View full case

HEIRS OF LUIS A. LUNA v. RUBEN S. AFABLE

FACTS:

The petitioners are co-owners of a parcel of land in Oriental Mindoro that was subjected to compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). They filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and the affirmation of the land's classification as outside the purview of CARL. The DARAB ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that the land is exempt from CARP as it has been reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARL. The respondents appealed to the DARAB Central Office, which held that the issue of exemption should be determined by the DAR Secretary or his authorized representative.

The case involves the application for exemption from CARP filed by the petitioners regarding their land covered by TCT No. J-7205. The DAR initially granted the application for exemption based on an ocular inspection and investigation conducted by various government agencies. However, the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the land was still within the ambit of CARP because it was reclassified to non-agricultural uses only in 1998 and approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in 2001 after the effectivity of RA No. 6657. The DAR granted the motion for reconsideration and set aside the exemption granted to the petitioners.

The subject landholding is composed of four parcels of land located in Brgy. Guinobatan, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. During an ocular inspection, it was found that the land was generally planted with rice, although other crops and trees were also present. A portion of the land had been reclassified into residential, commercial, and institutional uses in 1998, but the property was confirmed to still be agricultural by the HLURB. The Office of the President disagreed with the DAR's decision and found merit in the appeal of the petitioners, noting that the subject property was intended to be classified as residential, commercial, and institutional.

Respondents sought the conversion of their properties from agricultural to industrial to be exempt from CARL coverage. The Sangguniang Bayan passed an ordinance in 1981 classifying only certain lots as light intensity industrial zone. The City of Calapan later designated the whole area of Barangay Guinobatan as residential, commercial, and institutional areas in 1998. The DAR denied the conversion request, but the Office of the President reversed the decision. However, the Court of Appeals overturned the Office of the President's ruling, noting that the ordinance only classified certain lots and the 1998 resolution was enacted after the CARL's effectivity date. The Court of Appeals reinstated the DAR's resolution and order.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the land in question is within the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

  2. Whether the land has been properly reclassified as non-agricultural.

  3. Whether Ordinance No. 21 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Calapan is a valid exercise of police power by the local government of Calapan.

  4. Whether the reclassification of the land in question into a light intensity industrial zone under Ordinance No. 21 exempted it from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

  5. Whether the landholding of the petitioners falls within the reclassified zone and is therefore exempted from CARL coverage.

  6. Whether the subject land is agricultural or non-agricultural.

  7. Whether the classification of the land as light industrial by the deputized zoning administrator and HUDCC should be given deference.

  8. Whether or not the property in question is subject to agrarian reform.

RULING:

  1. After reviewing the conflicting factual findings of various agencies and the evidence presented by both parties, the Court concludes that the land in question is outside the coverage of the CARL.

  2. Local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural land into non-agricultural land. It is presumed that when local boards and councils approve a zoning ordinance designating an area as residential, commercial, or industrial zone, they are simultaneously reclassifying any agricultural land within that zone for non-agricultural use, in line with their zoning ordinances.

  3. The Supreme Court ruled that Ordinance No. 21 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Calapan is a valid exercise of police power by the local government of Calapan.

  4. The Supreme Court ruled that the reclassification of the land in question into a light intensity industrial zone under Ordinance No. 21 exempted it from the coverage of the CARL.

  5. The Supreme Court ruled that the landholding of the petitioners falls within the reclassified zone and is therefore exempted from CARL coverage.

  6. The subject land is classified as non-agricultural. The certifications of the deputized zoning administrator and HUDCC clearly state that a portion of the land is zoned as light industrial, while the rest is agricultural. The burden is on the respondents to present evidence to rebut this classification, but they failed to do so.

  7. The certification of the deputized zoning administrator, being the officer having jurisdiction over the area, carries more weight and is entitled to greater respect. The certifications from specialized agencies like the HUDCC should also be given great respect in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

  8. The Court held that the property is not subject to agrarian reform. The certifications issued by the deputized zoning administrator of Calapan City and by the HUDCC established that the property is no longer agricultural at the time the CARL took effect. Therefore, it cannot be subjected to agrarian reform. The Court also noted that the records do not contain a copy of the report mentioned by the OIC Secretary, and thus cannot make a definite ruling on its contents. It was also found that the land covered by TCT No. T-18192, which was subject to agrarian reform, is different from the land subject of this case covered by TCT No. J-7205 (T-54199). The Office of the President correctly revoked the resolutions of the former OIC Secretaries and declared that the Order of then Secretary Pagdanganan was more in line with the facts and the law applicable to the case. As a result, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Decision of the Office of the President.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised. The Court respects the factual findings of lower courts and quasi-judicial agencies, except when there are conflicting findings.

  • "Agricultural land" covered by the CARL is defined as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land.

  • A land is not agricultural and therefore outside the ambit of the CARP if it has been classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as residential, commercial, or industrial, and if the town plan and zoning ordinance have been approved by the HLURB or its predecessor agency prior to June 15, 1988.

  • Local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural land into non-agricultural land, and their zoning ordinances ensure compliance with the reclassification.

  • The regulation of land use through zoning and reclassification is an exercise of police power for the protection and benefit of the residents of a locality.

  • A zoning ordinance must have been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) prior to June 15, 1988, in order to validly reclassify land.

  • Certification from the HLURB is required for exemption clearances under the DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994.

  • Certifications from the Deputized Zoning Administrator and the HUDCC, stating that the land falls within a non-agricultural zone, are sufficient compliance with the requirements for exemption under DAR AO No. 6.

  • Zoning ordinances are based on present and future projections of the needs of a local government unit.

  • Certifications issued by government agencies with recognized expertise on land classification are entitled to great respect, if not finality, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

  • The burden of proof lies on the party contesting the classification of the land.