Title
Farmer-Beneficiaries Belonging to the Samahang Magbubukid ng Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal vs. Heirs of Maronilla
Case
G.R. No. 229983
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2019
Juliana Maronilla's heirs sought CARP exemption for land reclassified as residential/institutional; SC partially granted, upheld DAR jurisdiction, and required disturbance compensation for tenants.
exemptions
cancellation of land titles
reclassification of agricultural lands

Case Summary (G.R. No. 229983)

Factual Background

Juliana Maronilla was the registered owner of a substantial tract of land totaling 723.9428 has., evidenced by the aforementioned TCTs. After implementation of PD 27, portions covered by certain TCTs were placed under the government’s Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program, leading to Certificates of Land Transfer in favor of petitioners and other farmer-beneficiaries (FBs). Subsequently, on January 14, 1986, the President issued a memorandum directing the issuance of emancipation patents (EPs) to OLT FBs. The DAR issued EPs over the subject lands, and EP titles were registered with the Register of Deeds of Rizal between October 24, 1988 and February 22, 1994, partially cancelling Juliana’s titles.

On March 13, 1989, Juliana voluntarily offered the subject lands to the DAR under CARP. The DAR acquired the remaining portions undistributed under PD 27 and issued certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs) in favor of FBs, with CLOA titles issued between December 15, 1993 and October 27, 1995, also partially cancelling Juliana’s titles. Juliana died in March 1996.

In November 1996, Juliana’s heirs (respondents) applied for retention of a 60-hectare portion of lands covered by TCT Nos. 164419 and 164420 in Brgy. Casinsin, Pakil, Laguna. The application was granted in an order dated December 12, 1997, later reduced to 52 has. in a subsequent order dated August 15, 2008. Petitioners’ appeal to the Office of the President was still pending when the present petition was filed.

Meanwhile, respondents filed an Application for Exemption Clearance from CARP Coverage over a 476.5006-hectare portion of the subject lands. The application invoked DOJ Opinion No. 44 (Series of 1990) and its implementing rules under DAR AO No. 6 (Series of 1994), claiming the lands were classified as mineral, forest, residential, institutional, commercial, or agro-industrial as early as July 11, 1981, based on a municipal Land Use Plan (LUP) and a zoning ordinance approved on December 2, 1981 by the HSRC, predecessor of the HLURB. Respondents also submitted a certification from the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) stating that the covered lands were not irrigated by specified NIA irrigation systems or projects.

The DAR conducted an ocular inspection and documented, per TCT lot, the declared zoning classification and the observed use, which included forest conservation, agro-industrial, riceland, and residential/institutional areas.

Intervention and the Exemption Committee’s Recommendation

Petitioners intervened in the exemption case. They contended that the zoning ordinance did not truly divest the lands of their agricultural character, considering both their actual use and their nature. They also argued that even if zoning had reclassified the lands to non-agricultural uses, the exemption should not affect coverage under the OLT program because the lands were devoted to rice and corn since October 21, 1972.

The DAR Exemption Committee recommended exemption of a 447.4025-hectare portion from CARP coverage based on HSRC Resolution No. 36 (Series of 1981) and further recommended cancellation of EPs over certain parcels found to be forest/forest conservation and within slopes of the mountain, hence outside PD 27. However, it recommended denial of exemption for 29.0981 hectares of riceland already covered by EPs, as they were found to fall within EP-covered rice lands.

The Exemption Committee’s tabulation reflected which TCT portions were recommended for exemption and which were not, summing to 476.5006 has. applied and resulting in the DAR Secretary’s ultimate grant of exemption for 447.4025 has. while denying the remaining portion.

DAR Secretary’s Ruling

On August 29, 2008, the DAR Secretary issued DARCO Order No. EX-0808-372, Series of 2008, adopting the committee’s recommendations. The DAR Secretary granted exemption of 447.4025 has. from CARP coverage, but required disturbance compensation to affected tenants within sixty (60) days from notice of the order. The DAR Secretary denied exemption over the remaining 29.0981 has. that were ricelands already covered by EPs.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied in DARCO Order No. EX(MR)-0904-107, Series of 2009 dated April 1, 2009. Petitioners then sought judicial review before the CA.

Issues Raised Before the Court of Appeals

Before the CA, petitioners challenged the exemption order principally on two fronts: first, they disputed respondents’ propriety to apply for CARP exemption after Juliana had voluntarily offered the lands for CARP; second, they questioned the DAR Secretary’s jurisdiction to nullify petitioners’ EP and CLOA titles, arguing that such correction or cancellation belonged to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its decision dated February 20, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 108543, the CA affirmed the DAR Secretary. It held that the DAR Secretary had jurisdiction, under existing DAR implementing rules, to nullify EP and CLOA titles in the exempted portions. The CA also sustained the DAR Secretary’s conclusion that the exempted lands were outside CARP coverage because they had been classified as agro-industrial, residential, institutional, or forest/forest conservation.

The Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

On review, the petitioners assigned as the essential errors whether the CA erred: (1) in upholding the DAR Secretary’s jurisdiction both over the exemption application and over the nullification of EP and CLOA titles covering exempt portions; and (2) in excluding the subject portions from CARP coverage.

Petitioners reiterated that the DAR Secretary lacked authority to cancel registered EP and CLOA titles and maintained that the lands remained agricultural in character and should remain within CARP coverage.

Respondents defended the exemption by emphasizing the HSRC/HLURB-approved LUP and zoning classifications adopted in the relevant period, and asserted that DOJ Opinion No. 44 (Series of 1990) and DAR AO No. 6 (Series of 1994) supported exemption clearance based on the pre–June 15, 1988 zoning and classification.

Jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary Over Exemption Applications

The Court held that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. It ruled that the determination whether land is agricultural or non-agricultural, and whether it is thus excluded from agrarian reform coverage, must be preliminarily resolved by the DAR, particularly the DAR Secretary. The Court characterized exclusion or exemption determinations as agrarian law implementation cases within DAR’s competence.

The Court further held that DAR AO No. 6 (Series of 1994) vested in the DAR Secretary authority to grant or deny exemption clearances based on Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, and DOJ Opinion No. 44 (Series of 1990). Section 3(c) of RA 6657 defines agricultural land as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. DOJ Opinion No. 44 (Series of 1990) recognized that lands classified as commercial, industrial, or residential prior to June 15, 1988 no longer require DAR conversion clearance to be exempt from CARP; however, the Court stressed that an exemption clearance remains necessary to confirm or declare the exempt status.

Accordingly, the Court found no error in the CA’s recognition of DAR Secretary’s jurisdiction over the exemption clearance application.

Jurisdiction Over Cancellation of EPs and CLOAs

The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that DARAB had exclusive authority to cancel or correct EPs and CLOAs. It reasoned that the fact that respondents sought cancellation of EPs and CLOAs did not automatically transform the exemption application into a DARAB case. For DARAB adjudicators to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowners and tenants regarding tenurial arrangements. The Court found that such an agrarian dispute was not present because the cancellation proposed flowed from the administrative determination that the lands were not covered by CARP in the first place.

Nevertheless, the Court clarified that a separate proceeding should still be filed before the DAR for cancellation of the individual FB titles. It held that the DAR Secretary’s resolution in the exemption case was limited to whether portions were excluded from CARP coverage, and it did not determine individual FB rights or declare cancellation of specific TCTs. Thus, the matter of title cancellation required proper proceedings that must include indispensable parties, namely the agrarian reform beneficiaries or their heirs.

Doctrinal Framework on Land Classification and Exemption

The Court then addressed the substantive rules on which land classifications may take a land outside agrarian reform coverage. It reiterated that PD 27 and RA 6657 cover different categories of agricultural lands: PD 27 primarily covered private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn; RA 6657 covered all public and private agricultural lands as provided under Proclamation No. 131 and EO 229, including other public lands suitable for agriculture regardless of tenurial arrangements and commodity produced.

The Court held that lands not devoted to agricultural activity, including lands previously converted or reclassified to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 by government agencies other than the DAR, are outside CARP coverage, subject to the qualification that such conversion or reclassification must not divest FBs of vested rights over lands covered by PD 27 that had vested prior to June 15, 1988.

In tracing the classification framework, the Court distinguished primary classification from secondary classification. It explained that Article XII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides for primary classification of lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral land

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms