Case Digest (G.R. No. 200491)
Facts:
Kasamaka-Canlubang, Inc. v. Laguna Estate Development Corporation, G.R. No. 200491, June 09, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns ten parcels totalling approximately 216.7394 hectares in Laguna whose classification and exemption from agrarian reform coverage were contested. Laguna Estate Development Corporation (LEDC) sought conversion of the parcels from agricultural to residential use under Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 815; Minister Conrado F. Estrella granted the conversion on June 4, 1979, subject to conditions including commencement of development within two years. In 2004, Kasamaka-Canlubang, Inc. (petitioner) sought revocation of that conversion before the then-Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), alleging LEDC failed to develop the lands.
On September 25, 2006, DAR Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman partially revoked the conversion as to eight of the ten parcels (aggregate area 66.7394 hectares); two parcels had earlier been excluded by a 1992 DAR Exemption Order. Respondent moved for reconsideration, arguing the eight parcels were already reclassified as non-agricultural by municipal zoning ordinances. A DAR ocular inspection on June 10, 2008 found that two of the eight parcels remained undeveloped while six had development; nonetheless, the DAR Secretary’s August 8, 2008 order affirmed his prior partial revocation except for one lot, effectively revoking conversion over seven parcels contrary to the ocular findings.
LEDC appealed to the Office of the President (OP). By Decision dated March 23, 2009, the OP granted the appeal, declared seven parcels exempt from coverage under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, CARL), and reinstated the 1979 conversion order; the OP denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the OP’s decision; on June 27, 2011 the CA dismissed petitioner’s petition for lack of merit, and it denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated January 31, 2012.
Petitioner brought the present challenge to the Supreme Court by a verified petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, raising two issues: (1) whether the CA erred in ruling that undeveloped areas of the converted holdings could no longer be considered agricultural land; and (2) whether the conversion order and municipal zoning ordinances reclassifying the lands befo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err as a matter of law in ruling that the undeveloped areas of the lands subject to the Estrella conversion order could no longer be considered agricultural lands?
- Did the Court of Appeals err as a matter of law in holding that the Estrella conversion order and municipal zoning ordinances issued before the effectivity of RA 6657 ipso facto reclassified the lands and thereby altered the nature of the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)