DOJ OPINION NO. 044, s. 1990
129-A expressly invests the DAR with exclusive
March 16, 1990
Secretary Florencio Abad
Department of Agrarian Reform
Diliman, Quezon City
Sir:
This refers to your letter of the 13th instant stating your
"position that prior to the passage of R.A. 6657, the
Department of Agrarian Reform had the authority to classify
and declare which agricultural lands are suitable for non-
agricultural purposes, and to approve or disapprove
applications for conversion from agricultural to non-
agricultural uses."
In support of the foregoing view, you contend that under
R.A. No. 3844, as amended, the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) is empowered to "determine and declare an
agricultural land to be suited for residential, commercial,
industrial or some other urban purpose" and to "convert
agricultural land from agricultural to non-agricultural
purposes"; that P.D. No. 583, as amended by P.D. No. 815
"affirms that the conversion of agricultural lands shall be
allowed only upon previous authorization of the [DAR]; with
respect to tenanted rice and corn lands"; that a
Memorandum of Agreement dated May 13, 1977 between
the DAR, the Department of Local Government and
Community Development and the then Human Settlements
Commission "further affirms the authority of the [DAR] to
allow or disallow conversion of agricultural lands"; that E.O.
No.
authority to approve or disapprove conversion of
agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and
other land uses'; and that while in the final version of House
Bill 400, Section 9 thereof provided that lands devoted to
"residential, housing, commercial and industrial sites
classified as such by the municipal and city development
councils as already approved by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board, in their respective zoning development
plans" be exempted from the coverage of the Agrarian
Reform program, this clause was deleted from Section 10 of
the final version of the consolidated bill stating the
exemptions from the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.
We take it that your query has been prompted by the
study previously made by this Department for Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig Jr. and Secretary Vicente Jayme
(Memorandum dated February 14, 1990) which upheld the
authority of the DAR to authorize conversions of agricultural
lands to non-agricultural uses as of June 15, 1988, the date
of effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(R.A. No. 6657). it is your position that the authority of DAR
to authorize such conversion existed even prior to June 15,
1988 or as early as 1963 under the Agricultural Land Reform
Code (R.A. No. 3844; as amended).
 It should be made clear at the outset that the should logically follow from the said department's express
aforementioned study of this Department was based on facts duty and function to execute and enforce the said statute
and issues arising from the implementation of the that any reclassification of a private land as a residential,
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). While commercial or industrial property should first be cleared by
there is no specific and express authority given to DAR in the the DAR."
CARP law to approve or disapprove conversion of
It is conceded that under the laws in force prior to the
agricultural lands to non- agricultural uses, because Section
enactment and effective date of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR had
65 only refers to conversions effected after five years from
likewise the authority, to authorize conversions of
date of the award, we opined that the authority of the DAR
agricultural lands to other uses, but always in coordination
to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands
with other concerned agencies. Under R.A. No. 3344, as
to non-agricultural uses applies only to conversions made on
amended by R.A. No. 6389, an agricultural lessee may, by
or after June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 6657,
order of the court, be dispossessed of his landholding if after
solely on the basis of our interpretation of DAR's mandate
due hearing, it is shown that the "landholding is declared by
and the comprehensive coverage of the land reform
the [DAR] upon the recommendation of the National
program. Thus, we said:
Planning Commission to be suited for residential,
"Being vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over all commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes."
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, it
Likewise, under various Presidential Decrees (P.D. Nos.
is believed to be the agrarian reform law's intention that any
583, 815 and 946) which were issued to give teeth to the
conversion of a private agricultural land to non- agricultural
implementation of the agrarian reform program decreed in
uses should be cleared beforehand by the DAR. True, the
P.D. No. 27, the DAR was empowered to authorize
DAR's express power over land use conversion is limited to
conversions of tenanted agricultural lands, specifically those
cases in which agricultural lands already awarded have,
planted to rice and/or corn, to other agricultural or to non-
after five years, ceased to be economically feasible and
agricultural uses, "subject to studies on zoning of the Human
sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become
Settlements Commissions" (HSC). This non-exclusive
urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value
authority of the DAR under the aforesaid laws was, as you
for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. But to
have correctly pointed out, recognized and reaffirmed by
suggest that these are the only instances when the DAR can
other concerned agencies, such as the Department of Local
require conversion clearances would open a loophole in the
Government and Community Development (DLGCD) and the
R.A. No. 6657, which every landowner may use to evade
then Human Settlements Commission (HSC) in a
compliance with the agrarian reform program. Hence, it
Memorandum of Agreement executed by the DAR and these
two agencies on May 13, 1977, which is an admission that
with respect to land use planning and conversions, the
authority is not exclusive to any particular agency but is a
coordinated effort of all concerned agencies.
It is significant to mention that in 1978, the then
Ministry of Human Settlements was granted authority to
review and ratify land use plans and zoning ordinance of
local governments and to approve development proposals
which include land use conversions (see LOI No. 729
[1978]). This was followed by P.D. No. 648 (1981) which
conferred upon the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission (the predecessors of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board [HLURB] the authority to promulgate
zoning and other land use control standards and guidelines
which shall govern land use plans and zoning ordinances of
local governments, subdivision or estate development
projects of both the public and private sector and urban
renewal plans, programs and projects; as well as to review,
evaluate and approve or disapprove comprehensive land
use development plans and zoning components of civil
works and infrastructure projects, of national, regional and
local governments, subdivisions, condominiums or estate
development projects including industrial estates.
P.D. No. 583, as amended by P.D. No. 815, and the 1977
Memorandum of Agreement, abovementioned, cannot
therefore, be construed as sources of authority of the DAR;
these issuances merely affirmed whatever power DAR had
at the time of their adoption.
With respect to your observation that E.O. No. 129-A
also empowered the DAR to approve or disapprove
conversions of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses
as of July 22, 1987, it is our view that E.O. No. 129-A likewise
did not provide a new source of power of DAR with respect
to conversion but it merely recognized and reaffirmed the
existence of such power as granted under existing laws. This
is clearly inferrable from the following provision of E.O. No.
129-A to wit:
"Sec. 5. Powers and Functions. Pursuant to the mandate
of the Department, and in order to ensure the successful
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, the Department is hereby authorized to:
1) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove
conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial,
industrial and other land uses as may be provided by law"
(Emphasis supplied.)
Anent the observation regarding the alleged deletion of
residential, housing, commercial and industrial sites
classified by the HLURB in the final version of the CARP bill,
we fail to see how this circumstances could substantiate
your position that DAR's authority to reclassify or approve
conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
already existed prior to June 15, 1988. Surely, it is clear that
the alleged deletion was necessary to avoid a redundancy in
the CARP law whose coverage is expressly limited to "all
public and private agricultural lands" and "other lands of the
public domain suitable for agriculture" (Sec. 4, R.A. No.
6657). Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 defines "agricultural
land" as that "devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
the Act and not classified as mineral forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land."
Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view
that with respect to conversions of agricultural lands
covered by R.A. No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the
authority of DAR to approve such conversions may be
exercised from the date of the law's effectivity on June 15,
1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal interpretation of
R.A. No. 6657 in the light of DAR's mandate and the extensive
coverage of the agrarian reform program.

Very truly yours,

FRANKLIN M. DRILON

Secretary
DOJ OPINION NO. 043, s. 2011
September 1, 2011
Secretary Virgilio R. Delos Reyes
Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City
Dear Secretary Delos Reyes :
This refers to your request for our opinion on whether the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) can grant
applications for exemption involving irrigated and irrigable
lands, i.e., those classified as not subject to and non-
negotiable for conversion, reclassified into non-agricultural
uses prior to June 15, 1988, the date Republic Act No. 6657,
or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took
effect.
You state that pursuant to this Department's Opinion (No.
44, s. 1990) to the effect that the authority of DAR to act upon
applications for conversion of agricultural lands to non-
agricultural uses may be exercised on or after June 15, 1988,
previous DAR Administrations had adopted the position that
all agricultural lands already classified as commercial,
industrial, or residential before said date no longer need a
conversion clearance but only an exemption clearance from
DAR.
You also say that in another Opinion (No. 181, s. 1990) of this
Department and in the Supreme Court ruling in Natalia
Realty vs. DAR, 225 SCRA 278, it was pointed out that
"agricultural lands coverable under the CARP do not include
in its contemplation agricultural lands classified as
commercial, industrial, or residential prior to 15 June 1988
for they ceased to be agricultural upon approval of their
classification/reclassification as could be inferred from the
definition of Agricultural Land in Section 3 (c) of R.A. No.
6657."
Further, you aver that the non-negotiability for conversion
of irrigated and irrigable lands was stressed in
Administrative Order No. 20, s. 1992, reiterated in
Administrative Order No. 363, s. 1997, both of the Office of
the President (OP), and underscored anew in Section 22 of
Republic Act No. 9700, or the "CARPER (Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program with Extension and Reforms)
Law. TSacAE
It is, however, your position that the aforesaid DOJ Opinion
No. 181, s. 1990 and Supreme Court decision should apply
only to the Lungsod Silangan Townsite Reservation and to
highly urbanized areas, but not to other areas in the country,
especially to irrigated and irrigable prime agricultural lands.
You further assert that the reclassification of these irrigated
or irrigable prime agricultural lands into non-agricultural
uses prior to June 15, 1988 partakes the nature of
conversion. Therefore, DAR's approval of any request for
exemption involving such lands would not only be
unconstitutional but would also be contrary to the two (2)
presidential issuances aforementioned as well as Section 22
of R.A. No. 9700. In view thereof, you now elevated the
matter to us for our opinion.
We agree.
In your cited case of Natalia Realty vs. DAR, the Supreme
Court explained the extent of the coverage of CARL, thus:
". . . 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 limitation. 'Agricultural lands' are only
those lands which are arable are suitable agricultural lands"
and do not include commercial, industrial, and residential
lands.
xxx xxx xxx
"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 other government agencies other than
respondent DAR." 1
Moreover, Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended,
provides:
"Section 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five
(5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes,
or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have
a greater economic value for residential, commercial or
industrial purposes, the DAR upon application of the
beneficiary or the landowner with respect only to his/her
retained area which is tenanted, with due notice to the
affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize
the reclassification or conversion of the land: Provided, That
the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation."
Section 22 of R.A. No. 9700, amending the above-quoted
legal provision, pertinently reads:
"Section 22. Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
'Section 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five
(5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes,
or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have
a greater economic value for residential, commercial or
industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the
beneficiary or the landowner with respect only to his/her
retained area which is tenanted, with due notice to the
affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize
the reclassification or conversion of the land: Provided, That
if the applicant is a beneficiary under the agrarian laws and
the land sought to be converted is the land awarded to
his/her or any portion thereof, the applicant, after the
conversion is granted, shall invest at least ten percent (10%)
of the proceeds coming from the conversion in government
securities: Provided, further, That the applicant upon
conversion shall fully pay the price of the land: Provided,
furthermore, That irrigated and irrigable lands shall not be
subject to conversion: Provided, finally, That the National
Irrigation Administration shall submit a consolidated data
on the location nationwide of all irrigable lands within one
(1) year from the effectivity of this Act." 2 DTEHIA
Evidently, and as stated by the Supreme Court in the
aforecited case, reiterating an Opinion of this Department,
lands previously reclassified or converted from agricultural
lands to non-agricultural uses prior to the enactment of the
CARL fall beyond the coverage thereof. For the same reason,
and in view of Section 22 of R.A. No. 9700 amending Section
65 of the CARL, the only logical conclusion is that
applications for exemption involving irrigated and irrigable
lands, i.e., those classified as not subject to and non-
negotiable for conversion, but subsequently reclassified into
non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988, can no longer
be granted.
This conclusion finds support in the records of the
congressional deliberations on House Bill No. 40777, which
gave birth to R.A. No. 9700, in which not only was the
limitation on what agricultural lands can be covered by the
CARL acknowledged, but the policy prohibiting conversion
of all irrigated and irrigable farmlands was also expressly
made absolute and permanent. 3
To expand the wisdom of DOJ Opinion No. 181, Series of
1990 and the Court ruling in Natalia Realty vs. DAR to the
effect that agricultural lands coverable under CARP do not
include in its contemplation agricultural lands classified as
commercial, industrial, or residential prior to 15 June 1988
for they ceased to be agricultural upon the approval of their
classification/reclassification as could be inferred from the
definition of Agricultural Land in Section 3 (c) of R.A. No.
6657, as amended, would be an over-generalization and
negates the state policy against conversion of irrigated and
irrigable lands. Thus, DOJ Opinion No. 181, Series of 1990
and the Supreme Court Ruling in Natalia Realty vs. DAR
should not be made to generally apply to irrigated and
irrigable prime agricultural lands.
The provisions of Section 65, as amended, are clear and
categorical enough that interpretation has no room. 4 Thus,
irrespective of whether the reclassification of irrigated and
irrigable prime agricultural lands was done before or after
the effectivity of the CARL, the terms of the present Section
65 leave no room for doubt that the legislative intent is to
ban any conversion of such agricultural lands. Since
exemption, for all intent and purposes, under these
circumstances has essentially the same legal effect as
conversion, that is, removing the lands from their potential
agricultural use, the DAR may deny any application for
exemption involving irrigated or irrigable lands.
Please be guided accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LEILA M. DE LIMA
Secretary
DOJ OPINION NO. 181, s. 1990
October 19, 1990
Secretary Benjamin T. Leong
Department of Agrarian Reform
Diliman, Quezon City
Sir:
This has reference to your request for opinion on the
applicability of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program ("CARP") upon the estate of the late Alfonso J.
Doronila.
It appears that in 1974, Presidential Proclamation No.
1283 segregated a certain portion of land from the
Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserved said
area for townsite purposes; that in 1977, Presidential
Proclamation No. 1673 increased the size of the aforesaid
townsite reservation (designated as Lungsod Silangan
Townsite) and revised its technical description so as to
include other lands in the municipalities of Antipolo, San
Mateo and Montalban; that to implement the development
plan of the Lungsod Silangan Townsite, Letter of Instructions
No. 625, inter alia, directed the Solicitor General to institute
condemnation proceedings for the acquisition of private
lands found therein; that consequently, the said official filed
in 1978 with the Court of First Instance of Rizal an
expropriation case against the landholdings of Alfonso
Doronila; that nine years later, the Solicitor General and the
Strategic Investment Development Corporation (formerly,
the Human Settlements Development Corporation), by
separate motions, requested the dismissal of the
expropriation proceedings against the Doronila Estate
citing, as grounds thereof, the abolition of the Ministry of
Human Settlements and the exclusion of the Strategic
Investment Development Corporation from the
government's housing and shelter program; and that in an
order dated September 18, 1987, the court dismissed the
said expropriation case.
You state that the Doronila landholding were brought
under CARP coverage, but that the administrator of the
Doronila Estate is seeking exemption of said properties from
CARP coverage on the bases of the abovementioned
Presidential Proclamations and Letter of Instructions. You
now pose the following queries for your guidance in
evaluation the said request for exemption, to wit:
"(a) What is the legal effect of the dismissal of the
expropriation proceedings on the townsite reservation
created under the aforesaid proclamations and letter of
instruction?"
"(b) With the passage of RA 6657 or the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, are these proclamation deemed
superseded?"
With respect to the first query, it is believed that the
dismissal of the expropriation case against the Doronila
properties did not adversely affect the continuing
enforceability of Proclamations Nos. 1283 and 1637 and LOI
No. 625. Hence, the status of subject properties as being
embraced within a townsite reservation is still valid and
subsisting. It is noted that the ground for the dismissal of the
condemnation proceedings did not involve the legality of the
abovementioned executive issuance. Thus, pursuant to
Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution, which provides
that all proclamations, letters of instructions and other
executive issuances, among others, existing at the time of the
Charter's effectivity which are "not inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed
or resolved", the said executive issuances remain operative
until now. LOI No. 625 expressly states that the Lungsod
Silangan Townsite was designed "to absorb the population
overspill in the Greater Manila Area", an objective which is
consistent with the constitutional mandate for the State to
undertake "a continuing program of urban land reform and
housing which will make available at affordable cost decent
housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless
citizens" (Sec. 9, Article XIII, Constitution). Moreover, we are
not aware of any issuance by the incumbent President
revoking or repealing the Proclamations and the LOI under
consideration. prcd
As regards the second query, neither Proclamation No.
1283 nor Proclamation No. 1673 has been expressly
repealed by R.A. No. 6657 (see Sec. 76 thereof). Thus, any
allegation that the Proclamations have been superseded by
R.A. No. 6657 must perforce be premised upon an
inconsistency between them. But we do not see any
repugnancy between the aforesaid Proclamations and R.A.
No. 6657; indeed, the statute implicitly recognizes the legal
effect of the Proclamations. Thus, Section 3(c) of R.A. 6657
defines an "agricultural land" as such lands as not having
been previously classified as "mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land". Moreover, Administrative
Order No. 61, series 1990 of that Department (Revised Rules
and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses) provides that
said rules do not cover lands previously classified in town
plans and pertinent zoning ordinances as having been
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
and its predecessor authorities prior to June 15, 1988 for
residential, commercial or industrial uses. Since the lands
covered by the two Proclamations in question have been
reserved for townsite purposes to be developed as human
settlements by the proper land and housing agency, the
same are not deemed "agricultural lands" within the
meaning and intent of Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 and are
beyond the purview of A.O. No. 61.
Wherefore, your queries are answered accordingly.
Very truly yours,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Secretary