Catherine del Fierro

WMSU College of Law

AgSoc Cases
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA),
Petitioner, v. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.
G.R. No. 182409
Facts:
Oct 1997 Sec of DAR issued DAR A.O. entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses. The said AO embraced all private
agricultural lands regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced and all untitled agricultural
lands and agricultural lands reclassified by LGU into non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988. March
1999, Sec DAR issued Revised Rules and Regulations on Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non
Agricultural Uses, it covers the following: (1) those to be converted to residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional and other non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be devoted to another type of agricultural
activity such as livestock, poultry, and fishpond the effect of which is to exempt the land from the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) those to be converted to nonagricultural use other than that previously authorized; and (4) those reclassified to residential,
commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657
on 15 June 1988 pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 and other pertinent laws and
regulations, and are to be converted to such uses. The 2 earlier AOs was further amended by an AO issued
Feb 2002 - 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion; covers all applications for conversion
from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural use.The AO was amended again in
2007 to include provisions particularly addressing land conversion in time of exigencies and calamities.
To address the conversion to lands to non agricultural, Sec of DAR suspended processing and approval of
land conversion through DAR Memo 88. CREBA claims that there is a slowdown of housing projects
because of such stoppage
Issue:
Whether or not DARs AO entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of
Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses is unconstitutional
Held:
YES. POLITICAL LAW: Constitutionality of DARs A.O. entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures
Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses.
RA 6657 and 8435 defines agricultural land as lands devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of
the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, 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. However, he issued an AO
included in this definition - lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-

agricultural uses before 15 June 1988. In effect, lands reclassified from agricultural to residential,
commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988 are considered to be agricultural
lands for purposes of conversion, redistribution, or otherwise. This is violation of RA 6657 because there
is nothing in Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657 or in any other provision of law that confers to the
DAR the jurisdiction or authority to require that non-awarded lands or reclassified lands be submitted to
its conversion authority. It also violates Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160, because it was not provided
therein that reclassification by LGUs shall be subject to conversion procedures or requirements, or that
the DARs approval or clearance must be secured to effect reclassification.The said Section 2.19 of DAR
AO No. 01-02, as amended, also contravenes the constitutional mandate on local autonomy under Section
25, Article II and Section 2, Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. There is deprivation of liberty
and property without due process of law because under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, lands that are
not within DARs jurisdiction are unjustly, arbitrarily and oppressively prohibited or restricted from
legitimate use on pain of administrative and criminal penalties. More so, there is discrimination and
violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because the aforesaid administrative order is
patently biased in favor of the peasantry at the expense of all other sectors of society.

Ros, et al. vs DAR, et al.

G.R. No. 132477, August 31, 2005
FACTS:
Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land. By virtue of a Municipal
Ordinance, these lands were reclassified as industrial lands. As part of their preparation for the
development of the subject lands as an industrial park, petitioners secured all the necessary permits and
appropriate government certifications.
However, the DAR disallowed the conversion of the subject lands for industrial use and directed the
petitioners to cease and desist from further developments on the land.
Petitioners filed with the RTC a Complaint for Injunction with Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. However, the RTC, ruling that it is the DAR
which has jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint.
When the case was brought to the SC, it was referred to the CA. However, the CA affirmed the
dismissal of the case. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the DAR has the primary jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether or not the RTC can issue a writ of injunction against the DAR.
Held
After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction
over which is vested in the DAR.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to approve or disapprove applications
for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses, pursuant to
Section 4(i) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987.
Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988, likewise empowers the DAR to authorize under certain conditions, the reclassification or
conversion of agricultural lands.
It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the complaint for
injunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and appellate courts under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over
which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. For
agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more
specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 6657 provides:

SEC. 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. No injunction,

restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program.