Agrarian Reform ( Assignment for June 29, 2015)

Part III Land Acquisition

1. Sec. 3(a) of RA 6657 Definition of Agrarian Reform
(a) Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of
crops or fruits produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who
are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the
totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic
status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to
the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profitsharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of
stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the
fruits of the lands they work.
2. Scope of the Program Sec 4
SECTION 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1989 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private agricultural lands, as provided in
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other
lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
More specifically the following lands are covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted
to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral
lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of
this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological,
developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by
law, the specific limits of the public domain.
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as
determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable
for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless
of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.
3. Priorities of the Coverage
SECTION 7. Priorities. The Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) in coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC) shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all
agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the

effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as

follows:
Phase One: Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all
idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the
owners for agrarian reform; all lands foreclosed by the government
financial institutions; all lands acquired by the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG); and all other lands
owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture,
which shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the
effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed
within a period of not more than four (4) years;
Phase Two: All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all
arable public agricultural lands under agro-forest, pasture and
agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops in
accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public
agricultural lands which are to be opened for new development and
resettlement; and all private agricultural lands in excess of fifty (50)
hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned, to
implement principally the rights of farmers and regular farmworkers,
who are the landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they
till, which shall be distributed immediately upon the effectivity of
this Act, with the implementation to be completed within a period of
not more than four (4) years.
Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with
large landholdings and proceeding to medium and small
landholdings under the following schedule:
(a) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50)
hectares, to begin on the fourth (4th) year from the effectivity of
this Act and to be completed within three (3) years; and
(b) Landholdings from the retention limit up to twenty-four (24)
hectares, to begin on the sixth (6th) year from the effectivity of this
Act and to be completed within four (4) years; to implement
principally the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till.
The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural
lands covered by this program shall be made in accordance with the
above order of priority, which shall be provided in the implementing
rules to be prepared by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC), taking into consideration the following; the need to
distribute land to the tillers at the earliest practicable time; the need
to enhance agricultural productivity; and the availability of funds
and resources to implement and support the program.

In any case, the PARC, upon recommendation by the

Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces or region as
priority land reform areas, in which the acquisition and
distribution of private agricultural lands therein may be
implemented ahead of the above schedules. In effecting the transfer
within these guidelines, priority must be given to lands that are
tenanted.
The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above
priorities and distribution scheme, including the determination of
who are qualified beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller
may be a beneficiary of the land he does not own but is
actually cultivating to the extent of the difference between
the area of the land he owns and the award ceiling of three
(3) hectares.
4. Land Acquisiitons - Compulsory

SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.

For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following
procedures shall be followed:
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the
beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the
owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the
same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay
hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall
contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value
in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and
other pertinent
provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice
by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his
administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of

the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a
deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the
Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct
summary administrative proceedings to determine the
compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and
other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt
of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case
within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or,
in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the
deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act,
the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall
request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR
shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the
qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter
to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation.
5. Sec. 19 of RA 6657 Land Acquisition (Voluntary Offer to
Sell)
SECTION 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales. Landowners,
other than banks and other financial institutions, who voluntarily
offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five
percent (5%) cash payment.
Cases:
1.

Association of Small Landowners in the Phils. v. Sec. of

Agrarian Reform, GR. No. 79310 , July 14, 1989

2.

Roxas v. CA, GR No. 127876, Dec. 17, 1999

3.

Corporate Landowners: Stock Distribution Option Sec. 31,

RA 6657
SECTION 31. Corporate Landowners. Corporate landowners may
voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the
Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified
beneficiaries, under such terms and conditions, consistent with this Act, as
they may agree upon, subject to confirmation by the DAR. Upon
certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may give
their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the
capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted
to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the companys total assets,
under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no
case shall the compensation received by the workers at the time the
shares of stocks are distributed be reduced. The same principle shall be
applied to associations, with respect to their equity or participation.
Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their
capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other
qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have
complied with the provisions of the Act: Provided, That the following
conditions are complied with: a) In order to safeguard the right of
beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to dividends and other financial
benefits, the books of the corporation or association shall be subject to
periodic audit by certified public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries;
b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association,
the beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the
board of directors, or in a management or executive committee, if one
exists, of the corporation or association; and c) Any shares acquired by
such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same rights and features as
all other shares. d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original
beneficiaries shall be void ab initio unless said transaction is in favor of a
qualified and registered beneficiary within the same corporation. If within
two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer
envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock
distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the agricultural

land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the

compulsory coverage of this Act.
4.

5.

Award of Lands to Children of Landowners Sec. 6, RA

6657
SECTION 6. Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no
person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a
viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure,
and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to
the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and
(2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided,
That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No.
27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder:
Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory
heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this
Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said
homestead.

Part Four Retention, Exemption and Exclusions

1. Retention Rights Sec. 6, RA 6657
SECTION 6. Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this
Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or
private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity
produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by
the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder,

but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5)

hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner,
subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen
(15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or
directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands
have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to
keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided,
further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory
heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the
approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they
continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be
compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided,
however, That in case the area selected for retention by the
landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose
whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or
another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In
case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be
considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary
under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in
another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the
land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this
option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention. In all cases, the
security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to
the approval of this Act shall be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease,
management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands
executed by the original landowner in violation of the Act shall be
null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this
Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds
within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act.
Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction
involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
Case: Alita vs. CA, G.R. No. 78517, February 27, 1989
Issuance: DAR AO 2, S. 2003 2003 Rules of Procedure on
Landowners Retention Rights
2. Sec. 10 of RA 6657 Exemptions and Exclusions

SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly

and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife,
forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school sites
and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by
public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and
seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and
convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers
appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries,
penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates,
government and private research and quarantine centers and all
lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those
already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of the Act.
3. Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657, in relation to DOJ Opinion No. 44 s.
1990 and the case of Natalia Realty v. DAR, GR No. 103302,
August 12, 1993

(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity

as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land. [Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657]

The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL was

explained further by the DAR in its Administrative Order No. 1,
Series of 1990,[12] entitled Revised Rules and Regulations
Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Land to NonAgricultural Uses, issued pursuant to Section 49 of CARL, which we
quote:
x x x. Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural
activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or
forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and its predecessor agencies,and not classified in town
plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent
authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or
industrial use. (Emphasis supplied)
Prior to this Order, Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 dated
March 16, 1990, which was addressed to then DAR Secretary
Florencio Abad, recognized the fact that before the date of the laws
effectivity on June 15, 1988, the reclassification or conversion of
lands was not exclusively done by the DAR.[13] Rather, it was a
coordinated effort of all concerned agencies; namely, the

Department of Local Governments and Community Development,

the Human Settlements Commission and the DAR.[14] Then Justice
Secretary Franklin M. Drilon explained the coordination in this wise:
x x x. Under R.A. No. 3844,[15] as amended by R.A. No. 6389,[16]
an agricultural lessee may, by order of the court, be dispossessed of
his landholding if after due hearing, it is shown that the landholding
is declared by the [DAR]upon the recommendation of the National
Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial,
industrial or some other urban purposes.[17]
Likewise, under various Presidential Decrees (P.D. Nos. 583, 815
and 946) which were issued to give teeth to the implementation of
the agrarian reform program decreed in P.D. No. 27, the DAR was
empowered to authorize conversions of tenanted agricultural lands,
specifically those planted to rice and/or corn, to other agricultural or
to non-agricultural uses, subject to studies on zoning of the Human
Settlements Commissions (HSC). This non-exclusiveauthority of the
DAR under the aforesaid laws was, x x x recognized and reaffirmed
by other concerned agencies, such as the Department of Local
Government and Community Development (DLGCD) and the then
Human Settlements Commission (HSC) in a Memorandum of
Agreement executed by the DAR and these two agencies on May 13,
1977, which is an admission that with respect to land use planning
and conversions, the authority is not exclusive to any particular
agency but is a coordinated effort of all concerned agencies.
It is significant to mention that in 1978, the then Ministry of Human
Settlements was granted authority to review and ratify land use
plans and zoning ordinance of local governments and to approve
development proposals which include land use conversions (see LOI
No. 729 [1978]). This was followed by [E.O.] No. 648 (1981) which
conferred upon the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (the
predecessors of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
[HLURB] the authority to promulgate zoning and other land use
control standards and guidelines which shall govern land use plans
and zoning ordinances of local governments, subdivision or estate
development projects of both the public and private sector and
urban renewal plans, programs and projects; as well as to review,
evaluate and approve or disapprove comprehensive land use
development plans and zoning components of civil works and
infrastructure projects, of national, regional and local governments,
subdivisions, condominiums or estate development projects
including industrial estates.
Hence, the justice secretary opined that the authority of the DAR to
approve conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
could be exercised only from the date of the laws effectivity on June
15, 1988. [Junio v. Garilao, G.R. No. 147146. July 29, 2005]

EN BANC
[G.R. No. 103302. August 12, 1993.]
NATALIA REALTY, INC., and ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS
CORP., petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SEC.
BENJAMIN T. LEONG and DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR-REGION IV,
respondents.
Loni M. Patajo for petitioners.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
SYLLABUS
1.POLITICAL LAW; STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; A SPECIAL LAW
PREVAILS OVER A GENERAL LAW. The implementing Standards,
Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957 applied to all subdivisions and
condominiums in general. On the other hand, Presidential
Proclamation No. 1637 referred only to the Lungsod Silangan
Reservation, which makes it a special law. It is a basic tenet in
statutory construction that between a general law and a special law,
the latter prevails (National Power Corporation v. Presiding Judge,
RTC, Br. XXV, G.R. No. 72477, 16 October 1990, 190 SCRA 477).
2.ID.; ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; NON-EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES, JUSTIFIED IN THE CASE AT BAR. Anent the argument
that there was failure to exhaust administrative remedies in the
instant petition, suffice it to say that the issues raised in the case
filed by SAMBA members differ from those of petitioners. The former
involve possession; the latter, the propriety of including under the
operation of CARL lands already converted for residential use prior
to its effectivity. Besides, petitioners were not supposed to wait until
public respondents acted on their letter-protests, this after sitting it
out for almost a year. Given the official indifference, which under the
circumstances could have continued forever, petitioners had to act
to assert and protect their interests. (Rocamora v. RTC-Cebu, Br. VIII,
G.R. No. 65037, 23 November 1988, 167 SCRA 615).
3.CIVIL LAW; LAND REGISTRATION; AGRICULTURAL LAND, DEFINED;
LANDS NOT DEVOTED TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, OUTSIDE THE
COVERAGE OF CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the
CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. As to
what constitutes agricultural land, it is referred to as land

devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not

classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial
land. (Sec. 3 (c), R.A. 6657) The deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission confirm this limitation. Agricultural lands are only
those lands which are arable and suitable agricultural lands and
do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands. (Luz
Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
86889, 4 December 1990, 192 SCRA 51, citing Record, CONCOM, 7
August 1986, Vol. III, p. 30) Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural
activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands
previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity
of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its
Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, (DAR Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 1990), DAR itself defined agricultural land
thus . . . Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural
activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or
forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town
plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent
authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or
industrial use. The Secretary of Justice, responding to a query by
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, noted in an Opinion that lands
covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 1637, inter alia, of which
the NATALIA lands are part, having been reserved for townsite
purposes to be developed as human settlements by the proper
land and housing agency, are not deemed agricultural lands
within the meaning and intent of Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. Not
being deemed agricultural lands, they are outside the coverage of
CARL.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J p:
Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial
use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
and its precursor agencies 1 prior to 15 June 1988, 2 covered by R.A.
6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988? This is the pivotal issue in this petition for certiorari
assailing the Notice of Coverage 3 of the Department of Agrarian
Reform over parcels of land already reserved as townsite areas
before the enactment of the law.
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of
three (3) contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo,
Rizal, with areas of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares and 2.7080
hectares, or a total of 125.0078 hectares, and embraced in Transfer

Certificate of Title No. 31527 of the Register of Deeds of the

Province of Rizal.
On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside
20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San
Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population
overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod
Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the
areas proclaimed as townsite reservation.
Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties
into low-cost housing subdivisions within the reservation, petitioner
Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC, for brevity), as
developer of NATALIA properties, applied for and was granted
preliminary approval and locational clearances by the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission. The necessary permit for
Phase I of the subdivision project, which consisted of 13.2371
hectares, was issued sometime in 1982; 4 for Phase II, with an area
of 80.0000 hectares, on 13 October 1983; 5 and for Phase III, which
consisted of the remaining 31.7707 hectares, on 25 April 1986. 6
Petitioners were likewise issued development permits 7 after
complying with the requirements. Thus the NATALIA properties later
became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Cdpr
On 15 June 1988, R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL, for brevity),
went into effect. Conformably therewith, respondent Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR, for brevity), through its Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer, issued on 22 November 1990 a Notice of Coverage
on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which
consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately
registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage.
EDIC also protested to respondent Director Wilfredo Leano of the
DAR Region IV Office and twice wrote him requesting the
cancellation of the Notice of Coverage.
On 17 January 1991, members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa
Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA, for brevity), filed a complaint against
NATALIA and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain
petitioners from developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA
members. 8 The Regional Adjudicator temporarily restrained
petitioners from proceeding with the development of the
subdivision. Petitioners then moved to dismiss the complaint; it was
denied. Instead, the Regional Adjudicator issued on 5 March 1991 a
Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Petitioners NATALIA and EDIC elevated their cause to the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB); however, on 16 December 1991 the

DARAB merely remanded the case to the Regional Adjudicator for

further proceedings. 9
In the interim, NATALIA wrote respondent Secretary of Agrarian
Reform reiterating its request to set aside the Notice of Coverage.
Neither respondent Secretary nor respondent Director took action on
the protest-letters, thus compelling petitioners to institute this
proceeding more than a year thereafter.
NATALIA and EDIC both impute grave abuse of discretion to
respondent DAR for including undeveloped portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision within the coverage of the CARL. They argue that
NATALIA properties already ceased to be agricultural lands when
they were included in the areas reserved by presidential fiat for
townsite reservation.
Public respondents through the Office of the Solicitor General
dispute this contention. They maintain that the permits granted
petitioners were not valid and binding because they did not comply
with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957,
otherwise known as The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers
Protective Decree, in that no application for conversion of the
NATALIA lands from agricultural to residential was ever filed with the
DAR. In other words, there was no valid conversion. Moreover, public
respondents allege that the instant petition was prematurely filed
because the case instituted by SAMBA against petitioners before the
DAR Regional Adjudicator has not yet terminated. Respondents
conclude, as a consequence, that petitioners failed to fully exhaust
administrative remedies available to them before coming to court.
The petition is impressed with merit. A cursory reading of the
Preliminary Approval and Locational Clearances as well as the
Development Permits granted petitioners for Phases I, II and III of
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision reveals that contrary to the claim of
public respondents, petitioners NATALIA and EDIC did in fact comply
with all the requirements of law.
Petitioners first secured favorable recommendations from the
Lungsod Silangan Development Corporation, the agency tasked to
oversee the implementation of the development of the townsite
reservation, before applying for the necessary permits from the
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. 10 And, in all permits
granted to petitioners, the Commission stated invariably therein that
the applications were in conformance 11 or conformity 12 or
conforming 13 with the implementing Standards, Rules and
Regulations of P.D. 957. Hence, the argument of public respondents
that not all of the requirements were complied with cannot be
sustained. llcd

As a matter of fact, there was even no need for petitioners to secure

a clearance or prior approval from DAR. The NATALIA properties
were within the areas set aside for the Lungsod Silangan
Reservation. Since Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 created the
townsite reservation for the purpose of providing additional housing
to the burgeoning population of Metro Manila, it in effect converted
for residential use what were erstwhile agricultural lands provided
all requisites were met. And, in the case at bar, there was
compliance with all relevant rules and requirements. Even in their
applications for the development of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision,
the predecessor agency of HLURB noted that petitioners NATALIA
and EDIC complied with all the requirements prescribed by P.D. 957
The implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957
applied to all subdivisions and condominiums in general. On the
other hand, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 referred only to the
Lungsod Silangan Reservation, which makes it a special law. It is a
basic tenet in statutory construction that between a general law and
a special law, the latter prevails. 14
Interestingly, the Office of the Solicitor General does not contest the
conversion of portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which have
already been developed. 15 Of course, this is contrary to its earlier
position that there was no valid conversion. The applications for the
developed and undeveloped portions of subject subdivision were
similarly situated. Consequently, both did not need prior DAR
approval.
We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL.
Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all
public and private agricultural lands. As to what constitutes
agricultural land, it is referred to as land devoted to agricultural
activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land. 16 The deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. Agricultural
lands are only those lands which are arable and suitable
agricultural lands and do not include commercial, industrial and
residential lands. 17
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered
as agricultural lands. These lots were intended for residential use.
They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion
in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in
question continue to be developed as a low-cost housing
subdivision, albeit at a snails pace. This can readily be gleaned from

the fact that SAMBA members even instituted an action to restrain

petitioners from continuing with such development. The enormity of
the resources needed for developing a subdivision may have
delayed its completion but this does not detract from the fact that
these lands are still residential lands and outside the ambit of the
CARL.
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the
coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to nonagricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government
agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and
Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to
Non-Agricultural Uses, 18 DAR itself defined agricultural land thus

. . . Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity

as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning
ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15
June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use.
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988,
respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error
to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
within the coverage of CARL. prLL
Be that as it may, the Secretary of Justice, responding to a query by
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, noted in an Opinion 19 that lands
covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 1637, inter alia, of which
the NATALIA lands are part, having been reserved for townsite
purposes to be developed as human settlements by the proper
land and housing agency, are not deemed agricultural lands
within the meaning and intent of Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. Not
being deemed agricultural lands, they are outside the coverage of
CARL.
Anent the argument that there was failure to exhaust administrative
remedies in the instant petition, suffice it to say that the issues
raised in the case filed by SAMBA members differ from those of
petitioners. The former involve possession; the latter, the propriety
of including under the operation of CARL lands already converted for
residential use prior to its effectivity.
Besides, petitioners were not supposed to wait until public
respondents acted on their letter-protests, this after sitting it out for
almost a year. Given the official indifference, which under the

circumstances could have continued forever, petitioners had to act

to assert and protect their interests. 20
In fine, we rule for petitioners and hold that public respondents
gravely abused their discretion in issuing the assailed Notice of
Coverage dated 22 November 1990 of lands over which they no
longer have jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Notice of
Coverage of 22 November 1990 by virtue of which undeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision were placed under CARL
coverage is hereby SET ASIDE.
Issuances:
1.

DAR AO 13, S. 1990 Rules and Procedures Governing

Exemptions of Lands under Sec. 10 of RA 6657

2.

DAR AO 4, S. 2003 2003 Rules on Exemption of Lands

under Sec. 3c, RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion 44 s. 1990
Cases:

1.

Milestone Farms, Inc., v. Office of the President, G.R. No.

182332. February 23, 2011

2.

Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, GR No. 86889,

December 4, 1990

3.

DAR v. Sutton, G.R. No. 162070. October 19, 2005

4.

RA 7881 (1995) Exempting Prawn Farms and Fishponds

from CARP