Ong v. Imperial
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, registered owners of a 405,645-square-meter land in Daet, Camarines Norte, received a Notice of Coverage from the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) on August 14, 1994. They protested, claiming the land was used for livestock and should be excluded, or that it was below the retention area. The MARO countered that the land was used for coconut production and thus covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), with an excess area of 8.5214 hectares. A Notice of Acquisition was issued on September 23, 1996. Procedural History: Petitioners applied for exemption clearance with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Office V on October 16, 1996, asserting the land was reclassified as residential in 1978 and 1980. The DAR Regional Director, after investigation and considering the Deputized Zoning Administrator's (DZA) certification and the DAR RCLUPPI V report, recommended denial, believing the built-up area had been exhausted and the Ong property could no longer fit. DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied the application on February 2, 2000, finding the DZA's justification insufficient and the 1982 land use plan not HLURB-approved. DAR Secretary Hernani A. Braganza denied the motion for reconsideration on June 20, 2002. Meanwhile, a Certificate of Land Ownership Award was issued to respondents. Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President (OP). The OP, in a Decision dated September 5, 2005, reversed the DAR orders, finding the DZA's expertise superior and the reclassification valid, thus exempting the land from CARP. The OP denied respondents' motion for intervention and reconsideration in an Order dated March 3, 2006. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated November 30, 2010, reversed the OP's ruling, finding that petitioners failed to comply with exemption requirements due to inconsistencies between the DZA and HLURB certifications regarding the zoning ordinance approval dates. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to set aside the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the subject landholding is exempted from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Whether or not the petition filed by respondents before the Court of Appeals is exempted from the rule that errors not assigned on appeal cannot be passed upon.
Ruling
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, SET ASIDE the November 30, 2010 Decision and May 11, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and REINSTATED the September 5, 2005 Decision and March 3, 2006 Order of the Office of the President. The Court ruled that the subject property, having been validly reclassified as residential land by the municipality of Daet prior to June 15, 1988, is exempt from CARP coverage.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of exemption from CARP coverage: The Court reiterated that lands validly reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural use by a duly authorized government agency before June 15, 1988, are exempt from CARP coverage. The power to reclassify land is granted to local government units (LGUs) and is not subject to DAR approval. In this case, the Deputized Zoning Administrator (DZA) certified that the subject property was within the residential built-up area as per Zoning Ordinance No. 4, series of 1980. While the Court of Appeals focused on a perceived discrepancy between the DZA's certification and the HLURB's certification regarding the approval date of the zoning ordinance, the Supreme Court found that the DZA's certification, based on the local zoning ordinance, was sufficient. The Court emphasized that the operative fact for exemption is the valid reclassification prior to June 15, 1988, regardless of the specific agency that performed it. The Court cited jurisprudence, including Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the Philippines and Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, which affirmed the validity of reclassifications made by local government units and their predecessors, even if not explicitly approved by the HLURB, as long as the reclassification occurred before the effectivity of CARL. The Court found that the Office of the President correctly recognized the DZA's expertise and the validity of the reclassification, rendering the subsequent Notice of Acquisition by the MARO void ab initio. On the issue of errors not assigned on appeal: The Court found that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error by deciding the case based on a ground (failure to comply with exemption requirements due to certification discrepancies) that was neither assigned as an error by the respondents nor argued in their brief. While acknowledging exceptions to the rule that appellate courts cannot pass upon errors not assigned, the Court found that the CA failed to adequately justify how the present case fell under such exceptions. The Court stated that flexibility in applying rules must be balanced with sufficient reason and justification to avoid contravening basic rules of fair play and justice. The Supreme Court, in resolving the substantive issue, found the Office of the President's ruling to be more consistent with law and jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A land validly reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural use by a duly authorized government agency prior to June 15, 1988, is exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), even if a Notice of Acquisition was subsequently issued.