FIRST DIVISION
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN G.R. No. 165547
REFORM,
as represented by its
Secretary,
RENE C. VILLA, Present:
Petitioner,
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus -
AZCUNA,
and
GARCIA,
JJ.
SARANGANI
AGRICULTURAL
CO.,
INC., ACIL CORPORATION, Promulgated:
NICASIO
ALCANTARA and
TOMAS
ALCANTARA, January
24, 2007
Respondents.
x
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a
petition for review[1] by
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) seeking the reversal of the Decision
and Resolution, dated July 19, 2004 and September 24, 2004, respectively, of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79899, entitled ”Sarangani Agricultural
Co, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Manuel Domingo, et al.”
Respondents
are the owners of the lands in question which have been reclassified from
agricultural into non-agricultural uses by virtue of a municipal zoning
ordinance, and are included in the comprehensive land use plan of the
Municipality of Alabel.
The antecedents are as follows:
The Province of Sarangani was created
pursuant to Republic Act No. 7228 on March 16, 1992, composed of seven (7)
municipalities, namely, Alabel, Glan, Maasin, Maitum, Malapatan, Malungon and
Kiamba which were segregated from the Province of South Cotabato. Under said
Act, the
On
On
On
The Zoning
Certification issued by the office of the Municipal Planning and Development
Council (MPDC) showed that respondents’ properties located at Barangay
Maribulan, Alabel were among those reclassified from agricultural and pasture
land to residential, commercial institutional, light industrial and open space in the 1995-2005 land use plan
of Alabel. [5]
On
|
Registered
Owner |
TCT No. |
Lot
No. |
Area (Ha.) |
Area Applied (Ha.) |
|
SACI |
T-7207 |
1-C |
52.4365 |
52.4365 |
|
SACI |
T -48807 (T-4807) |
2 |
181.3353 |
181.3353 |
|
SAC I |
T -48808 (T-4808) |
3 |
281.0874 |
281.0874 |
|
SACI |
T -48809 (T-4809) |
4 |
241.7880 |
241.7880 |
|
SAC I |
T-48810 (T-4810) |
5 |
40.6738 |
40.6738 |
|
SACI |
T -48811 (T-4811) |
6 |
137.0340 |
137.0340 |
|
SACI |
T-48812 (T-4812) |
7 |
12.3265 |
12.3265 |
|
Nicasio Alcantara |
T-(10885) T-44538 |
10 |
20.9149 |
20.9149 |
|
SACI |
T-9210 |
2 |
12.1425 |
12.1425 |
|
Tomas Alcantara |
T-14359 (T-1185) |
39 |
10.9390 |
10.9390 |
|
Nicasio Alcantara |
Untitled |
53 |
5.0672 |
5.0672 |
|
ACIL Corporation |
T-(41758) (T-4150) |
806 |
3.3115 |
3.3115 |
|
SACI |
Untitled |
807 |
6.7871 |
6.7871 |
Accompanying
SACI’s application for conversion were the documents required under the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997.[6]
Subsequently,
a Site Inspection Report was prepared by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) Regional Office (Region XI) and was indorsed to DAR Secretary
Horacio R. Morales, Jr.
On
Meanwhile, on
In the
On its part, SACI contended that 1)
its projects were aligned to address the current and anticipated commercial and
residential needs of Sarangani province, and the removal of any portion of its
property included in its comprehensive development plan will affect the
viability of the plan; 2) the banana plantations will be transformed into a
socialized housing subdivision which will be made available to the displaced
workers and the other low income earners of Alabel; 3) the company will
construct and install power generation facilities in the entire area; 4) at the
time the application for land use conversion was filed, no Notice of Coverage
was ever issued by DAR, and the subsequent issuance of such notice was highly
irregular because the same may be issued only after the final resolution of the
application for land use conversion; and 5) the previous Order of Deferment cannot
be a legal barrier to the filing of an application for land use conversion.
On
… The
proponent also submitted another DA certification stating that 12 parcels of
land (Lot Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 807, 53, 10, 39 and 806) with an area of
816.7401 hectares, located at Maribulan, Alabel, Sarangani are part of
expansion for urbanizing areas. Though discussed on several meetings, no
decision was made on the application since the applicant was not able to comply
with the documentary requirements and clarify the issues raised by the
Committee.
[I]n [the] 30
March 2000 Meeting of the PLUTC, the Committee deliberated again [on] the
subject application and agreed to recommend the disapproval of 158.0672
hectares area planted to banana[s] and coconuts. The Committee noted that said
portion of the property is still viable for agriculture, irrigated, with Notice
of Coverage and with protest or opposition from SARBAI. The Committee also
agreed to request the DAR to determine the metes and bounds of the area planted
to banana[s] and coconuts vis-à-vis areas devoted to other enterprises.
Relative to the rest of the area applied for conversion, the committee deferred
its decision subject to the submission of a 5-year comprehensive development
plan, showing among others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific
lots involved and the corresponding proposed use.
…The
Committee acceded to the request of SACI and deferred its recommendation to
deny conversion of that portion of the property planted to banana[s] and
coconut[s] pending submission of a manifesto or SACI’s proof of undertaking
that it will compensate farm workers affected by showing, among others, the
schedule of development by phase, the specific lots involved and the
corresponding proposed use [of] the conversion, concurred by the
workers/oppositors, noted by the MARO and duly notarized. The Committee also
requested SACI to submit details of the pomelo farm in Malandag being offered
as a replacement farm for the relocation of the farm workers. SACI was given a
30-day period to submit these documents.
SACI, however, failed to submit the oath of undertaking
to pay disturbance compensation to affected workers being required by the
Committee and as provided under DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of
1999. Instead, SACI submitted an undertaking executed by the affected workers
stating that they are amenable to the package of benefits offered by the
company. Nevertheless, those who executed the deed of undertaking did not
represent the majority of the farm workers. Out of the 95 regular banana
workers only 45 and eight (8) supervisors including four (4) workers who were
not included in the workers’ master list of SACI executed a deed of
undertaking. As regards the 105-hectare pomelo farm, SACI failed to affirm
whether they are going to pursue their offer. Likewise, DAR Region XI reported
that coverage of the same area is on-going, and a different group of potential
beneficiaries have already been identified. Therefore, it could no longer be
offered as a relocation site. Foregoing considered, the Committee, during its
With regard
to the rest. of the area, the Committee deferred its decision subject to the
delineation by the SACI of the total area that they can develop within the
allowed five-year period. Likewise, the PLUTC is requesting the SACI to submit
a revised five-year development plan that will show the schedule of development
by phase, by year, and the proposed use for each parcel of land.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, it is hereby ordered that:
1. The application filed by the Sarangani
Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI), represented by Cynthia Adao-Prat, involving
parcels of land planted to banana[s] and coconut[s] and with Notice of Coverage
identified as TCT Nos. T-10885 (20.9149 ha.), T-14359 (10.9390 ha.), T-41718
(3.3115 ha.), OCT No. V-19574 or T-9210 (12.1425 ha.),
2. The resolution of the application
involving the rest of the area applied for conversion is DEFERRED pending
submission by the applicant of a revised five-year development plan indicating
the specific use of each parcel of land.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision but the same was
denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution, dated
Their Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order having been
denied, respondents appealed to the Office of the President (O.P. Case No.
02-1-47.4, alleging that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform committed serious
errors in 1) finding that a notice of coverage had been issued for the banana
area of the landholdings; 2) giving undue significance to the protest or
opposition by SARBAI; 3) requiring a deed of undertaking even after
applicant-appellant’s written commitment to pay whatever lawful obligation SACI
may incur as a consequence of the conversion; 4) holding that farms with
commercial farm deferment cannot be applied for conversion; 5) ruling that
irrigated lands suitable for agriculture were disqualified for conversion; and
6) ruling that applicant-appellant had not submitted a five-year development
plan.[9]
In a Decision dated
On
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the present petition is
hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. Consequently, the assailed Decision and Order dated
June 30, 2003 and September 12, 2003, respectively, of the Office of the
President, as well as the Orders dated November 9, 2000 and August 28, 2002 of
the DAR Secretary are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the DAR directs
the MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the distribution of the banana
and coconut areas subject of the
The DAR
Secretary and all officers and employees acting on his behalf are hereby
enjoined from proceeding with the distribution of petitioners’ lands under
compulsory acquisition provided in Sec. 16 of R.A. No. 6657. Whatever actions
already taken in pursuance of the
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Hence, this
petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred:
I
WHEN
IT RULED THAT THE
II
WHEN
IT RULED THAT DAR SHOULD USE THE
III
WHEN
IT FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BASIC PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW
WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OR
With regard
to the first issue on due process, this Court holds that, under the
circumstances, a notice of coverage is not an indispensable requirement before
DAR can acquire the subject lots or commercial farms, which are covered by a
deferment period[12]
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or R.A. No 6657 upon its
effectivity on
Sec. 11. Commercial Farming. – Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetables and cut-flower farms, cacao, coffee and rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act.[13] In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the Government shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or associations, which shall thereafter manage the said lands for the workers-beneficiaries. (AS amended by R.A. 7881; Rules and regulations on the acquisition, valuation compensation and distribution of deferred commercial farms – DAR AO No. 09, s. 1998)
DAR Administrative
Order No.9, Series of 1998,[14]
on the Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition, Valuation, Compensation and
Distribution of Deferred Commercial Farms applies to all commercial farms
as defined under Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657:[15]
SEC. 2. Statement of Policies. – The acquisition, valuation, compensation, distribution, operation and management of deferred commercial farms shall be governed by the following policies:
(a) All commercial farms whose deferment
expired as of
The process of acquisition of these
commercial farms by DAR is specifically provided under Article III, Section 9
of the above administrative order, to wit:
SEC. 9. Procedure
for Acquisition.—The acquisition of deferred commercial farms shall be
governed by the following procedures:
(a) Voluntary Offer to Sell/Compulsory
Acquisition
1) The Order of Deferment previously
issued over the landholding shall serve, upon expiration of the deferment
period of the subject commercial farm, as the Notice of Coverage,[16] supported by the Compliance Work Program and
Summary of Exceptions (Form A) originally submitted with the approved deferment
application. However, for record purposes, the landowner shall be served a
Notice of Expiration of Deferment (Annex 2) which shall contain a reminder of
his right of retention, should he wish to exercise the same;
2) In general, the procedure for
acquisition shall follow DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1998, as
amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1996, entitled “Revised
Rules and Procedures governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands subject of
Voluntary offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to Republic Act No.
6657,” subject to certain modifications intended to expedite the process as provided
herein.
Clearly, it was
unnecessary for petitioner to issue a notice of coverage to respondents in
order to place the properties in question under CARP coverage. Hence, the
contention by respondents that due process was not duly observed by petitioner
must fail. Accordingly, the denial of the application for conversion must be
upheld.
As regards the second
issue, DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997, or the Omnibus Rules
and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural
Uses prescribes the guidelines for land use conversion:
VI.
POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
A. …
B. General Guidelines
…
b) Conversion may be allowed if at the time of the application,
the lands are reclassified as commercial, industrial, residential or other
non-agricultural in the new or revised town plans promulgated by the local
government unit (LGU) and approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) or by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) after June 15, 1988, in
accordance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, as implemented by MC No. 54, and
Executive Order No. 72, Series of 1993[17]
of the Office of the President.
In connection with the
afore-stated administrative order, Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160,
otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, empowers the local
government units to reclassify agricultural lands:
Sec. 20. Reclassification
of Lands. - (a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed
by the Sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize
the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their
utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to
be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by
the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially
greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as
determined by the Sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such reclassification
shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land
area at the time of the passage of the ordinance:
(1)
For highly urbanized and independent component cities,
FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%);
(2)
For component cities and first to third class
municipalities, ten percent (10%), and
(3)
For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent
(5%); Provided further, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian
reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as “The
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law,” shall not be affected by the said
reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be
governed by Section 65 of said Act.
…
(c) The local government units shall in
conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive
land use plans enacted though zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and
dominant bases for the future use of land
resources: Provided,
That the requirements for food production, human settlements, and
industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of
such plans.
…
(e) Nothing in this section shall be
construed as repealing, amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of
R.A. No. 6657.[18]
Memorandum Circular No. 54
“Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 Otherwise
Known as the Local Government Code of 1991 Authorizing Cities and
Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands Into Non-Agricultural
Uses” issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 8, 1993 specified the scope
and limitations on the power of the cities and municipalities to reclassify
agricultural lands into other uses. It provided that all ordinances authorizing
reclassification of agricultural lands shall be subject to the review and
approval of the province in the case of component cities or municipalities, or
by the HLURB for highly urbanized or independent component cities in accordance
with Executive Order No. 72, Series of 1993, thus:
SECTION 4. Use of
the comprehensive land use plans[19] and
ordinances as primary reference documents in land use conversions. -
Pursuant to RA 6657 and EO 129-A, actions on applications for land use
conversions on individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of
DAR, which shall utilize as its primary reference documents the comprehensive
land use plans and accompanying ordinance passed upon and approved by the LGUs
concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy.
Hence, with regard to
agricultural lands that have been reclassified for non-agricultural uses by the
local government unit concerned, the CA is correct in declaring that DAR should
refer to the comprehensive land use plans and the ordinances of the Sanggunian
in assessing land use conversion applications, thus:
Construing
Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code and the subsequent administrative
issuances implementing the same, we are of the opinion that while the DAR
retains the responsibility for approving or disapproving applications for land
use conversion filed by individual landowners on their landholdings, the
exercise of such authority should be confined to compliance with the
requirements and limitations under existing laws and regulations, such as the
allowable percentage of agricultural [area] to be reclassified, ensuring
sufficient food production, areas non-negotiable for conversion and those
falling under environmentally critical areas or highly restricted for
conversion under the NIPAS law. Definitely, the DAR’s power in such cases may
not be exercised in such a manner as to defeat the very purpose of the LGU
concerned in reclassifying certain areas to achieve social and economic
benefits in pursuit of its mandate towards the general welfare. Precisely,
therefore, the DAR is required to use the comprehensive land use plans and
accompanying ordinances of the local Sanggunian as primary references in
evaluating applications for land use conversion filed by individual landowners.
In this case, petitioners have already complied with the standard requirements
laid down under the applicable rules and regulations of the DAR....[20]
The conversion of
agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses shall be strictly regulated and
may be allowed only when the conditions prescribed under R.A. No. 6657 are
present.[21] In this
regard, the Court agrees with the ratiocination of the CA that DAR’s scope of
authority in assessing land use conversion applications is limited to examining
whether the requirements prescribed by law and existing rules and regulations
have been complied with. This holds true in the present case where, because of
the creation of the
This
is not to say, however, that every property of respondents which is included in
the comprehensive land use plan of the
In
short, the creation of the new
Moreover,
Section 20 of the LGC of 1991 on the reclassification of lands explicitly
states that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed as repealing,
amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.” Thus,
where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for
interpretation. There is only room for application.[22]
In
view of the foregoing, the Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the third
issue presented in the petition.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is PARTLY GRANTED
insofar as the issue on due process is concerned. In connection with this, the
denial by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of respondents’ application
for conversion with regard to the 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares, the deferment
period of which has already expired, is AFFIRMED;
and the Orders of the DAR dated November 9, 2000 and August 28, 2002,
directing the MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the distribution of the
banana and coconut areas subject of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage, are REINSTATED. The Decision and
Resolution, dated
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, it is hereby certified 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] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Rollo, p. 55.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] These documents are the following: 1) certified true copies of Resolution No. 98-018 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel; 2) certification of the Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO); 3) zoning certification issued by the MPDC of Alabel, Sarangani stating that the properties are included in the 1995-2005 Land Use Plan, and reclassified according to SB Resolution No. 97-08; 4) certification issued by the Municipal Agriculturist; 5) court clearance; 6) certification issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) that the area is within an agricultural zone; and, 7) certification issued by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) Regional Irrigation Manager, and field verification reports of the Provincial Irrigation Manager that the area is not irrigated and not covered by an irrigation project (Rollo, pp. 56-57).
[7] PLUTC is composed of representatives from the following government agencies: the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Tourism (DOT), HLURB, and the PARC Secretariat.
[8] Rollo, pp. 62-64.
[9]
[10] In a Resolution dated
[11] Rollo, pp. 83-84.
[12] Sec.
3…
(f) Deferment period refers to the ten (10) year
period counted from the start of commercial production and operation as
provided in Sec. 11 of RA 6657, whereby the acquisition and distribution of
commercial farms has been postponed.
[13] Emphasis supplied.
[14] Issued on
[15] As amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7881.
[16] Emphasis supplied.
[17] Executive
Order No. 72 “Providing for the Preparation and Implementation of the
Comprehensive
Land Use
Plans of Local Government Units Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991
and Other Pertinent Laws” was issued on
[18] Emphasis supplied.
[19] Comprehensive
Land Use Plan refers to a document
accompanied by maps and similar illustrations which represent the
community-desired pattern of population distribution and a proposal for the
future allocation of land to the various land-using activities. It identifies
the allocation, character and extent of the area’s land resources to be used
for different purposes and includes the process and the criteria employed in
the determination of the land use (Revised Rules and Regulations on the
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR
Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999).
[20] Rollo,
p. 82.
[21] Article
1, Section l(c), DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999.
[22] Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga, G.R. No. 24116, August 22, 1968,24 SCRA 708, 712.