Junio v. Garilao

G.R. No. 147146 · 2005-07-29 · J. PANGANIBAN, J.: · Primary: Labor; Secondary: Civil, Political
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Complainants, identified as 'Potential CARP Beneficiaries,' filed a complaint with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) against the registered owners of Lot 835-B, a 71-hectare agricultural land in Bacolod City. They alleged that the owners were bulldozing and leveling the property to convert it into a residential subdivision, which would prejudice their rights as prospective CARP beneficiaries. Procedural History: Before any hearing, the DAR Secretary issued an Order dated September 13, 1994, exempting Lot 835-B from CARP coverage. This exemption was based on a Certification that the land was classified as residential under Resolution No. 5153-A, Series of 1976, of the City Council of Bacolod, approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB) on September 24, 1980. The DAR Secretary concluded that the land was exempted from CARP coverage as it was classified as residential prior to June 15, 1988, pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. The DARAB complaint was forwarded for appropriate action, but the DAR Secretary's exemption order preceded any hearing. The exemption order was challenged before the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA sustained the DAR Secretary's Exemption Order, finding that Lot 835-B had been reclassified from agricultural to residential land prior to June 15, 1988, citing Natalia Realty v. Department of Agrarian Reform. The CA ruled that neither CARL nor the Local Government Code of 1991 nullified this reclassification. The Petition: Petitioners sought a review of the CA Decision, arguing that the DAR Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion and lacked the authority to exclude the land from CARP coverage without affording due process and without congressional amendment to Section 4 of CARL.

Issue(s)

Whether the respondent DAR secretary had the authority to exclude or exempt land from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) based on pre-existing classifications made before June 15, 1988, without needing to amend Section 4 of RA 6657 or afford due process.

Ruling

The Petition is devoid of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

On the issue of the DAR Secretary's authority to exempt land from CARP coverage: The Court held that lands already classified and identified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, the effectivity date of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), are outside the coverage of CARL and do not require conversion clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). This is based on Section 3(c) of CARL, which defines agricultural land as that devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. DAR's Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, clarified that agricultural land does not include those classified in town plans and zoning ordinances, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its predecessors, for residential, commercial, or industrial use prior to June 15, 1988. The Court reiterated its ruling in Natalia Realty v. Department of Agrarian Reform that lands converted to non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the DAR prior to CARL's effectivity are outside its coverage. The authority to reclassify lands was not exclusively vested in the DAR, but involved a coordinated effort of various agencies, including local government units and the Human Settlements Commission (predecessor of HLURB). Therefore, the DAR Secretary's action in issuing an exemption order based on a pre-CARL classification was within the bounds of the law and administrative issuances.

Main Doctrine

Lands already classified and identified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), are outside the coverage of this law and do not require conversion clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →