Laureano v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns two parcels of land, Lot No. 3257 and Lot No. 3415, located in Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan. These lots, with areas of 2.5 and 1.5850 hectares respectively, form part of a larger co-owned parcel. Since 1978, petitioner Laureano Hermoso and Miguel Banag have occupied and cultivated these lots as tenants. They sought coverage of these lands under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, which aims to emancipate tenants from the bondage of the soil and transfer ownership of the land they till. Procedural History: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) initially granted the petition for coverage under P.D. No. 27 on July 4, 1995, and later affirmed this with modifications on December 9, 1995. Separately, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) upheld the tenancy relationship between petitioner, Banag, and the respondents in consolidated cases. Appeals and subsequent petitions to the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court (SC) were denied on technical grounds. Meanwhile, Banag's motion for emancipation patent was granted by the DAR on March 13, 1997, despite respondents' claim that the lands were approved for conversion to urban purposes in 1973. This order was affirmed by the DAR on March 10, 1998, and the appeal to the Office of the President was dismissed on April 21, 2003. Respondents then filed a petition for review with the CA, which reversed the Office of the President's decision and dismissed the petition for coverage under P.D. No. 27. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The core issue is whether the subject lots are covered by P.D. No. 27. Petitioner argues that a final and executory SC decision in a prior case (G.R. No. 127668) affirming his tenancy entitles him to the rights under P.D. No. 27, implying the lots are agricultural. Respondents contend that the lands were reclassified for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes as early as 1973 by the DAR Secretary and subsequently by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) in 1978, thus falling outside P.D. No. 27's coverage.
Issue(s)
Whether Lot Nos. 3257 and 3415 are covered by Presidential Decree No. 27. Whether the June 5, 1973 DAR Secretary Order reclassifying the lands for urban purposes precludes coverage under P.D. No. 27.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated October 15, 2004, and the Resolution dated January 19, 2005, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77546 are affirmed. The case is remanded to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Bulacan for the proper computation of the disturbance compensation of petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Lot Nos. 3257 and 3415 are covered by Presidential Decree No. 27: The Court held that for the subject parcels of land to be covered by P.D. No. 27, they must be agricultural lands. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 defines agricultural land as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. Section 3(b) defines agricultural activity as cultivation of the soil and other farm activities. The subject parcels of land cannot be considered within the ambit of P.D. No. 27 because they were reclassified by the DAR Secretary as suited for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes in an Order dated June 5, 1973, which was issued pursuant to Republic Act No. 3844. This reclassification was based on investigations and recommendations from the National Planning Commission and the Agrarian Reform Team, which found the lands suitable for urban purposes due to their location, existing urban developments, and low agricultural income. The 1973 Order explicitly declared the parcels of land as suited for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes. On whether the June 5, 1973 DAR Secretary Order reclassifying the lands for urban purposes precludes coverage under P.D. No. 27: The Court clarified that the petitioner's reliance on Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844, which required the landowner to implement the conversion within a certain period, was misplaced. This provision was amended by R.A. No. 6389, effective September 10, 1971. The amended Section 36(1) states that the landholding is declared by the department head, upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission, to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial, or some other urban purposes. Crucially, the amendatory law deleted the condition imposed on the landowner to implement the conversion within a specific period. Therefore, the mere declaration of suitability for urban purposes, as evidenced by the June 5, 1973 Order, is sufficient to remove the land from the coverage of P.D. No. 27. The remedy left to the tenant in such cases is to claim disturbance compensation, as provided by law. The Court cited Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, which held that lands not devoted to agricultural activity and those previously converted to non-agricultural uses are outside the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The subject lands, having been declared suited for urban purposes, fall under this exclusion.
Main Doctrine
Lands previously declared by the DAR Secretary as suited for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, pursuant to Republic Act No. 3844, are not covered by Presidential Decree No. 27, even if the conversion has not been fully implemented, as the amended Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, no longer requires the landowner to implement the conversion within a specific period.