock business
even prior to 15 June 1988, the DAR Regional Director ordered the exemption of the Lopez lands from
CARP coverage. The Court gives great probative value to the actual, on-site investigation made by the
MARO as affirmed by the DAR Regional Director. The Court finds that the Lopez lands were in fact
actually, directly and exclusively being used as industrial lands for livestock-raising.

The tax declarations of the Lopez lands as agricultural lands are not conclusive or final, so as to prevent their
exclusion from CARP coverage as lands devoted to livestock-raising. Indeed, the MARO’s on-site
inspection and actual investigation showing that the Lopez lands were being used for livestock-grazing are
more convincing in the determination of the nature of those lands. In contrast, the Limot lands were found to
be agricultural lands devoted to coconut trees and rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP
coverage.
Verily, the MARO itself, in the Investigation Report cited by no less than SNLABC, found that the livestock
were only moved to the Limot lands sporadically and were not permanently designated there. The DAR
Secretary even described SNLABC’s use of the area as a "seasonal extension of the applicant’s ‘grazing
lands’ during the summer." Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have been actually, directly and
exclusively used for SNLABC’s livestock business, especially since these were only intermittently and
secondarily used as grazing areas. The said lands are more suitable -- and are in fact actually, directly and
exclusively being used -- for agricultural purposes.

18