View full case

SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG BAGUMBONG v. HEIRS OF JULIANA MARONILLA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioners, challenging the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary to nullify their EP and CLOA titles. The subject lands were previously classified as agricultural and were covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The Exemption Committee recommended the exemption of a portion of the lands from CARP coverage, but also recommended the denial of the application for exemption for certain portions that were already covered by EPs. The DAR Secretary issued an Exemption Order granting the exemption of a portion of the lands and denying exemption for the remaining lands. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), questioning the DAR Secretary's jurisdiction and the respondents' right to apply for CARP exemption. The CA upheld the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary and affirmed the Exemption Order. The issues before the Court are whether the CA erred in upholding the DAR Secretary's jurisdiction and whether the lands covered by the Exemption Order are outside the coverage of CARP. The petitioners argue that the DAR Secretary has no jurisdiction over their EP and CLOA titles, as there is no agrarian dispute involved, but rather an administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program. They also contend that the lands are exempt from CARP coverage based on their classification and applicable laws and jurisprudence. On the other hand, the respondents assert that the DAR Secretary has the authority to grant or deny exemption clearances and cancel EPs and CLOAs, as long as it does not pertain to an agrarian dispute. They argue that the DAR Secretary properly exercised his jurisdiction in this case, considering the classification of the lands and the relevant laws and opinions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the DARAB has jurisdiction over the application for CARP exemption and the cancellation of EP and CLOA titles sought by the respondents.

  2. Whether the reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into "forest conservation zones" exempts them from CARP coverage.

  3. Whether the lands classified as forest conservation zones in this case may still fall under the exemptions and exclusions provided under Section 10(a) of RA 6657.

  4. Whether the lands reclassified as forest conservation zone are exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)?

  5. Whether the lands reclassified as agro-industrial are exempt from the coverage of CARP?

  6. Whether the lands reclassified as residential or institutional are exempt from the coverage of CARP?

  7. Whether or not the application for exemption clearance from CARP coverage should be partially approved.

RULING:

  1. The DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the application for CARP exemption and the cancellation of EP and CLOA titles in this case. The controversy between the parties does not relate to an agrarian dispute but rather to the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program. The DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over the application for CARP exemption, while a separate case should be filed for the cancellation of EP and CLOA titles before the DAR, and involving the agrarian reform beneficiaries.

  2. The reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into "forest conservation zones" does not exempt them from CARP coverage. Reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into "forest conservation zones" is in the nature of a secondary classification and does not have the effect of converting such lands into forest lands as to be exempt from CARP coverage.

  3. The lands classified as forest conservation zones may still fall under the exemptions and exclusions provided under Section 10(a) of RA 6657 if they are actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves.

  4. The lands reclassified as forest conservation zone are not exempt from the coverage of CARP. Only forest lands primarily classified by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) are exempt from CARP coverage.

  5. The lands reclassified as agro-industrial are not exempt from the coverage of CARP. Agro-industrial lands fall within the definition of agricultural land under the law and are covered by CARP, unless shown to be arable or devoted to exempt activities.

  6. The lands reclassified as residential or institutional are exempt from the coverage of CARP. Lands that are reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARP by government agencies other than the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) are outside the coverage of CARP.

  7. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the Decision of the Court of Appeals, with modification. The application for exemption clearance from CARP coverage is partially approved only with respect to certain portions of the parcels of land that have been reclassified as residential and institutional. The issuance of the exemption clearance is subject to the payment of disturbance compensation set by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in accordance with existing DAR administrative rules. The matter of determining whether or not other portions of the lands are exempt/excluded from CARP coverage is referred to the Office of the DAR Secretary for proper disposition in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 13-90.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An agrarian dispute refers to a controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over lands devoted to agriculture, and not to controversies arising from the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program. Jurisdiction over agrarian disputes lies with the DARAB.

  • The DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over applications for CARP exemption, as expressed in DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990.

  • A separate proceeding must be initiated to cancel EP and CLOA titles, and the agrarian reform beneficiaries are indispensable parties in such petitions.

  • Lands already classified for residential, commercial, or industrial use in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the HLURB and its precursor agencies prior to June 15, 1988, are outside the coverage of the agrarian laws.

  • The primary classification of lands, such as agricultural classification, is vested in the President upon the recommendation of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

  • The reclassification of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, or industrial is within the authority of cities and municipalities.

  • The definition of "agricultural land" for purposes of CARP coverage includes lands classified for residential, commercial, or industrial use in town plans and zoning ordinances approved prior to June 15, 1988.

  • Reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into secondary classifications, such as "forest conservation zones," does not exempt them from CARP coverage.

  • Lands classified as forest conservation zones may still be exempted from CARP coverage if they are actually, directly, and exclusively used for specified purposes, such as parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, as provided under Section 10(a) of RA 6657.

  • Forest lands primarily classified by the DENR are exempt from CARP coverage.

  • Agro-industrial lands are within the definition of agricultural land and are covered by CARP, unless shown to be arable or devoted to exempt activities.

  • Lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARP by government agencies other than the DAR are outside the coverage of CARP.

  • The reclassification of lands for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes is upheld in a final and executory court judgment, entitling the landowner to disturbance compensation.

  • Usufructuary rights of affected farmer-beneficiaries over their awarded lands shall not be diminished pending the cancellation of their EP and CLOA titles in the proper proceedings.

  • Lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses or reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 by government agencies other than the DAR are outside CARP coverage.

  • The withdrawal of a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) is not a bar to an exemption case. The basis for exemption is the reclassification of lands prior to June 15, 1988.

  • DAR Administrative Order No. 09-90 (now DAR Administrative Order No. 07-11), providing that all lands voluntarily offered for sale to the government may no longer be withdrawn, was not yet in effect at the time the VOS was made.