G.R. No. 232863 - Government Service Insurance System vs. Datoy

In February 1996, the Metro Davao Agri-Hotel Corporation obtained a commercial loan of P20 million from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
The loan was secured by a mortgage over two parcels of land:

The first parcel, a commercial property, was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-234689.
The second parcel, an agricultural land, was covered by TCT No. T-54074.

The Metro Davao Agri-Hotel Corporation failed to meet its loan obligations, prompting the GSIS to foreclose both properties.
After the statutory redemption period lapsed, ownership of both properties, including the agricultural land in question, consolidated in favor of the GSIS.

On August 10, 2004, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Romerico Datoy issued a Notice of Coverage covering the agricultural land (TCT No. T-54074).
Shortly thereafter, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) offered to pay the GSIS P2,343,370.24 for the said property.
The GSIS protested this coverage by sending a letter to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office and subsequently filed a petition before the DAR Regional Director on May 12, 2006, seeking the exclusion of the property from compulsory agrarian reform coverage.

Regional Director Rodolfo T. Inson of DAR Regional Office XI denied the GSIS’s petition in his October 16, 2006 Order and his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration in the December 21, 2006 Order.
The GSIS’s appeal was further denied by Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman in the November 17, 2008 Order, and his subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the June 16, 2009 Resolution.
The GSIS elevated its case to the Office of the President, which also denied relief in the September 27, 2013 Decision and the March 18, 2014 Resolution.
The GSIS then sought review before the Court of Appeals, which sustained the aforementioned orders and resolutions in the October 13, 2016 Decision and the July 19, 2017 Resolution.

The central issue arose as the GSIS insisted that, pursuant to Section 39 of Republic Act (RA) No. 8291, its properties—including the foreclosed agricultural land (TCT No. T-54074)—are exempt from agrarian reform coverage.
The petitioner argued that this exemption is essential to preserve the actuarial solvency of its funds, as mandated by its founding statute.

Whether the agricultural land foreclosed by the GSIS and covered by TCT No. T-54074 may be excluded from compulsory agrarian reform coverage.

Does Section 39 of RA No. 8291, which emphasizes the preservation and maintenance of GSIS’s funds, provide an exemption from the agrarian reform law?

Whether lands foreclosed by government financial institutions fall under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

How does Section 7 of the CARL, which explicitly includes lands foreclosed by government financial institutions, interact with the purported exemption of GSIS properties?

How do decisions in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform and Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, Cebu City v. Department of Agrarian Reform, which underscore an exclusive list of exemptions, guide the interpretation of the exemption claim?