Marcelo v. Samahang Magsasaka Ng Barangay San Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, owners of several parcels of land totaling 114.7030 hectares, voluntarily offered to sell these properties to the government for redistribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Subsequently, Notices of Coverage were sent. Petitioners withdrew their offer, intending to continue land development. DAR issued Notices of Coverage and identified farmer beneficiaries, leading to the issuance of Collective Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs). Petitioners filed an action to cancel the CLOAs, claiming the properties were classified as residential in 1977 and thus exempt from CARP. Procedural History: The DARAB initially ordered the cancellation of CLOAs, finding the properties residential. However, the farmer-beneficiaries appealed. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Non-coverage with the DAR Regional Office, which directed them to file an application for exemption with the DAR Secretary. Petitioners complied, submitting various documents to support their claim of residential classification prior to June 15, 1988. The DAR Secretary denied the application, citing an HLURB Certification that indicated the NHA registration and license to sell covered different properties. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Office of the President (OP) reversed the DAR Secretary's ruling, granting the exemption based on various certifications and the DARAB decision. The Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Mariano appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the OP's decision, reinstating the DAR Secretary's order denying the exemption, finding that petitioners failed to prove the properties were classified as residential before June 15, 1988, due to conflicting evidence and the lack of a valid zoning ordinance approved by HLURB prior to the CARL's effectivity. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in finding discrepancies in their evidence and in sustaining the claim that the land remains agricultural despite substantial evidence to the contrary.
Issue(s)
Whether the subject properties were classified as residential prior to June 15, 1988, thereby exempting them from CARP coverage. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding discrepancies and inconsistencies in the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioners. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the respondents' claims that the land in dispute remains agricultural despite substantial evidence presented by petitioners.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 28, 2012, and the Resolution dated February 4, 2013, of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the subject properties were classified as residential prior to June 15, 1988, thereby exempting them from CARP coverage: The Court held that petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish exemption from CARP coverage. The essential requirement for exemption is that the land must have been classified as residential, commercial, or industrial by a valid town plan and zoning ordinance, which must have been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or its predecessor agency prior to June 15, 1988, the effectivity date of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL). The evidence presented by the petitioners, including the NHA Certificate of Registration and License to Sell, the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2006-004, and the HLURB Certifications, were found to be insufficient or contradictory. Specifically, the NHA issuances covered different properties, and the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution was passed in 2006, long after the CARL's effectivity, and did not constitute a valid zoning ordinance or comprehensive land use plan approved prior to the crucial date. Furthermore, conflicting HLURB certifications and a certification from the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) indicated that the properties were classified as agricultural under the land use plan approved in 2002. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding discrepancies and inconsistencies in the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioners: The Court found that the CA correctly identified discrepancies and inconsistencies in the petitioners' evidence. The HLURB Certification dated September 12, 2005, which confirmed a valid NHA-issued certificate of registration and license to sell, was inconsistent with the HLURB Certification dated August 15, 2006, which stated that the certificate of registration and license to sell covered other lots. The CA also noted that the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2006-004, relied upon by the petitioners, was contradicted by a certification from the Sangguniang Bayan itself denying its existence and another certification from the Office of the Vice-Governor stating it pertained to riprapping. These conflicting pieces of evidence undermined the petitioners' claim of a consistent and valid reclassification prior to June 15, 1988. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the respondents' claims that the land in dispute remains agricultural despite substantial evidence presented by petitioners: The Court affirmed the CA's conclusion that the petitioners failed to present substantial evidence proving the land's residential classification before June 15, 1988. The primary evidence required for exemption is a valid reclassification by an authorized government agency prior to the CARL's effectivity. The documents presented by the petitioners did not meet this standard. The NHA registration and license to sell were for different properties. The Sangguniang Bayan Resolution was passed after the CARL's effectivity and was not a valid zoning ordinance. The HLURB certifications were either contradictory or confirmed the existence of NHA issuances for other lots. Therefore, the properties were deemed to remain agricultural and covered by the CARL.
Main Doctrine
To be exempt from CARP coverage, lands must be classified as non-agricultural by a valid zoning ordinance or town plan approved by the HLURB prior to June 15, 1988. The applicant bears the burden of proving this exemption.