Heirs of Salas, Jr. v. Cabungcal

CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
____________________

G.R. No. 191545. March 29, 2017.*

HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR., represented by
TERESITA D. SALAS, petitioners, vs. MARCIANO
CABUNGCAL, SERAFIN CASTILLO, DOMINGO M.
MANTUANO, MANOLITO D. BINAY, MARIA M.
CABUNGCAL, REMON C. RAMOS, NENITA R. BINAY,
DOMINGO L. MANTUANO, NENITA L. GUERRA,
ROSALINA B. MANTUANO, DOMINADOR C.
CASTILLO, LEALINE M. CABUNGCAL, ALBERTO
CAPULOY, ALFREDO VALENCIA, MARIA L.
VALENCIA, GERARDO GUERRA, GREGORIO M.
LATAYAN, REMEDIOS M. GUEVARRA, JOSE C.
BASCONCILLO, APLONAR
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

2
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Augusto Salas, Jr. vs. Cabungcal
TENORIO, JULIANA V. SUMAYA, ANTONIO C.

HERNANDEZ, VERONICA MILLENA, TERSITA D.C.
CASTILLO, DANTE M. LUSTRE, EFIPANIO M.
CABUNGCAL, NESTOR V. LATINA, NENITA LLORCA,
ROMEL L. LOMIDA, MARILOU CASTILLO, RUBEN
CASTILLO, ARNOLD MANALO, RICARDO CAPULOY,
AMELITA CALIMBAS, ROSALITA C. ELFANTE, LANIE
CAMPIT, RODILLO RENTON, RUSTICO AMAZONA,
LUZVIMINDA DE OCAMPO, DANILO DE OCAMPO,
JOSE DARWIN LISTANCO, NEMESIO CABUNGCAL,
RENATO ALZATE, BERNARDO AQUINO, RODRIGO
CABUNGCAL, CHONA G. AGUILA, ROSA M.
MANTUANO, ALLAN M. LUSTRE, FELIPE LOQUEZ,
DOMINGO MANALO, DOMINADOR M. MANALO,
JENNIFER H. MALIBIRAN, FELIXBERTO RITAN,
LEONILA FERRER, TOMAS M. LORENO, CELSO
VALENCIA, CONSTANTINO LUSTRE, REYNALDO C.
MALIBIRAN, ORLANDO C. MALIBIRAN, RICARDO
LLAMOSO AND SANTA DIMAYUGA, represented by
JOSE C. BASCONILLO, respondents.
Agrarian Reform; The 1987 Constitution mandates the just

distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to the limits
prescribed by Congress.—The 1987 Constitution mandates the
just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to the limits
prescribed by Congress. Under Article II, Section 21 of the
Constitution, “[t]he State shall promote comprehensive rural
development and agrarian reform.” Article XIII, Section 4
provides that an agrarian reform program shall be carried out in
the country: Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an
agrarian reform program founded on the rights of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers,
to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable
retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into
account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and
subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining
retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land sharing.

3
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 3

Same; Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law; The

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) covers the
following lands: (1) all alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture; (2) all lands
of the public domain exceeding the total area of five [5] hectares
and below to be retained by the landowner; (3) all government-
owned lands that are devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and (4)
all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, regardless
of the agricultural products raised or can be raised on these lands.
—The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law covers 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, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced. However, a maximum of
five (5) hectares of the landowner’s compact or contiguous
landholdings may not be distributed to qualified beneficiaries, as
it is within the landowner’s rights to retain this area. The
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program covers the following
lands: (1) all alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
devoted to or suitable for agriculture; (2) all lands of the public
domain exceeding the total area of five hectares and below to be
retained by the landowner; (3) all government-owned lands that
are devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and (4) all private lands
devoted to or suitable for agriculture, regardless of the
agricultural products raised or can be raised on these lands.
Same; Agricultural Lands; The law defines agricultural land
as “land devoted to agricultural activity . . . and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.”—The
law defines agricultural land as “land devoted to agricultural
activity . . . and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.” For agricultural land to be
considered devoted to an agricultural activity, there must be
“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.”
Same; Same; Conversion of Agricultural Lands; Section 65 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, as reiterated by Administrative Order
(AO) No. 01-90, states that reclassification or conversion of
agricultural lands into nonagricultural lands is subject to the
approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).—Section
65 of Republic Act No.

4

6657, as reiterated by Administrative Order No. 01-90, states

that reclassification or conversion of agricultural lands into
nonagricultural lands is subject to the approval of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. The law has given the
Department of Agrarian Reform the power to “approve or
disapprove applications for conversion . . . of agricultural lands
into nonagricultural uses[,]” such as “residential, commercial,
industrial, and other land uses. . .”
Same; Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law; In Natalia
Realty Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 225 SCRA 278
(1993), lands not devoted to agricultural activity, including lands
previously converted to nonagricultural use prior to the effectivity
of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 by government agencies other than
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), were declared outside
the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
—In light of Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, the
Department of Agrarian Reform issued Administrative Order No.
06-94 to streamline the issuance of exemption clearances by the
Department of Agrarian Reform. It affirms the rule that a local
government reclassification before June 15, 1988 does not need
the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform. In Natalia
Realty Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 225 SCRA 278
(1993), lands not devoted to agricultural activity, including lands
previously converted to nonagricultural use prior to the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 6657 by government agencies other than the
Department of Agrarian Reform, were declared outside the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Same; Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; As a
general rule, agricultural lands that were reclassified as
commercial, residential, or industrial by the local government, as
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), before June 15, 1988 are excluded from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). —As a general
rule, agricultural lands that were reclassified as commercial,
residential, or industrial by the local government, as approved by
the HLURB, 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. 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.

5
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 5

Same; Farmlot Subdivisions; In a farmlot for agro-industrial

purposes, the maximum buildable area for food processing or
preservation is limited to only twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
lot area.—Under the HLURB Regulations, a farmlot for varied
farm activities, such as milking cow and raising poultry, is
allowed only on a “backyard scale” or a small-scale operation, and
not for mass production. In a farmlot for agro-industrial purposes,
the maximum buildable area for food processing or preservation is
limited to only twenty-five percent (25%) of the total lot area.
Likewise, a rice mill must be less than 300 square meters in size,
and must be more than one hectare away from another mill.
Same; Same; Under Rule 2, Section 9(G) of the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regulations, a farmlot
subdivision plan for planting tree crops, mixed orchard, or
diversified crops has none of these restrictions in scale, size, or use,
thus recognizing a farmlot subdivision’s principal use for farming.
—Under Rule 2, Section 9(G) of the HLURB Regulations, a
farmlot subdivision plan for planting tree crops, mixed orchard, or
diversified crops has none of these restrictions in scale, size, or
use, thus recognizing a farmlot subdivision’s principal use for
farming. The HLURB Regulations also provide for the minimum
site criteria for a farmlot subdivision plan. First, it must be near a
marketplace where the farm produce can be utilized and
marketed. Second, it must meet the needs of farming activities.
Third, the topography, soil, and climate must be suited for
planting crops. These highlight a farmlot subdivision’s primarily
agricultural nature.
Same; Same; Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) Board Resolution Nos. 922-14, 926-15 and 921-14, all
state that a farmlot subdivision is “primarily intended for
agricultural production, with a minimum lot area of one thousand
square meter (1,000 sq. m.) and with a twenty-five percent (25%)
maximum allowable buildable area.”—In 2003, the HLURB
declared that devoting an agricultural land into a farmlot
subdivision does not change its principal use for agricultural
activities. HLURB Director Atty. Manuel’s letter dated December
19, 2005 also confirmed that a farmlot subdivision is considered to
be within an agricultural zone. Moreover, HLURB Board
Resolution Nos. 922-14, 926-15, and 921-14 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

6

twenty-five percent (25%) maximum allowable buildable

area.” HLURB Memorandum Circular No. 001-15 reiterates the
same definition. The records show that the 17 lots are agricultural
in nature. In its Investigation Report, the Department of Agrarian
Reform Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning, and
Implementation II found that the lots, being flat, were suitable for
cultivating crops, and had been cleared for planting, or were
planted with corn. The areas covered by the original TCT No. T-
2807 had been tilled for several years and had been found to be
irrigable. Even the “[l]and uses of adjacent areas are agricultural
and idle agricultural” in nature.
Same; Republic Act (RA) No. 3844, sought “to make the small
farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens,
and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society.”—This
case involves a land that was reclassified as a “farmlot
subdivision,” intended for “intensive agricultural activities.”
Likewise, located away from the city center, the farmlot
subdivision has not been developed into an urban zone. When
Salas’ agricultural land was reclassified as a farmlot subdivision,
the applicable law was Republic Act No. 3844, as amended.
Republic Act No. 3844, sought “to make the small farmers more
independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of
genuine strength in our democratic society.” Thus, Republic Act
No. 3844 established the Land Authority to initiate proceedings
for the acquisition of private agricultural lands, and the
subdivision of these lands into economic family-size farm units for
resale to bona fide tenants, occupants, and qualified farmers.
Same; Agricultural Lands; Words and Phrases; Section 166(1)
of Republic Act (RA) No. 3844 defined an agricultural land as
“land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop
lands[.]” The law neither made reference to a “farmlot
subdivision,” nor did it exclude a farmlot from the definition of an
agricultural land.—Section 166(1) of Republic Act No. 3844
defined an agricultural land as “land devoted to any growth,
including but not limited to crop lands[.]” The law neither made
reference to a “farmlot subdivision,” nor did it exclude a farmlot
from the definition of an agricultural land. Not being excluded,
Salas’ landholdings were thus contemplated in the definition of an
agricultural land under Republic Act No. 3844. Likewise, Republic
Act No. 6657 does not exclude a farmlot subdivision from the
definition of an agricultural land. Section 3(c) of

7
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 7

Republic Act No. 6657 states that agricultural lands refer to

“land devoted to agricultural activity . . . and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land.”
Section 76 expressly provides that any other definition
inconsistent with Republic Act No. 6657 has been repealed by this
law.
Same; Same; Farmlot Subdivisions; It bears stressing that
neither Republic Act (RA) No. 3844 nor RA No. 6657 excludes a
farmlot subdivision, which is primarily agricultural in nature,
from the definition of an agricultural land.—An executive
regulation cannot go beyond the law. Republic Act No. 3844
(1963) broadly defined an agricultural land as “land devoted to
any growth, including but not limited to crop lands.” Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended, also broadly defines agricultural land as
land devoted to agricultural activity. In contrast, the HLURB
Regulations restrict the definition of agricultural lands to those
lands “exclusively or predominantly used for cultivation,” not
being a farmlot subdivision. In limiting the definition of an
agricultural land to one “without the intended qualities of a
farmlot subdivision,” the HLURB Regulations are overriding,
supplanting, and modifying a statutory definition. This is
prohibited. A mere executive issuance cannot alter, expand, or
restrict the provisions of the law it seeks to enforce. It bears
stressing that neither Republic Act No. 3844 nor Republic Act No.
6657 excludes a farmlot subdivision, which is primarily
agricultural in nature, from the definition of an agricultural land.
Same; Same; Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program;
Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 never required that a landholding
must be exclusively used for agricultural purposes to be covered by
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).—In case of
doubt, any other definition of an agricultural land inconsistent
with the law, such as that found under the HLURB Regulations,
has been expressly repealed by Section 76 of Republic Act No.
6657. Republic Act No. 6657 never required that a landholding
must be exclusively used for agricultural purposes to be covered
by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. What
determines a tract of land’s inclusion in the program is its
suitability for any agricultural activity.
Same; Same; Agricultural land refers to those devoted to
agricultural activity as defined in (Republic Act [RA] 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

8

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.—The Department of Agrarian
Reform Administrative Order No. 01-90 (Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands
to Non-Agricultural Uses) defines agricultural land as follows: 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. 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.
Same; Agricultural Activity; Words and Phrases; 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.”—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.”
Same; Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law; Section 4(d) of
Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 covers “[a]ll private lands devoted to
or suitable for agriculture[,] regardless of the agricultural products
raised or that can be raised thereon.”—Section 4(d) of Republic Act
No. 6657 covers “[a]ll private lands devoted to or suitable for
agriculture[,] regardless of the agricultural products raised or
that can be

9
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 9

raised thereon.” As the estate’s private lands are (a) devoted

to or suitable for agriculture; and (b) not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial, or industrial, then these may be
included in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Finally, whenever there is reasonable uncertainty in the
interpretation of the law, the balance must be tilted in favor of the
poor and underprivileged. Republic Act No. 6657 was enacted as
social legislation, pursuant to the policy of the State to pursue a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Agrarian reform is the
means towards a viable livelihood and, ultimately, a decent life
for the landless farmers.
Same; Same; The general policy of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657
is to cover as many lands suitable for agricultural activities as
may be allowed.—The general policy of Republic Act No. 6657 is
to cover as many lands suitable for agricultural activities as may
be allowed. Where there is doubt as to the intention of the local
government in the area where the property is located, the
interpretation should be towards the declared intention of the
law.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Lazaro Law Firm for petitioners.
Erwin G. Ruiz for respondents.
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
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-34.

2 Id., at pp. 35-57.

10

dated October 26, 2009 and Resolution3 dated March 1,

2010 in the case docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 103703.
Augusto Salas, Jr. (Salas) was the registered owner of a
vast tract of agricultural land4 traversing five barangays —
Pusil, Bulacnin, Balintawak, Marawoy, and Inosluban — in
Lipa City, Batangas.5 Respondents Marciano Cabungcal,
Serafin Castillo, Domingo M. Mantuano, Manolito D.
Binay, Maria M. Cabungcal, Remon C. Ramos, Nenita R.
Binay, Domingo L. Mantuano, Nenita L. Guerra, Rosalina
B. Mantuano, Dominador C. Castillo, Lealine M.
Cabungcal, Alberto Capuloy, Alfredo Valencia, Maria L.
Valencia, Gerardo Guerra, Gregorio M. Latayan, Remedios
M. Guevarra, Jose C. Basconcillo, Aplonar Tenorio, Juliana
V. Sumaya, Antonio C. Hernandez, Veronica Millena,
Tersita D.C. Castillo, Dante M. Lustre, Efipanio M.
Cabungcal, Nestor V. Latina, Nenita Llorca, Romel L.
Lomida, Marilou Castillo, Ruben Castillo, Arnold Manalo,
Ricardo Capuloy, Amelita Calimbas, Rosalita C. Elfante,
Lanie Campit, Rodillo Renton, Rustico Amazona,
Luzviminda De Ocampo, Danilo De Ocampo, Jose Darwin
Listanco, Nemesio Cabungcal, Renato Alzate, Bernardo
Aquino, Rodrigo Cabungcal, Chona G. Aguila, Rosa M.
Mantuano, Allan M. Lustre, Felipe Loquez, Domingo
Manalo, Dominador M. Manalo, Jennifer H. Malibiran,
Felixberto Ritan, Leonila Ferrer, Tomas M. Loreno, Celso
Valencia, Constantino Lustre, Reynaldo C. Malibiran,
Orlando C. Malibiran, Ricardo Llamoso and Santa
Dimayuga, represented by Jose C. Basconillo were tenant
farmers in his agricultural land6 and are agrarian reform
beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 58-61.

4 Id., at p. 37.
5 Id., at pp. 37-39.
6 Id., at p. 82, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated September
19, 2006. They claimed to have so worked even before Republic Act No.
6657 took effect in 1988.

11
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 11

According to Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-

2807,7 the agricultural land of Salas had an aggregate area
of 148.4354 hectares (roughly 1.5 million square meters),8
covering Lots 1 and 2.9 Lot 1 spanned 56.1361 hectares,10
while Lot 2 spanned 92.2993 hectares.11
Under Section 312 of Republic Act No. 2264,13 the
applicable law at that time, municipal and city councils
were empowered to adopt zoning and subdivision
ordinances or regulations, in consultation with the
National Planning Commission.
On February 19, 1977, then President Ferdinand Marcos
created the National Coordinating Council for Town
Planning, Housing and Zoning (National Coordinating
Council) to prepare and oversee all government town plans,
housing, and zoning measures.14
_______________
7 Id., at p. 137, OSG Comment.

8 Id., at pp. 37-38.
9 Id., at pp. 6-8.
10 Id., at p. 38.
11 Id., at p. 39.
12 Republic Act No. 2264, Sec. 3 provides:
Section 3. Additional Powers of Provincial Boards, Municipal Boards or
City Councils and Municipal and Regularly Organized Municipal District
Councils.—
....
Power to Adopt Zoning and Planning Ordinances.—Any provision of law
to the contrary notwithstanding, Municipal Boards or City Councils in
cities, and Municipal Councils in municipalities are hereby authorized to
adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations for their
respective cities and municipalities subject to the approval of the City
Mayor or Municipal Mayor, as the case may be. Cities and municipalities
may, however, consult the National Planning Commission on matters
pertaining to planning and zoning.
13 AN ACT AMENDING THE LAWS GOVERNING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY
INCREASING THEIR AUTONOMY AND REORGANIZING PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS.

ALSO KNOWN AS THE LOCAL AUTONOMY ACT of 1959.
14 L.O.I. No. 511 (1977).

12

After a year, the National Coordinating Council was

dissolved and replaced by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission.15 Under Letter of Instruction No.
729, the power of the local government to convert or
reclassify agricultural lands became subject to the approval
of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.16
The Human Settlements Regulatory Commission was
tasked to “[r]eview, evaluate and approve or disapprove
comprehensive land use development plans and zoning
ordinances of local government[s].”17
On December 2, 1981, the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission issued Resolution No. 35,18
approving the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Lipa City,
Batangas.19 Pursuant to the approved town plan of Lipa
City, Salas’ agricultural land was reclassified as a farmlot
subdivision20 for cultivation, livestock production, or agro-
forestry.21
Sometime in May 1987, Salas entered into an Owner-
Contractor Agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation
(Laperal Realty) for the development, subdivision, and sale
of his land.22
On November 17, 1987, the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission, now Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB),23 issued Development Permit
No. 7-0370,
_______________
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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 13

granting Laperal Realty a permit for a Nature Farmlots

subdivision.24
Salas subdivided Lot 1 into Lots A to C under Psd-04-
0262541,25 and Lot 2 into Lots A to K under Psd-04-
0262542.26 A total of 14 subdivided lots were titled in his
name, as follows:27
Former Lot 2 Area in square New Titles

Description meters Issued
Lot A (Brgy. Balintawak) 3,058 (.3058 ha.) TCT No. 67663
Lot B (Brgy. Balintawak) 90,587 (9.0587 ha.) TCT No. 67664
Lot C (Brgy. Bulacnin) 2,925 (.2925 ha.) TCT No. 67665
Lot D (Brgy. Bulacnin) 75,934 (7.5934 ha.) TCT No. 67666
Lot E (Brgy. Bulacnin) 13,909 (1.3909 ha.) TCT No. 67667
Lot F (Brgy. Pusil) 106,509 (10.6509 ha.) TCT No. 67668
Lot G (Brgy. Pusil) 60,121 (6.0121 ha.) TCT No. 67669
Lot H (Brgy. Pusil) 89,202 (8.9202 ha.) TCT No. 67670
Lot I (Brgy. Pusil) 9,086 (.9086 ha.) TCT No. 67671
Lot J (Brgy. Pusil) 460,633 (46.0633 ha.) TCT No. 67672
Lot K (Brgy. Pusil) 11,029 (1.1029 ha.) TCT No. 67673
Total 922,993 (92.2993 ha.)

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-
_______________
24 Rollo, p. 87, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January

7, 2004.
25 Id., at p. 38.
26 Id., at pp. 38-39.
27 Id., at p. 38.
28 Id., at p. 39.

14

divided them into 17 smaller lots under Psd-04-003573,

with areas ranging from .1546 to 2.0101 hectares each.29
The transfer certificates of title for these subdivided lots
were all issued in Salas’ name.30
Meanwhile, respondents continued to farm on his
landholdings.31
On June 10, 1988, Republic Act No. 665732 was signed
into law and became effective on June 15, 1988.33 The law
sought to expand the coverage of the government’s
agrarian reform program.34 Salas’ landholdings were
among those contemplated for acquisition and distribution
to qualified farmer beneficiaries.35
Before HLURB, Salas applied for a permission to sell his
subdivided lots.36 On July 12, 1988, HLURB issued a
License to Sell37 Phase 1 of the farmlot subdivision,
consisting of 31 lots.38
From July 12, 1988 to October 1989, Laperal Realty sold
unspecified portions of the subdivided lots.39
_______________
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
PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM

FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ALSO KNOWN AS THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW of 1988.

33 Rollo, pp. 40-41.
34 Id., at p. 41.
35 Id.
36 Id., at p. 40.
37 Under Section 12 of Rule III of the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission (now HLURB) Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot
Subdivision Plan, farmlots may only be disposed of pursuant to a license
to sell by the HLURB.
38 Rollo, p. 40.
39 Id.

15
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 15
Salas also executed in favor of Laperal Realty a Special

Power of Attorney “to exercise general control, supervision
and management of the sale of his land[holdings].”40
On June 10, 1989, Salas went on a business trip to
Nueva Ecija and never came back.41
Pursuant to the Special Power of Attorney,42 Laperal
Realty subdivided Salas’ property and sold unspecified
portions of these to Rockway Real Estate Corporation and
to South Ridge Village, Inc. on February 22, 1990, as well
as to spouses Thelma and Gregorio Abrajano, to Oscar
Dacillo, and to spouses Virginia and Rodel Lava on June
27, 1991.43
The sale of these lots resulted in only 82.5569 hectares
of the original 148.4354 hectares unsold and remaining
under Salas’ name,44 namely, Lots A to C (from the former
Lot 1) and Lots B and J-7 to J-18 (from the former Lot 2),
totaling 16 lots. Thus:45
Salas’ remaining lots Area (in hectares) TCT No.

Lot A 23.4967 67660
Lot B 0.9366 67661
Lot C 31.7028 67662
Lot B 9.0587 67664
Lot J-7 1.2159 68223
Lot J-8 1.0757 68224
Lot J-9 1.2158 68225
Lot J-10 1.3356 68226
Lot J-11 1.0000 68227
Lot J-12 1.0000 68228
_______________
40 Heirs of Augusto L. Salas, Jr. v. Laperal Realty Corporation, 378

Phil. 369, 372; 320 SCRA 610, 612 (1999) [Per J. De Leon Jr., Second
Division].
41 Id.
42 Id., at p. 373; p. 612.
43 Id.
44 Rollo, p. 40.
45 Id.

16


Petitioners Heirs of Salas assailed the inclusion of their
landholdings, i.e., the 16 lots, under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.46 They filed protest letters
before the Department of Agrarian Reform on January 8,
1991, and before the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board on April 12, 1991.47
On May 31, 1993, before the protests were resolved, the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Lipa City sent a
Notice of Coverage48 for the landholdings that would be
subject to acquisition and distribution to qualified farmer
beneficiaries.
Subsequently, the Department of Agrarian Reform
denied petitioners’ protest for lack of merit, while the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.49
The Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition was sent
on December 28, 1993.50
Between 1995 and 1996, agrarian reform beneficiaries
were given Certificates of Land Ownership Award over
portions of Salas’ landholdings, covering a total area of
about 40.8588 hectares.51
_______________
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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 17

Thirteen (13) lots consisting of Lot A (from the former

Lot 1) and Lots J-7 to J-18 (from the former Lot 2) were
distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries.52 The lots
were registered in their names, as follows:53
Former TCT Agrarian Reform Area CLOA

Lot
No. Beneficiaries (has.) No.
Former TCT Agrarian Reform Area CLOA
Lot
No. Beneficiaries (has.) No.
Lot
67660 Romeo Mantuano 0.025200189533
A
Respondent Rustico G.
0.0277
Amazona
Jaime Latayan 0.0308
Rogelio Q. Valencia 0.025200189534
Jose B. Guerra 0.035900189535
Respondent Gerardo Guerra 0.032700189536
Alberto B. Guerra 0.038400189537
Respondent Nenita M. Llorca 0.045700189538
Respondent Maria L.
0.038300189539
Valencia
(Church/basketball court) 0.0843
Respondent Marciano V.
0.068600189542
Cabungcal
Ernesto Latayan 0.0509
Feliciano Cuenca 0.0578
Respondent Gregorio M.
0.050900189541
Latayan
Francisco Cabungcal 0.069600189540
Antonina Mantuano 0.0729
Lorenzo Ritan 0.0934
Bernardo P. Loza 0.067800189543
Respondent Domingo M.
0.597900189544
Manalo
Eduardo Castillo 0.597900189545
_______________
52 Id., at pp. 42-43.

53 Id.

18


19
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 19

The 14th lot, Lot C from the former Lot 1, consisting of

31.7028 hectares, was also distributed to the
beneficiaries.54
Thus, of the 16 lots unsold and remaining under Salas’
name,55 14 lots were awarded to agrarian reform
beneficiaries.56 Only two lots remained with Salas: 9.0587
hectares (Lot B from the former Lot 2) and 9.3864 (Lot B
from the former Lot 1).57
Meanwhile, the 17th lot, Lot C from the former Lot 2,
0.2925 hectares, was designated as a school site;58 thus, it
was not included in the scope of the agrarian reform
program.59
On December 8, 1995, before the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, an action was filed
for the cancellation of the Certificates of Land Ownership
Award, with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order to enjoin the distribution of their
landholdings to qualified farmer beneficiaries.60
_______________
54 Id., at p. 89, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January

7, 2004.
55 Id., at p. 40, Court of Appeals Decision.
56 Id., at p. 51.
57 Id.
58 Id., at p. 39.
7, 2004.

20

By 1996, Salas, Jr. had already been missing for more

than seven (7) years.61 On August 6, 1996, Salas’ wife,
Teresita Diaz Salas (Teresita), petitioned the court to
declare him presumptively dead.62 The court granted the
petition on December 12, 1996,63 and Teresita was
appointed as administrator of his estate.64
In 1997, the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board denied petitioners’ action for the
cancellation of respondents’ Certificates of Land Ownership
Award.65
On July 29, 1997, the Estate of Salas, with Teresita as
the administrator, filed an Application for
Exemption/Exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program for the 17 lots before the Department of
Agrarian Reform.66 This was allegedly not acted upon.67
Meanwhile, the Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning,
and Implementation II sought for a clarification with the
HLURB regarding the definition of a farmlot subdivision.68
On July 16, 1998, then HLURB Commissioner Francisco L.
Dagnalan stated that a farmlot subdivision is a “planned
community intended primarily for intensive agricultural
activities secondarily for housing.”69 Such farmlot must be
“located in the fringes of the urban core of cities and
municipalities.”70
On April 29, 2001,71 the Estate of Salas again filed an
application for exemption from the coverage of the
Comprehen-
_______________
61 Supra note 40.

62 Rollo, p. 41.
63 Supra note 40.
64 Rollo, p. 41.
65 Id., at p. 42.
66 Id., at p. 43.
67 Id.
7, 2004.
69 Id., at p. 90.
70 Id.
71 Id., at p. 96.

21
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 21

sive Agrarian Reform Program for the 17 parcels of land

before the Department of Agrarian Reform Center for Land
Use, Policy, Planning, and Implementation II.72 Petitioners
prayed that an aggregate area of 82.8494 hectares be
exempted from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.73 Located in Barangays Bulacnin and Inosluban-
Maraouy, Lipa City,74 these lots were as follows:75

The Estate of Salas claimed that the property had been
reclassified as nonagricultural prior to the effectivity of
Repub-
_______________
72 The CLUPPI is a “‘one-stop-shop’ [that] handles all matters

regarding land use conversion, exemption and exclusion.” (Adm. Order No.
02-02, Institutionalization of the Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and
Implementation)
73 Rollo, p. 87.
7, 2004.
75 Id., at p. 86.

22

lic Act No. 6657.76 It anchored the alleged exclusion of the

17 lots on Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of
1990.77
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 states that the
Department of Agrarian Reform’s authority to approve
reclassifications of agricultural lands to nonagricultural
uses could be exercised only from the date of the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 6657 on June 15, 1988.78 Thus:
Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that

with respect to conversions of agricultural lands covered by
[Republic Act] No. 6657 to nonagricultural uses, the authority of
[Department of Agrarian Reform] 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
[Republic Act] No. 6657 in the light of [Department of Agrarian
Reform’s] mandate and extensive coverage of the agrarian reform
program.79

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
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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 23

the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, while Lot B

of the former Lot 2 was pending inclusion.83
The Department of Agrarian Reform Center for Land
Use, Policy, Planning, and Implementation II also
confirmed the presence of agricultural activities in these 17
lots.84 Thus:
2. The southern points, specifically Lot Nos. A [Psd-04-

262541 of the former Lot 1], B [Psd-04-0262542 of the former Lot
2], A and J-18 [of the former Lot 2] are planted to corn. Most of
the rest of the area have been cleared in preparation for planting.
Patches of grass and shrubs were also noted;
3. Topography is flat;
4. Land uses of adjacent areas are agricultural and idle
agricultural;
5. A dialogue with the farmer-beneficiaries was also
conducted. The result of which, among others[,] are:
a. they have been tilling the properties for several years;
b. they are recipients of [Certificates of Land Ownership
Award]; and
c. payments of land amortization are continuously being made
to the Land Bank of the Philippines.
6. Per information given by the DAR Municipal Office, with
the exception of Lots B [Psd-04-0262541] and C [Psd-04-
02625241][,] which were never covered [i.e., not distributed to
agrarian reform beneficiaries,] and Lot B [Psd-04-0262542][,] the
Claim Folder (CF) of which is still at the DAR Provincial Office,
the rest have been distributed to beneficiaries.85 (Emphasis
supplied)
_______________
83 Id., at p. 52.
84 Id., at p. 51.
85 Id., at pp. 51-52.

24

On October 15, 2003, the HLURB issued Board

Resolution No. 750, stating that “[f]or Farmlot Subdivision
. . . there is no change in principal use.”86
In an Order87 dated January 7, 2004, then Secretary of
Agrarian Reform Roberto Pagdanganan granted
petitioners’ application for exemption of the 17 lots from
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.88 The
dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the application for

exemption clearance involving the herein described parcels of
land with an aggregate area of 82.8294 hectares, located at
Barangays Bulacnin and Insoluban-Maraouy, Lipa City[,]
Batangas[,] is hereby GRANTED pursuant to [Department of
Agrarian Reform] Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994.
Further, petitioner is directed to maintain in peaceful possession
the farmer-beneficiaries therein pending the payment of
disturbance compensation due them.
SO ORDERED.89

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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 25

Respondents moved for reconsideration on February 18,

2004.95 They asserted that the lots were agricultural and
teeming with agricultural activity, as defined under
Republic Act No. 6657.96
On September 23, 2005, the Department of Agrarian
Implementation Secretariat wrote a letter to HLURB,
seeking clarification or opinion on the classification of a
farmlot subdivision.97
On December 19, 2005, HLURB Director Atty. Cesar A.
Manuel (Atty. Manuel) replied in writing to the
Department of Agrarian Reform Center for Land Use,
Policy, Planning, and Implementation,98 stating that under
HLURB Rules, a farmlot subdivision is considered within
an agricultural zone.99 Moreover, notwithstanding the
reclassification, a farmlot subdivision’s principal use for
farming has remained.100
In an Order dated September 19, 2006, then Officer-In-
Charge Secretary of Agrarian Reform Nasser
101
Pangandaman granted respondents’ motion for
reconsideration and set aside the January 7, 2004 Order.
The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered the MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (MR) filed by the movant-oppositors,
Mariano Cabungacal, et al., is hereby GRANTED SETTING
ASIDE THE ORDER dated 07 January 2004 issued by then
Secretary Roberto M. Pagdanganan to Mr. Augusto Salas, Jr. The
CLOA holders on the area of 40.8588 hectares shall continue the
maintenance of the land while the [Provincial Agrarian Re-
_______________
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

form Office] and the [Municipal Agrarian Reform Office] is

directed to look into the possibility of covering the remaining
portion of the subject property.
SO ORDERED.102

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
_______________
102 Id., at p. 84.

103 Id., at p. 46.
104 Id., at pp. 70-76. The Decision was penned by Executive Secretary
Eduardo R. Ermita of the Office of the President.
105 Id., at p. 77. The Resolution was penned by Executive Secretary
Eduardo R. Ermita of the Office of the President.
106 Id., at pp. 62-69.
107 Id., at pp. 35-57. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice
Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices
Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Ramon R. Garcia of the Second Division,
Court of Appeals Manila.
108 Id., at pp. 58-61. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Associate Justices
Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Ramon R. Garcia of the Former Second
Division, Court of Appeals Manila.

27
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 27
Thus, on March 25, 2010, petitioners filed a Petition for

Review on Certiorari109 with this Court. The petition was
granted due course.110
On November 9, 2010, petitioners moved for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order.111 They attached
an affidavit of Gloria Linang Mantuano (Gloria) in support
of their motion.112 Based on her affidavit, Gloria was told
by unnamed tenants that respondents and agrarian reform
beneficiaries Ricardo Capuloy, Rodrigo Cabungcal, Celso
Valencia, Danilo de Ocampo, and Gerardo Guerra were
able to sell their lands.113
In a Resolution dated November 22, 2010, petitioners’
prayer for a temporary restraining order was granted.114 It
stated that “[t]he consummation of acts leading to the
disposition of the litigated property can make it difficult to
implement this Court’s decision[.]”115
_______________
109 Id., at pp. 3-34.

110 On April 26, 2010, this Court required (id., at p. 105) respondents
to file their Comment. On June 15, 2010, respondents filed a Motion to
Admit Comment (id., at pp. 108-109) and their Comment (id., at pp. 110-
118). The Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment (id., at pp. 137-
151) on July 16, 2010. In a Resolution dated July 28, 2010, this Court
granted (id., at p. 126) and noted respondents’ Motion to Admit Comment
and their Comment. On April 18, 2010, petitioners filed a Motion for
Leave to File Attached Reply (id., at pp. 155-156) and their Reply (id., at
pp. 159-167). In a Resolution dated September 15, 2010, this Court noted
the Office of the Solicitor General’s Comment, granted petitioners’ leave to
file Reply, noted their Reply, dispensed with the filing of the
memorandum, and gave due course to the petition (id., at p. 171).
111 Id., at pp. 175-184.
112 Id., at pp. 185-186.
113 Id., at p. 185.
114 Id., at pp. 191-198. The Resolution was penned by Chief Justice
Renato Corona and concurred in by Associate Justices Presbitero J.
Velasco Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado M. Peralta and Jose
Portugal-Perez of the First Division of the Supreme Court.
115 Id., at pp. 196-197.

28

On January 31, 2011, this Court resolved to approve the
bond amounting to P2,000,000.00 and issue the temporary
restraining order in favor of petitioners.116
On November 12, 2013, Jose C. Basconillo (Basconillo),
one of the respondents, sent a letter to this Court,
questioning the propriety of issuing a temporary
restraining order based merely on Gloria’s affidavit.117
Casting doubt on Gloria’s credibility, Basconillo said that
she was not even part of the land reform beneficiaries.118
Further, she lived in Barangay Balintawak, as stated in
her Salaysay,119 and not in Barangay Inosluban-Marawoy
or in Barangay Buclanin, where the lots allegedly disposed
of were located.
The principal issue in this case is whether the
reclassification of petitioners’ agricultural land as a farmlot
subdivision exempts the Estate of Salas from the coverage
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under
Republic Act No. 6657. Subsumed in this matter are the
following issues:
(a) Whether Republic Act No. 6657 covers lands
classified into nonagricultural uses prior to its
effectivity;
(b) Whether Salas’ farmlot subdivision falls under an
“agricultural land” as defined by applicable laws; and
(c) Whether the 17 lots are covered under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

I

The 1987 Constitution mandates the just distribution of
all agricultural lands, subject to the limits prescribed by
Congress. Under Article II, Section 21 of the Constitution,
“[t]he State shall promote comprehensive rural
development and
_______________
116 Id., at p. 219.

117 Id., at pp. 239-246.
118 Id., at p. 239.
119 Id., at pp. 244-245.

29
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 29

agrarian reform.” Article XIII, Section 4 provides that an

agrarian reform program shall be carried out in the
country:
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian

reform program founded on the rights of farmers and regular
farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a
just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as
the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the
payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits,
the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State
shall further provide incentives for voluntary land sharing.

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
_______________
120 INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (1987)

provides:
....
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON COJUANGCO AQUINO,
President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Scope.—Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) is hereby instituted which shall cover, regardless
of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced all public and
private agricultural lands as provided in the Constitution,
including whenever applicable in accordance with law, other lands
of the public domain suitable to agriculture.
121 PROVIDING THE MECHANISMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (1987).

30

the public domain suitable for agriculture, regardless of

tenurial arrangement and commodity produced.122
However, a maximum of five (5) hectares of the
landowner’s compact or contiguous landholdings may not
be distributed to qualified beneficiaries, as it is within the
landowner’s rights to retain this area.123
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program covers
the following lands: (1) all alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture; (2)
all lands of the public domain exceeding the total area of
five hectares and below to be retained by the landowner; (3)
all government-owned lands that are devoted to or suitable
for agriculture; and (4) all private lands devoted to or
suitable for
_______________
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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 31

agriculture, regardless of the agricultural products raised

or can be raised on these lands.124
Meanwhile, Section 10 of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform125 provides the types of lands that are excluded
therefrom:
_______________
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

1. Lands that are actually, directly and exclusively used for

parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish
sanctuaries and breeding grounds, and watersheds and
mangoes;
2. Private lands that are actually, directly and exclusively
used for prawn farms and fishponds;126
3. Lands that are actually, directly and exclusively used
and found to be necessary for:
a. National defense;
b. School sites and campuses including experimental
farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes;
c. Seeds and seedling research and pilot production
center;
d. Church sites and convents appurtenant thereto;
e. Mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto;
f. Communal burial grounds and cemeteries;
g. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the
inmates; and
h. Government and private research and quarantine
centers.
_______________
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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 33

4. All lands where the topography is hilly, i.e., with at least

eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, and are not
developed for agriculture.

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law covers all
agricultural lands, save for those not used or suitable for
agricultural activities.
The law defines agricultural land as “land devoted to
agricultural activity . . . and not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.”127 For
agricultural land to be considered devoted to an
agricultural activity, there must be “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.”128
Aside from being devoted to an agricultural activity, the
land must, likewise, not have been classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land.
Administrative Order No. 01-90 states:
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
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding
authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial, or
industrial use.
_______________
127 Rep. Act No. 6657, Sec. 3(c).

128 Id., Sec. 3(b).

34

Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657,129 as reiterated by

Administrative Order No. 01-90, states that reclassification
or conversion of agricultural lands into nonagricultural
lands is subject to the approval of the Department of
Agrarian Reform. The law has given the Department of
Agrarian Reform the power to “approve or disapprove
applications for conversion . . . of agricultural lands into
nonagricultural uses[,]”130 such as “residential, commercial,
industrial, and other land uses . . .”131
Before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on June
15, 1988, the Department of Agrarian Reform had no
authority to approve the conversion or reclassification of
agricultural lands by local governments. Under Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 2264, local governments had the power to
approve reclassification of agricultural lands. Municipal
and city councils could adopt zoning and subdivision
ordinances or regulations reclassifying agricultural lands
in consultation with the National Planning Commission.132
_______________
129 Id., Sec. 65 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 due notice to
the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the
reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition:
Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
130 DAR Adm. O. No. 01 -90, II(A).
131 Id., II(B).
....
Power to Adopt Zoning and Planning Ordinances.—Any provision
of law to the contrary notwithstanding, Municipal Boards or City
Councils in cities, and Municipal Councils in municipalities are
hereby authorized to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or
regulations for their respective cities and mu-

35
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 35

The question of whether the reclassification by local

governments prior to the enactment of Republic Act No.
6657 still needed the approval of the Department of
Agrarian Reform was raised by then Secretary of Agrarian
Reform Florencio Abad to the Department of Justice.133 In
response, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon
issued Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 on March 16,
1990, stating that the conversion of agricultural lands
covered by Republic Act No. 6657 did not need the
authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform before the
date of effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on June 15,
1988.134 The Department of Agrarian Reform’s authority to
approve conversions only began on June 15, 1988.135
In light of Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, the
Department of Agrarian Reform issued Administrative
Order No. 06-94136 to streamline the issuance of exemption
clearances by the Department of Agrarian Reform. It
affirms the rule that a local government reclassification
before June 15, 1988 does not need the approval of the
Department of Agrarian Reform.137
nicipalities subject to the approval of the City Mayor
or Municipal Mayor, as the case may be. Cities and
municipalities may, however, consult the National
Planning Commission on matters pertaining to
planning and zoning.
133 Sec. of Justice Op. No. 44, S. 1990, p. 1.
134 Id.
135 Id.
136 GUIDELINES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF EXEMPTION
CLEARANCES BASED ON SEC. 3(C) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657 AND
THE SEC. OF JUSTICE OP. NO. 44, S. 1990.
137 Adm. Order No. 06-94 provides:
II.
Legal Basis
Sec. 3(c) of RA No. 6657 states that agricultural lands
refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as
defined in this act and not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 Series of 1990
has ruled that with respect to the conversion of
agricul-

36

In Natalia Realty Inc. v. Department of Agrarian

Reform,138 lands not devoted to agricultural activity,
including lands previously converted to nonagricultural use
prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 by
government agencies other than the Department of
Agrarian Reform, were declared outside the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Thus:
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside

the coverage of [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law]. These
include lands previously converted to nonagricultural uses prior
to the effectivity of [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] by
government agencies other than respondent [Department of
Agrarian Reform] . . .
....
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 [Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law].139
_______________
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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 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

purposes, the maximum buildable area for food processing

or preservation is limited144 to only twenty-five percent
(25%) of the total lot area.145 Likewise, a rice mill must be
less than 300 square meters in size, and must be more than
one hectare away from another mill.146
In contrast, under Rule 2, Section 9(G) of the HLURB
Regulations, a farmlot subdivision plan for planting tree
crops, mixed orchard, or diversified crops has none of these
restrictions in scale, size, or use, thus recognizing a farmlot
subdivision’s principal use for farming.
The HLURB Regulations also provide for the minimum
site criteria for a farmlot subdivision plan. First, it must be
near a marketplace where the farm produce can be utilized
and marketed. Second, it must meet the needs of farming
activities. Third, the topography, soil, and climate must be
suited for planting crops.147 These highlight a farmlot
subdivision’s primarily agricultural nature.148 Thus:
SECTION 7. SITE CRITERIA.—Farmlots subdivision shall

conform to the following criteria:
A. Accessibility
The site must be accessible to transportation lines. Road,
railroad facilities should add to the site’s proximity to
market center and industries where farm produce maybe
utilized.
B. Availability of Community Services and Facilities
Basic utilities like roads and water sources must be found
and readily available to adequately serve the needs of the
intended/prospective farm activities. Where available,
subdivision devel-
_______________
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
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 39

opment must include the provision of power lines to the

farm lots.
C. Distance from the Urban Centers
Farmlot subdivisions must be away from the center of
Metro Manila and/or in the fringes of the urban core of the
metropolis and of cities and municipalities. However, they
shall be accessible from employment centers and population
centers where the products of the farmlots can be readily
marketed.
D. Physical suitability of the site varies with respect to the
intended farm activities within the subdivisions. Natural
features considered for varied activities are slope,
climate/temperature and types of soil.

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-
_______________
149 HLURB Board Resolution No. 750 (2003), Liberalizing the

Requirements for the Issuance of Certification of Registration and License
to Sell for Farmlot Subdivisions.
150 Rollo, p. 83, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated
September 19, 2006.
151 HLURB Board Res. No. 922-14, Rule 1, Sec. 4(4.15).
152 HLURB Board Res. No. 926-15, Sec. 4(4.8).
153 HLURB Board Res. No. 921-14, Sec. 4(4.13).

40

mum allowable buildable area.” HLURB Memorandum

Circular No. 001-15154 reiterates the same definition.
The records show that the 17 lots are agricultural in
nature. In its Investigation Report, the Department of
Agrarian Reform Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning,
and Implementation II found that the lots, being flat, were
suitable for cultivating crops, and had been cleared for
planting, or were planted with corn.155 The areas covered
by the original TCT No. T-2807 had been tilled for several
years156 and had been found to be irrigable.157 Even the
“[l]and uses of adjacent areas are agricultural and idle
agricultural” in nature.158
The reclassification of Salas’ landholding into a farmlot
subdivision, although effected before Republic Act No.
6657, has not changed the nature of these agricultural
lands, the legal relationships existing over such lands, or
the agricultural usability of the lands. Thus, these lots
were properly subjected to compulsory coverage under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Invoking Natalia Realty v. Department of Agrarian
Reform,159 petitioners argue for the exclusion of the 17
lots.160 They claim that, as in Natalia, a zoning ordinance
prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 prescribed
the uses for the landholdings as nonagricultural; therefore,
these lots are exempted from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.161
_______________
154 Section 4(4.15).

155 Rollo, p. 52.
156 Id.
7, 2004.
159 Supra note 138.
160 Rollo, pp. 26-27.
161 Id.

41
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 41

Petitioners cite other cases where, with the approval of

HLURB, the local government converted agricultural lands
into residential162 or commercial163 lands, or reclassified an
agricultural zone into an urban zone164 prior to June 15,
1988. Unfortunately, none of these cases applies.
For instance, Natalia165 involves a land that was
converted into a town site or residential land, intended for
residential use. De Guzman v. Court of Appeals166 involves
a land that was converted into a wholesale market
complex, intended for commercial use. Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries Association v. Nicolas167 involves the
reclassification of a farming area into an urban zone.
Meanwhile, this case involves a land that was
reclassified as a “farmlot subdivision,” intended for
“intensive agricultural activities.”168 Likewise, located
away from the city center,169 the farmlot subdivision has
not been developed into an urban zone.
When Salas’ agricultural land was reclassified as a
farmlot subdivision, the applicable law was Republic Act
No. 3844, as amended.170
Republic Act No. 3844, sought “to make the small
farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible
citizens, and a
_______________
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.
169 Id., Rule II, Sec. 7(c).
170 AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE (1963).

42
source of genuine strength in our democratic society.”171

Thus, Republic Act No. 3844 established the Land
Authority172 to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of
private agricultural lands,173 and the subdivision of these
lands into economic family-size farm units for resale to
bona fide tenants, occupants, and qualified farmers.174
Section 166(1) of Republic Act No. 3844 defined an
agricultural land as “land devoted to any growth, including
but not limited to crop lands[.]”175 The law neither made
reference to a “farmlot subdivision,” nor did it exclude a
farmlot from the definition of an agricultural land.
Not being excluded, Salas’ landholdings were thus
contemplated in the definition of an agricultural land
under Republic Act No. 3844.
Likewise, Republic Act No. 6657 does not exclude a
farmlot subdivision from the definition of an agricultural
land. Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 6657 states that
agricultural lands refer to “land devoted to agricultural
activity . . . and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial, or industrial land.” Section 76
expressly provides that any other definition inconsistent
with Republic Act No. 6657 has been repealed by this
law.176

III

Insisting on the exclusion of the 17 lots from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, petitioners rely
on the definition of an agricultural land under the HLURB
Regulations. Rule V, Section 18(e) states that agricultural
lands are
_______________
171 Rep. Act No. 3844, Sec. 2(6).

172 Id., Sec. 49.
173 Id., Sec. 51(1) in relation to Sec. 166.
174 Id.
175 Emphasis supplied.
176 Rep. Act No. 3844, Sec. 76.

43
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 43

“parcels of land ranging from 0.2 to 50 or more hectares . . .
exclusively or predominantly used for cultivation, livestock
production and agro-forestry without the intended qualities
of the farmlot subdivision.”
A farmlot subdivision has the following intended
qualities under the HLURB Regulations: it is a planned
community primarily for intensive agricultural activities,
and secondarily for housing.177
Petitioners argue that, to be considered an agricultural
land, the property must be used exclusively for agricultural
purposes and cannot be used secondarily for housing.178
Since the reclassification as a farmlot subdivision rendered
the lots no longer exclusively for agricultural purposes,
then these lots ceased to be agricultural land.179
Petitioners are mistaken.
First, an executive regulation cannot go beyond the
law.180 Republic Act No. 3844 (1963) broadly defined an
agricultural land as “land devoted to any growth, including
but not limited to crop lands.”181 Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended, also broadly defines agricultural land as land
devoted to agricultural activity.182 In contrast, the HLURB
Regulations restrict the definition of agricultural lands to
those lands “exclusively or predominantly used for
cultivation,” not being a farmlot subdivision.183
In limiting the definition of an agricultural land to one
“without the intended qualities of a farmlot subdivision,”
the HLURB Regulations are overriding, supplanting, and
modifying a statutory definition. This is prohibited. A mere
execu-
_______________

178 Rollo, p. 29.
179 Id.
180 Lokin, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 635 Phil. 372, 392; 621
SCRA 385, 404 (2010) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
181 Rep. Act No. 6657, Sec. 166(1).
182 Id., Sec. 3(c).
183 HLURB Regulations, Rule V, Sec. 18(e).

44

tive issuance cannot alter, expand, or restrict the

provisions of the law it seeks to enforce.184
It bears stressing that neither Republic Act No. 3844 nor
Republic Act No. 6657 excludes a farmlot subdivision,
which is primarily agricultural in nature, from the
definition of an agricultural land.
Second, in case of doubt, any other definition of an
agricultural land inconsistent with the law, such as that
found under the HLURB Regulations, has been
expressly185 repealed by Section 76 of Republic Act No.
6657.
Republic Act No. 6657 never required that a landholding
must be exclusively used for agricultural purposes to be
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
What determines a tract of land’s inclusion in the program
is its suitability for any agricultural activity.
The Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative
Order No. 01-90 (Revised Rules and Regulations Governing
Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-
Agricultural Uses) defines agricultural land as follows:
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
and Land Use Regulatory
_______________
184 Supra note 180.

Section 76. Repealing Clause.—Section 35 of Republic Act No. 3834,
Presidential Decree No. 316, the last two paragraphs of Section 12 of
Presidential Decree No. 946, Presidential Decree No. 1038, and all other
laws, decrees executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts
thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.

45
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 45

Board (HLURB) and its preceding authorities prior to 15 June

1988 for residential, commercial, or industrial use.

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
_______________
186 Rep. Act No. 6657, Sec. 3(b).

187 Rollo, p. 51.
188 Id.

46

In issuing a Notice of Coverage and Notice of Valuation

to the Estate of Salas,189 the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Office also found that the lots are for agricultural use, and
therefore, covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.190 The awarding of the lands191 to the
agrarian reform beneficiaries bolsters the agricultural
activity present in them.
For the second element, it is undisputed that the lots
have not been declared as mineral or forest lands by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. No
application has been filed to declare the landholdings as
mineral or forest lands, and neither has the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources ever declared the
properties as such.
As to the third element, the lands were not classified by
the Lipa City Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance as commercial,
residential, or industrial lands prior to June 15, 1988.
Rather, the reclassification, which was approved by
HLURB’s predecessor agency, was that of a “farmlot
subdivision.”192
Section 4(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 covers “[a]ll
private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture[,]
regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be
raised thereon.” As the estate’s private lands are (a)
devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and (b) not classified
as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial,
then these may be included in the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program.
Finally, whenever there is reasonable uncertainty in the
interpretation of the law, the balance must be tilted in
favor of the poor and underprivileged.193
_______________
189 Id., at p. 54.

190 DAR Adm. O. No. 01-03 (2003).
191 Rollo, p. 51.
192 Id., at p. 48. As shown in the HLURB Board Secretariat Officer-in-
Charge Carolina Casaje’s Certification dated May 5, 1997 and HLURB
City Planning and Development Coordinator Dante Villanueva’s
Certification dated October 5, 1998.
193 Perez-Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 526 Phil. 562, 586; 494 SCRA
66, 92-93 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division].

47
VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 47

Republic Act No. 6657 was enacted as social legislation,

pursuant to the policy of the State to pursue a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.194 Agrarian
reform is the means towards a viable livelihood and,
ultimately, a decent life for the landless farmers.
In Perez-Rosario v. Court of Appeals:195
Agrarian reform is a perceived solution to social instability. The

edicts of social justice found in the Constitution and the public
policies that underwrite them, the extraordinary national
experience, and the prevailing national consciousness, all
command the great departments of government to tilt the balance
in favor of the poor and underprivileged whenever reasonable
doubt arises in the interpretation of the law. But annexed to the
great and sacred charge of protecting the weak is the diametric
function to put every effort to arrive at an equitable solution for
all parties concerned: the jural postulates of social justice cannot
shield illegal acts, nor do they sanction false sympathy towards a
certain class, nor yet should they deny justice to the landowner
whenever truth and justice happen to be on her side. In the
occupation of the legal questions in all agrarian disputes whose
outcomes can significantly affect societal harmony, the
considerations of social advantage must be weighed, an inquiry
into the prevailing social interests is necessary in the adjustment
of conflicting demands and expectations of the people, and the
social interdependence of these interests, recognized.196
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

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

Where there is doubt as to the intention of the local

government in the area where the property is located, the
interpretation should be towards the declared intention of
the law.
WHEREFORE, the petition filed by Heirs of Augusto
Salas is DENIED, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals
Second Division, Manila, promulgated on October 20, 2009
in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 103703, is AFFIRMED.
The temporary restraining order dated November 22,
2010 is PERMANENTLY LIFTED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Jardeleza** and Martires, JJ.,

concur.
Mendoza, J., On Official Leave.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Notes.—An agricultural land, according to Republic Act

(RA) No. 6657, is one that is devoted to agricultural activity
and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land. (Holy Trinity Realty &
Development Corporation vs. Dela Cruz, 739 SCRA 229
[2014])
Section 4 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) provides that the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) shall cover all public and
private agricultural lands, including other lands of public
domain suitable for agriculture. (Land Bank of the
Philippines vs. Padilla-Munsayac, 787 SCRA 514 [2016])

——o0o——
_______________
** Designated additional member per Raffle dated March 15, 2017.
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Heirs of Salas, Jr. v. Cabungcal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Salas, Jr. v. Cabungcal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

G.R. No. 191545. March 29, 2017.*

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

TENORIO, JULIANA V. SUMAYA, ANTONIO C.

Agrarian Reform; The 1987 Constitution mandates the just

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 3

Same; Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law; The

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

6657, as reiterated by Administrative Order No. 01-90, states

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 5

Same; Farmlot Subdivisions; In a farmlot for agro-industrial

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

twenty-five percent (25%) maximum allowable buildable

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 7

Republic Act No. 6657 states that agricultural lands refer to

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 9

raised thereon.” As the estate’s private lands are (a) devoted

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo, pp. 3-34.

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

dated October 26, 2009 and Resolution3 dated March 1,

3 Id., at pp. 58-61.

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 11

According to Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-

7 Id., at p. 137, OSG Comment.

INCREASING THEIR AUTONOMY AND REORGANIZING PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS.

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

After a year, the National Coordinating Council was

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 13

granting Laperal Realty a permit for a Nature Farmlots

Former Lot 2 Area in square New Titles

24 Rollo, p. 87, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

divided them into 17 smaller lots under Psd-04-003573,

PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM

COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW of 1988.

Salas also executed in favor of Laperal Realty a Special

Salas’ remaining lots Area (in hectares) TCT No.

40 Heirs of Augusto L. Salas, Jr. v. Laperal Realty Corporation, 378

16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 17

Thirteen (13) lots consisting of Lot A (from the former

Former TCT Agrarian Reform Area CLOA

52 Id., at pp. 42-43.

18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 19

The 14th lot, Lot C from the former Lot 1, consisting of

54 Id., at p. 89, Department of Agrarian Reform Order dated January

20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

By 1996, Salas, Jr. had already been missing for more

61 Supra note 40.

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 21

sive Agrarian Reform Program for the 17 parcels of land

72 The CLUPPI is a “‘one-stop-shop’ [that] handles all matters

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

lic Act No. 6657.76 It anchored the alleged exclusion of the

Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that

VOL. 822, MARCH 29, 2017 23

the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, while Lot B

2. The southern points, specifically Lot Nos. A [Psd-04-

24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED