THIRD DIVISION
ALANGILAN
REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by ALBERTO ROMULO, as Executive Secretary, and ARTHUR
P. AUTEA, as Deputy Secretary; and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents. | G.R. No. 180471Present: CORONA,
J., Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
PERALTA,
and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: March 26, 2010 |
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court filed by Alangilan Realty & Development Corporation (petitioner),
challenging the August 28, 2007 Decisionc�fa1c�fac�fal�.w and the
November 12, 2007 Resolutionc�fa2c�fac�fal�.wof the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 76525.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Petitioner is the owner/developer of a 17.4892-hectare
land in Barangays Alangilan and Patay
in Batangas City (Alangilan landholding). On August 7, 1996, petitioner filed
an Application and/or Petition for
Exclusion/Exemption from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Coveragec�fa3c�fac�fal�.w of the
Alangilan landholding with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).It
averred that, in 1982, the Sangguniang
Bayan of Batangas City classified the subject landholding as reserved for residential under a zoning
ordinance (1982 Ordinance), which was approved by the Human Settlement
Regulatory Commission.Itfurther alleged that, on May 17, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Batangas City
approved the City Zoning Map and Batangas Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use
Ordinance (1994 Ordinance), reclassifying the landholding as residential-1.Petitioner thus claimed exemption of its
landholding from the coverage of the CARP. In support of its application,
petitioner submitted a certificationc�fa4c�fac�fal�.w dated
October 31, 1995 of Zoning Administrator Delia O. Malaluan.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
On May 6, 1997, then DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao
issued an Orderc�fa5c�fac�fal�.w
denying petitioners application for exemption.The DAR Secretary noted that, as of February 15, 1993, the Alangilan
landholding remained agricultural,
reserved for residential.It was
classified as residential-1 only on
December 12, 1994 under Sangguniang
Panlalawigan Resolution No. 709, series of 1994.Clearly, the subject landholding was still agricultural at the time of the
effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL), on June 15, 1988.The qualifying
phrase reserved for residential means
that the property is still classified as agricultural,
and is covered by the CARP.
The DAR Secretary disposed thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the herein application
for exemption involving seventeen (17) parcels of land with an aggregate area
of 23.9258 hectares located [in] Calicanto, Alangilan and Patay, Batangas City
is hereby GRANTED insofar as the 4.9123 hectares [of] Calicanto landholdings
are concerned and DENIED with respect to the 17.4892 Alangilan properties,
subject to the payment of disturbance compensation to qualified tenants, if any
there be.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
SO ORDERED.c�fa6c�fac�fal�.w
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Order,
arguing that the Alangilan landholding was already reserved for residential use as early as October 6, 1982.Invoking this Courts ruling in Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of
Agrarian Reform,c�fa7c�fac�fal�.wpetitioner insisted that the subject
landholding was outside the coverage of the CARP.Petitioner also submitted a Supplemental to Motion for Reconsideration,c�fa8c�fac�fal�.w arguing
that the landholding had already been reclassified as reserved for residential andhad
been earmarked for residential use even before the effectivity of the CARL.
Accordingly, its non-development into a subdivision did not remove the
landholdings zoning classification as reserved
for residential.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
On July 8, 1997, petitioner submitted an Addendum to Supplemental to Motion for
Reconsideration,c�fa9c�fac�fal�.wattaching another certification stating
that the Alangilan landholding was zoned as reserved
for residential in 1982, and became residential-1
in 1994.In a 2nd Addendum to Supplemental to Motion for Reconsideration,c�fa10c�fac�fal�.w
petitioner submitted another certification whereby the zoning administrator withdrew
her first certification and clarified that the phrase agricultural, reserved for residential spoke oftwoclassifications,
namely, agricultural (coded brown in
the map) and reserved forresidential (coded brown with diagonal
lines), stating further that the Alangilan landholding was reserved for residential.
However, the DAR
Secretary was not at all persuaded, and denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration on December 21, 1998, viz.:
After a careful review
and evaluation of the case, this Office finds no cogent reason to reverse its
Order, dated 6 May 1997.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 provides
that lands that are classified as commercial, industrial or residential before
15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance; as such, they are exempt
from the coverage of R.A. [No.] 6657.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The phrase Reserved for Residential is not a zoning
classification contemplated in the aforestated A.O. as to exempt a particular
land from the coverage of R.A. 6657.Moreso in this case, because the phrase was attached to the word
Agricultural; in fact, we can say that it merely qualified the term
Agricultural.We believe that the
correct interpretation of the zoning should be that the land is agricultural,
but it may be classified and used for residential purposes in some future time,
precisely, because it has been reserved for residential use.This interpretation is supported by the fact
that the zoning of the land became Residential only in 1994, per Ordinance No.
3, series of 1994, which established a Comprehensive Zoning Regulation and Land
Use for Batangas City.To reiterate, the
Sanggunian Members of Batangas City would have expressly, unequivocably, and
unqualifiedly zoned the area as residential if they had intended it to be
zoned as such in 1982.They never did
until the issuance of Ordinance No. 3 in 1994.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
It is also important to
note, that the legend used in the Zoning Map of Batangas City approved by HSRC
(now HLURB) per Resolution No. 92, dated 6 October 1982, indicated a certain
kind of arrangement which put in sequential order those that were similarly
zoned, but with different qualifications and/or characteristics.Thus, residential-1, residential-2, and
residential-3 were placed on top of the list one after the other, while
Agricultural, reserved for residential and mining agricultural were put at
the bottom, but also enumerated one after the other.If the subject properties were classified
more of residential than agricultural, it should have been placed in the legend
right after residential-3, and the color that should have been used was not
brown but a shade of white with diagonal lines to reflect its dominant
residential character.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Even the Applicant was
aware that the classification of the area was agricultural.In his letter to the MARO of Batangas City,
dated 24 October 1995, the Applicant categorically admitted that the Alangilan
Landholding was classified as agricultural.The said letter stated as follows:
At present, the subject properties are classified as agricultural.
However, Barangay Alangilan where
these properties are located have been declared by an ordinance of the
Municipal Council of Batangas City as commercial, industrial and/or
residential.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
As to what ordinance the Applicant was referring to
was not specified.However, it seems
obvious that he was referring to the 1994 Comprehensive Zoning Regulations and
Land Use for Batangas City (Ordinance No. 3, series of 1994).The previous zoning ordinance, i.e. the
Batangas City Zoning Ordinance approved under HSRC Resolution No. R-92, series
of 1982, dated 6 October 1982, classified the said landholding as
Agricultural, Reserved for Residential.It was Ordinance No. 3, series of 1994 that explicitly classified the
area as Residential-1.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
This Office, therefore, is convinced that the zoning
classification of the Alangilan Landholding prior to 15 June 1988 was
Agricultural, although with the qualification that it had been reserved for
residential use.The ocular inspection
conducted in 1996 by the representatives of the MARO, PARO and RARO confirmed
that the Alangilan Landholding was still used for agricultural purposes.The area was planted with mangoes and
coconuts.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
We could not give credence to the 3rd
Certification, dated 9 December 1997, of Zoning Administrator Delia
Malaluan-Licarte, because it does not conform to the Batangas City Zoning
Ordinance and Map approved under HSRC Resolution No. R-92, series of 1982,
dated 6 October 1982.In the first
place, what is asked from Zoning Administrators is merely to state the kind of
classification/zoning where a certain area falls as provided in the approved
Zoning Ordinance.In the case at bar,
the Zoning Administrator went beyond her authority.In effect, she reclassified the area from
Agricultural, Reserved for Residential to Reserved for Residential by
claiming that there were actually two zones provided by the Sanggunian
Members.It was actually a modification
of the zoning ordinance which, to us, is clearly unwarranted.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Moreover, even assuming the Zoning Administrator is
correct, the classification Reserved for Residential is not within the
contemplation of A.O. No. 6, series of 1994.The said A.O. talks about lands that were classified as residential
before 15 June 1988.Alangilan
Landholding was merely reserved for Residential.It connotes something in the future, which
is, that the land may be classified as residential in some future
time.It was identified as an expansion
area, nothing else.The fact remains
that in 1982, the landholding was still Agricultural, and this fact is not
changed by the re-interpretation made by Zoning Administrator Delia
Malaluan-Licarte.c�fa11c�fac�fal�.w
On appeal, the Office of the President (OP) affirmed
the decision of the DAR Secretary:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
hereby DISMISSED and the appealed Order dated 21 December 1998 of the
Department of Agrarian Reform [is] AFFIRMED in toto.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Parties are required to INFORM this Office, within five
(5) days from notice, of the dates of their receipt of this Decision.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
SO ORDERED.c�fa12c�fac�fal�.w
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but the motion
also suffered the same fate, as the OP denied it on March 20, 2003.c�fa13c�fac�fal�.w
Petitioner went up to the CA via a petition for review on certiorari,
assailing the OP decision.On August 28, 2007, the CA dismissed the
petition.The CA noted the report of
MARO, Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO), and Regional Agrarian Reform
Office (RARO) that the Alangilan landholding was devoted to agricultural
activities prior to the effectivity of the CARP on June 15, 1988 and even
thereafter.Likewise, there was no
showing that it was classified as commercial, industrial, or residential in
town plans and zoning ordinances of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board.Accordingly, the Alangilan
property did not cease to be agricultural.The 1994 Ordinance classifying the property as residential-1 did not convert or reclassify the Alangilan
landholding as residential because there was no proof that a conversion
clearance from the DAR was obtained.Thus, despite its reclassification in 1994 by the City Government of
Batangas, the Alangilan landholding remained under CARP coverage. Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it on November 12, 2007.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Hence, this appeal by petitioner, arguing that:
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS
ALANGILAN LANDHOLDING IS SUBJECT TO THE COVERAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
REFORM LAW, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO
NON-AGRICULTURAL USES BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BATANGAS PRIOR TO
THE LAW.c�fa14c�fac�fal�.w
Petitioner insists on exemption of the Alangilan
landholding from CARP coverage.It
argues that the subject landholding had already been converted into
non-agricultural use long before the advent of the CARP.The passage of the 1982 Ordinance,
classifying the property as reserved for
residential, it asserts, effectively transformed the land into
non-agricultural use, and thus, outside the ambit of the CARL.It cites Natalia,
wherein it was ruled that lands intended for residential use are outside the
coverage of the CARL.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Indeed, lands devoted to
non-agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL.These include lands previously converted into
non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL on June 15, 1988.Unfortunately, petitioner failed to convince
us that the Alangilan landholding ceased to be agricultural at the time of the
effectivity of the CARL.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
It is beyond cavil that
the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural,
reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as residential-1 in 1994.However, contrary to petitioners assertion, the term reserved for residential does not change
the nature of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural.As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the
term reserved for residential simply
reflects the intended land use.It does
not denote that the property has already been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is not a land
classification category.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the
CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still agricultural.This was
bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the
landholding as residential-1.If, indeed, the landholding had already been
earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would
have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Petitioner cannot take refuge in our ruling in Natalia.The case is not on all fours with the instant case.In Natalia,
the entire property was converted into residential use in 1979 and was
developed into a low-cost housing subdivision in 1982. Thus, the property was
no longer devoted to agricultural use at the time of the effectivity of the
CARL.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
In this case, however, petitioner failed to establish
that the subject landholding had already been converted into residential use
prior to June 15, 1988.We also note
that the subject landholding was still being utilized for agricultural
activities at the time of the filing of the application for exemption.The ocular inspection, jointly conducted by
the MARO, PARO and RARO, disclosed that the landholding was planted with
mangoes and coconuts.c�fa15c�fac�fal�.w
In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Oroville Development Corporation,c�fa16c�fac�fal�.w we
held:
i]n order to be exempt from CARP coverage, the subject property must
have been classified as industrial/residential before June 15, 1988. In this
case, the DAR's examination of the zoning ordinances and certifications
pertaining to the subject property, as well as its field investigation,
disclosed that the same remains to be agricultural. The Zoning Certifications
to the effect that the land is within the city's potential growth area for
urban expansion are inconsequential as they do not reflect the present
classification of the land but merely its intended land use.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Not having been converted into, or classified as, residential before June 15, 1988, the
Alangilan landholding is, therefore, covered by the CARP.The subsequent reclassification of the landholding
as residential-1 in 1994 cannot place
the property outside the ambit of the CARP, because there is no showing that
the DAR Secretary approved the reclassification.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
In a last-ditch effort to secure a favorable decision,
petitioner assails the authority of the DAR Secretary to determine the
classification of lands.It asserts that
the power to classify lands is essentially a legislative function that
exclusively lies with the legislative authorities, and thus, when the Sangguniang Bayan of Batangas City
declared the Alangilan landholding as residential in its 1994 Ordinance, its
determination was conclusive and cannot be overruled by the DAR Secretary.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The argument is specious.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
The exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify
landholdings for coverage under the CARP is reposed in the DAR Secretary. The
matter of CARP coverage, like the instant case for application for exemption,
is strictly part of the administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter
well within the competence of the DAR Secretary.c�fa17c�fac�fal�.wAs we explained in Leonardo Tarona, et al. v. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division), et al.:c�fa18c�fac�fal�.w
The power to determine whether a property is subject to CARP coverage
lies with the DAR Secretary pursuant to Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657. Verily, it
is explicitly provided under Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB Revised Rules that
matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP and
other agrarian laws and regulations, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Finally, it is well settled that factual findings of
administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by
this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.The factual findings of the DAR Secretary,
who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific
matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable
reason, ought not to be altered, modified, or reversed.c�fa19c�fac�fal�.wIn this case, petitioner utterly failed to
show justifiable reason to warrant the reversal of the decision of the DAR
Secretary, as affirmed by the OP and the CA.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED.The assailed
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 76525 are AFFIRMED.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
Costs against petitioner.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
SO
ORDERED.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CORONA, J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR., PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ.
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13,
Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice
Search for www.chanrobles.com
