Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
ROMAN CATHOLIC G.R. No. 139285
ARCHBISHOP OF
Petitioner, Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN
REFORM and DAR REGIONAL Promulgated:
DIRECTOR (Region V),
Respondents. December 21, 2007
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) has truly noble goals, and these noble goals should not be stymied by the
creation of exemptions or exceptions not contemplated by the law.
The Case
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45, petitioner Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres (Archbishop)
questions the February 4, 1999 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 48282, which upheld the December 8,
1997 and June 10, 1998 Orders of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
The Facts
Archbishop
is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur, with a total
area of 268.5668 hectares. Of that land,
249.0236 hectares are planted with rice and corn, while the remaining 19.5432
hectares are planted with coconut trees.
In
1985, Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office No.
19,
Archbishop
appealed from the order of the Regional Director, and sought exemption from OLT
coverage of all lands planted with rice and corn which were registered in the
name of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Caceres. In his appeal, Archbishop cited the following
grounds:
a) That said properties are all covered by conditional donations subject to the prohibitions of the donors to SELL, EXCHANGE, LEASE, TRANSFER, ENCUMBER OR MORTGAGE the properties;
b) That they are used for charitable and religious purposes;
c) That the parishes located in depressed areas badly need them for the furtherance of their mission work, propagation of the faith, maintenance and support of their chapels, churches and educational religious institutions like the Holy Rosary Major and Minor Seminaries for the promotion of the priesthood vocation;
d) For the preservation of good relationship between church and state thru non-infringement of the right to exercise religious profession and worship;
e) For the maintenance of the Cathedral and Peñafrancia Shrine, which now include the Basilica Minore Housing our venerable image of Our Lady of Peñafrancia and the venerable portrait of Divine Rostro;
f) That the petitioner (church) is amenable to continue the leasehold system with the present cultivators or tenants.[4]
This appeal was denied by then DAR
Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao in an Order dated
The matter was then raised to the CA
via Petition for Review on Certiorari. Archbishop argued that even if the lands
in question are registered in his name, he holds the lands in trust for the
benefit of his followers as cestui que
trust. Archbishop further argued that the deeds of donation by which the
lands were transferred to him imposed numerous fiduciary obligations, such that
he cannot sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber, or mortgage the subject
lands. By this reasoning, Archbishop
concluded that he is not the “landowner” contemplated by PD 27 and Republic Act
No. (RA) 6657, the CARL of 1988. He then
prayed that the assailed orders of the DAR be reversed, or in the alternative,
that the alleged beneficiaries of the trust be each allowed to exercise rights
of retention over the landholdings.[7]
The petition was dismissed by the CA
in its
Archbishop now brings the matter
before us through this petition.
The Issues
Archbishop
raises issues he had raised previously, which, he contends, the CA failed to
properly address. He claims that the CA
erred in holding that he is only entitled to assert one right of retention as
the subject properties are registered in his name. He further claims that an express trust had
been created wherein he only held naked title to the subject properties on
behalf of the beneficiaries. He argues that it is not the “landowner”
contemplated by the law, but merely a trustee, and as such is entitled to as
many rights of retention on behalf of the beneficiaries of each particular
property. He then raises the question of the applicability of the ruling in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of
Davao, Inc. v. The Land Registration Commission and the Register of Deeds of
Davao City,[10] which, he
cites, ruled that properties held by the Church are held by it as a mere
administrator for the benefit of the members of that particular religion. As Archbishop claims to be merely an
administrator of the subject properties, he argues that these subject
properties should have been exempt from the OLT.
The Court’s Ruling
The
petition has no merit.
Archbishop’s
arguments, while novel, must fail in the face of the law and the dictates of
the 1987 Constitution.
The
laws simply speak of the “landowner” without qualification as to under what
title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the
landowner holds “naked title” only or can exercise all the rights of ownership.
Archbishop would have us read deeper into the law, to create exceptions that
are not stated in PD 27 and RA 6657, and to do so would be to frustrate the revolutionary
intent of the law, which is the redistribution of agricultural land for the
benefit of landless farmers and farmworkers.
Archbishop
was found to be the registered owner of the lands in question, and does not
contest that fact. For the purposes of
the law, this makes him the landowner, without the necessity of going beyond
the registered titles. He cannot demand
a deeper examination of the registered titles and demand further that the
intent of the original owners be ascertained and followed. To adopt his reasoning would create means of
sidestepping the law, wherein the mere act of donation places lands beyond the
reach of agrarian reform.
There
can be no claim of more than one right of retention per landowner. Neither PD 27 nor RA 6657 has a provision for
a landowner to exercise more than one right of retention. The law is simple and clear as to the retention
limits per landowner. PD 27 states, “In all cases, the landowner may retain an
area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such
area or will now cultivate it”; while RA 6657 states:
SEC. 6. Retention Limits.––Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
Nothing in either law supports Archbishop’s
claim to more than one right of retention on behalf of each cestui que trust. The provisions of PD 27 and RA 6657 are plain
and require no further interpretation––there is only one right of retention per
landowner, and no multiple rights of retention can be held by a single party. Furthermore, the scheme proposed by Archbishop
would create as many rights of retention as there are beneficiaries, which
could in effect protect the entire available land area from agrarian
reform. Under Archbishop’s reasoning,
there is not even a definite landowner to claim separate rights of retention, and
no specific number of rights of retention to be claimed by the landowners. There is simply no basis in the law or
jurisprudence for his argument that it is the “beneficial ownership” that
should be used to determine which party would have the right of retention.
Archbishop makes much of the
conditional donation, that he does not have the power to sell, exchange, lease,
transfer, encumber or mortgage the transferred properties. He claims that these conditions do not make him
the landowner as contemplated by the law.
This matter has already been answered in Hospicio de San Jose de Barili,
Generally, sale arises out of contractual obligation. Thus, it must meet the first essential requisite of every contract that is the presence of consent. Consent implies an act of volition in entering into the agreement. The absence or vitiation of consent renders the sale either void or voidable.
In
this case, the deprivation of the Hospicio’s property did not arise as a
consequence of the Hospicio’s consent to the transfer. There was no meeting of minds between the
Hospicio, on one hand, and the DAR or the tenants, on the other, on the
properties and the cause which are to constitute the contract that is to serve
ultimately as the basis for the transfer of ownership of the subject
lands. Instead, the obligation to
transfer arises by compulsion of law, particularly P.D. No. 27.[12]
We discussed further:
The
twin process of expropriation under agrarian reform and the payment of just
compensation is akin to a forced sale, which has been aptly described in common
law jurisdictions as “sale made under the process of the court and in the mode
prescribed by law,” and “which is not the voluntary act of the owner, such as
to satisfy a debt, whether of a mortgage, judgment, tax lien, etc.” The term has not been precisely defined in
this jurisdiction, but reference to the phrase itself is made in Articles 223, 242,
237 and 243 of the Civil Code, which uniformly exempt the family home “from
execution, forced sale, or attachment.”
Yet a forced sale is clearly different from the sales described under
Book V of the Civil Code which are conventional sales, as it does not arise
from the consensual agreement of the vendor and vendee, but by compulsion of
law. Still, since law is recognized as
one of the sources of obligation, there can be no dispute on the efficacy of a
forced sale, so long as it is authorized by law.[13]
Archbishop’s
claim that he does not have jus
disponendi over the subject properties is unavailing. The very nature of the compulsory sale under
PD 27 and RA 6657 defeats such a claim.
Other less scrupulous parties may even attempt creating trusts to
prevent their lands from coming under agrarian reform, and say that the trustee
has no power to dispose of the properties.
The disposition under PD 27 and RA 6657 is of a different character than
what is contemplated by jus disponendi,
wherein under these laws, voluntariness is not an issue, and the disposition is
necessary for the laws to be effective.
Under PD 27 and RA 6657, Archbishop
cannot claim that the alleged conditions of the donations would have primacy
over the application of the law. This
forced sale is not even a violation of the conditions of the donation, since it
is by application of law and beyond Archbishop’s control. The application of the law cannot and should
not be defeated by the conditions laid down by the donors of the land. If such were allowed, it would be a simple
matter for other landowners to place their lands without limit under the
protection of religious organizations or create trusts by the mere act of
donation, rendering agrarian reform but a pipe dream.
Archbishop’s
contention that he is merely an administrator of the donated properties will
not serve to remove these lands from the coverage of agrarian reform. Under PD 27, the coverage is lands devoted to
rice and corn. Section 4 of RA 6657 states, “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.” The lands in Archbishop’s
name are agricultural lands that fall within the scope of the law, and do not fall
under the exemptions.
The
exemptions under RA 6657 form an exclusive list, as follows:
SEC. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.––
(a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for
parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this
Act.
(b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively
used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this
Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been
distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued under the
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 cooperative or association to manage the same.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not
been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the consent of the
farmworkers shall no longer be necessary; however, the provision of Section
32-A hereof on incentives shall apply.
(c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and
found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production center,
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. (As
amended by R. A. 7881)
Archbishop
would claim exemption from the coverage of agrarian reform by stating that he
is a mere administrator, but his position does not appear under the list of
exemptions under RA 6657. His claimed
status as administrator does not create another class of lands exempt from the
coverage of PD 27 or RA 6657, and The
Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc.[14]
does not create another definition for the term “landowner.”
We
explained in Hospicio:
It
is axiomatic that where a general rule is established by a statute with
exceptions, the Court will not curtail nor add to the latter by implication,
and it is a rule that an express exception excludes all others. We cannot simply impute into a statute an
exception which the Congress did not incorporate. Moreover general welfare legislation such as
land reform laws is to be construed in favor of the promotion of social justice
to ensure the well-being and economic security of the people. Since a broad construction of the provision
listing the properties exempted under the CARL would tend to denigrate the aims
of agrarian reform, a strict application of these exceptions is in order.[15]
Archbishop cannot claim exemption in
behalf of the millions of Filipino faithful, as the lands are clearly not
exempt under the law. He should not fear that his followers are simply being
deprived of land, as under both PD 27 and RA 6657, he is entitled to just
compensation, which he may then use for the benefit of his followers. His
situation is no different from other landowners affected by agrarian
reform––they are somewhat deprived of their land, but it is all for a greater
good.
As Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform[16] recognized
the revolutionary character of the expropriation under the agrarian reform law,
we follow such lofty ideal for the resolution of this case. This grand purpose under the CARL must not be
hindered by the simple expedient of appending conditions to a donation of land,
or by donating land to a church. This is
not to cast aspersions on religious organizations, but it is not fitting for
them to be used as vehicles for keeping land out of the hands of the
landless. The law is indubitably in line
with the charitable ideals of religious organizations to ensure that the land
they own falls into the hands of able caretakers and owners. As a religious leader, Archbishop can take
solace in the fact that his lands are going to be awarded to those who need and
can utilize them to the fullest.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition, and AFFIRM the
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Associate Justice
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili and concurred in by Associate Justices Corona Ibay-Somera and Teodoro P. Regino.
[2] “Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor” (1972).
[3] Rollo, p. 87.
[4]
[5]
[6]