ALANGILAN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.

OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT

G.R. No. 180471. March 26,2010

SUMMARY
Petitioner applied for an Application for the Exemption from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) over a parcel of land located in Barangay Alangilan and
Patay, Batangas City (Alangilan Landholding). On the grounds that the Sangguniang Bayan
classified it as agricultural, reserved for residential. This was supported by the Zoning
Administrator. The DAR secretary denied such application for exemption stating that the
disputed land remained agricultural, reserved for residential and that it was only classified
as residential-1 on Dec. 12, 1994 under Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 709,
series of 1994 which was after the affectivity of the CARL which was on June 15, 1988, thus
falling under the ambit of the said law. The phrase “Reserved for Residential” is not a valid
classification to exempt such land. For it only meant that it “may” be classified and used for
residential purposes in the future. This interpretation is supported by the fact that later on,
or in 1994, the zoning of the land became Residential by virtue of Ordinance No. 3. Thus,
the Alangilan land remains under the scope of the CARP for being classified as agricultural
upon the effectivity of the CARL, on June 15, 1988.

When did the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) take effect?

• June 15, 1988

What did petitioner want to apply for?

• He filed an Application and/or Petition for Exclusion/Exemption from Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Coverage of a piece of lang called Alangilan
landholding

What evidence did Petitioner rely on to support his application for exemption?

• That in 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of Batangas City classified the subject
landholding as reserved for residential under a zoning ordinance (1982 Ordinance),
which was approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission; and
• on May 17, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Batangas City approved the City
Zoning Map and Batangas Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Ordinance (1994
Ordinance), reclassifying the landholding as residential-1.
• A certification by the Zoning Administrator, Delia O. Malaluan.

WON the classification of the subject lot, Alangilan landholding, as Agricultural,

Reserved for Residential took the said lot out of the coverage of the CARL/CAR?

• No, the phrase "Reserved for Residential" is not a zoning classification contemplated in
the aforestated A.O. as to exempt a particular land from the coverage of R.A. 6657.
• The qualifying phrase reserved for residential means that the property is still classified
as agricultural, but may be used as residential in the future. Thus, is covered by the
CARP.
• This interpretation is supported by the fact that the zoning of the land was declared
Residential only in 1994, per Ordinance No. 3, series of 1994, which established a
Comprehensive Zoning Regulation and Land Use for Batangas City. Which meant that
indeed the subject las still classified as agricultural.
• Furthermore, The ocular inspection conducted in 1996 by the representatives of the
MARO, PARO and RARO confirmed that the Alangilan Landholding was still used for
agricultural purposes. The area was planted with mangoes and coconuts.
• Thus, the phrase “Reserved for Residential” had no effect to the classification of
Alangilan Landholding which nevertheless, fell within the scope of the CARP for the
reason that it was still classified as agricultural upon the effectivity of RA 6675 of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) on June 15, 1988. Petitioner was DENIED.
 HEIRS OF JOSE DELESTE vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
[G.R. No. 169913; June 08, 2011]

Summary of Facts:

The spouses Gregorio Nanaman and Hilaria Tabuclin were the owners of an agricultural
parcel of land, with an area of approximately 34.7 hectares. Gregorio’s illegitimate child,
Virgilio, was raised by the couple since he was two years old. Several years after Gregorio’s
death, or on February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the property to Dr. Jose Deleste for
P16,000.00. A new tax declaration over the property was issued in the latter’s name, and
Dr. Deleste paid the taxes thereon.

Shortly thereafter, Hilaria died. Edilberto Noel was appointed as regular administrator of the
same joint estate.

On April 30, 1963, Noel filed an action (Civil Case No. 698) against Dr. Deleste for the
reversion of the title over the subject property. Then on January 11, 1995, the Supreme
Court declared Deleste, who died in 1992, and the intestate estate of Gregorio Nanaman as
co–owners of the subject property.

While Civil Case No. 698 was still pending before the CFI, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27
was issued. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the
Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the
subject property was placed under the said program. However, only the heirs of Gregorio
were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners.
Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to the coverage were sent to these heirs.

In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the "Zoning
Regulation of Iligan City," reclassifying the subject property as commercial / residential.

Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor
of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject property. In
1999, the survey plan over a 20.2611–hectare portion of the property, known as Lot No.
1407, was approved. Thereafter, in 2001, Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Original
Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued in favor of private respondents over their respective
portions of the lot.

On December 11, 2000, the RTC, Branch 4 of Iligan City issued a Decision granting the
expropriation of a 5.4686–hectare portion of Lot No. 1407.

On February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify private
respondents' EPs. On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
granted the petition.
Subsequently, the DARAB reversed the ruling of the PARAD in its Decision dated March 15,
2004. Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for review with the CA, which was denied by
the same CA in a Resolution dated October 28, 2004 due to procedural lapses.

On appeal, the Supreme Court granted the Petition for Review.

 1. What is the definition of an agricultural land?

As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land devoted to agricultural

activity as defined in this Act [Section 3 (c), RA 6657] 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 land."

xxx

In its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to
Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined "agricultural land" thus —

. . . Agricultural lands 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 [Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agriculture]

2. What lands are exempt from the Agrarian Reform Program?

Pertinently, after an assiduous study of the records of the case, We agree with petitioners
that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian
reform program in view of the enactment by the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance,
City Ordinance No. 1313.

It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-
agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, this Court held that
pursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local Government Code,
municipal and/or city councils are empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances
or regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission." It was also
emphasized therein that "[t]he power of the local government to convert or reclassify lands
[from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject
to the approval of the [DAR]." xxx xxx xxx
Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential/commercial land with the
enactment of City Ordinance No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an
"agricultural land" within the ambit of RA 6657. As this Court held in Buklod nang
Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc., "To be exempt from
CARP, all that is needed is one valid reclassification of the land from agricultural to non-
agricultural by a duly authorized government agency before June 15, 1988, when the CARL
took effect."

3. What effect does the reclassification of agricultural lands have on tenant–

farmers’ rights?

Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, (or "DOJ Opinion 44-1990" for
brevity) and the case of Natalia Realty versus Department of Agrarian Reform (12 August
1993, 225 SCRA 278) opines that with respect to the conversion of agricultural land covered
by RA 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) to approve such conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity, on 15
June 1988. Thus, all lands that are already classified as commercial, industrial or residential
before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.

However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest
tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27,
which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988.

As emphasized, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural cannot be applied to defeat

vested rights of tenant-farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27.

4. What rights do tenant – farmers have, whose CLTs were issued after the
agricultural land has been reclassified?

In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it
was only in 1984 that private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have
an inchoate right over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed
requirements. Considering that the local zoning ordinance was enacted in 1975, and
subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978, private respondents still had no vested rights
to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that private respondents were issued
the CLTs and were "deemed owners."

The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since reclassification had
taken place twenty-six (26) years prior to their issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights
accrued prior to reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property,
particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
 AGAPITO ROM, ET AL. v. ROXAS & COMPANY, INC.
[G.R. No. 169331. September 5, 2011.]

Respondent sought the exemption of 27 parcels of land located in Barangay Aga,

Nasugbu, Batangas, having an aggregate area of 21.1236 hectares and constituting portions
of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-44664 from the coverage of
CARP, pursuant to DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994.
Respondent asserted that Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) covers only
agricultural land which is defined under Section 3(c) thereof as "land devoted to agricultural
activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."
Respondent claimed that prior to the effectivity of the CARL on June 15, 1988, the lands
subject of its application were already re-classified as part of the Residential Cluster Area
specified in Zone A VII of the Nasugbu Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982,
which zoning ordinance was approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission
(HSRC [now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)]) under HSRC Resolution
No. 123, Series of 1983. Respondent cited DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) which provides that
lands already classified by a valid zoning ordinance for commercial, industrial or residential
use, which ordinance was approved prior to the effectivity of the CARL, no longer need
conversion clearance from the DAR.
Considering that the application for exemption was not accompanied by proof of
disturbance compensation, the DAR, through its Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and
Implementation (CLUPPI-II), directed respondent to submit proof of payment of disturbance
compensation and/or waiver of rights of bona fide occupants.
To comply with the directive, respondent offered payment of disturbance
compensation and attempted to obtain the required waivers from herein petitioners who are
the farmer-beneficiaries of the subject parcels of land as identified by the DAR. However,
the parties failed to reach an agreement as regards the amount of disturbance
compensation, hence, respondent filed a Petition to fix disturbance compensation before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of Batangas.
The DAR granted the application. From this Order, petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and Second Supplemental Motion
for Reconsideration. Said motions, however, were dismissed by the DAR. Aggrieved,
petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA. The petitioners argued that since
respondent had previously voluntarily offered to sell the subject land to the DAR, then they
have already acquired a vested right over the subject properties. The CA dismissed the
petition for certiorari it being an improper remedy. The CA held that petitioners should have
filed a petition for review under Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Even if the
certiorari petition is considered as properly filed, the CA ruled that it would still dismiss the
same as there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DAR in issuing the
assailed Orders. Hence, the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
The Supreme Court found that the respondent has substantially complied with the
requirements of DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1990. Records show that upon being required by
CLUPPI-II to submit proof of payment of disturbance compensation and/or waiver of rights
of bona fide occupants after an evaluation of its application for exemption revealed that it
was not accompanied by the same, respondent exerted efforts to comply with the said
requirement. It offered to pay petitioners their disturbance compensation but they failed to
agree on the price. Petitioners also refused to execute a waiver/undertaking. Respondent
thus filed a Petition to fix disturbance compensation before the PARAD. To the High Court,
these constitute substantial compliance with the said particular requirement of Section III
(B), DAR AO No. 6, Series of 2002.
Were the 27 parcel of land already re-classified prior to the effectivity of the
CARL?
Yes. “The documents submitted by respondent to support its application for
exemption as well as the Investigation Report of CLUPPI-II clearly show that the 27
parcels of land, specifically identified, were already re-classified as residential prior to
the effectivity of the CARL.”

What are the documents submitted by the respondent in support of its application
for exemption?
1. Letter-application dated 29 September 1997 signed by Elino SJ. Napigkit, for and on
behalf of Roxas & Company, Inc., seeking exemption from CARP coverage of subject
landholdings;
2. Photocopy of TCT No. T-44664 and the corresponding Declaration of Real Property
No. 024-17-013-01-001;
3. Location and vicinity maps of subject landholdings;
4. Certification dated 10 July 1997 issued by Administrator Reynaldo Garcia
[Administrator Garcia], Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and
Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu, Batangas, stating that the subject parcels of land
are within the Residential Cluster Area as specified in Zone VII of Municipal Zoning
Ordinance No. 4, series of 1982, approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), thru
Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;
5. Certification dated 31 August 1998 issued by Engr. Alfredo M. Tan II [Engr. Tan],
Regional Director, HLURB, Region IV, stating that the subject parcels of land appear
to be within the Residential Cluster Area as specified in Zone VII of Municipal Zoning
Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, as approved under HSRC Resolution No. 123,
Series of 1983, dated 4 May 1983;
6. Three (3) Certifications all dated 8 September 1997 issued by Administrator Rolando
T. Bonrostro, Regional Irrigation Manager, National Irrigation Administration (NIA),
Region IV; stating that the subject parcels of land are not irrigated, not irrigable
lands and not covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitment; and,
7. Certification dated 18 January 1999, issued by Manuel J. Limjoco, Jr., Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer of Nasugbu, Batangas, stating that the subject parcels of
land are not covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) but covered by a collective
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6653 issued to twenty-seven (27)
farmer-beneficiaries.
Is respondent bound by its previous voluntary offer to sell?

No. “Indeed, respondent had previously voluntarily offered to sell to the

DAR Hacienda Caylaway, where the properties subject of this case are located. However,
this offer to sell became irrelevant because respondent was later able to establish before
the DAR that the subject 27 parcels of land were reclassified as non-agricultural
(residential) by virtue of (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4 prior to the
effectivity of the CARL on June 15, 1988.”
"In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, it was held that lands
not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL including lands
previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by
government agencies other than the DAR."
“This being the case, respondent is not bound by its previous voluntary offer to
sell because the subject properties cannot be the subject of a VOS, they being clearly
beyond the CARP's coverage.”
Did respondent substantially complied with the requirements of DAR AO No. 6,
Series of 1990?

Yes. “Records show that upon being required by CLUPPI-II to submit proof of
payment of disturbance compensation and/or waiver of rights of bona fide occupants after
an evaluation of its application for exemption revealed that it was not accompanied by the
same, respondent exerted efforts to comply with the said requirement. It offered to pay
petitioners their disturbance compensation but they failed to agree on the price.
Petitioners also refused to execute a waiver/undertaking. Respondent thus filed a Petition
to fix disturbance compensation before the PARAD.”
To prove these, it submitted to the DAR a:
1. Certification dated September 10, 2001, issued by Manuel J. Limjoco, Jr., MARO
of Nasugbu, Batangas, stating that there was failure to reach an amicable
settlement on the matter of disturbance compensation between the parties; and
2. Copy of the Petition to fix disturbance compensation duly received by the PARAD
on September 28, 2001.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REP. BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND GREEN CITY ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 139592 (October 5, 2000)

Facts:
The five (5) parcels of land in issue with a combined area of 112.0577 hectares situated at
Barangay Punta, Municipality of Jala-Jala, Province of Rizal were acquired by private
respondent through purchase on May 26, 1994 from Marcela Borja vda. de Torres. The tax
declarations classified the properties as agricultural. On June 16, 1994, petitioner DAR
issued a Notice of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition
pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II of R.A. No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Land Reform Law
of 1988 (CARL). Private respondent filed with the DAR Regional Office an application for
exemption of the land from agrarian reform pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 6,
series of 1994 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990.
In support of its application for exemption, private respondent submitted the following
documents:
1. Certified photocopies of the titles and tax declarations.
2. Vicinity and location plans.
3. Certi6cation of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of the Office of the
Mayor of Jala-Jala.
4. Resolution No. R-36, series of 1981 of the HLURB.
5. Certification from the National Irrigation Administration.
The DAR Regional Director recommended a denial of the said petition on the ground that
private respondent "failed to substantiate their (sic) allegation that the properties are
indeed in the Municipality's residential and forest conservation zone and that portions of the
properties are not irrigated nor irrigable".
Private respondent filed an Amended Petition for Exemption/Exclusion from CARP coverage,
this time alleging that the property is within the residential and forest conservation zones
and offering a portion of about 15 hectares of land (irrigated riceland) to sell to farmer
beneficiaries or to DAR. The amended petition for exemption showed that a portion of about
15 hectares of the land is irrigated riceland which private respondent offered to sell to the
farmer beneficiaries or to the DAR. In support of its amended petition, private respondent
submitted the following additional documents:
1. Certification letter from the HLURB that the specific properties are within the residential
and forest conservation zone.
2. Certification from the HLURB that the town plan/zoning ordinance of JalaJala was
approved on December 2, 1981 by the Human Settlements Commission.
3. Undertaking that the landowner is ready and willing to pay disturbance compensation to
the tenants for such amount as may be agreed upon or directed by the DAR.
4. Vicinity plan.
5. Amended survey plan which indicates the irrigated riceland that is now excluded from the
application. 6. Certification of the Jala-Jala Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator
to the effect that the properties covered are within the residential and forest conservation
areas pursuant to the zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala.
On October 19, 1995, the DAR Secretary issued an Order denying the application for
exemption. Private respondent moved for reconsideration but the same was likewise denied.
Appeal was made to the Court of Appeals. The latter in turn created a commission to
conduct ocular inspection and survey. DAR likewise constituted its own team to conduct an
inspection and thereafter objected to the report filed by the commission.
On December 9, 1998, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision reversing the Assailed DAR
Orders and declaring the mountainous and residential portions of the petitioner's land to be
exempt from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). SC affirmed the
Decision.

Does the mere evidence of a Tax Declaration classifying the landholding subject of
this controversy sufficient to conclude the land’s classification?

There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax
declarations is conclusive and final nor would prescribe any further inquiry. Furthermore,
the tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of the land. In fact,
DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 lists other documents, aside from tax
declarations, that must be submitted when applying for exemption from CARP. In Halili vs.
Court of Appeals, we sustained the trial court when it ruled that the classification made by
the Land Regulatory Board of the land in question outweighed the classification stated in the
tax declaration. The classification of the Board in said case was more recent than that of the
tax declaration and was based on the present condition of the property and the community
thereat.

How does the determination of the classification and physical condition of the
lands material in the disposition of the case?
The commissioner's report on the actual condition of the properties confirms the fact that
the properties are not wholly agricultural. In essence, the report of the commission showed
that the land of private respondent consists of a mountainous area with an average 28
degree slope containing 66.5 hectares; a level, unirrigated area of 34 hectares of which 5 to
6 hectares are planted to palay; and a residential area of 8 hectares. The finding that 66.5
hectares of the 112.0577 hectares of land of private respondent have an average slope of
28 degrees provides another cogent reason to exempt these portions of the properties from
the CARL. Section 10 of the CARL is clear on this point when it provides that "all lands with
eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt
from the coverage of this Act."
 STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001

SUMMARY

Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the registered owner of two parcels
of land, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Cabuyao,the parcels of land are
watersheds, which provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community. Laguna issued
a notice of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or representatives to a conference.
During the meeting it was the consensus and recommendation of the assembly that the
landholding of SRRDC be placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner filed a “Protest and
Objection” to the compulsory acquisition of the property. Secretary of Agrarian Reform sent
two notices of acquisition to petitioner. Secretary of Agrarian Reform sent two 2 notices of
acquisition to petitioner, stating that petitioner’s landholdings had been placed under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Petitioner SRRDC in two letters 2 separately
addressed to Secretary Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting not only the amount of compensation offered
by DAR for the property but also the two (2) notices of acquisition. Secretary Abad referred
the case to the DARAB for summary proceedings to determine just compensation. Petitioner
sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its property under the aforesaid
land titles were exempt from CARP coverage because they had been classified as watershed
area and were the subject of a pending petition for land conversion. Office of the Secretary,
DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations)
and the Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report answering the two issues raised.
According to them, firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the notice of coverage on August 11,
1989, and notice of acquisition on December 12, 1989, the property is covered under
compulsory acquisition. Secondly, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D
also supports the DAR position on the coverage of the said property. During the
consideration of the case by the Board, there was no pending petition for land conversion
specifically concerning the parcels of land in question. The Board sent a notice of hearing to
all the parties interested, setting the hearing for the administrative valuation of the subject
parcels of land. However, SRRDC submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to resolve
SRRDC’s petition for exemption from CARP coverage before any administrative valuation of
their landholding could be had by the Board. The initial DARAB hearing of the case was held
and subsequently, different dates of hearing were set without objection from counsel of
SRRDC. The Supreme Court ruled that the DAR failed to follow the procedural requirement
in payment of just compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the petitioner’s property.
Furthermore, the nature of the lands in question maybe part be part of a watershed and
have very high slopes that may excempt it from the compulsory acquisition coverage of
CARP. Case was reprimanded back to the DARAB to ascertain the nature of the lands.

What did the petitioner file?

• The petitioner filed a protest and objection to the inclusion of two parcels of land which
had been placed under compulsory acquisition by the DAR
What evidence did the petitioner rely on to support their protest and objection to
the compulsory acquisition?

• On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the MARO of Cabuayao, Laguna a “Protest
and Objection” to the compulsory acquisition on the ground that the area was not
appropriate for agriculture. The area was rugged terrain with slopes of 18% and
above and the occupants of the land were squatters and not entitled to any land as
beneficiaries.

• On February 6, 1990, petitioner, in two letters separately addressed to Secretary

Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution,
sent its formal protest, protesting not only the amount of compensation offered by
DAR for the property but also the two (2) notices of acquisition.

• On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating
that its property under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP coverage
because they had been classified as watershed area and were the subject of a
pending petition for land conversion.

Did DARAB correctly follow the procedure of compulsory acquisition?

• No, DAR failed to provide just compensation in accordance with procedural

requirement by placing the payment to SRRDC in the form opening a trust
account in the name of the petitioner.

• The law requires that the payment be done in cash or LBP bonds.

• In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian

Reform, we held that "The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the
landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title
also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is
contemplated either.”

Are areas considered as watersheds and those with 18% slope and over out
of the coverage of CARL?

• Yes, Sec. 10 of RA 6657 provides:

"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. - Lands actually, directly and

exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and
campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research
and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant
thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and
penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private
research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent
 (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be
exempt from coverage of this Act.”

In the case there was a report from the Ecosystems Research and
Development Bureau of the DENR, regarding the environmental
assessment of the Casile and Kabanga-an river watersheds that gave
the impression that the disputed lands formed a vital part of an area
that needed to be protected for watershed purposes.

• The petitioner also presented proof that the disputed lands had slopes of 18%
and over and may be excluded from the compulsory coverage of the CARP