Case Summary (G.R. No. 103302)
Key Places and Property Details
Properties: three contiguous parcels in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal (total 125.0078 hectares; TCT No. 31527). These parcels lie within the Lungsod Silangan townsite reservation established by Presidential Proclamation No. 1637, which set aside 20,312 hectares in Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban for townsite purposes.
Key Dates and Administrative Actions
Relevant dates and administrative actions: Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 — 18 April 1979; development permits and approvals for the Antipolo Hills Subdivision granted in phases (Phase I in 1982; Phase II on 13 Oct 1983; Phase III on 25 Apr 1986) by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (and predecessor agencies) with findings of conformance to P.D. 957 implementing rules; R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) effectivity — 15 June 1988; DAR Notice of Coverage — 22 November 1990 (covering approx. 90.3307 hectares of undeveloped portions); SAMBA complaint filed 17 January 1991; DAR Regional Adjudicator issued a writ of preliminary injunction on 5 March 1991; DARAB remanded on 16 December 1991.
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution is the governing constitution (decision date post‑1990). Statutory and regulatory sources: R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, CARL), P.D. No. 957 (Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Protective Decree) and its implementing standards and rules, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 (townsite reservation), HLURB and predecessor agencies’ authority, and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990 (revised rules governing conversion). Relevant statutory definitions include Section 3(c) and Section 4 of R.A. 6657 (defining “agricultural land” and the scope of CARL coverage).
Factual Background and Permits Issued
Natalia/EDIC obtained preliminary approvals, locational clearances and development permits for the Antipolo Hills Subdivision from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (and its predecessors). Each permit expressly stated that the applications were in “conformance,” “conformity,” or “conforming” with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957. The properties were included within the Lungsod Silangan townsite reservation where private owners were permitted to develop low‑cost housing subdivisions.
Procedural Posture Leading to This Petition
After CARL took effect, DAR issued a Notice of Coverage (22 Nov 1990) placing the undeveloped portions of the subdivision under CARL. Petitioners objected administratively (protests to DAR officials) and contested the notice before DAR adjudicatory bodies; meanwhile SAMBA filed a separate complaint before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain development. The DAR adjudicatory process produced a preliminary injunction against petitioners and a DARAB remand, and petitioners claimed administrative inaction on their protest letters, prompting the present petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.
Issues Presented
The pivotal legal question: Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use as approved by HLURB and predecessor agencies prior to 15 June 1988 covered by CARL? Sub-questions: (a) Did petitioners validly effect conversion of the lands to non‑agricultural/residential use prior to CARL? (b) If conversion occurred prior to CARL, could DAR validly include the undeveloped portions in CARL coverage? (c) Were petitioners required to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to certiorari?
Petitioners’ Core Contentions
Petitioners contended that the properties were converted to residential use by virtue of Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 and by subsequent approvals and development permits from the appropriate housing/land‑use authorities; therefore the parcels ceased to be “agricultural lands” before CARL’s effectivity and are outside CARL’s coverage. They argued DAR’s Notice of Coverage constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents’ Core Contentions
Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued the permits were not valid and binding because petitioners had not obtained DAR approval for conversion of agricultural lands to non‑agricultural uses in compliance with P.D. 957 implementing rules — i.e., there was allegedly no valid conversion. Respondents also argued the petition was premature because the DAR adjudicatory proceedings (SAMBA’s case) were pending and petitioners had not exhausted administrative remedies.
Court’s Analysis on Validity of Permits and Conversion
The Court examined the wording of the preliminary approvals and development permits and found they expressly indicated conformity with the implementing Standards and Rules of P.D. 957. Petitioners had secured favorable recommendations from the Lungsod Silangan Development Corporation (the agency overseeing the townsite reservation) before applying for HLURB approvals. Given these facts, the Court concluded petitioners had complied with relevant legal requirements and that their permits were valid. The Court further observed that Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 functionally converted the specified lands for townsite (residential) purposes prior to CARL’s effectivity; where a specific (special) law or instrument converts or classifies land for non‑agricultural use prior to CARL, that conversion controls.
Application of CARL’s Definitions and Scope
The Court relied on R.A. 6657’s definition of “agricultural land” (Section 3(c)) and the statutory statement that CARL “shall cover ... all public and private agricultural lands” (Section 4). The term “agricultural lands” excludes lands classified as residential, commercial or industrial. The Court held that the undeveloped lots in the Antipolo Hills Subdivision were intended for residential use and had ceased to be agricultural upon their approval and inclusion within the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. The Court applied the principle that a special law (or specific conversion/classification) prevails over a general law, and noted DAR’s own Revised Rules (DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990) which define agricultural land to exclude
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 103302)
Court and Citation
- Decision reported at 296-A Phil. 271, EN BANC, G.R. No. 103302, dated August 12, 1993.
- Decision authored by Justice Bellosillo.
Central Question Presented
- Whether lands already classified for residential, commercial, or industrial use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its precursor agencies prior to 15 June 1988, are covered by R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, CARL).
- Whether the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) gravely abused its discretion in issuing a Notice of Coverage dated 22 November 1990 over undeveloped portions of a subdivision that had been previously reserved and approved for residential development.
Parties and Properties Involved
- Petitioners: Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA) and Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC) (developer).
- Respondents: Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Secretary Benjamin T. Leong, and Director Wilfredo Leano, DAR-Region IV.
- Affected land: three contiguous parcels in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31527, totaling 125.0078 hectares (parcels of 120.9793 ha, 1.3205 ha, and 2.7080 ha).
- The properties were included in the Lungsod Silangan Townsite reservation created by Presidential Proclamation No. 1637.
Relevant Chronology of Administrative Actions and Development Approvals
- 18 April 1979: Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares in Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite reservation.
- Petitioners secured favorable recommendations from the Lungsod Silangan Development Corporation before applying to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (predecessor to HLURB).
- Preliminary approvals / locational clearances and development permits for Antipolo Hills Subdivision phases:
- Phase I (13.2371 ha): permit issued sometime in 1982.
- Phase II (80.0000 ha): permit issued on 13 October 1983.
- Phase III (31.7707 ha): permit issued on 25 April 1986.
- All permits contained language stating the applications were in "conformance," "conformity," or "conforming" with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree).
- 15 June 1988: R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) took effect.
- 22 November 1990: DAR, through its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued a Notice of Coverage over the undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision (approximately 90.3307 hectares).
- 17 January 1991: Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA) filed a complaint before the DAR Regional Adjudicator seeking to restrain development over areas alleged under their cultivation.
- The Regional Adjudicator temporarily restrained petitioners and later issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on 5 March 1991.
- Petitioners moved to dismiss the SAMBA complaint — the motion was denied.
- DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) on 16 December 1991 remanded the SAMBA case to the Regional Adjudicator for further proceedings.
- Petitioners filed protests and letters to respondent Secretary and Director requesting cancellation of the Notice of Coverage; no administrative action was taken, prompting the present certiorari petition.
Petitioners’ Contentions
- The challenged Notice of Coverage is a grave abuse of discretion by DAR because the lands were no longer agricultural when included in the Lungsod Silangan townsite reservation.
- The properties had been validly converted for residential use prior to the effectivity of CARL and petitioners complied with all legal requirements and regulations for subdivision development under P.D. 957.
- Petitioners received favorable recommendations from the townsite development agency and obtained preliminary approvals, locational clearances, and development permits which expressly stated conformity with P.D. 957 requirements.
- There was no need to secure a separate clearance or prior approval from DAR because conversion effectively occurred by virtue of the townsite reservation and subsequent compliance with regulatory requirements.
- Petitioners challenged the inclusion of undeveloped portions under CARL coverage and asserted entitlement to judicial relief after administrative inaction.
Respondents’ (Public Respondents / OSG) Contentions
- The permits granted to petitioners were invalid and non-binding because petitioners did not comply with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957 insofar as no application for conversion of the NATALIA lands from agricultural to residential was ever filed with DAR; therefore, there was no valid conversion.
- The petition was prematurely filed because the SAMBA case before the DAR Regional Adjudicator remained unresolved; petitioners therefore failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
- DAR retained jurisdiction over the lands until proper conversion procedures under DAR rules were complied with.