Title
Source: Supreme Court
Alangilan Realty and Development Corporation vs. Office of the President
Case
G.R. No. 180471
Decision Date
Mar 26, 2010
Alangilan Realty sought CARP exemption for land classified as "reserved for residential," but courts ruled it remained agricultural under CARL, affirming DAR's authority to determine coverage.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 180471)

Facts of the Case

Alangilan Realty & Development Corporation sought exemption for its 17.4892-hectare landholding located in Barangays Alangilan and Patay, Batangas City, from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The petitioner based its application on a zoning classification that designated the land as reserved for residential use in 1982 and subsequently reclassified it as residential-1 in 1994. However, the Department of Agrarian Reform noted that the land remained classified as agricultural when the CARP became effective on June 15, 1988.

Proceedings Before the DAR

On May 6, 1997, then DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao denied petitioner's application for exemption, stating that the landholdings remained agricultural despite the local reclassification. The secretary's decision emphasized that "reserved for residential" does not equate to actual conversion to residential status, which requires a specific classification. The petitioner’s subsequent motions for reconsideration were also rejected, leading to an appeal to the Office of the President, which upheld the DAR’s findings.

Appeal to the Court of Appeals

Petitioner further appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on August 28, 2007. The CA found that the Alangilan landholding was still engaged in agricultural activities both before and after the CARP's implementation and noted the absence of a conversion clearance, which was a prerequisite for declaring the land as residential.

Petitioner’s Arguments

In its appeal, the petitioner contended that the land was already converted to non-agricultural use prior to the establishment of CARP, arguing that the 1982 zoning ordinance supported this claim. The petitioner also referenced the ruling in Natalia Realty, where lands converted to residential use were determined to be outside CARP coverage. The petitioner maintained that the reclassification to residential-1 in 1994 should exempt the land from CARP.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court ultimately concurred with the lower courts, holding that the Alangilan landholding was not exempt from CARP coverage. It reaffirmed the DAR Secretary’s interpretation that “reserved for residential” was a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.