Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Heirs of Salas, Jr. v. Cabungcal
Heirs of Salas, Jr. v. Cabungcal
CASES REPORTED
____________________
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LEONEN, J.:
Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law generally covers all public and private
agricultural lands.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Petition1
is an offshoot of the Court of Appeals Second Division’s
Decision2
_______________
10
_______________
11
_______________
12
_______________
15 Ong v. Imperial, G.R. No. 197127, July 15, 2015, 763 SCRA 14 [Per
J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
16 See Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
473 Phil. 64; 429 SCRA 109 (2004) [Per J. Callejo Sr., Second Division].
17 Exec. Order No. 648 (1981), Art. IV, Sec. 5(b).
18 Rollo, p. 44.
19 Id., at p. 114, Comment.
20 Id., at p. 47.
21 Id., at p. 140, Comment.
22 Id., at p. 38.
23 Executive Order No. 90 (1996), Sec. 1(c).
13
Under Psd-04-027665, Salas further subdivided Lot J
into 23 smaller lots, with areas ranging from .1025 to
2.1663 hectares each.28 Then, he consolidated Lots F, G
and H and sub-
_______________
_______________
29 Id.
30 Id., at pp. 39-40.
31 Id., at p. 82, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated
September 19, 2006.
32 AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO
15
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 15
Heirs of Augusto Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal
_______________
16
_______________
46 Id., at p. 41.
47 Id.
48 Id., at pp. 41-42.
49 Id., at p. 41.
50 Id., at p. 42.
51 Id.
17
_______________
18
_______________
20
_______________
21
The Estate of Salas claimed that the property had been
reclassified as nonagricultural prior to the effectivity of
Repub-
_______________
22
On November 21, 2002, the farmer-beneficiaries opposed
the estate’s petition for exemption,80 arguing that they had
already received Certificates of Land Ownership Award
over the properties.81
To resolve the matter, the Department of Agrarian
Reform Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning, and
Implementation II prepared an Investigation Report, which
revealed that 14 of the 17 lots were already subjected to
agrarian reform and were being paid for by the farmer-
beneficiaries as owners.82 Only Lots B and C of the former
Lot 1 were not covered under
_______________
76 Id., at p. 11.
77 Id., at p. 10.
78 Id., at p. 49.
79 Id.
80 Id., at p. 89.
81 Id.
82 Id., at p. 51.
23
_______________
83 Id., at p. 52.
84 Id., at p. 51.
85 Id., at pp. 51-52.
24
According to respondents, they were neither informed
nor furnished copies of the petitioners’ application for
exemption and the Regional Trial Court’s January 7, 2004
Order.90 They learned about the application for
exemption91 and the ruling on it only from concerned
neighbors92 and from Marawoy, Lipa City Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office personnel,93 who showed them a
copy of the January 7, 2004 Order.94
_______________
86 Id., at p. 53.
87 Id., at pp. 86-93.
88 Id., at p. 44.
89 Id., at p. 92.
90 Id., at p. 111.
91 Id., at pp. 110-118.
92 Id., at p. 111.
93 Id., at p. 81.
94 Id., at p. 111.
25
_______________
95 Id., at p. 81.
96 Id., at p. 45.
97 Id., at p. 83.
98 Id.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id., at pp. 80-85. Order penned by Officer-In-Charge Secretary
Nasser C. Pangandaman.
26
Petitioners appealed the September 19, 2006 Order
before the Office of the President.103
In a Decision104 dated June 29, 2007, the Office of the
President set aside the September 19, 2006 Order and
reinstated the January 7, 2004 Order of the Department of
Agrarian Reform.
Respondents moved for reconsideration, but this was
denied on April 23, 2008.105
Respondents appealed before the Court of Appeals.106 In
a Decision107 dated October 26, 2009, the Court of Appeals
granted respondents’ petition, reversed the June 29, 2007
Office of the President Decision, and reinstated the
September 19, 2006 Department of Agrarian Reform Order.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the Court
of Appeals denied on March 1, 2010.108
_______________
27
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 27
Heirs of Augusto Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal
_______________
28
_______________
29
On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was enacted to fulfill
this constitutional mandate.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law covers all
public and private agricultural lands, as provided in
Proclamation No. 131120 and Executive Order No. 229,121
including other lands of
_______________
30
_______________
122 Rep. Act No. 6657, Sec. 4, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700
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:
Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five
(5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and
distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
123 Rep. Act No. 6657, Sec. 6-A, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700
provides:
Section 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits.—Provincial, city and
municipal government units acquiring private agricultural lands by
expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual,
direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges,
public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government
facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent
with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be
subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section and
Sections 70 and 73(a) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended:
Provided, That lands subject to CARP shall first undergo the land
acquisition and distribution process of the program: Provided,
further, That when these lands have been subjected to
expropriation, the agrarian reform beneficiaries therein shall be
paid just compensation.
31
_______________
124 Rep. Act No. 6657, Sec. 4, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9700
provides:
Section 4. Scope.—
....
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or
mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the
approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological,
developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by
law, the specific limits of the public domain;
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as
determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised
thereon.
125 Rep. Act No. 6657, Sec. 10 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, mosque sites and Islamic centers
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 the coverage of this Act.
32
_______________
126 Provided, that said prawn farms and fishponds have not been
distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to
agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, by voluntary offer to sell, or
commercial farms deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple
and absolute majority of the actual regular workers or tenants must
consent to the exemption within one (1) year from the effectivity of this
Act. When the workers or tenants do not agree to this exemption, the
fishponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker-
beneficiaries or tenants who shall form a cooperative or association to
manage the same.
33
III. Coverage
Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity
as defined in [Republic Act No.] 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
authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial, or
industrial use.
_______________
34
35
36
_______________
tural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657 to nonagricultural uses, the
authority of DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised from
the date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands that
already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before 15
June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.
However, the reclassification of lands to nonagricultural uses shall
not operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands
covered by Presidential Decree No. 27, which have vested prior to
June 15, 1988.
138 Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 296-A Phil.
271; 225 SCRA 278 (1993) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc]. See also Pasong
Bayabas Farmers Association Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 16.
139 Id., at pp. 278-279; pp. 283-284.
37
II
As a general rule, agricultural lands that were
reclassified as commercial, residential, or industrial by the
local government, as approved by the HLURB,140 before
June 15, 1988 are excluded from the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.
A farmlot is not included in any of these categories.
Respondents correctly argue that the 17 lots are still
classified and devoted to agricultural uses.141 The
definition of a “farmlot subdivision” under the HLURB
Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot Subdivision
Plan (HLURB Regulations) leaves no doubt that it is an
“agricultural land” as defined under Republic Act No. 3844.
Rule V, Section 18(d) of the HLURB Regulations
provides:
....
d. A Farmlot Subdivision – is a planned community intended
primarily for intensive agricultural activities and secondarily for
housing. A planned community consists of the provision for basic
utilities judicious allocation of areas, good layout based on sound
planning principles. (Emphasis supplied)
Under the HLURB Regulations, a farmlot for varied
farm activities, such as milking cow and raising poultry,142
is allowed only on a “backyard scale”143 or a small-scale
operation, and not for mass production. In a farmlot for
agro-industrial
_______________
140 Before Republic Act No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988, the
HLURB had the authority to approve a local government’s reclassification
of an agricultural land into nonagricultural uses (See supra note 16. After
Republic Act No. 6657 was implemented, that authority came under the
Department of Agrarian Reform (See Section 65 of Rep. Act No. 6657).
141 Rollo, pp. 146-149.
142 See HLURB Regulations, Rule II, Sec. 7(D).
143 Id., Sec. 9G(2)-(8).
38
_______________
144 Id., Secs. 9G(7) and (7.1).
145 Id., Sec. 8(B)(3).
146 Id., Secs. 9G(7) and (7.1).
147 Id., Sec. 7.
148 HLURB Regulations, Rule V, Sec. 18(d).
39
Even succeeding HLURB issuances affirm the
agricultural use of a farmlot subdivision.
In 2003, the HLURB declared that devoting an
agricultural land into a farmlot subdivision does not
change its principal use for agricultural activities.149
HLURB Director Atty. Manuel’s letter dated December 19,
2005 also confirmed that a farmlot subdivision is
considered to be within an agricultural zone.150
Moreover, HLURB Board Resolution Nos. 922-14,151
926-15,152 and 921-14153 all state that a farmlot subdivision
is “primarily intended for agricultural production, with a
minimum lot area of 1,000 sq. m. and with a twenty-five
percent (25%) maxi-
_______________
40
_______________
41
_______________
162 Junio v. Garilao, 503 Phil. 154; 465 SCRA 173 (2005) [Per J.
Panganiban, Third Division]; Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, supra note 16.
163 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 535 Phil. 248; 504 SCRA 238
(2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].
164 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) v. Nicolas, 588
Phil. 827; 567 SCRA 540 (2008) [Per J. Reyes, R.T., Third Division].
165 Supra note 138.
166 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, supra.
167 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) v. Nicolas,
supra.
168 HLURB Regulations, Rule V, Sec. 18(d).
169 Id., Rule II, Sec. 7(c).
170 AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE (1963).
42
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of Augusto Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal
_______________
43
_______________
44
III. Coverage
Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity
as defined in [Republic Act No.] 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
_______________
45
We parse this definition into its three elements.
Agricultural lands consist of lands:
(1) Devoted to agricultural activity, as defined in Republic
Act No. 6657;
(2) Not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources; and
(3) Prior to June 15, 1988, not classified for residential,
commercial, or industrial use under a local government
town plan and zoning ordinance, as approved by the
HLURB (or its predecessors, the National Coordinating
Council and the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission).
Salas’ farmlot subdivision fulfills these elements.
For the first element, the lots are devoted to agricultural
activity.
Agricultural activity refers to the “cultivation of the soil,
planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock,
poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm
products, and other farm activities and practices performed
by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations
done by persons whether natural or juridical.”186
Petitioners never denied the continued existence of
agricultural activity within these lots.187
Moreover, the Department of Agrarian Reform Center
for Land Use, Policy, Planning, and Implementation II, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, found that the estate’s
landholdings have been used for agricultural purposes.188
_______________
46
_______________
47
The general policy of Republic Act No. 6657 is to cover
as many lands suitable for agricultural activities as may be
allowed.197
_______________
194 Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 534 Phil. 496, 516-
517; 503 SCRA 378, 390 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, First Division].
195 Supra note 193.
196 Id.
197 DAR Adm. O. No. 01-90, Part IV.
48
_______________