Central Mindanao University vs.
Department of applied research extension and productivity
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
215 SCRA 86 (1992)
Facts:
• The petitioner, the CMU, is an agricultural
education institution owned and run by the
estate located in the town of Musuan, Bukidnon
province. It started as a farm school at Marilag,
Bukidnon, in early 1910, in response to the
public demand for an agricultural school in
Mindanao.
• In the early 1960's, it was converted into a
college until it became what is now known as
the CMU, but still primarily an agricultural
university.
• On January 16, 1958 the late Carlos P. Garcia,
issued Proclamation No. 467, withdrawing from
sale or settlement and reserving for the
Mindanao Agricultural College, a site which
would be the future campus of what is now the
CMU. A total land area comprising 3,080
hectares was surveyed and registered and titled
in the name of the petitioner.
• Several tribes belonging to cultural
communities, opposed the petition claiming
ownership of certain ancestral lands forming
part of the tribal reservations. Some of the
claims were granted so that what was titled to
the present petitioner school was reduced from
3,401 hectares to 3,080 hectares. In 1984, the
CMU approved Resolution No. 160, adopting a
livelihood program called "Kilusang Sariling
Sikap Program" under which the land resources
of the University were leased to its faculty and
employees.
• This arrangement was covered by a written
contract. The faculty and staff combine
themselves to groups of five members each,
and the CMU provided technical know-how,
practical training and all kinds of assistance, to
enable each group to cultivate 4 to 5 hectares of
land for the lowland rice projects.
• Each group pays the CMU a service fee and
also a land use participant's fee. It was
expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant
relationship existed between the CMU and the
faculty and/or employees. This particular
program was conceived as a multi-disciplinary
program to utilize available land, train people in
modern agricultural technology and at the same
time give the faculty and staff opportunity within
the confines of the CMU reservation to earn
additional income to augment their salaries.
• Among the participants in this program were
Alvin Obrique, Felix Guinanao, Joven Caballero,
Nestor Pulao, Danilo Vasquez, Aronio Pelayo
and other complainants (respondents).
• Obrique was a Physics Instructor at the CMU
while the others were employees in the lowland
rice project. In 1986, the agri-business project
for the production of rice, corn and sugar cane
known as Agri-Business Management and
Training Project was discontinued due to losses
incurred while carrying on the said project.
• Some CMU personnel, among whom were the
complainants, were laid-off when this project
was discontinued. The CMU later launched a
self-help project called CMU-Income
Enhancement Program (CMU-IEP) to develop
unutilized land resources, mobilize and promote
the spirit of self-reliance, provide socio-
economic and technical training in actual field
project implementation and augment the income
of the faculty and the staff. The one-year
contracts expired on June 30, 1988. Some
contracts were renewed.
• Those whose contracts were not renewed were
served with notices to vacate. The non-renewal
of the contracts, the discontinuance of the rice,
corn and sugar can project, the loss of jobs due
to termination or separation from the service
and the alleged harassment by school
authorities, all contributed to, and precipitated
the filing of, the complaint.
Issue:
Is the CMU land covered by CARP? Who
determines whether lands reserved for public use
by presidential proclamation is no longer actually,
directly and exclusively used and necessary for
the purpose for which they are reserved?
Held:
• The land is exempted from CARP. CMU is in the
best position to resolve and answer the question
of when and what lands are found necessary for
 its use. The Court also chided the DARAB for
resolving this issue of exemption on the basis of
"CMU's present needs." The Court stated that
the DARAB decision stating that for the land to
be exempt it must be "presently, actively
exploited and utilized by the university in
carrying out its present educational program
with its present student population and
academic faculty" overlooked the very
significant factor of growth of the university in
the years to come.
• DARAB JURISDICTION LIMITED ONLY TO
MATTERS INVOLVING IMPLEMENTATION OF
CARP. Under Section 4 and Section 10 of R.A.
6657, it is crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the
DARAB is limited only to matters involving the
implementation of the CARP. More specifically,
it is restricted to agrarian cases and
controversies involving lands falling within the
coverage of the aforementioned program. It
does not include those which are actually,
directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for, among such purposes, school
sites and campuses for setting up experimental
farm stations, research and pilot production
centers, etc.Consequently, the DARAB has no
power to try, hear and adjudicate the case
pending before it involving a portion of the
CMU's titled school site, as the portion of the
CMU land reservation ordered segregated is
actually, directly and exclusively used and found
by the school to be necessary for its purposes.
SEGREGATING SOME HECTARES OF LAND
WITHOUT FINDING THAT COMPLAINANTS
A R E T E N A N T S : G R AV E A B U S E O F
DISCRETION.
• Where the quasi-judicial body finds that the
complainants/petitioners are not entitled to the
rights they are demanding, it is an erroneous
interpretation of authority for that quasi-judicial
body to order private property to be awarded to
future beneficiaries. The order segregating 400
hectares of the CMU land was issued on a
finding that the complainants are not entitled as
beneficiaries, and on an erroneous assumption
that the CMU land which is excluded or
exempted under the law is subject to the
coverage of the CARP. Going beyond what was
asked by the complainants who were not
entitled to the relief prayed for, constitutes a
grave abuse of discretion because it implies
such capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
NEITHER DARAB OR COURT OF APPEALS
HAS RIGHT TO PASS UPON NEEDS OF
SCHOOL.
• As to the determination of when and what lands
are found to be necessary for use by the CMU,
the school is in the best position to resolve and
answer the question and pass upon the problem
of its needs in relation to its avowed objectives
for which the land was given to it by the State.
Neither the DARAB nor the Court of Appeals
has the right to substitute its judgment or
discretion on this matter, unless the evidentiary
facts are so manifest as to show that the CMU
has no real need for the land. The evidence is
sufficient to sustain a finding of grave abuse of
discretion by respondents Court of Appeals and
DAR Adjudication Board. The Court declared
the decision of the DARAB and the Court of
Appeals as null and void and hereby order that
they be set aside, with costs against the private
r e s p o n d e n t s . A R M E R S A G R I C U LT U R A L
LABORERS ORGANIZATION (BUFFALO),
respondents.
DAR v. DECS
G.R. No. 158228. March 23, 2004
FACTS:
• Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were
donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to
respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of
Education).
• Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in
the name of respondent DECS. Respondent
DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years,
commencing from 1984-1994.
• The contract of lease was subsequently
renewed for another 10 agricultural crop years
or until 2005. On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar
and several others, claiming to be permanent
and regular farm workers of the subject lands,
filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform
 Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante.
• After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa,
sent a "Notice of Coverage" to respondent
DECS, stating that the subject lands are now
covered by CARP and inviting its
representatives for a conference with the farmer
beneficiaries.
• The recommendation for coverage was
approved by DAR Regional Director Dominador
B. Andres approved the r, the dispositive portion
of which reads:
• Respondent DECS appealed the case to the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform which affirmed
t h e O r d e r o f t h e R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r.
Respondent DECS filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set
aside the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform. Hence, the instant petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subject properties are exempt
from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).
HELD:
• No. While respondent DECS sought exemption
from CARP coverage on the ground that all the
income derived from its contract of lease with
Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually,
directly and exclusively used for educational
purposes, such as for the repairs and
renovations of schools in the nearby locality, the
court is inclined with the petitioner’s argument
that the lands subject hereof are not exempt
from the CARP coverage because the same are
not actually, directly and exclusively used as
school sites or campuses, as they are in fact
leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation.
• Further, to be exempt from the coverage, it is
the land per se, not the income derived
therefrom, that must be actually, directly and
exclusively used for educational purposes.
• Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the
types of lands which are exempted from the
coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of
their exemption specifying those “lands actually,
directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national defense, school sites
and campuses, including experimental
farm stations operated by public or private
schools for educational purposes,…, shall be
exempt from the coverage of this Act.”
• Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that,
in order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the
land must be “actually, directly, and exclusively
used and found to be necessary;” and 2) the
purpose is “for school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated
by public or private schools for educational
purposes.
• We are not unaware of our ruling in the case
of CMU v DARAB, wherein we declared the
land subject thereof exempt from CARP
coverage. However, respondent DECS reliance
thereon is misplaced because the factual
circumstances are different in the case at bar.
• Firstly, in the CMU case, the land involved
was not alienable and disposable land of the
public domain because it was reserved by the
late President Carlos P. Garcia under
Proclamation No. 476 for the use
of Mindanao Agricultural College (now CMU).
[16] In this case, however, the lands fall under
the category of alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain suitable for
agriculture.
• Secondly, in the CMU case, the land was
actually, directly and exclusively used and
found to be necessary for school sites and
campuses.Although a portion of it was being
used by the Philippine Packing Corporation
(now Del Monte Phils., Inc.) under a
Management and Development Agreement,
the undertaking was that the land shall be
used by the Philippine Packing Corporation as
part of the CMU research program, with direct
participation of faculty and
students. Moreover, the land was part of the
land utilization program developed by the
CMU for its Kilusang Sariling Sikap Project
(CMU-KSSP), a multi-disciplinary applied
research extension and productivity program.
[17] Hence, the retention of the land was found
to be necessary for the present and future
educational needs of the CMU. On the other
hand, the lands in this case were
 not actuallyand exclusively utilized as school
sites and campuses, as they were leased to
Anglo Agricultural Corporation, not for
educational purposes but for the furtherance
of its business. Also, as conceded by
respondent DECS, it was the income from the
contract of lease and not the subject lands
that was directly used for the repairs and
renovations of the schools in the locality.
• Anent the issue of whether the farmers are
qualified beneficiaries of CARP, we disagree
with the Court of Appeals finding that they were
not. At the outset, it should be pointed out that
the identification of actual and potential
beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform pursuant to
Section 15, R.A. No. 6657.
• In the case at bar, the BARC certified that
herein farmers were potential CARP
beneficiaries of the subject properties. Further,
on November 23, 1994, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform through the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of
Coverage placing the subject properties under
CARP. Since the identification and selection of
CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly
the administrative implementation of the
CARP, it behooves the courts to exercise great
caution in substituting its own determination of
the issue, unless there is grave abuse of
discretion committed by the administrative
agency. In this case, there was none.
• CARP is the bastion of social justice of poor
landless farmers, the mechanism designed to
redistribute to the underprivileged the natural
right to toil the earth, and to liberate them from
oppressive tenancy. To those who seek its
benefit, it is the means towards a viable
livelihood and, ultimately, a decent life. The
objective of the State is no less certain: landless
farmers and farmworkers will receive the
highest consideration to promote social justice
and to move the nation toward sound rural
development and industrialization.
Province of Camarines Sur vs Court of
Appeals
G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993
Facts:
• December 1988, Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
CamSur authorized the provincial governor to
purchase or expropriate property contiguous to
the provincial capitol site in order to establish a
pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional
agricultural crops and a housing project for
provincial government employees.
• Pursuant to the resolution, Gov. Villafuerte filed
two separate cases for expropriation against
Ernesto San Joaquin and Efren San Joaquin.
Upon motion for the issuance of writ or
possession, San Joaquins failed to appear at
the hearing.
• San Joaquins later moved to dismiss the
complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the
price offered for their property. The court denied
the motion to dismiss and authorized the
province to take possession of the properties.
• San Joaquins filed for motion for relief, but
denied as well. In their petition. Asked by the
CA, Solicitor General stated that there is no
need for the approval of the president for the
province to expropriate properties, however, the
approval of the DAR is needed to convert the
property from agricultural to non-agricultural
(housing purpose).
• CA set aside the decision of the trial court
suspending the possession and expropriation of
the property until th province has acquired the
approval of DAR. Hence, this petition.
Issue
Whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by
LGU is subject to prior approval of the DAR.
Ruling:
• The rules on conversion of agricultural lands
found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive
Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the
source of the authority of the Department of
Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a
parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to
which it would be devoted by the expropriating
authority.
• While those rules vest on the Department of
Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to
approve or disapprove conversions of
agricultural lands for residential, commercial or
 industrial uses, such authority is limited to the
applications for reclassification submitted by the
land owners or tenant beneficiaries.
• To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean
that the local government units can no longer
expropriate agricultural lands needed for the
construction of roads, bridges, schools,
hospitals, etc, without first applying for
conversion of the use of the lands with the
Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of
these projects would naturally involve a change
in the land use. In effect, it would then be the
Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize
whether the expropriation is for a public purpose
or public use.
• Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local
government unit that shall determine whether
the use of the property sought to be
expropriated shall be public, the same being an
expression of legislative policy. The courts defer
to such legislative determination and will
intervene only when a particular undertaking
has no real or substantial relation to the public
use.
Roxas & Company, Inc. v. DAMBA-NFSW
G.R. No. 149548. December 4, 2009
FACTS:
• Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is
the registered owner of three haciendas. On
July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines
formally convened and took over legislative
power from the President. This Congress
passed Republic Act No. 6657, the CARL of
1988. The Act was signed by the President on
June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15,
1988.
• Before the law’s effectively, on May 6, 1988,
[Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a
voluntary offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway
pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229.
Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed
under compulsory acquisition by DAR in
accordance with the CARL.
• On August 6, 1992 [Roxas & Co.], through its
President, sent a letter to the Secretary of DAR
withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas
allegedly authorized the reclassification of
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-
agricultural.
• As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR
that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda
Caylaway from agricultural to other uses. The
p e t i ti o n s n u b o n th e i n te r p r e t a ti o n o f
Presidential Proclamation(PP)1520 reads:
DECLARINGTHEMUNICIPALITIESOFMARAG
ONDONANDTERNATEINCAVITEPROVINCEA
N D T H E M U N I C I P A L I T Y O F
NASUGBUINBATANGASASATOURISTZONE,A
NDFOROTHER PURPOSES.
• Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application for
conversion of its three haciendas from
agricultural to non-agricultural on the
assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which
declared Nasugbu,Batangas as a tourismzone,
reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its
pending application notwithstanding, the DAR
issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOAs) to the farmer-beneficiaries in the three
haciendas including CLOA No. 6654 which was
issued on October 15, 1993covering 513.983
hectares, the subject of G.R. No. 167505.
• Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an application
for exemption from the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520 and of
DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of
1994 which states that all lands already
classified as commercial, industrial, or
residential before the effectivity of CARP no
longer need conversion clearance from the
DAR.
ISSUE:
WON PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the
Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu tourism zone to
non- agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.’s
three haciendas in Nasugbu from CARP
coverage.
HELD:
• PP 1520 did not automatically convert the
agricultural lands in the three municipalities
including Nasugbu to non-agricultural lands.
• Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared
the three municipalities as each constituting a
 tourism zone, reclassified all lands therein to lands" denotes their allocation into some
tourism and, therefore, converted their use to specific use and "providing for the manner of
non-agricultural purposes. their utilization and disposition (Sec. 20, Local
• The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 Government Code) or the "act of specifying
identified only "certain areas in the sector how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
comprising the [three Municipalities that] have agricultural uses such as residential,
potential tourism value" and mandated the industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the
conduct of "necessary studies" and the land use plan."
segregation of "specific geographic areas" to
achieve its purpose. Which is why the PP
directed the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA)
to identify what those potential tourism areas
are.
• The DAR, an administrative body of special
competence, denied, by Order, the application
for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it finding
that PP 1520 did not automatically reclassify all
the lands in the affected municipalities from their
original uses. It appears that the PTA had not
yet, at that time, identified the "specific
geographic areas" for tourism development and
had no pending tourism development projects in
the areas.
• Further, report from the Center for Land Use
Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI)
indicated that the areas were planted with sugar
cane and other crops.Relatedly, the DAR, by
Memorandum Circular No. 4. 7, Series of 2004,
came up with classificatory guidelines and
therein decreed that B. Proclamations declaring
general areas such as whole provinces,
municipalities, barangays, islands or peninsulas
as tourist zones that merely:
• (1) recognize certain still unidentified areas
within the covered provinces, municipalities,
barangays, islands, or peninsulas to be with
potential tourism value and charge the
Philippine Tourism Authority with the task to
identify/delineate specific geographic areas
within the zone with potential tourism value
and to coordinate said areas’ development; or
• (2) recognize the potential value of identified
spots located within the general area declared
as tourist zone and direct the Philippine
Tourism Authority to coordinate said areas’
development; could not be regarded as
effecting an automatic reclassification of the
entirety of the land area declared as tourist
zone. This is so because "reclassification of