Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. !"#$% &une !

' ($ $

C)*M+ER OF RE*, EST*TE *ND +UI,DERS *SSOCI*TIONS' INC. -CRE+*.' petitioner, vs. T)E SECRET*R/ OF *GR*RI*N REFORM' Respondent. DECISION PERE0' J.: This case is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction under Rule !" of the #$$% Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by herein petitioner Chamber of Real &state and 'uilders (ssociations, )nc. (CR&'( see*ing to nullify and prohibit the enforcement of +epartment of (grarian Reform (+(R (dministrative ,rder ((, -o. .#/.0, as amended by +(R (, -o. ."/.%, # and +(R 1emorandum -o. 22,0 for having been issued by the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction as some provisions of the aforesaid administrative issuances are illegal and unconstitutional. Petitioner CR&'(, a private non/stoc*, non/profit corporation duly organi5ed and e4isting under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, is the umbrella organi5ation of some 6,".. private corporations, partnerships, single proprietorships and individuals directly or indirectly involved in land and housing development, building and infrastructure construction, materials production and supply, and services in the various related fields of engineering, architecture, community planning and development financing. The 3ecretary of (grarian Reform is named respondent as he is the duly appointive head of the +(R whose administrative issuances are the subject of this petition. The *ntece1ent Facts The 3ecretary of (grarian Reform issued, on 0$ ,ctober #$$%, +(R (, -o. .%/$%, 6 entitled 7,mnibus Rules and Procedures 8overning Conversion of (gricultural 9ands to -on/(gricultural :ses,7 which consolidated all e4isting implementing guidelines related to land use conversion. The aforesaid rules embraced all private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, and all untitled agricultural lands and agricultural lands reclassified by 9ocal 8overnment :nits (98:s into non/agricultural uses after #" ;une #$22. 3ubse<uently, on 6. 1arch #$$$, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform issued +(R (, -o. .#/$$, = entitled 7Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of (gricultural 9ands to -on/agricultural :ses,7 amending and updating the previous rules on land use conversion. )ts coverage includes the following agricultural lands, to wit> (# those to be converted to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other non/agricultural purposes? (0 those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity such as livestoc*, poultry, and fishpond @ the effect of which is to e4empt the land from the Comprehensive (grarian Reform Program (C(RP coverage? (6 those to be converted to non/agricultural use other than that previously authori5ed? and (= those reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non/agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of Republic (ct -o. !!"%" on #" ;une #$22 pursuant to 3ection 0.! of Republic (ct -o. %#!.% and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such uses. ,n 02 Aebruary 0..0, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform issued another (dministrative ,rder, i.e., +(R (, -o. .#/.0, entitled 70..0 Comprehensive Rules on 9and :se Conversion,7 which further amended +(R (, -o. .%/$% and +(R (, -o. .#/$$, and repealed all issuances inconsistent therewith. The aforesaid +(R (, -o. .#/.0 covers all applications for conversion from agricultural to non/agricultural uses or to another agricultural use. Thereafter, on 0 (ugust 0..%, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform amended certain provisions 2 of +(R (, -o. .#/.0 by formulating +(R (, -o. ."/.%, particularly addressing land conversion in time of e4igencies and calamities. To address the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real estate development, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform further issued 1emorandum -o. 22 on #" (pril 0..2, which temporarily suspended the processing and approval of all land use conversion applications.

'y reason thereof, petitioner claims that there is an actual slow down of housing projects, which, in turn, aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment and illegal s<uatting problems to the substantial prejudice not only of the petitioner and its members but more so of the whole nation. Bence, this petition. The Issues )n its 1emorandum, petitioner posits the following issues> ). CB&TB&R TB& +(R 3&CR&T(RD B(3 ;:R)3+)CT),- ,E&R 9(-+3 TB(T B(E& '&&- R&C9(33)A)&+ (3 R&3)+&-T)(9, C,11&RC)(9, )-+:3TR)(9, ,R A,R ,TB&R -,-/(8R)C:9T:R(9 :3&3. )). CB&TB&R TB& +(R 3&CR&T(RD (CT&+ )- &FC&33 ,A B)3 ;:R)3+)CT),- (-+ 8R(E&9D (':3&+ B)3 +)3CR&T),- 'D )33:)-8 (-+ &-A,RC)-8 G+(R (, -,. .#/.0, (3 (1&-+&+H CB)CB 3&&I T, R&8:9(T& R&C9(33)A)&+ 9(-+3. ))). CB&TB&R G+(R (, -,. .#/.0, (3 (1&-+&+H E),9(T&G3H TB& 9,C(9 (:T,-,1D ,A 9,C(9 8,E&R-1&-T :-)T3. )E. CB&TB&R G+(R (, -,. .#/.0, (3 (1&-+&+H E),9(T&G3H TB& +:& PR,C&33 (-+ &J:(9 PR,T&CT),C9(:3&G3H ,A TB& C,-3T)T:T),-. E. CB&TB&R 1&1,R(-+:1 -,. 22 )3 ( E(9)+ &F&RC)3& ,A P,9)C& P,C&R. $ The subject of the submission that the +(R 3ecretary gravely abused his discretion is (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, which states> 3ection 6. Applicability of Rules. K These guidelines shall apply to all applications for conversion, from agricultural to non/ agricultural uses or to another agricultural use, such as> 4444 6.= Conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the 98: or by way of a Presidential Proclamation, to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non/agricultural uses on o2 afte2 the effecti3it4 of R* 5567 on 6 &une %!!, 4 4 4. G&mphasis suppliedH. Petitioner holds that under Republic (ct -o. !!"% and Republic (ct -o. 2=6", #. the term agricultural lands refers to 7lands devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestoc*, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by a person whether natural or juridical, and not classified by the law as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.7 Chen the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform, however, issued +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, he included in the definition of agricultural lands 7lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses before #" ;une #$22.7 )n effect, lands reclassified from agricultural to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non/agricultural uses after #" ;une #$22 are considered to be agricultural lands for purposes of conversion, redistribution, or otherwise. )n so doing, petitioner avows that the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform acted without jurisdiction as he has no authority to e4pand or enlarge the legal signification of the term agricultural lands through +(R (,

-o. .#/.0. 'eing a mere administrative issuance, it must conform to the statute it see*s to implement, i.e., Republic (ct -o. !!"%, or to the Constitution, otherwise, its validity or constitutionality may be <uestioned. )n the same breath, petitioner contends that +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, was made in violation of 3ection !" ## of Republic (ct -o. !!"% because it covers all applications for conversion from agricultural to non/agricultural uses or to other agricultural uses, such as the conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the 98:s or by way of Presidential Proclamations, to residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses on or after #" ;une #$22. (ccording to petitioner, there is nothing in 3ection !" of Republic (ct -o. !!"% or in any other provision of law that confers to the +(R the jurisdiction or authority to re<uire that non/awarded lands or reclassified lands be submitted to its conversion authority. Thus, in issuing and enforcing +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction. Petitioner further asseverates that 3ection 0.#$, #0 (rticle ) of +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, ma*ing reclassification of agricultural lands subject to the re<uirements and procedure for land use conversion, violates 3ection 0. of Republic (ct -o. %#!., because it was not provided therein that reclassification by 98:s shall be subject to conversion procedures or re<uirements, or that the +(RLs approval or clearance must be secured to effect reclassification. The said 3ection 0.#$ of +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, also contravenes the constitutional mandate on local autonomy under 3ection 0", #6 (rticle )) and 3ection 0,#= (rticle F of the #$2% Philippine Constitution. Petitioner similarly avers that the promulgation and enforcement of +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, constitute deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law. There is deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law because under +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, lands that are not within +(RLs jurisdiction are unjustly, arbitrarily and oppressively prohibited or restricted from legitimate use on pain of administrative and criminal penalties. 1ore so, there is discrimination and violation of the e<ual protection clause of the Constitution because the aforesaid administrative order is patently biased in favor of the peasantry at the e4pense of all other sectors of society. (s its final argument, petitioner avows that +(R 1emorandum -o. 22 is not a valid e4ercise of police power for it is the prerogative of the legislature and that it is unconstitutional because it suspended the land use conversion without any basis. The Cou2t8s Rulin9 This petition must be dismissed. Primarily, although this Court, the Court of (ppeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, <uo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. #" )n Heirs of Bertuldo Binog v. 1elicor,#! citing People v. Cuaresma,#% this Court made the following pronouncements> This CourtMs original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not e4clusive. )t is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of (ppeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be ta*en as according to parties see*ing any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the e4traordinary writs. ( becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of e4traordinary writs against first level (7inferior7 courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of (ppeals. ( direct invocation of the 3upreme CourtLs original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is GanH established policy. )t is a policy necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the CourtLs time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its e4clusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over/crowding of the CourtLs doc*et. #2 (&mphasis supplied. The rationale for this rule is two/fold> (a it would be an imposition upon the precious time of this Court? and (b it would cause an inevitable and resultant delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better e<uipped to resolve the issues because this Court is not a trier of facts. #$ This Court thus reaffirms the judicial policy that it will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts, and e4ceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment of the e4traordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the e4ercise of its primary jurisdiction.0.

&4ceptional and compelling circumstances were held present in the following cases> (a Chave5 v. Romulo, 0# on citi5ensL right to bear arms? (b 8overnment of GtheH :nited 3tates of (merica v. Bon. Purganan, 00 on bail in e4tradition proceedings? (c Commission on Elections v. Judge Quijano !adilla"06 on government contract involving moderni5ation and computeri5ation of votersL registration list? (d 'u*lod ng Iawaning &))' v. Bon. 3ec. Namora, 0= on status and e4istence of a public office? and (e Bon. Aortich v. Bon. Corona,0" on the so/called 7Cin/Cin Resolution7 of the ,ffice of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro/industrial area. 0! )n the case at bench, petitioner failed to specifically and sufficiently set forth special and important reasons to justify direct recourse to this Court and why this Court should give due course to this petition in the first instance, hereby failing to fulfill the conditions set forth in Heirs of Bertuldo Binog v. 1elicor.0% The present petition should have been initially filed in the Court of (ppeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. Aailure to do so is sufficient cause for the dismissal of this petition. 1oreover, although the instant petition is styled as a Petition for Certiorari, in essence, it see*s the declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the <uestioned +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, and 1emorandum -o. 22. )t, thus, parta*es of the nature of a Petition for +eclaratory Relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction. 02 3ection ", (rticle E))) of the #$2% Philippine Constitution provides> 3ec. ". The 3upreme Court shall have the following powers> (# &4ercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, <uo warranto, and habeas corpus. (0 Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in> (a (ll cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or e4ecutive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in <uestion. (&mphasis supplied. Cith that, this Petition must necessarily fail because this Court does not have original jurisdiction over a Petition for +eclaratory Relief even if only <uestions of law are involved. &ven if the petitioner has properly observed the doctrine of judicial hierarchy, this Petition is still dismissible. The special civil action for certiorari is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction. )ts principal office is only to *eep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction. 0$ The essential re<uisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule !" are> (# the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer e4ercising judicial or <uasi/judicial functions? (0 such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in e4cess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction? and (6 there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and ade<uate remedy in the ordinary course of law. 6. &4cess of jurisdiction as distinguished from absence of jurisdiction means that an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer, is not authori5ed and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authori5e the e4ercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting. 6# Cithout jurisdiction means lac* or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. )t means lac* of power to e4ercise authority. 60 8rave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical e4ercise of judgment as is e<uivalent to lac* of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is e4ercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 66 )n the case before this Court, the petitioner fails to meet the above/mentioned re<uisites for the proper invocation of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule !". The 3ecretary of (grarian Reform in issuing the assailed +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, as well as 1emorandum -o. 22 did so in accordance with his mandate to implement the land use conversion provisions of Republic (ct -o. !!"%. )n the process, he neither acted in any judicial or <uasi/judicial capacity nor assumed unto himself any performance of judicial or <uasi/judicial prerogative. ( Petition for Certiorari is a special civil action that may be invo*ed only against a tribunal, board, or officer e4ercising judicial functions. 3ection #, Rule !" of the #$$% Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is e4plicit on this matter, vi5.>

3&CT),- #. Petition for certiorari. K Chen any tribunal, board or officer e4ercising judicial or <uasi/judicial functions has acted without or in e4cess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and ade<uate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment must be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer. #avvphi# ( tribunal, board, or officer is said to be e4ercising judicial function where it has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then underta*es to determine these <uestions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Juasi/judicial function, on the other hand, is 7a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public administrative officers or bodies 4 4 4 re<uired to investigate facts or ascertain the e4istence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to e4ercise discretion of a judicial nature.7 6= 'efore a tribunal, board, or officer may e4ercise judicial or <uasi/judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. 6" The 3ecretary of (grarian Reform does not fall within the ambit of a tribunal, board, or officer e4ercising judicial or <uasi/ judicial functions. The issuance and enforcement by the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform of the <uestioned +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, and 1emorandum -o. 22 were done in the e4ercise of his <uasi/legislative and administrative functions and not of judicial or <uasi/judicial functions. )n issuing the aforesaid administrative issuances, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform never made any adjudication of rights of the parties. (s such, it can never be said that the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, and 1emorandum -o. 22 for he never e4ercised any judicial or <uasi/judicial functions but merely his <uasi/ legislative and administrative functions. Aurthermore, as this Court has previously discussed, the instant petition in essence see*s the declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the <uestioned +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, and 1emorandum -o. 22. Thus, the ade<uate and proper remedy for the petitioner therefor is to file a Petition for +eclaratory Relief, which this Court has only appellate and not original jurisdiction. )t is beyond the province of certiorari to declare the aforesaid administrative issuances unconstitutional and illegal because certiorari is confined only to the determination of the e4istence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction. Petitioner cannot simply allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction and then invo*e certiorari to declare the aforesaid administrative issuances unconstitutional and illegal. &mphasis must be given to the fact that the writ of certiorari dealt with in Rule !" of the #$$% Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, 7never issued e4cept in the e4ercise of judicial discretion.76! (t any rate, even if the Court will set aside procedural infirmities, the instant petition should still be dismissed. &4ecutive ,rder -o. #0$/(6% vested upon the +(R the responsibility of implementing the C(RP. Pursuant to the said mandate and to ensure the successful implementation of the C(RP, 3ection "(c of the said e4ecutive order authori5ed the +(R to establish and promulgate operational policies, rules and regulations and priorities for agrarian reform implementation. 3ection =(* thereof authori5ed the +(R to approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non/agricultural uses. 3imilarly, 3ection "(l of the same e4ecutive order has given the +(R the e4clusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law. 3ection % of the aforesaid e4ecutive order clearly provides that 7the authority and responsibility for the e4ercise of the mandate of the G+(RH and the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform 4 4 4.7 :nder +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, 7lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses before #" ;une #$227 have been included in the definition of agricultural lands. )n so doing, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform merely acted within the scope of his authority stated in the aforesaid sections of &4ecutive ,rder -o. #0$/(, which is to promulgate rules and regulations for agrarian reform implementation and that includes the authority to define agricultural lands for purposes of land use conversion. Aurther, the definition of agricultural lands under +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, merely refers to the category of agricultural lands that may be the subject for conversion to non/agricultural uses and is not in any way confined to agricultural lands in the conte4t of land redistribution as provided for under Republic (ct -o. !!"%. 1ore so, +epartment of ;ustice ,pinion -o. ==, 3eries of #$$., which ,pinion has been recogni5ed in many cases decided by this Court, clarified that after the effectivity of Republic (ct -o. !!"% on #" ;une #$22 the +(R has been given the authority

to approve land conversion.62 Concomitant to such authority, therefore, is the authority to include in the definition of agricultural lands 7lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses before #" ;une #$227 for purposes of land use conversion. )n the same vein, the authority of the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform to include 7lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses before #" ;une #$227 in the definition of agricultural lands finds basis in jurisprudence. )n Ros v. +epartment of (grarian Reform, 6$ this Court has enunciated that after the passage of Republic (ct -o. !!"%, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the +(R. Bowever, agricultural lands, which are already reclassified before the effectivity of Republic (ct -o. !!"% which is #" ;une #$22, are e4empted from conversion.=. )t bears stressing that the said date of effectivity of Republic (ct -o. !!"% served as the cut/off period for automatic reclassifications or re5oning of agricultural lands that no longer re<uire any +(R conversion clearance or authority. =# )t necessarily follows that any reclassification made thereafter can be the subject of +(RLs conversion authority. Baving recogni5ed the +(RLs conversion authority over lands reclassified after #" ;une #$22, it can no longer be argued that the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform was wrongfully given the authority and power to include 7lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses before #" ;une #$227 in the definition of agricultural lands. 3uch inclusion does not unduly e4pand or enlarge the definition of agricultural lands? instead, it made clear what are the lands that can be the subject of +(RLs conversion authority, thus, serving the very purpose of the land use conversion provisions of Republic (ct -o. !!"%. The argument of the petitioner that +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, was made in violation of 3ection !" of Republic (ct -o. !!"%, as it covers even those non/awarded lands and reclassified lands by the 98:s or by way of Presidential Proclamations on or after #" ;une #$22 is specious. (s e4plained in +epartment of ;ustice ,pinion -o. ==, series of #$$., it is true that the +(RLs e4press power over land use conversion provided for under 3ection !" of Republic (ct -o. !!"% is limited to cases in which agricultural lands already awarded have, after five years, ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbani5ed and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. To suggest, however, that these are the only instances that the +(R can re<uire conversion clearances would open a loophole in Republic (ct -o. !!"% which every landowner may use to evade compliance with the agrarian reform program. )t should logically follow, therefore, from the said departmentLs e4press duty and function to e4ecute and enforce the said statute that any reclassification of a private land as a residential, commercial or industrial property, on or after the effectivity of Republic (ct -o. !!"% on #" ;une #$22 should first be cleared by the +(R. =0 This Court held in (larcon v. Court of (ppeals=6 that reclassification of lands does not suffice. Conversion and reclassification differ from each other. Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the +(R while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utili5ed for non/agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the re<uirements and procedures for land use conversion. )n view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use. Be has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes.== )t is clear from the aforesaid distinction between reclassification and conversion that agricultural lands though reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses must still undergo the process of conversion before they can be used for the purpose to which they are intended. -evertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact that +(RLs conversion authority can only be e4ercised after the effectivity of Republic (ct -o. !!"% on #" ;une #$22.=" The said date served as the cut/off period for automatic reclassification or re5oning of agricultural lands that no longer re<uire any +(R conversion clearance or authority. =! Thereafter, reclassification of agricultural lands is already subject to +(RLs conversion authority. Reclassification alone will not suffice to use the agricultural lands for other purposes. Conversion is needed to change the current use of reclassified agricultural lands. )t is of no moment whether the reclassification of agricultural lands to residential, commercial, industrial or other non/ agricultural uses was done by the 98:s or by way of Presidential Proclamations because either way they must still undergo conversion process. )t bears stressing that the act of reclassifying agricultural lands to non/agricultural uses simply specifies how agricultural lands shall be utili5ed for non/agricultural uses and does not automatically convert agricultural lands to non/ agricultural uses or for other purposes. (s e4plained in +(R 1emorandum Circular -o. %, 3eries of #$$=, cited in the 0..$ case of Ro4as O Company, )nc. v. +(1'(/-A3C and the +epartment of (grarian Reform, =% reclassification of lands denotes their allocation into some specific use and providing for the manner of their utili5ation and disposition or the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utili5ed for non/agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan. Aor reclassified agricultural lands, therefore, to be used for the purpose to which they are intended there is still a need to change the current use thereof through the process of conversion. The authority to do so is vested in the +(R,

which is mandated to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity. Thus, notwithstanding the reclassification of agricultural lands to non/agricultural uses, they must still undergo conversion before they can be used for other purposes. &ven reclassification of agricultural lands by way of Presidential Proclamations to non/agricultural uses, such as school sites, needs conversion clearance from the +(R. Ce reiterate that reclassification is different from conversion. Reclassification alone will not suffice and does not automatically allow the landowner to change its use. )t must still undergo conversion process before the landowner can use such agricultural lands for such purpose. =2 Reclassification of agricultural lands is one thing, conversion is another. (gricultural lands that are reclassified to non/agricultural uses do not ipso facto allow the landowner thereof to use the same for such purpose. 3tated differently, despite having reclassified into school sites, the landowner of such reclassified agricultural lands must apply for conversion before the +(R in order to use the same for the said purpose. (ny reclassification, therefore, of agricultural lands to residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses either by the 98:s or by way of Presidential Proclamations enacted on or after #" ;une #$22 must undergo the process of conversion, despite having undergone reclassification, before agricultural lands may be used for other purposes. )t is different, however, when through Presidential Proclamations public agricultural lands have been reserved in whole or in part for public use or purpose, i.e., public school, etc., because in such a case, conversion is no longer necessary. (s held in Republic v. &stonilo,=$ only a positive act of the President is needed to segregate or reserve a piece of land of the public domain for a public purpose. (s such, reservation of public agricultural lands for public use or purpose in effect converted the same to such use without undergoing any conversion process and that they must be actually, directly and e4clusively used for such public purpose for which they have been reserved, otherwise, they will be segregated from the reservations and transferred to the +(R for distribution to <ualified beneficiaries under the C(RP. ". 1ore so, public agricultural lands already reserved for public use or purpose no longer form part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. "# Bence, they are outside the coverage of the C(RP and it logically follows that they are also beyond the conversion authority of the +(R. Clearly from the foregoing, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform did not act without jurisdiction or in e4cess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac* or e4cess of jurisdiction in (# including lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non/agricultural uses before #" ;une #$22 in the definition of agricultural lands under +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, and? (0 issuing and enforcing +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, subjecting to +(RLs jurisdiction for conversion lands which had already been reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or for other non/agricultural uses on or after #" ;une #$22. 3imilarly, +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, providing that the reclassification of agricultural lands by 98:s shall be subject to the re<uirements of land use conversion procedure or that +(RLs approval or clearance must be secured to effect reclassification, did not violate the autonomy of the 98:s. Section ($ of Republic *ct No. 7 5$ states that: 3&CT),- 0.. Reclassification of 9ands. K (a ( city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authori5e the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utili5ation or disposition in the following cases> (# when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the +epartment of (griculture or (0 where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned> Provided, That such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance> 4444 (6 Aor fourth to si4th class municipalities, five percent ("P > Provided, further, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic (ct -umbered 3i4ty/si4 hundred fifty/seven (R.(. -o. !!"% , otherwise *nown as 7The Comprehensive (grarian Reform 9aw,7 shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by 3ection !" of said (ct. 4444

(e -othing in this 3ection shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.(. -o. !!"%. The afore<uoted provisions of law show that the power of the 98:s to reclassify agricultural lands is not absolute. The authority of the +(R to approve conversion of agricultural lands covered by Republic (ct -o. !!"% to non/agricultural uses has been validly recogni5ed by said 3ection 0. of Republic (ct -o. %#!. by e4plicitly providing therein that, 7nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any manner the provisions of Republic (ct -o. !!"%.7 +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, does not also violate the due process clause, as well as the e<ual protection clause of the Constitution. )n providing administrative and criminal penalties in the said administrative order, the 3ecretary of (grarian Reform simply implements the provisions of 3ections %6 and %= of Republic (ct -o. !!"%, thus> Sec. 7". P2ohibite1 *cts an1 O;issions. < The follo=in9 a2e p2ohibite1: 4444 (c The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non/agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this (ct to his landholdings and to disposes his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them? 4444 (f The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right over the land he ac<uired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions of this (ct. 4444 3ec. %=. Penalties. @ (ny person who *nowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this (ct shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (# month to not more than three (6 years or a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P#,...... and not more than fifteen thousand pesos (P#",...... , or both, at the discretion of the court. )f the offender is a corporation or association, the officer responsible therefor shall be criminally liable. *n1 Section Sec. of Republic *ct No. !#"6' =hich specificall4 p2o3i1es:

. Penalty for Agricultural Inactivity and Premature Conversion. K 4 4 4.

(ny person found guilty of premature or illegal conversion shall be penali5ed with imprisonment of two (0 to si4 (! years, or a fine e<uivalent to one hundred percent (#..P of the governmentMs investment cost, or both, at the discretion of the court, and an accessory penalty of forfeiture of the land and any improvement thereon. )n addition, the +(R may impose the following penalties, after determining, in an administrative proceedings, that violation of this law has been committed> a. Consolation or withdrawal of the authori5ation for land use conversion? and b. 'lac*listing, or automatic disapproval of pending and subse<uent conversion applications that they may file with the +(R. Contrary to petitionerLs assertions, the administrative and criminal penalties provided for under +(R (, -o. .#/.0, as amended, are imposed upon the illegal or premature conversion of lands within +(RLs jurisdiction, i.e., 7lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or for other non/agricultural uses before #" ;une #$$2.7 The petitionerLs argument that +(R 1emorandum -o. 22 is unconstitutional, as it suspends the land use conversion without any basis, stands on hollow ground. )t bears emphasis that said 1emorandum -o. 22 was issued upon the instruction of the President in order to address the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real estate development because of the worsening rice shortage in the country at that time. 3uch measure was made in order to ensure that there are enough agricultural lands in which rice

cultivation and production may be carried into. The issuance of said 1emorandum -o. 22 was made pursuant to the general welfare of the public, thus, it cannot be argued that it was made without any basis. >)EREFORE' premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is +)31)33&+. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.