DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN G.R. No. 170823
REFORM, rep. by OIC-SECRETARY
NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Present:
Petitioner,
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
-
versus - CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
OROVILLE
DEVELOPMENT
CORP., rep. by ANTONIO H.
TIU Promulgated:
and WALDO G. REBOLOS,
Respondent. March 27, 2007
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
The Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) assails the Amended Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals dated
The undisputed facts are as follows:
On
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued DENYING the
exemption application and DECLARING that the 48.8939 hectare agricultural land
embraced by TCT numbers [sic] T-85121, T-85135, and T-104365 located at Maitum,
Petitioner failed in its move to reconsider the said May 25, 1998 Order, as shown in the Order issued by DAR Secretary Hernani A. Braganza on June 20, 2002, which decreed:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration dated
Unfazed,
petitioner elevated the DAR Orders to the Office of the President (OP).
However, the OP rendered a Decision on
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the questioned Orders dated
Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied by the OP in its Resolution dated
On petition for review under Rule 43
of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals was faced with the issue of whether
the subject property is classified as agricultural as found by the DAR
Secretary and affirmed by the Office of the President, or residential as
alleged by respondent Oroville Development Corporation (Oroville).
The appellate court initially
declared in its Decision[4]
dated
Upon Oroville’s motion for
reconsideration, however, the Court of Appeals set aside its earlier Decision
and ruled that the subject property has been reclassified as residential and
therefore beyond the coverage of CARP.
This time, the appellate court gave credence to three (3) Zoning Certifications
dated
The Court of Appeals denied
reconsideration.
In its Petition for Review[5]
dated January 9, 2006, the DAR seeks the reversal of the appellate court’s
Amended Decision, arguing that the latter precipitately relied on the Zoning
Certifications issued by the City Planning and Development Office and
erroneously assumed that a local government unit such as Cagayan de Oro City
has unconditional authority to classify and reclassify lands within its
territorial jurisdiction. The DAR points out that the Assistant City
Development Coordinator herself clarified, in a letter dated
The DAR maintains that the
Certification dated February 10, 1997 to the effect that the subject property
is agricultural should be upheld because it was based not only on a zoning
ordinance but, more importantly, was approved prior to the effectivity of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL) in 1988, by the then Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission, now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, the national agency
then charged with the classification and reclassification of lands.
Oroville centers its Comment[6]
dated
In its Reply[7]
dated
The question upon which the
resolution of this case turns is whether the subject property is agricultural
or residential based on Cagayan de Oro City’s zoning ordinances. The
conflicting certifications issued by the City Planning and Development Office,
which has unquestioned primary jurisdiction to rule on matters of classification
of lands within its territorial jurisdiction, need to be scrutinized in order
to arrive at a definitive ruling.
A review of the case’s antecedents
shows that in its Orders dated May 25, 1998 and June 20, 2002, the DAR declared
the property to be agricultural on the basis primarily of the Certification
dated February 10, 1997 prepared by the City Planning and Development Office which
states “that Lot No. 184398 (F-V-12713), Lot No. H-4321 and Lot No. H-16-4,
located at
Oroville claims, however, that the
earlier Certification dated
It is at once evident that the 1993
certification pertains generally to a lot located in Puerto, while the
1997 certification makes specific reference to Upper Puerto. This
distinction gains significance in light of the DAR’s finding, in its Order
dated
It is also significant to note that,
as mentioned in the assailed Amended Decision, the 1993 certification pertains
only to Lot No. 19801 Cad. 369-0 which covers two portions of the subject land,
namely: the portion encompassed by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos.
T-85121 and T-104365.[11] In contrast, as detailed in the DAR
Secretary’s Order dated June 20, 2002, the 1997 certification is more
encompassing as it concerns all the parcels subject of this case, i.e., the parcels covered by TCT Nos.
T-85121, T-104365 and T-85135.[12]
Moreover, an actual field
verification conducted by the DAR Region X Regional Center for Land Use Policy,
Planning and Implementation in the presence of Oroville’s representative, Atty.
Marilou Aban, revealed that about a hundred persons composed of potential
farmer-beneficiaries and indigenous peoples reside in the subject property and
that the same is devoted to crops such as corn and cassava, and gemelina and
fruit trees.
We cannot simply brush aside the
DAR’s pronouncements regarding the status of the subject property as not exempt
from CARP coverage considering that the DAR has unquestionable technical
expertise on these matters.[13] Factual findings of administrative agencies
are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such
findings are supported by substantial evidence, a situation that obtains in
this case. The factual findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who, by
reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters
within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason,
ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[14] More so, because the DAR’s findings have gone
up the ladder of administrative process and have been affirmed by the Office of
the President.
We certainly consider it error for
the appellate court to overturn its own Decision on the basis solely of the
Zoning Certifications dated
The certifications were only attached
to Oroville’s Reply to DAR’s Comment on the petition filed with the Court of
Appeals. While it is true, as the appellate court held, that the certifications
dated
Moreover, these certifications have been
clarified by the same person who issued them in a letter[16] dated
December 2, 2005, to the effect that the certifications state only that the
properties mentioned are within the potential growth areas for urban expansion
under the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and do not affect the zoning
classification of the properties as agricultural in accordance with the city’s
Zoning Code.
Indeed, the zoning certifications should
be construed to mean simply that under the city’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the
subject property is categorized as a “potential growth area” for whatever
purpose the city would deem suitable. The
term “potential growth area” is not a land classification category. That the subject property was identified as a
“potential growth area” does not denote that it has been reclassified as a
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land to qualify it for
exemption from CARP coverage.
To summarize, in order to be exempt
from CARP coverage, the subject property must have been classified as
industrial/residential before
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant
petition is GRANTED. The Amended Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, 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]Rollo, pp. 27-34; CA-G.R. SP No. 82135;
Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De
[14]Sebastian v. Morales, 445 Phil. 595, 609
(2003); Junio v. Garilao, G.R. No.
147146,