Buklod v. Ramos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The core dispute concerns approximately 303.38545 hectares of unirrigated land owned by E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc. (EMRASON) in Dasmariñas, Cavite. Originally acquired by EMRASON in 1965 for a residential subdivision project named "Traveller's Life Homes," the property's development was delayed. The controversy arose when the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) sought to include this land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) following the enactment of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL) on June 15, 1988. EMRASON contended that the land had been converted to non-agricultural use prior to CARL's effectivity, rendering it exempt from CARP coverage. Procedural History: EMRASON's attempts to develop the property into a residential subdivision were approved by the Municipal Council of Dasmariñas through Municipal Ordinance No. 29-A in 1972. Despite these approvals, the actual development faced delays. When the DAR issued notices of acquisition for the property under CARP starting in 1990, EMRASON protested. These protests led to proceedings before the DARAB and eventually the Office of the President (OP). The DAR Secretary affirmed the notices of acquisition, but the OP, in a decision dated February 7, 1996, dismissed EMRASON's appeal, ruling that the property remained agricultural. EMRASON then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, on March 26, 1997, reversed the OP's decision, declared the notices of acquisition void, and ruled that the property was exempt from CARP coverage. The CA later denied motions for reconsideration from both EMRASON and the DAR. The Petition: The Buklod Nang Magbubukid Sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. (Buklod) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) filed separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which were consolidated. Buklod argued that the municipal ordinance approving the subdivision was invalid due to non-compliance with conditions, that existing land reform laws superseded municipal ordinances, and that land reform is a constitutional mandate that should prevail. Buklod also questioned the CA's issuance of an injunction and refusal to grant a hearing. The DAR argued that the Municipality of Dasmariñas lacked the authority to reclassify agricultural lands under the Local Autonomy Act, that the ordinance failed to comply with required procedures, and that the CA misapplied the Natalia Realty case. Both petitioners sought to have the CA's decision reversed and the property declared covered by CARP.
Issue(s)
Whether the Municipal Ordinance No. 29-A of Dasmariñas, Cavite, validly reclassified EMRASON's property from agricultural to residential use, thereby exempting it from CARP coverage. Whether the Local Autonomy Act of 1959 authorized municipal councils to reclassify agricultural lands. Whether EMRASON complied with the necessary requirements for land conversion and subdivision development. Whether the cited jurisprudence, particularly Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, is applicable to the present case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of CARP. Whether Buklod's belatedly raised issues should be considered.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petitions for Review filed by Buklod and DAR, affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court declared the notices of acquisition issued by the DAR covering EMRASON's 372-hectare property in Barangay Langkaan, Dasmariñas, Cavite, as VOID and made the writ of preliminary injunction permanent. The property was declared exempt from CARP coverage.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Municipal Ordinance No. 29-A and reclassification: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that Municipal Ordinance No. 29-A, approved on July 9, 1972, effectively reclassified EMRASON's property from agricultural to residential use. This reclassification occurred prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) on June 15, 1988. The Court emphasized that under the Local Autonomy Act of 1959, municipal councils were empowered to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations. The approval of EMRASON's application for subdivision, even if by resolution, constituted a regulatory measure within the ambit of the law, thereby reclassifying the land. The Court found that the municipality, through Ordinance No. 29-A, had approved the conversion/classification of the lands as residential, which conformed with the municipality's development plan. On the power of local government units: The Court clarified that under the Local Autonomy Act of 1959, municipal councils were authorized to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances. While the Act did not explicitly grant the power to reclassify agricultural lands, the Court held that the power to zone and approve subdivisions, exercised through ordinances or resolutions, implicitly included the power to reclassify lands for non-agricultural purposes, consistent with the principle of liberal interpretation of local government powers and the general welfare clause. This power was considered an exercise of police power. On compliance with requirements for conversion: The Court agreed with the CA that EMRASON was not obligated to immediately undertake actual development or comply with subsequent requirements that arose after the land was already converted. The approval of the subdivision application by the municipal council was considered sufficient to effect the conversion. The Court noted that the requirements insisted upon by DAR and Buklod, such as the approval of the National Planning Commission (NPC) for the final plat, were either directory (as indicated by the word 'may' in the law) or related to the technical aspects of the subdivision plan, not the initial reclassification itself. Furthermore, the Court found that the HSRC/HLURB review was not applicable retroactively to the 1972 ordinance. On the applicability of Natalia Realty and other jurisprudence: The Court reiterated that lands reclassified to non-agricultural uses before June 15, 1988, are exempt from CARP coverage. The Court found the Natalia Realty case, which involved a presidential proclamation reclassifying land for townsite purposes, analogous to the present case where a municipal ordinance reclassified land for residential use. The operative fact for exemption is the valid reclassification prior to CARP's effectivity, regardless of the authority that effected it. The Court also cited Patalinghug v. Court of Appeals and Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals to support the principle that a local government's determination for zoning purposes, once made, must prevail, and that a tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes. On the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction: The Court found that the CA did not err in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. It reasoned that Section 55 of the CARL, which prohibits injunctions against the PARC or its agencies, was not applicable because the DAR Secretary, in issuing the notices of acquisition, was acting in his quasi-judicial capacity as department head, not as an agent of the PARC. The subsequent issuance of a permanent injunction by the CA made any prior objections moot. On Buklod's belatedly raised issues: The Court refused to consider issues raised by Buklod for the first time in its motion for reconsideration before the CA and subsequently before the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated the rule that issues not raised in the lower tribunal are deemed waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, absent any exceptions like lack of jurisdiction or plain error, none of which were sufficiently demonstrated by Buklod.
Main Doctrine
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 the CARL and do not require conversion clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). A municipal ordinance approving a subdivision application, enacted under the Local Autonomy Act, constitutes a reclassification of agricultural land to non-agricultural use, thereby exempting it from CARP coverage.