JOSE LUIS ROS et al. v DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM et al.

What are the lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988?

Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 6657 provides:

SEC. 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

xxx xxx xxx

(d)All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture.

In the case of Ros v. DAR, the Supreme Court held that agricultural lands already
reclassified before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657 are exempted from conversion.
However, Municipal Ordinance No. 101 of Balamban, Cebu, which reclassified the subject
lands, was passed on 25 March 1992, and Provincial Ordinance No. 95-8 of the Provincial
Board of Cebu, which adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 101, was passed on 03 April
1995, long after Rep. Act No. 6657 has taken effect on 15 June 1988. It is clear that the
subject lands located in Arpili, Balamban, Cebu are covered by Rep. Act No. 6657
because the lands were reclassified as industrial lands after the effectivity of the act
thus, the need for conversion.

ARBA v. Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., G.R. No. 163598, August 12, 2015

When is a land considered exempted from the coverage of CARP?

DARAB found that the land is included within the Lungsod Silangan Townsite by virtue of
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637, which took effect on April 18, 1977, thereby
reclassifying said land from agricultural to residential. They ceased to be agricultural
lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation by virtue of
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637. Furthermore, public agricultural lands already
reserved for public use or purpose no longer form part of the alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Hence, they are outside the coverage
of the CARP and it logically follows that they are also beyond the conversion authority of
the DAR.

DAR has already granted respondents an exemption clearance. This clearance was
granted on the basis of certifications issued by the Lungsod Silangan Program Office and
the ocular inspection conducted by HLURB, which confirmed that it is within the
commercial zone of the said townsite reservation and within the General Area for Urban
Use per the Land Use Plan. It also confirmed that respondents' landholding is part of the
Municipality of Antipolo's Zoning Ordinance No. 2. Thus, the Municipality of Antipolo and
the HLURB issued a Development Permit and a License to Sell, respectively, in favor of
respondents. Clearly, apart from Presidential Proclamation No. 1637, the zoning
ordinance issued by the Municipality of Antipolo, and approved by the Sangguniang
Bayan and the HLURB, also effectively reclassified and converted the subject land to
non-agricultural.

The zoning ordinance was approved in 1982, way before the CARL took effect. We have
repeatedly ruled that lands already classiffied as commercial, industrial or residential
before the effectivity of the CARL, or June 15, 1988, are outside its coverage, and that
an order or approval from DAR converting the subject land from agricultural to
residential is no longer necessary. Only land classifications or reclassifications, which
occur from June 15, 1988 onwards, require conversion clearance from the DAR.

Natalia Reality, Inc v Department of Agrarian Reform

Are 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, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988?

Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL.
These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity
of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses,
DAR itself defined "agricultural land" thus -

". . . Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural

activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest
by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and
its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning
ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15
June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use."

Be that as it may, the Secretary of Justice, responding to a query by the Secretary of

Agrarian Reform, noted in an Opinion that lands covered by Presidential Proclamation
No. 1637, inter alia, of which the NATALIA lands are part, having been reserved for
townsite purposes "to be developed as human settlements by the proper land and
housing agency," are "not deemed 'agricultural lands' within the meaning and intent of
Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657." Not being deemed "agricultural lands," they are outside
the coverage of CARL.

Central Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board

Who are exempted from carp law?

In the case of Central Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (G.R. 100091), The Supreme Court held that the land that
complainant’s leased from the CMU for agricultural purposes are exempted from the
CARP law, as enunciated in Sec. 10 of the CARP law. Section 10 states that “[l]and
actually, directly, and exclusively used found to be necessary for xxx school sites and
campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes xxx shall be exempt from the coverage of this act.” Furthermore,
the court held that as to the determination of when and what lands are found to be
necessary for use by the CMU, the school is in the best position to resolve and answer
the question and pass upon the problem of its needs in relation to its avowed objectives
for which the land was given to it by the State.

DAR, as represented by its Secretary, ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN v DECS

Are alienable and disposable lands of public domain used for generating income
exempted from the coverage of CARP?

No. As held in the case of DAR v. DECS, alienable and disposable land of public domain
are exempted from the coverage of CARP provided that it is actually, directly, and
exclusively used for public functions. This is elaborated in Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657
which enumerates the types of lands which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as
well as the purposes of their exemption, viz:

xxxxxxxxx

c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for
national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations
operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, shall be exempt
from the coverage of this Act.

The above law shows that in order to be exempted from the coverage: 1) the land must
be "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;" and 2) the
purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated
by public or private schools for educational purposes."

In the case of DAR v. DECS, while it is true that DECS leased the land to anglo
agricultural corporation for the income to be used for the maintenance and furtherance
of the mandate of DECS, they cannot invoke the exemption enumerated in section 10 of
R.A 6657. What is contemplated in the pertinent provision is the actual , direct, and
exclusive utilization of the land as school site and campuses. In conclusion, it is the
land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and
exclusively used for educational purposes.