Tañon v. Asia United Bank
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Asia Trust Development Bank (now Asia United Bank) is the registered owner of a two-hectare property in Calamba, Laguna. On February 28, 2007, Asia Trust filed an application for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage, submitting a February 21, 2007 Certification from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) stating the property was classified as an industrial zone. An ocular inspection revealed the property was vacant grassland with no crops or occupants, though seven individuals, including Renato Tañon and Pio Candelaria, were alleged to be occupants. A protest was filed by these alleged occupants. Procedural History: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director granted Asia Trust's exemption application on June 21, 2007, finding the landholdings were within a non-agricultural zone prior to June 15, 1988, and that there was substantial compliance with application requirements. The DAR Regional Director denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Tañon and Candelaria on September 26, 2007, reiterating the land's classification as non-agricultural prior to 1988 based on the HLURB certification and Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 63, Series of 1980, ratified by HLURB Resolution No. 28 dated October 27, 1981. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration by Tañon and Candelaria, alleging agricultural activity and a conflicting HLURB certification, were also denied. The DAR Secretary affirmed these denials. The Office of the President affirmed the DAR's findings and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Tañon and Candelaria filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. While pending, Pio Candelaria died and was substituted by his heirs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Office of the President's decision, reiterating the land's classification as industrial since October 27, 1981, and thus correctly granting the exemption. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners argue that the exemption application was void for lack of showing prior non-agricultural classification and assail the HLURB certification and zoning ordinance for not categorically stating reclassification. They insist these were mere zoning and did not automatically convert agricultural land. They claim to be tenants who devoted the land to agricultural use, citing a MARO memorandum and a prior notice of coverage to the previous owner. They also allege grave abuse of discretion by the DAR Secretary for disregarding the MARO's findings and denial of due process due to lack of notice and undue haste in approval.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the landholdings are exempted from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Whether or not petitioners Renato Tañon and Pio Candelaria have vested rights over the landholdings prior to the passage and ratification of the zoning ordinance. Whether or not they were denied due process.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 14, 2016 and Resolution dated September 9, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 138119 acknowledging the industrial classification of the subject parcels of land prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether or not the landholdings are exempted from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program: The Court affirmed the exemption, holding that a local government unit's reclassification of land for non-agricultural use, as ratified by the HLURB prior to June 15, 1988, exempts the land from CARP coverage. The HLURB certification dated February 21, 2007, which was based on Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 63, Series of 1980, ratified by HLURB Resolution No. 28 on October 27, 1981, established that the subject parcels were classified as industrial zone as early as October 27, 1981. This classification predates the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 (June 15, 1988), making the land fall outside CARP's scope, consistent with Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. The Court accorded weight to the HLURB certification, noting its presumption of regularity and the lack of contrary evidence from the petitioners. The consistent affirmation of this classification by the DAR, Office of the President, and Court of Appeals further solidified this finding. On Whether or not petitioners Renato Tañon and Pio Candelaria have vested rights over the landholdings prior to the passage and ratification of the zoning ordinance: The Court found no convincing evidence that petitioners possessed vested tenancy rights prior to the land's reclassification in 1981. To establish agricultural tenancy, six elements must concur and be proven by substantial evidence: (1) landowner and tenant relationship, (2) agricultural land as subject matter, (3) consent, (4) purpose of agricultural production, (5) personal cultivation, and (6) sharing of harvests. Petitioners failed to allege or present evidence for any of these elements. Their claim of agricultural activity was based on a MARO memorandum and the presence of fruit trees and cash crops, but this did not establish tenancy prior to the 1981 reclassification. The Court reiterated that a zoning ordinance, while an exercise of police power, is given prospective effect and does not automatically divest tenant-farmers of vested rights acquired before June 15, 1988, under DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2003. However, since no vested rights were proven to exist before the 1981 reclassification, this protection did not apply. On Whether or not they were denied due process: The Court ruled that petitioners were not denied due process. An application for exemption from CARP coverage is non-adversarial, and occupants are not strictly required to be notified of the application itself. The DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2003, outlines public notice requirements, including posting billboards. The Court of Appeals found that Asia Trust complied with this notice requirement by posting two billboards. Furthermore, petitioners actively participated in the administrative proceedings by filing a letter-protest treated as a motion for reconsideration, followed by a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, and an appeal to the Office of the President. These actions demonstrate that they were afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present their arguments, satisfying the requirements of procedural due process in administrative proceedings.
Main Doctrine
A local government unit's reclassification of land for non-agricultural use, as ratified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657, exempts such land from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, unless occupants can prove vested tenancy rights prior to the zoning ordinance.