WEEK 7 CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

CONVERSION – the actual change of the land use from agricultural , to residential , industrial or
commercial, of lands which could have potentially been covered under the carp.

*Read section 65 of RA 6657

*What is the difference between the following :

a.)exemption
b.)conversion is an act of changing the current use of land to some other use.

c.) reclassification lies o the Local Government Code Section 20. (RA 7160) EXAMPLE : YUTA
DATA-DATA.
Take Note : Limitation : Highly urbanized and component cities.
Agricultural land : not subject for conversion.
TN : The power of authority of DAR to approve or disapprove is exclusive . If there is conversion
involve , you need the approval of DAR.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: JOSE LUIS ROS ,ET. AL VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
G.R NO. 132477 , AUGUST 31,2005

Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land located in Arpili, Balamban,

Cebu. By virtue of Municipal Ordinance No. 101 passed by the Municipal Council of Balamban,

Cebu, these lands were reclassified as industrial lands.[1] On 03 April 1995, the Provincial Board

of Cebu approved Balambans land use plan and adopted en totoBalambans Municipal Ordinance

No. 101 with the passage of Resolution No. 836-95 and Provincial Ordinance No. 95-8,

respectively.[2] 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.[3]

Despite these permits and certifications, petitioner Matthias Mendezona received a letter from

Mr. Jose Llames, Director of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Office for Region

7, informing him that the DAR was disallowing the conversion of the subject lands for industrial
use and directed him to cease and desist from further developments on the land to avoid the

incurrence of civil and criminal liabilities.[4]

Petitioners were thus constrained to file with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City a

Complaint dated 29 July 1996 for Injunction with Application for Temporary Restraining Order

and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. T-590.[5] In an order[6] dated 12

August 1996, the RTC, ruling that it is the DAR which has jurisdiction, dismissed the Complaint

for lack of jurisdiction.[7] It justified the dismissal in this wise:

A perusal of Section 20 of the Local Government Code expressly provides that the
Municipalities through an Ordinance by the Sanggunian may authorize the
reclassification of the agricultural land within their area into non-agricultural.
Paragraph (e) of the aforesaid Section, provides further: that nothing in this Section
shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any manner the provision of
Republic Act 6657. In an opinion of the Secretary of Justice, quoted: With respect of
(sic) conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses the authority of the
DAR to approve the same may be exercise (sic) only from the date of the effectivity
of the Agrarian Reform Law on June 15, 1988. It appears that the petitioners had
applied for conversion on June 13, 1995 and therefore the petitioner (sic) are
estopped from questioning the authority and jurisdiction of the Department of
Agrarian Reform. The application having been filed after June 15, 1988, the
reclassification by the Municipal Council of Balamban was just a step in the
conversion of the aforestated lands according to its purpose. Executive Order No.
129-A, Section 5, The Department shall be responsible for implementing
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform and for such purpose it is authorized to (J)
approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of
agricultural land into non-agricultural uses. Said Executive Order amended Section
36 of Republic Act No. 3644 which clearly mandates that the DAR Secretary (sic)
approve or disapprove conversion are not impliedly repealed. In fact, under Section
75 of Republic Act 6657 the above laws and other laws not inconsistent of (sic) this
act shall have suppletory effect. Further, Section 68 of Republic Act 6657 provides:
No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the
lower court against the Department of Agrarian Reform, DENR and Department of
Justice in their implementation of the program. With this provision, it is therefore
clear (sic) when there is conflict of laws determining whether the Department of
Agrarian Reform has been exclusively empowered by law to approve land
conversion after June 15, 1988 and (sic) the final ruling falls only with the Supreme
Court or Office of the President.
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Application for Restraining Order is
hereby ordered DENIED and the main case is DISMISSED, this Court having no
jurisdiction over the same.[8]

In an order dated 18 September 1996, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration filed

by the petitioners.[9] Petitioners filed before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari with

application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction.[10] In a

resolution[11] dated 11 November 1996, this Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals.

[12] Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the said resolution but the same was denied in a

resolution dated 27 January 1997.[13]

At the Court of Appeals, the public respondents were ordered[14] to file their Comments on the

petition. Two sets of comments from the public respondents, one from the Department of

Agrarian Reform Provincial Office[15] and another from the Office of the Solicitor General,

[16] were submitted, to which petitioners filed their Consolidated Reply.[17]

On 02 December 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision[18] affirming the Order of

Dismissal issued by the RTC.[19] A motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was denied

in a resolution dated 30 January 1998.[20]

Hence, this petition.

The following issues[21] are raised by the petitioners for resolution:

(a) Whether or not the reclassification of the subject lands to industrial use by the
Municipality of Balamban, Cebu pursuant to its authority under Section 20(a) of
Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (the LGC) has the
 effect of taking such lands out of the coverage of the CARL and beyond the
jurisdiction of the DAR;

(b) Whether or not the Complaint for Injunction may be dismissed under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction;

(c) Whether or not the Complaint for Injunction is an appropriate remedy against
the order of the DAR enjoining development works on the subject lands;

(d) Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City had authority to issue a
writ of injunction against the DAR.

In sum, petitioners are of the view that local governments have the power to reclassify portions of

their agricultural lands, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 20[22][23]of the Local

Government Code. According to them, if the agricultural land sought to be reclassified by the local

government is one which has already been brought under the coverage of the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and/or which has been distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries,

then such reclassification must be confirmed by the DAR pursuant to its authority under Section

6522 of the CARL, in order for the reclassification to become effective. If, however, the land sought

to be reclassified is not covered by the CARL and not distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries,

then no confirmation from the DAR is necessary in order for the reclassification to become

effective as such case would not fall within the DARs conversion authority. Stated otherwise,

Section 65 of the CARL does not, in all cases, grant the DAR absolute, sweeping and all-

encompassing power to approve or disapprove reclassifications or conversions of all agricultural

lands. Said section only grants the DAR exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions

of agricultural lands which have already been brought under the coverage of the CARL and which

have already been distributed to farmer beneficiaries.

The petition lacks merit.

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. However, agricultural lands already reclassified

before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657 are exempted from conversion.

Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, provides:

. . . True, the DARs express power over land use conversion 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 urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes. But to suggest that these are the only instances
when the DAR can require conversion clearances would open a loophole in R.A. No.
6657, which every landowner may use to evade compliance with the agrarian
reform program. Hence, it should logically follow from the said departments
express duty and function to execute and enforce the said statute that any
reclassification of a private land as a residential, commercial or industrial property
should first be cleared by the DAR.

The requirement that agricultural lands must go through the process of conversion despite

having undergone reclassification was underscored in the case of Alarcon v. Court of Appeals,

[24] where it was held that reclassification of land does not suffice:

In the case at bar, there is no final order of conversion. The subject landholding was
merely reclassified. Conversion is different from reclassification. Conversion is the
act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as
approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Reclassification, on the other
hand, is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the
land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land use conversion.
Accordingly, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not automatically
allow a landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment of the tenants. He
 has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the
agricultural land for other purposes.

Rep. Act No. 6657 took effect on 15 June 1988. Municipal Ordinance No. 101 of Balamban, Cebu,

which reclassified the subject lands, was passed on 25 March 1992, and Provincial Ordinance No.

95-8 of the Provincial Board of Cebu, which adopted Municipal Ordinance No. 101, was passed on

03 April 1995, long after Rep. Act No. 6657 has taken effect. Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 6657

provides:

SEC. 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 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.

...

(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the
agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.

To further clarify any doubt on its authority, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 12 dated

October 1994 which reads:

Administrative Order No. 12

Series of 1994

SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATED AND REVISED RULES AND PROCEDURES

GOVERNING CONVERSION OF ARICULTURAL LANDS TO NON-
AGRICULTURAL USES

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

The guiding principles on land use conversion is to preserve prime

agricultural lands. On the other hand, conversion of agricultural lands, when
coinciding with the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law to
promote social justice, industrialization, and the optimum use of land as a
 national resource for public welfare, shall be pursued in a speedy and
judicious manner.

To rationalize these principles, and by virtue of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844,
as amended, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, P.D. No. 946, Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 129-A and R.A. No. 6657, the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) has issued several policy guidelines to regulate land use conversion.
This Administrative Order consolidates and revises all existing implementing
guidelines issued by the DAR, taking into consideration, other Presidential
issuances and national policies related to land use conversion.

II. LEGAL MANDATE

A. 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.

B. Section 5(i) of E.O. No. 129-A, Series of 1987, vests in the

DAR, exclusive authority to approve or disapprove applications for
conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial,
industrial, and other land uses.

C. 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.

D. Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993

of the Office of the President, provides that action on applications for
land use conversion on individual landholdings shall remain as the
responsibility of the DAR, which shall utilize as its primary reference,
documents on the comprehensive land use plans and accompanying
ordinances passed upon and approved by the local government units
concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy, pursuant to
R.A. No. 6657 and E.O. No. 129-A.

III. DEFINITION OF TERMS

A. Agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity and

not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial
land (Section 3[c], R.A. No. 6657).

B. Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of

agricultural land into some other use.
 C. Reclassification of agricultural lands is the act of specifying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as
residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan.
It also includes the reversion of non-agricultural lands to agricultural
use.

...

V. COVERAGE

These rules shall cover all private agricultural lands as defined herein
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced. It shall also
include agricultural lands reclassified by LGUs into non-agricultural uses,
after June 15, 1988, pursuant to Memorandum Circular (M.C.) No. 54, Series
of 1993 of the Office of the President and those proposed to be used for
livestock, poultry and swine raising as provided in DAR Administrative Order
No. 9, Series of 1993.

In the case of Advincula-Velasquez v. Court of Appeals,[25] we held:

Our ruling in the Natalia case was reiterated in National Housing Authority v.
Allarde (318 SCRA 22 [1999]).

The Court of Appeals reliance on DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, is in order. In
the said opinion, the Secretary of Justice declared, viz:

Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that with respect to
conversions of agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses,
the authority of DAR to approve such conversions may be exercised from the date
of the laws effectivity on June 15, 1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal
interpretation of R.A. No. 6657 in the light of DARs mandate and extensive coverage
of the agrarian reform program.

Following the DOJ opinion, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 6, Series of
1994, stating that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the enactment
of Rep. Act No. 6657 no longer needed any conversion clearance:

I. Prefatory Statement

In order to streamline the issuance of exemption clearances, based on DOJ Opinion

No. 44, the following guidelines are being issued for the guidance of the DAR and
the public in general.
 II. Legal Basis

Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657 states that agricultural lands refers to the land devoted to
agricultural activity as defined in this act and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land.

Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 has ruled that, with respect to
the conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural
uses, the authority of DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised from the
date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands that are already classified as
commercial, industrial, or residential before 15 June 1988 no longer need any
conversion clearance.

The authority of the DAR to approve conversions of agricultural lands covered by Rep. Act No.

6657 to non-agricultural uses has not been pierced by the passage of the Local Government Code.

The Code explicitly provides[26] that nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or

modifying in any manner the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657.

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. This Court, in Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. De Villena,[27] found occasion to

reiterate 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).

Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial powers to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. This law divested the regional trial courts
of their general jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters.
 Under Republic Act 6657, the DAR retains jurisdiction over all agrarian reform
matters. The pertinent provision reads:

Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with the
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall
have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources.

It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed
to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious
manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in
accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it
shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and
inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before it. . . .

Finally, the third and fourth issues which may be summed up into whether or not an injunction is

the appropriate remedy against the order of the DAR enjoining petitioners in developing the

subject land, we rule in the negative. 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.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision

of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42666 dated 02 December 1997 affirming the order

dated 12 August 1996 of the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Branch 29, in Civil Case No. T-590

is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE : CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS,INC. (CREBA)
VS. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM (G.R NO. 183409, JUNE 18,2010)

This case is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with application for temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction) under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, filed by herein petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc.
(CREBA) seeking to nullify and prohibit the enforcement of Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) Administrative Order (AO) No. 01-02, as amended by DAR AO No. 05-07,[1] and DAR
Memorandum No. 88,[2] for having been issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as some provisions of the aforesaid
administrative issuances are illegal and unconstitutional.

Petitioner CREBA, a private non-stock, non-profit corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, is the umbrella organization of some 3,500 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 Secretary of Agrarian Reform is named respondent as
he is the duly appointive head of the DAR whose administrative issuances are the subject of this
petition.

The Antecedent Facts

The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued, on 29 October 1997, DAR AO No. 07-97,
[3] entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-
Agricultural Uses, which consolidated all existing 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 Local Government Units (LGUs) into non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988.

Subsequently, on 30 March 1999, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued DAR AO No. 01-99,
[4] entitled Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-
agricultural Uses, amending and updating the previous rules on land use conversion. Its coverage
includes the following agricultural lands, to wit: (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 non-agricultural 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[5] on 15 June 1988 pursuant to Section 20[6] of Republic
Act No. 7160[7] and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such uses.

On 28 February 2002, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued another Administrative Order, i.e.,
DAR AO No. 01-02, entitled 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion, which further
amended DAR AO No. 07-97 and DAR AO No. 01-99, and repealed all issuances inconsistent
therewith. The aforesaid DAR AO No. 01-02 covers all applications for conversion from
agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural use.

Thereafter, on 2 August 2007, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform amended certain provisions[8] of
DAR AO No. 01-02 by formulating DAR AO No. 05-07, particularly addressing land conversion in
time of exigencies and calamities.

To address the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real estate development, the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform further issued Memorandum No. 88 on 15 April 2008, which
temporarily suspended the processing and approval of all land use conversion applications.

By reason thereof, petitioner claims that there is an actual slow down of housing projects, which,
in turn, aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment and illegal squatting problems to the
substantial prejudice not only of the petitioner and its members but more so of the whole nation.

Hence, this petition.

 The Issues

In its Memorandum, petitioner posits the following issues:

I.

WHETHER THE DAR SECRETARY HAS JURISDICTION OVER LANDS THAT HAVE
BEEN RECLASSIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR FOR
OTHER NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.

II.

WHETHER THE DAR SECRETARY ACTED IN EXCESS OF HIS JURISDICTION AND

GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY ISSUING AND ENFORCING [DAR AO NO. 01-
02, AS AMENDED] WHICH SEEK TO REGULATE RECLASSIFIED LANDS.

III.
WHETHER [DAR AO NO. 01-02, AS AMENDED] VIOLATE[S] THE LOCAL
AUTONOMY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS.

IV.

WHETHER [DAR AO NO. 01-02, AS AMENDED] VIOLATE[S] THE DUE PROCESS

AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE[S] OF THE CONSTITUTION.

V.

WHETHER MEMORANDUM NO. 88 IS A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER.[9]

The subject of the submission that the DAR Secretary gravely abused his discretion is AO No. 01-
02, as amended, which states:

Section 3. Applicability of Rules. These guidelines shall apply to all applications for
conversion, from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural
use, such as:

xxxx
 3.4 Conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the LGU
or by way of a Presidential Proclamation, to residential, commercial, industrial, or
other non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June
1988, x x x. [Emphasis supplied].

Petitioner holds that under Republic Act No. 6657 and Republic Act No. 8435,[10] the term
agricultural lands refers to 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. When the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, however, issued DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, he included in the definition of
agricultural lands 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. In so
doing, petitioner avows that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform acted without jurisdiction as he has
no authority to expand or enlarge the legal signification of the term agricultural lands through
DAR AO No. 01-02. Being a mere administrative issuance, it must conform to the statute it seeks
to implement, i.e., Republic Act No. 6657, or to the Constitution, otherwise, its validity or
constitutionality may be questioned.

In the same breath, petitioner contends that DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, was made in
violation of Section 65[11] of Republic Act No. 6657 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 LGUs or by way of
Presidential Proclamations, to residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses
on or after 15 June 1988. According to petitioner, 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. Thus, in issuing and enforcing DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Petitioner further asseverates that Section 2.19,[12] Article I of DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended,
making reclassification of agricultural lands subject to the requirements and procedure for land
use conversion, 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,[13] Article II and Section 2,[14] Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Petitioner similarly avers that the promulgation and enforcement of DAR AO No. 01-02, 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 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.

As its final argument, petitioner avows that DAR Memorandum No. 88 is not a valid exercise 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 Courts Ruling

This petition must be dismissed.

Primarily, although this Court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent
jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of
court forum.[15] In Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor,[16]citing People v. Cuaresma,[17] this
Court made the following pronouncements:
 This Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive. It
is shared by this Court with Regional Trial Courts and with the Court of Appeals.
This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties
seeking 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 extraordinary
writs. A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that
petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level (inferior) courts
should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the
Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts 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 [an] established policy. It is a policy necessary to prevent
inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted
to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-
crowding of the Courts docket.[18](Emphasis 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 equipped to resolve the issues
because this Court is not a trier of facts.[19]

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 exceptional and compelling
circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious implications, justify the availment
of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, calling for the exercise of its primary
jurisdiction.[20]

Exceptional and compelling circumstances were held present in the following cases: (a) Chavez v.
Romulo,[21] on citizens right to bear arms; (b) Government of [the] United States of America v.
Hon. Purganan,[22] on bail in extradition proceedings; (c) Commission on Elections v. Judge
Quijano-Padilla,[23] on government contract involving modernization and computerization of
voters registration list; (d) Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Hon. Sec. Zamora,[24] on status and
existence of a public office; and (e) Hon. Fortich v. Hon. Corona,[25] on the so-called Win-Win
Resolution of the Office of the President which modified the approval of the conversion to agro-
industrial area.[26]

In 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 Hinog v. Melicor.[27] The present petition should have been initially filed in
the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts. Failure to do
so is sufficient cause for the dismissal of this petition.

Moreover, although the instant petition is styled as a Petition for Certiorari, in essence, it seeks
the declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned DAR AO No.
01-02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88. It, thus, partakes of the nature of a Petition for
Declaratory Relief over which this Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.[28] Section
5, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors,

other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) 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) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of

any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question. (Emphasis
supplied.)

With that, this Petition must necessarily fail because this Court does not have original jurisdiction
over a Petition for Declaratory Relief even if only questions of law are involved.
Even 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 lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal
office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it
from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[29]

The essential requisites for a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed
against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such
tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[30]

Excess 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 authorized and invalid with respect
to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the
general power in respect of it are wanting.[31] Without jurisdiction means lack 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. It means lack of power to exercise authority.[32] Grave
abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent
to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised 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.[33]

In the case before this Court, the petitioner fails to meet the above-mentioned requisites for the
proper invocation of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform in
issuing the assailed DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, as well as Memorandum No. 88 did so in
accordance with his mandate to implement the land use conversion provisions of Republic Act
No. 6657. In the process, he neither acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed
unto himself any performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. A Petition
for Certiorari is a special civil action that may be invoked only against a tribunal, board, or
officer exercising judicial functions.Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure is explicit on this matter, viz.:

SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate 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.

A tribunal, board, or officer is said to be exercising judicial function where it has the power to
determine what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then undertakes to
determine these questions and adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function,
on the other hand, is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public administrative
officers or bodies x x x required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold
hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to exercise
discretion of a judicial nature.[34]

Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-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.[35]

The Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not fall within the ambit of a tribunal, board, or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The issuance and enforcement by the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform of the questioned DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88
were done in the exercise of his quasi-legislative and administrative functions and not of judicial
or quasi-judicial functions. In issuing the aforesaid administrative issuances, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform never made any adjudication of rights of the parties. As such, it can never be
said that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, and
Memorandum No. 88 for he never exercised any judicial or quasi-judicial functions but merely his
quasi-legislative and administrative functions.

Furthermore, as this Court has previously discussed, the instant petition in essence seeks the
declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned DAR AO No. 01-
02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88. Thus, the adequate and proper remedy for the
petitioner therefor is to file a Petition for Declaratory Relief, which this Court has only appellate
and not original jurisdiction. It 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 existence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. Petitioner cannot simply allege grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction and then invoke certiorari to declare the aforesaid administrative issuances
unconstitutional and illegal. Emphasis must be given to the fact that the writ of certiorari dealt
with in Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is a prerogative writ, never
demandable as a matter of right, never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion.[36]

At any rate, even if the Court will set aside procedural infirmities, the instant petition should still
be dismissed.

Executive Order No. 129-A[37] vested upon the DAR the responsibility of implementing the
CARP. Pursuant to the said mandate and to ensure the successful implementation of the CARP,
Section 5(c) of the said executive order authorized the DAR to establish and
promulgate operational policies, rules and regulations and priorities for agrarian reform
implementation. Section 4(k) thereof authorized the DAR to approve or disapprove the
conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural
uses. Similarly, Section 5(l) of the same executive order has given the DAR the exclusive
authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential,
commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law. Section 7 of the
aforesaid executive order clearly provides that the authority and responsibility for the exercise of
the mandate of the [DAR] and the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform x x x.
Under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, lands not reclassified as residential, commercial,
industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988 have been included in the
definition of agricultural lands. In so doing, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform merely acted within
the scope of his authority stated in the aforesaid sections of Executive Order No. 129-A, 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. Further, the definition
of agricultural lands under DAR AO No. 01-02, 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 context of land redistribution as provided for under
Republic Act No. 6657.

More so, Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, which Opinion has been
recognized in many cases decided by this Court, clarified that after the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 the DAR has been given the authority to approve land conversion.
[38] Concomitant to such authority, therefore, is the authority to include in the definition of
agricultural lands lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-
agricultural uses before 15 June 1988 for purposes of land use conversion.

In the same vein, the authority of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to include lands not
reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June
1988 in the definition of agricultural lands finds basis in jurisprudence. In Ros v. Department of
Agrarian Reform,[39] this Court has enunciated that after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657,
agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion,
jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR.However, agricultural lands, which are already
reclassified before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 which is 15 June 1988, are exempted
from conversion.[40] It bears stressing that the said date of effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657
served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassifications or rezoning of agricultural lands that
no longer require any DAR conversion clearance or authority.[41] It necessarily follows that any
reclassification made thereafter can be the subject of DARs conversion authority. Having
recognized the DARs conversion authority over lands reclassified after 15 June 1988, it can no
longer be argued that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was wrongfully given the authority and
power to include lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-
agricultural uses before 15 June 1988 in the definition of agricultural lands. Such inclusion does
not unduly expand or enlarge the definition of agricultural lands; instead, it made clear what are
the lands that can be the subject of DARs conversion authority, thus, serving the very purpose of
the land use conversion provisions of Republic Act No. 6657.

The argument of the petitioner that DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, was made in violation of
Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as it covers even those non-awarded lands and reclassified
lands by the LGUs or by way of Presidential Proclamations on or after 15 June 1988 is
specious. As explained in Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, it is true that the
DARs express power over land use conversion provided for under Section 65 of Republic Act No.
6657 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
urbanized 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 DAR can
require conversion clearances would open a loophole in Republic Act No. 6657 which every
landowner may use to evade compliance with the agrarian reform program. It should logically
follow, therefore, from the said departments express duty and function to execute 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 Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 should first be
cleared by the DAR.[42]
This Court held in Alarcon v. Court of Appeals[43] 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
DAR while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for
non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the land use
plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for land use conversion. In view thereof, a mere
reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its
use. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural
land for other purposes.[44]
It 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.

Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact that DARs conversion authority can only be
exercised after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988.[45]The said date served
as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification or rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer
require any DAR conversion clearance or authority.[46]Thereafter, reclassification of agricultural
lands is already subject to DARs 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.

It is of no moment whether the reclassification of agricultural lands to residential, commercial,

industrial or other non-agricultural uses was done by the LGUs or by way of Presidential
Proclamations because either way they must still undergo conversion process. It bears stressing
that the act of reclassifying agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses simply specifies how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses and does not automatically convert
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses or for other purposes. As explained in DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 1994, cited in the 2009 case of Roxas & Company, Inc. v.
DAMBA-NFSW and the Department of Agrarian Reform,[47] reclassification of lands denotes their
allocation into some specific use and providing for the manner of their utilization and disposition
or the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as
residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan. For 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 DAR, 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.

Even reclassification of agricultural lands by way of Presidential Proclamations to non-

agricultural uses, such as school sites, needs conversion clearance from the DAR.We reiterate that
reclassification is different from conversion. Reclassification alone will not suffice and does not
automatically allow the landowner to change its use. It must still undergo conversion process
before the landowner can use such agricultural lands for such purpose.[48] Reclassification of
agricultural lands is one thing, conversion is another.Agricultural lands that are reclassified to
non-agricultural uses do not ipso facto allow the landowner thereof to use the same for such
purpose. Stated differently, despite having reclassified into school sites, the landowner of such
reclassified agricultural lands must apply for conversion before the DAR in order to use the same
for the said purpose.

Any reclassification, therefore, of agricultural lands to residential, commercial, industrial or other

non-agricultural uses either by the LGUs or by way of Presidential Proclamations enacted on or
after 15 June 1988 must undergo the process of conversion, despite having undergone
reclassification, before agricultural lands may be used for other purposes.

It 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. As held in Republic v. Estonilo,[49] 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. As 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 exclusively used for such public purpose for which they have been
reserved, otherwise, they will be segregated from the reservations and transferred to the DAR for
distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the CARP.[50] More 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.[51] Hence, they are outside the coverage of
the CARP and it logically follows that they are also beyond the conversion authority of the DAR.
Clearly from the foregoing, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform did not act without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in (1) including lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-
agricultural uses before 15 June 1988 in the definition of agricultural lands under DAR AO No.
01-02, as amended, and; (2) issuing and enforcing DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, subjecting to
DARs jurisdiction for conversion lands which had already been reclassified as residential,
commercial, industrial or for other non-agricultural uses on or after 15 June 1988.

Similarly, DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, providing that the reclassification of agricultural lands
by LGUs shall be subject to the requirements of land use conversion procedure or that DARs
approval or clearance must be secured to effect reclassification, did not violate the autonomy of
the LGUs.

Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 states that:

SECTION 20. Reclassification of Lands. (a) A city or municipality may, through an

ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the
purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the
manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land
ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as
determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) 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:

xxxx

(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further,
That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to
Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657), otherwise
known as The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, shall not be affected by the
said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be
governed by Section 65 of said Act.

xxxx

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying

in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.

The aforequoted provisions of law show that the power of the LGUs to reclassify agricultural
lands is not absolute. The authority of the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural lands
covered by Republic Act No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses has been validly recognized by said
Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 by explicitly providing therein that, nothing in this section
shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any manner the provisions of Republic Act No.
6657.

DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, does not also violate the due process clause, as well as the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. In providing administrative and criminal penalties in the
said administrative order, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform simply implements the provisions of
Sections 73 and 74 of Republic Act No. 6657, thus:

Sec. 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. The following are prohibited:

xxxx
(c) The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-
agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings
and to disposes his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them;
xxxx
(f) The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other
usufructuary right over the land he acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in
order to circumvent the provisions of this Act.
xxxx
Sec. 74. Penalties. ─ Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the provisions
of this Act shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not
more than three (3) years or a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00)
and not more than fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00), or both, at the discretion of
the court.

If the offender is a corporation or association, the officer responsible

therefor shall be criminally liable.

And Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8435, which specifically provides:

Sec. 11. Penalty for Agricultural Inactivity and Premature Conversion. x x x.

Any person found guilty of premature or illegal conversion shall be penalized with
imprisonment of two (2) to six (6) years, or a fine equivalent to one hundred
percent (100%) of the government's investment cost, or both, at the discretion of
the court, and an accessory penalty of forfeiture of the land and any improvement
thereon.
In addition, the DAR 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 authorization for land use conversion; and
b. Blacklisting, or automatic disapproval of pending and subsequent conversion
applications that they may file with the DAR.
Contrary to petitioners assertions, the administrative and criminal penalties provided for under
DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, are imposed upon the illegal or premature conversion of lands
within DARs jurisdiction, i.e., lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or for
other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1998.

The petitioners argument that DAR Memorandum No. 88 is unconstitutional, as it suspends the
land use conversion without any basis, stands on hollow ground.

It bears emphasis that said Memorandum No. 88 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. Such 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 Memorandum No. 88 was made pursuant to
the general welfare of the public, thus, it cannot be argued that it was made without any basis.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. Costs
against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

*Read Section 20 of RA 7160 (Local Government Code )

*Read memo circular no. 54 s. 1993, Office of the President (Prescribing the guidelines governing
section 20 of RA7160 Authorizing Cities And Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands to
Non- Agricultural Lands.

DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 01-02

SUBJECT : 2002 Comprehensive Rules On Land Use Conversion

Pursuant to Section 65 and 49 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988), Section 4(j) and 5(l) of Executive Order (EO) No. 129-A (Reorganization Act of the
Department of Agrarian Reform), the pertinent provisions of RA 8435 (Agriculture and Fisheries
Modernization Act), EO-45-2001 [25 October 2001], and in order to provide effective means of
evaluating applications for land use conversion, these Rules are hereby promulgated:

ARTICLE I

Preliminary Provisions
SECTION 1. Statement of Policies. — The conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
shall be governed by the following policies:
1.1. The State shall preserve prime agricultural lands to ensure food security.
1.2. The State shall ensure that all sectors of the economy and all regions of the
country are given optimum opportunity to develop, through the rational and
sustainable use of resources peculiar to each area, in order to maximize agricultural
productivity, to promote efficiency and equity, and to accelerate the modernization of
the agriculture and fisheries sectors of the country.
1.3. Conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses shall be strictly
regulated and may be allowed only when the conditions prescribed under RA
6657 and/or RA 8435 are present and complied with.
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — All references in these Rules in the masculine gender form
(he/him/his) shall interchangeably mean the feminine form (she/her/hers) or may refer to a
group (it/it's/their). As used in this AO, the terms enumerated are defined as follows:
2.1. Agricultural land refers to land devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil;
planting of crops, growing of trees, raising of livestock, poultry, fish or aquaculture
production, including the harvesting of such farm products and other farm activities and
practices performed in conjunction with such farming operations by persons whether
natural or juridical, and not classified by law as mineral land, forest or timber, or national
park, or classified for residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses
before 15 June 1988.
2.2. Area Highly Restricted from Conversion refers to agro-industrial cropland, or land
presently planted to industrial crops that support the economic viability of existing
agricultural infrastructure and agro-based enterprises; highland or area located at an
elevation of 500 meters or higher and have the potential for growing semi-temperate
and/or high value crops; land covered by a notice of land valuation and acquisition;
irrigable land not covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitment; and
Environmentally Critical Area and Environmentally Critical Projects as determined by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
2.3. Area Non-Negotiable for Conversion refers to agricultural land not eligible for
conversion as enumerated in Section 4 hereof.
2.4. Comprehensive Land Use Plan refers to a document accompanied by maps and similar
illustrations, which represent the community-desired pattern of population distribution
and proposal for the future allocation of land for various land use activities. It identifies the
allocation, character and extent of the area's land resources to be used for different
purposes and includes the process and the criteria employed in the determination of the
land's use.
2.5. Conversion Moratorium refers to the policy enunciated in RA 8435 which prohibits
the conversion of irrigated lands, irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with
firm funding commitments, and lands with existing or having the potential for growing high
value crops so delineated and included within the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries
Development Zones for the period starting 10 February 1998 to 09 February 2003.
2.6. Environmentally Critical Areas (ECA) refer to areas that are ecologically, socially, or
geologically sensitive as declared by law such as:
2.6.1. Areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife preserves
and sanctuaries;
2.6.2. Areas identified as potential tourist spots;
2.6.3. Areas that are habitats of endangered or threatened species of indigenous
Philippine plants and animals;
2.6.4. Areas of unique historic, archeological or scientific interest;
2.6.5. Areas traditionally occupied by indigenous people or cultural communities;
2.6.6. Areas frequently hit by natural calamities (geologic hazards, floods, typhoons
and volcanic activities);
2.6.7. Areas with critical slopes of 18% and above;
2.6.8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
2.6.9. Recharged areas of aquifer;
2.6.10. Water bodies used for domestic supply or to support fisheries and
wildlife;
2.6.11. Mangrove areas with critical ecological functions or on which people
depend for livelihood; or
2.6.12. Coral reefs.
2.7. Environmentally Critical Project (ECP) refers to a:
2.7.1. Heavy industry project involving ferrous metals, iron or steel mills; petroleum
or petro-chemicals, oil, gas, or smelting plants;
2.7.2. Resource extractive project such as major mining and quarrying project,
forestry logging project, major wood processing, introduction of fauna or exotic
animals in public or private forests, forest occupancy, extraction of mangrove
products, grazing, fishery dikes, or fishpond development;
2.7.3. Major infrastructure project such as dam, power plant (utilizing fossil-fuel,
hydroelectric, geothermal, or nuclear power), reclamation, bridge, or a major road; or
2.7.4. Golf course project.
2.8. Illegal Conversion is the conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any
non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of RA 6657 to his landholding and
to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them; or the change of nature of lands
outside urban centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of RA
6657, as provided in Section 73 (c) and (e), respectively, of the said Act.
2.9. Irrigable Land refers to land displaying marked characteristics justifying the
operation of an irrigation system.
2.10. Irrigated Land refers to land serviced by natural irrigation or irrigation facilities. This
includes lands where water is not readily available because existing irrigation facilities
need rehabilitation or upgrading or where irrigation water is not available year-round.
2.11. Land Use refers to the manner of utilization of land, including its allocation,
development and management.
2.12. Land Use Conversion refers to the act or process of changing the current physical use
of a piece of agricultural land into some other use or for another agricultural use other than
the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of trees, including harvesting of
produce therefrom, as approved by DAR.
2.13. National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) refers to the classification and
administration of all designated protected areas to maintain essential ecological processes
and life support systems, to preserve genetic diversity, to ensure sustainable use of
resources found therein, and to maintain their natural conditions to the greatest extent
possible. NIPAS includes areas designated as initial components of the system under
Section 5 (a) of RA 7586 which include all areas or islands in the Philippines proclaimed,
designated or set aside, pursuant to a law, presidential decree, presidential proclamation or
executive order as national park, game refuge, bird and wildlife sanctuary, wilderness area,
strict nature reserve, watershed, mangrove reserve, fish sanctuary, natural and historical
landmark, protected and managed landscape/seascape as well as identified virgin forest
before the effectivity of RA 7586; those proclaimed as part of the system in accordance with
the procedure established under the said Act such as strict nature reserve, natural park,
natural monument, wildlife sanctuary, protected landscapes and seascapes; resource
reserve; natural biotic areas; and other categories established by law, conventions or
international agreements wherein the Philippine Government is a signatory.
2.14. Network of Protected Areas for Agricultural and Agro-Industrial
Development(NPAAAD) refers to agricultural areas identified by the Department of
Agriculture (DA) through the Bureau of Soils and Water Management in coordination with
the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, in order to ensure the efficient
utilization of land to agriculture and agro-industrial development and promote sustainable
growth. The NPAAAD covers all irrigated areas, all irrigable lands already covered by
irrigation projects with firm funding commitments; all alluvial plains highly suitable for
agriculture, whether irrigated or not; agro-industrial croplands or lands presently planted
to industrial crops that support the viability of existing agricultural infrastructure and agro-
based enterprises; highland or areas located at an elevation of five hundred (500) meters or
above, which have the potential for growing semi-temperate and high-value crops; all
agricultural lands that are ecologically fragile, the conversion of which will result in serious
environmental degradation, and mangrove areas and fish sanctuaries; and all fishery areas
as defined pursuant to the Fisheries Code of 1998.
2.15. Premature Conversion of Agricultural Land refers to the undertaking of any
development activity, the result of which may modify or alter the physical characteristics of
the agricultural land as would render it suitable for non-agricultural purposes without an
approved Conversion Order from the DAR.
2.16. Prime Agricultural Land refers to land that can be used for various or specific
agricultural activities and can provide optimum and sustainable yield with minimum inputs
and development costs as determined by the DA.
2.17. Private Agricultural Land refers to agricultural land as defined herein and owned by
natural or juridical persons or by the government in its proprietary capacity.
2.18. Project Feasibility Study involves the investigation of the market, technical, financial,
economic, and operational viability of the project. Specifically, it looks into the alternative
technical schemes to attain the project's objectives including possible size, location,
production process, and physical and financial resource requirements. The study also
determines whether the project would generate sufficient benefits to offset estimated
investment and operating costs. Similarly, it ascertains which of the alternatives would yield
the largest positive return to the economy that would justify its use of resources. Finally, it
seeks the most suitable legal, administrative and organizational arrangements to ensure
that implementation would proceed as planned and that completed facilities would be
properly maintained and operated.
2.19. Reclassification of Agricultural Land refers to the act of specifying how agricultural
lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as, residential, industrial, commercial,
as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land use
conversion, undertaken by a Local Government Unit (LGU) in accordance with Section 20
of RA 7160 and Joint Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), DAR, DA, and
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) MC-54-1995. It also includes the
reversion of non-agricultural lands to agricultural use.
2.20. Socialized Housing refers to housing programs and projects covering houses and lots
or homelots undertaken by the government or the private sector for the underprivileged
and homeless citizens where the maximum cost per unit does not exceed the maximum
amount as prescribed by the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council
(HUDCC) which shall include sites and services development, long-term financing,
liberalized terms on interest payments, and such other benefits in accordance with RA
7279.
2.21. Socio-Economic Benefit-Cost Study involves the assessment of the project's net
contribution to the national economic and social welfare, done through a comparison of the
economic and social benefits expected to be generated from the project with the social and
economic costs of its implementation and operation.
2.22. Special Economic Zone or Eco Zone refers to selected areas which are highly
developed or which have the potential to be developed into agro-industrial, tourist,
recreational, commercial, banking, investment and financial centers whose metes and
bounds are delimited by Presidential Proclamation.
2.23. Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zone (SAFDZ) refer to the areas
within the NPAAAD identified for production, agro-processing and marketing activities to
help develop and modernize, with the support of the government, the agriculture and
fisheries sectors in an environmentally and socio-culturally sound manner.
 2.24. Unauthorized Conversion is the act of changing the current use of the land from
agricultural (e.g. riceland) to another agricultural use, the effect of which is to exclude the
land from CARP coverage (e.g. livestock) without a Conversion Order from the DAR, or
changing the use of the land other than that allowed under the Conversion Order issued by
the DAR.
2.25. Watershed refers to a catchment area or drainage basin from which the waters of a
stream or stream system are drawn.
2.26. Zoning is the delineation/division of a city/municipality into functional zones where
only specific land uses are allowed. It directs and regulates the use of all lands in the
community in accordance with an approved or adopted land use plan for the
city/municipality. It prescribes setback provisions, minimum lot sizes, building heights and
bulk.
2.27. Zoning Ordinance refers to a local legislation approving the comprehensive land use
plan and providing for the regulations and other conditions, on the uses of land including
the limitation on the infrastructures that may be placed thereon within the territorial
jurisdiction of a city or municipality.

ARTICLE II

Coverage
SECTION 3. Applicability of Rules — These guidelines shall apply to all applications for
conversion, from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural use, such as:
3.1. Conversions into residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other non-
agricultural purposes;
3.2. Development into other types of agricultural activities such as livestock, poultry, and
fishpond, the effect of which is to exempt the land from CARP coverage;
3.3. Conversions into non-agricultural use other than that previously authorized; or
3.4 Conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the LGU or by
way of a Presidential Proclamation, to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-
agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of R.A. 6657 on 15 June 1988, pursuant to
Section 20 of RA 7160, and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to
such uses. However, for those reclassified prior to 15 June 1988, the guidelines in securing
an exemption clearance from the DAR shall apply.
SECTION 4. Areas Non-Negotiable for Conversion — An application involving areas non-
negotiable for conversion shall not be given due course even when some portions thereof are
eligible for conversion. The following areas shall not be subject to conversion:
4.1. Lands within protected areas designated under the NIPAS, including mossy and
virgin forests, riverbanks, and swamp forests or marshlands, as determined by the DENR;
4.2. All irrigated lands, as delineated by the DA and/or the National Irrigation
Administration (NIA), where water is available to support rice and other crop production,
and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but
are within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the government;
 4.3. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding
commitments, as delineated by the DA and/or NIA; and
4.4. All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities.
SECTION 5. Areas Highly Restricted from Conversion — The following areas/projects are
classified as highly restricted from conversion:
5.1. Irrigable lands not covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitment;
5.2. Agro-industrial croplands, or lands presently planted to industrial crops that support
the economic viability of existing agricultural infrastructure and agro-based enterprises;
5.3. Highlands or areas located in elevations of five hundred (500) meters or above and
which have the potential for growing semi-temperate or high value crops;
5.4. Lands issued with notice of land valuation and acquisition, or subject of a perfected
agreement between the landowner and the beneficiaries under the Voluntary Land Transfer
(VLT)/Direct Payment Scheme (DPS) under the CARP; and
5.5. Lands within an Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) or those involving the
establishment of an Environmentally Critical Project (ECP). Applications for conversion
under this sub-section shall require, apart from the standard, requirements, an
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) which the applicant must secure from the
DENR prior to application (for ordinary applications) or prior to commencement of actual
land development (for applications involving housing projects).

The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) Land Use Technical Committee (PLUTC)
shall participate in the deliberations when the application involves land that is highly
restricted from conversion and with an area larger than five (5) hectares, except housing
projects covered by EO-45-2001.
SECTION 6. Priority Development Areas and Projects. —
6.1. In accordance with RA 7916, EO-124-1993, and EO-258-2000, the following are
priority development areas for land conversion:
6.1.1. Specific sites in Regional Agri-Industrial Centers/Regional Industrial Centers
(RAIC/RIC) identified by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the DA
pursuant to EO-124-1993.
6.1.2. Tourism Development Areas (TDA) identified by the Department of Tourism
(DOT) pursuant to EO-124-1993.
6.1.3. Agricultural areas intended for Eco Zone Projects, endorsed by Philippine
Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), pursuant to RA 7916.
6.1.4. Agricultural land, owned by the government, to be converted for projects of
national interest, as certified by proper government agency.
6.1.5. Agricultural land proposed to be developed as sites for processing plants of
agricultural products, as certified by the Department of Agriculture.
6.1.6. Sites intended for telecommunication facilities endorsed by the National
Telecommunications Commission.
 6.2. Housing projects are priority development projects for land conversion that shall
follow the fast-tracking scheme prescribed under EO-45-2001. When the application
involves a mixed use of housing and non-housing projects, the application shall not enjoy
the privileges of housing projects unless at least eighty percent (80%) of the land applied
for conversion shall be used directly and exclusively for housing.
SECTION 7. Lands within SAFDZ. — In accordance with Section 9 of RA 8435, the following rules
shall govern conversion of lands within SAFDZ:
7.1. All irrigated lands, irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm
funding commitments, and lands with existing or having the potential for growing high-
value crops included within the SAFDZ shall be subject to a conversion moratorium for a
period of five (5) years from 10 February 1998 to 9 February 2003.
7.2. During the effectivity of the moratorium, conversion may be allowed with respect to
only five percent (5%) of said lands within SAFDZ upon compliance with existing laws,
rules and regulations.
7.3. The maximum of five percent (5%) of land(s) eligible for conversion to non-
agricultural use from the total SAFDZ area shall be jointly determined by the DA and the
DAR, upon the recommendation of the Regional and National SAFDZ Committees pursuant
to Rule 9.5.2 of DA-AO-6-1998, or the implementing rules and regulations ofRA 8435.
7.4. After the expiration of the conversion moratorium, conversion may be allowed on a
case-to-case basis, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations on land use conversion.

ARTICLE III

Procedures
SECTION 8. Criteria for Conversion. — The following criteria shall guide the resolution of
application for conversion:
8.1. Conversion may be allowed if the land subject of application is not among those
considered non-negotiable for conversion as provided in Section 4 hereof.
8.2. Conversion may be allowed, in accordance with Section 65 of RA 6657, when the
land has ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes or the
locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for
residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural purposes. ICTcDA
8.3. Conversion of lands within SAFDZ, as provided in Rule 9.5.2 of DA-AO-6-1998, shall
take into account the following factors:
8.3.1. The conversion of land use is consistent with the natural expansion of the
municipality or locality, as contained in the approved physical framework and land
use plan.
8.3.2. The area to be converted in use is not the only remaining food production area
of the community.
8.3.3. The land use conversion shall not hamper the availability of irrigation to
nearby farmlands.
 8.3.4. The areas with low productivity will be accorded priority for land use
conversion.
8.3.5. Sufficient disturbance compensation shall be given to farmers whose livelihood
are negatively affected by the land use conversion as provided for by existing laws and
regulations.
8.4. When the agricultural land which is the subject of the application for conversion has
been acquired under RA 6657, its conversion shall be allowed only if the applicant is the
agrarian reform beneficiary thereof, and after he has fully paid his obligation as required
under Section 65 of RA 6657.
SECTION 9. Who May Apply for Conversion. — The following persons may apply for conversion:
9.1. Owners of private agricultural lands or other persons duly authorized by the
landowner;
9.2. Beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program after the lapse of five (5) years from
award, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Landownership Award
(CLOA), and who have fully paid their obligations and are qualified under these Rules, or
persons duly authorized by them; and
9.3. Government agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and
LGUs, which own agricultural lands as their patrimonial property.
SECTION 10. Documentary Requirements. — The applicant shall submit in sextuplicate the
following documents in six (6) separate bound folders (one [1] original set and five [5] photocopy
sets) with table of contents and page numbers of all documents including photographs,
sequentially numbered, except for maps and development plans which shall likewise be in
sextuplicate but shall be submitted in six separate envelopes with contents properly labeled on
each envelope. Of the six (6) folders, two (2) will be transmitted to the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO), containing therein only the filled-up application form and the documents
specified in 10.4, 10.5 and 10.26 hereunder. The remaining four folders shall contain all the
documents enumerated hereunder that are applicable. The arrangement thereof shall follow the
sequence of the enumeration below, with the requirement referred to in Section 10.1 hereof being
the first document after the table of contents:
10.1. Official receipt showing proof of payment of filing fee and inspection cost.
10.2. Official receipt showing proof of posting of bond in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth in Section 24 hereof.
10.3. Duly accomplished application for conversion subscribed and sworn to before a
notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths.
10.4. True copy of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) of the subject land, certified by the Register of Deeds not earlier than thirty (30) days
prior to application filing date.
In case of untitled land, the following shall be required in lieu of a title:
10.4.1. Certification from the DENR Community Environment and
Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) that the landholding has been
classified as alienable and disposable; and
 10.4.2. Certification from the DENR CENRO (for administrative
confirmation of imperfect title) or the Clerk of Court (for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title) that the titling process/proceedings has
commenced and there are no adverse claimants;
10.5. True copy of the Certificate of Title of the subject land as of 15 June 1988, and all
successor Titles until the present Title referred to in Section 10.4 hereof, if applicable.
10.6. True copy of the current Tax Declaration covering the subject property.
10.7. Project feasibility study.
10.8. Joint venture agreement or any other business arrangement on the use of the land
between the landowner and the developer (if the developer is other than the landowner) or
between the EP/CLOA holders and the developer (if the land was awarded under the
agrarian reform program).
10.9. Narrative description of the development plan describing in detail the activities,
program components, phasing, schedule, work and financial plan, all duly certified by a
licensed engineer, architect, or land use planner.
10.10. Proof of financial and organizational capability of the developer to develop land,
including the following information:
10.10.1. Statement of project cost and availability of potential funding source(s)
for the development of the proposed project;
10.10.2. Profile of the developer;
10.10.3. Most recent financial statement, not later than the year before application,
duly authenticated by a certified public accountant; and
10.10.4. If the developer is a corporation or partnership, a copy of its Certificate of
Registration and recent General Information Sheet (GIS) for the immediately
preceding year, certified by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or in lieu
of the latter, a duly accomplished GIS sworn to before a notary public, provided, that if
the land is to be used for socialized housing by the LGU under EO 124-1993, a
Sanggunian Resolution appropriating funds for the project and authorizing the LGU to
undertake the same shall be required: Provided, further, that if the socialized housing
shall be undertaken by other government agencies such as the National Housing
Authority and the like, a board resolution approving the project and appropriating
funds therefor shall likewise be submitted.
10.11. Socio-Economic Benefit-Cost Study of the proposed project.
10.12. Photographs, size 5R (five [5] inches by seven [7] inches), using color film, and taken
on the landholding under sunlight. The applicant shall attach the pictures to a paper
background and the photographer who took said pictures shall sign on said paper
background to certify the authenticity of the pictures. On each background paper shall be
written a short description of each picture. The pictures shall consist of:
10.12.1. At least four (4) photographs taken from the center of the landholding:
one (1) facing north, one (1) facing east, one (1) facing south, and one (1) facing west;
 10.12.2. At least one (1) photograph per corner, taken from each corner of the
landholding's borders.
10.12.3. At least two (2) photographs each for all distinct man-made structures
existing on the land, taken from opposite angles;
10.12.4. At least two (2) photographs each of the front view of the billboard(s)
required in Section 11 hereof. The applicant shall set aside the second copy of said
billboard photograph(s) for submission to the MARO; and
10.12.5. Sufficient number of photographs of the most conspicuous landmarks
from the nearest barangay center and leading to and from the ingress and egress
routes at the subject landholding, for the purpose of assisting the ocular inspection
team in locating the site.
10.13. Affidavit/Undertaking in a single document of the applicant stating:
10.13.1. The number and names of the farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants,
farmworkers, actual tillers, and/or occupants in the landholding; if there are no such
persons, a statement attesting to such fact;
10.13.2. That the applicant has paid or shall pay disturbance compensation to the
persons mentioned in Section 10.13.1 hereof, in accordance with the computation,
and under the terms and conditions, in Section 28 hereof;
10.13.3. That the applicant has erected the required number of billboards and
undertakes not to remove, deface or destroy said billboard, and that he shall repair or
replace the same when damaged, until after the approving authority disposes of the
application with finality;
10.13.4. That the applicant has not undertaken and shall not undertake premature
development prior to issuance of a Conversion Order;
10.13.5. That he authorizes the DAR to forfeit his bond when he undertakes any
premature development within the area before or after filing of the application for
conversion; and
10.13.6. That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same land in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; to the best of his knowledge,
no such other action or claim is pending therein; he has no knowledge of any
controversy or proceeding involving the status of said parcel of land or the rights of
person over its possession and entitlement to fruits or as beneficiary, the
determination of which is filed before any tribunal, court, the DAR or any other
agency; to his own knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in any court,
tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency; and should there be any same or similar action or
proceeding involving the property applied for conversion, which is either pending or
may have been terminated, he shall report such fact within five (5) days from
knowledge thereof to the approving authority where his aforesaid application has
been filed.
10.14. Certification of the MARO in a single document attesting compliance with Section
14.1 hereof.
10.15. Certification from the HLURB Regional Officer on the actual zoning or classification
of the land subject of the application on the approved comprehensive land use plan citing:
(a) the municipal or city zoning ordinance number; and (b) resolution number and date of
approval by the HLURB or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan concerned, as the case may be.
10.16. Certification from the authorized DA official stating, among others, the classification
of the property under the NPAAAD/SAFDZ, whether or not the subject property is within
the five percent (5%) limit of the SAFDZ allowed for conversion and whether the land has
ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes. As provided for in
DA-AO-2-2002, Article VI, Paragraph "4.2", the certification inventory must include the
following information:
10.16.1. Location and accessibility;
10.16.2. Limitations to agricultural production, such as steep slope, unstable soil
condition (landslide, etc.); inadequate land drainage; very shallow, stony, rocky soil;
very serious boulder problem;
10.16.3. Existing land use;
10.16.4. Indication of premature development or alteration of land use (with
picture);
10.16.5. Land use of adjoining area;
10.16.6. Indication of non-agricultural development; and
10.16.7. Potential for agricultural production.
In the event the land being applied for is within the 5% allowable limit under Section
9 of RA 8435, the investigation report accompanying the inventory should also include the
following information:
10.16.8. Total area of the SAFDZ;
10.16.9. Allowable 5% limit;
10.16.10. Total area already approved for reclassification by the DA;
10.16.11. Balance of the 5% allowable area; and
10.16.12. Balance of the 5% allowable area if the application is approved.
10.17. Certification from the authorized DENR official stating, among others, whether or not
the subject land is within the NIPAS, mossy and virgin forests, riverbanks, or swamp forests
and marshlands; within an ECA, or will involve the establishment of an ECP.
10.18. Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) when the subject land is within an ECA
or will involve the establishment of an ECP.
10.19. If applicable, Special Power of Attorney (SPA), when the applicant is not the
registered owner.
10.20. If applicable, notarized secretary's certificate of a corporate/cooperative board
resolution authorizing the representative, when the applicant is a corporation or
cooperative.
 10.21. If applicable, concurrence letter of the mortgagee or of the individual or entity in
whose favor the encumbrance was constituted, when the property is encumbered.
10.22. If applicable, endorsement from the concerned government agency, when the
application involves a priority development area or project.
10.23. If applicable, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) certification attesting that the
applicant-landowner has fully paid his obligations to the LBP, when the applicant-
landowner is a beneficiary of the agrarian reform program.
10.24. If applicable, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) certification attesting that
the applicant-landowner acquired the subject land from a landed-estate or under the
Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS) and he has already fully paid
his obligation thereunder, when the applicant-landowner is a beneficiary of the agrarian
reform program.
10.25. Vicinity map and a lot plan prepared by a duly-licensed geodetic engineer indicating
the lots being applied for and their technical descriptions, name of owner/s, lot number
and area. The map shall highlight the specific area applied for conversion if the application
covers less than the total lot area.
10.26. Directional sketch map showing the orientation of the subject property in relation to
adjoining lands and nearest provincial and/or national and/or feeder roads, to facilitate
and determine the location of the property for the purpose of ocular inspection. The map
shall: indicate the existing infrastructure and/or improvements thereon including any
house or tillage thereupon of any occupant therein; landmarks within a one (1) kilometer
radius; and owners of adjacent properties. The map need not be drawn to scale.
10.27. Map of the development plan. For socialized housing projects, blueprint copy of the
development plan submitted and certified by the HLURB as basis for its certification that
the project conforms with the minimum standards of Batas Pambansa Bilang 220.
10.28. Topographic Map if the subject property is within an upland, hilly or mountainous
area.

As a general rule, the applicant shall submit all the foregoing applicable requirements
from Sections 10.1 to 10.28 hereof at the time of application filing. However, for
applications involving housing projects under EO-45-2001, he may defer the submission
of the requirements mentioned in Sections 10.15 to 10.18 hereof and follow the
alternative timetable in Sections 22.9.2 and 22.21 hereof.
SECTION 11. Public Notice — The applicant shall post, in a conspicuous place(s) within the
subject property, a public notice contained in a billboard made of strong weather-resistant
material such as plywood, galvanized iron, tin, panaflex, or other similar durable material,
measuring 1.22 meters by 2.44 meters (4 feet by 8 feet). If the landholding has an area of more
than twenty (20) hectares, the applicant shall erect one (1) billboard for every twenty (20)
hectares, on strategic and visible points in the landholding, preferably along a road. The billboard
shall be written in the local dialect and shall display all the information mentioned below, to wit:
11.1. Statement that the applicant is proposing to convert the subject landholding from
agricultural to non-agricultural use;
 11.2. Complete name of the landowner(s) and applicant(s) and developer(s);
11.3. Total area and exact location of the conversion proposal;
11.4. Filing date of application for conversion;
11.5. Date of posting of billboard;
11.6. Schedule of ocular inspection;
11.7. Deadline for filing protest;
11.8. Address of the CLUPPI and RCLUPPI and PARO where oppositors may formally file
their protest;
11.9. Address of the approving authority; and
11.10. Date of approval or denial of the application, which shall be left blank, and which the
applicant shall fill up upon approval or denial of the application.
SECTION 12. Where to file application and Approving Authority. —
12.1. Duly accomplished and notarized application forms and the complete documentary
requirements sit forth in Section 10 hereof shall be filed with the following offices:
12.1.1. Regional Center for Land Use Policy Planning and
Implementation (RCLUPPI), located at the DAR Regional Office, for
applications involving lands with an area less than or equal to five
(5) hectares, or a fraction above five (5) hectares. The Regional
Director shall be the approving authority for such applications; and
12.1.2. Center for Land Use Policy Planning and
Implementation (CLUPPI), located at the DAR Central Office, for
applications involving lands with an area larger than five (5)
hectares. The Secretary shall be the approving authority for such
applications and may delegate the same authority to any
Undersecretary.
12.2. When the application concerns a parcel of land that is adjacent to another parcel of
land that was previously granted a Conversion Order, and the sum of the areas of both
adjoining parcels of land exceeds five (5) hectares, the approving authority for the present
application shall be the Secretary, acting upon the recommendation of the CLUPPI.
12.3. When the applicant owns or represents the owner(s) of two (2) or more parcels of
land within the same barangay or within two (2) or more barangays that are adjacent to
each other, and the sum of the areas of said parcels of land exceeds five (5) hectares, the
approving authority for an application involving any of said parcels of land shall be the
Secretary, acting upon the recommendation of the CLUPPI.
12.4. When a single project proposes the conversion of two (2) or more parcels of land
with different owners but within the same barangay or within two (2) or more barangays
that are adjacent to each other, and the sum of the areas of said parcels of land exceeds five
(5) hectares, the approving authority for an application involving any of said parcels of land
shall be the Secretary, acting upon the recommendation of the CLUPPI.
 12.5. When the applicant or any oppositor challenges the jurisdiction of the approving
authority on the ground of error in computation of jurisdictional area, and a higher
authority takes cognizance of the dispute, the DAR approving authority shall hold in
abeyance the application for conversion until said higher authority determines with finality
the correct jurisdictional area.
12.6. Except in housing projects, the PLUTC shall act as the recommending body when the
application involves lands with an area larger than five (5) hectares and which is highly
restricted from conversion as per Section 5 hereof, or when, in the opinion of the Secretary,
the application requires inter-agency inputs that are crucial for its judicious disposition.
12.7. The CLUPPI shall organize a Secretariat that shall be responsible for processing all
land use conversion applications and shall be the repository of all records pertaining
thereto. The CLUPPI/RCLUPPI shall be a one-stop processing center for conversion
applications undertaken in line with housing projects under EO-45-2001. The RCLUPPI
shall adopt the standard docketing system, and adopt its own document-tracing system,
and shall forward to the CLUPPI all its decisions/resolutions/final orders, together with its
quarterly statistic report on land use conversion applications, for monitoring and
consolidation of status reports by the CLUPPI and safekeeping of the
decisions/resolutions/final orders by the Records Division. The CLUPPI shall be
responsible for the centralized printing of all applications for land use conversion.
SECTION 13. Filing Fee and Inspection Cost. —
13.1. Filing Fee:
13.1.1. One thousand (1,000) pesos for applications involving lands with an area
less than or equal to five (5) hectares; or
13.1.2. Two thousand (2,000) pesos for applications involving lands with an area
larger than five (5) hectares.
13.2. Inspection Cost:
13.2.1. For applications involving lands with an area less than or equal to five (5)
hectares:
13.2.1.1. Ten thousand (10,000) pesos if the subject landholding is within
the same island as that of the Office of the Regional Director; or
13.2.1.2. Fifteen thousand (15,000) pesos if the subject landholding is not
within the same island as that of the Office of the Regional Director.
13.2.2. For applications involving lands with an area larger than five (5) hectares:
13.2.2.1. Ten thousand (10,000) pesos if the subject landholding is within
the main island of Luzon (except Bicol peninsula);
13.2.2.2. Fifteen thousand (15,000) pesos if the subject landholding is
within Regions I to IV but is not located within the main island of Luzon;
13.2.2.3. Fifteen thousand (15,000) pesos if the subject landholding is
in Bicol Peninsula or Visayas group of islands; or
13.2.2.4. Twenty thousand (20,000) pesos if the subject landholding is in
the Mindanao group of islands.
SECTION 14. MARO Certification. —
 14.1. Upon accomplishing the application form, the applicant shall furnish the MARO with
a photocopy of the same, together with a photocopy of the title(s) in Sections 10.4 and/or
10.5 hereof and directional sketch map in Section 10.26 hereof. Upon receipt thereof, the
MARO shall:
14.1.1. check the status of CARP coverage on and around the subject land;
14.1.2. inspect the applicant's billboard posting;
14.1.3. check the presence of any farmer, agricultural lessee, share tenant, farm
worker, actual tiller, or occupant; and
14.1.4. post the notices of application in a conspicuous place in the municipality
and a conspicuous place in the barangay covering the subject land (or a larger portion
of the subject land for properties that overlap on more than one barangay).
Thereafter, the MARO shall accomplish a certification of his findings thereon,
furnishing the applicant with the original copy of the certificate, as required under Section
10.14 hereof.
14.2. For housing projects under EO-45-2001, if the MARO fails to act upon the request for
certification within ten (10) days from receipt of request, the applicant shall notify the
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI of such failure by personally filing an affidavit reporting such inaction.
The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall investigate the reason for the non-issuance and take the steps
necessary for the judicious resolution of the pending application for conversion.
Simultaneously, the disciplining authority of the DAR shall, after proper investigation,
impose upon the erring MARO the proper administrative sanction(s).
SECTION 15. Ocular Inspection. —
15.1. The ocular inspection shall be conducted on the property by the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI.
15.2. The team designated to conduct ocular inspection shall verify and evaluate the
following:
15.2.1. Veracity of information contained in the application for land use
conversion;
15.2.2. Description of the property(ies) applied for conversion, including among
others the location, terrain/topography, land cover and dominant land use of the
subject land and the surrounding areas;
15.2.3. Status of the coverage under CARP of the land applied for conversion;
15.2.4. Whether or not the land applied for conversion falls within the
appropriate zone in the land use plan of the city or municipality;
15.2.5. Existence of farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, farmworkers,
actual tillers, and/or occupants on the subject land;
15.2.6. Whether or not the farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants,
farmworkers, actual tillers, and/or occupants have been paid or have agreed to the
terms of the disturbance compensation due them; and
 15.2.7. Other information, relevant and useful in deciding whether to
approve/disapprove the application for conversion.
15.3. The Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) and Barangay Chairman shall be
notified of the ocular inspection but their presence is not mandatory.
SECTION 16. Protest. — Persons affected by the proposed land use conversion, such as identified
beneficiaries, farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, actual tillers, occupants, or residents of
adjoining properties or communities, may file a written protest against the application for
conversion within thirty (30) days from posting of the requisite billboard(s) under Section 11
hereof, or within fifteen (15) days from conduct of ocular inspection, whichever is later. For
applications involving housing projects under EO-45-2001, the protest period shall be within
seventeen (17) days from posting of the requisite billboard(s) under Section 11 hereof, or within
five (5) days from conduct of ocular inspection, whichever is later. Thereafter, the
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall furnish all oppositors with copies of all orders or actions taken relative to
the subject application. An oppositor who is an identified Agrarian Reform-Beneficiary (ARB) of
the land applied for conversion, and who failed to file a written protest within the protest period
due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect, may intervene at any time during the
pendency of the application. The filing of any protest shall interrupt any running period for
processing applications for conversion, and shall lift the deadline for approving or disapproving
the application.
SECTION 17. Where to file protest. — Protests against the application for conversion shall be filed
with the PARO and/or RCLUPPI and/or CLUPPI, as the case may be, by personal service, if
feasible. An oppositor who files a protest before the PARO shall do so by personal service, not by
mail. Upon receipt of a protest by personal service, the PARO shall, before the end of the next
working day, communicate with the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI by telephone or text message, to inform the
members thereof of such protest, and send a corresponding telegram and/or radiogram which
shall serve as written proof of compliance with the protest notification requirement herein.
Within four (4) working days from receipt of the protest, the PARO shall transmit, by courier or
speed delivery, to the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI the original copy of the protest itself, and keep a
photocopy thereof in his custody. Failure of the PARO to comply with the directive under this
Section shall subject him to the appropriate disciplinary action.
SECTION 18. Examination of Records. — Any interested person or his duly authorized
representative or counsel may request from the CLUPPI/RCLUPPI or PARO/MARO a copy of the
application, including the attachments thereto, but not the DAR inter-office
endorsement/recommendation and other documents as set forth in DAR MC-25-1995. The
CLUPPI/RCLUPPI shall not divulge its recommendation so as not to pre-empt the final decision of
the proper approving authority.
SECTION 19. Resolution of Protest. — The approving authority shall resolve the protest
simultaneously with the application for conversion. Whenever necessary, the approving authority
may, motu propio or upon motion by any oppositor, issue a Cease and Desist Order (CDO).
SECTION 20. Grounds for Protest/Denial of Conversion. — Protests against the application and
denial of the application may be instituted or founded on any of the following grounds:
20.1. The area under application is non-negotiable for conversion;
 20.2. The adverse effects of the displacement to be caused by the proposed conversion far
outweigh the social and economic benefits to the affected communities;
20.3. Misrepresentation or concealment of facts material to the application for conversion;
20.4. Illegal or premature conversion;
20.5. Existence of proof that conversion was resorted to as a means to evade CARP
coverage and to dispossess the tenant farmers of the land tilled by them.
20.6. The land applied for conversion has not ceased to be economically feasible and sound
for agricultural purposes, or the locality where it is found has not become urbanized and
the land will not have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes. (Section 65 of RA 6657)
20.7. The applicant has violated, or the application for conversion is violative, of agrarian
laws, rules and regulations as well as other applicable statutes and other administrative
issuances.
SECTION 21. Processing of Applications. — The following steps are the procedure for ordinary
conversions that do not involve "priority development areas and projects" nor housing projects
under Section 6 hereof:
21.1. The applicant shall first secure an Application Form from the RCLUPPI or CLUPPI.
21.2. Following the instructions that accompany the Application Form, the applicant shall
install the public notice billboard(s) required under Section 11 hereof.
21.3. Immediately thereafter, the applicant shall fill up the Application Form with all the
necessary data. He shall reproduce at least five (5) clear photocopies of the accomplished
Application Form and place them in five (5) separate folders (plus a sixth folder for the
original set), the distribution of which shall be as follows:
21.3.1. The original copy for the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI (the receiving clerk must
rubberstamp the words "ORIGINAL" on the original copy);
21.3.2. Three (3) photocopies for the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI; and
21.3.3. Two (2) photocopies which the applicant shall furnish to the MARO as
advance copies.
21.4. When furnishing the MARO with folders of the application, the applicant shall attach
to the filled-up application form, clear photocopies of the:
21.4.1. Title(s) required under either Section 10.4 and/or Section 10.5 hereof,
and
21.4.2. Directional sketch map required under Section 10.26 hereof.
21.5. Within five (5) days from receipt of the folders containing the documents in Section
21.4 hereof, the MARO shall keep one folder for himself and transmit the other folder to the
PARO.
21.6. Within twenty (20) days from receipt of the above folder, the MARO shall: check the
status of CARP coverage on the subject land; inspect the billboard; check presence of
farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, farm workers, actual tillers, or occupants; post
notices of the application in a conspicuous place in the municipality and a conspicuous
place in the barangay covering the subject land (or a larger portion of the subject land for
properties that overlap on more than one barangay); prepare a single-document MARO
certification reporting the result of all the foregoing tasks; and make available to the
applicant the original copy of said MARO certification.
21.7. If the MARO fails to act upon the request for issuance of the above certification within
twenty (20) days from receipt of the request, the applicant shall notify the PARO and
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI of such failure by personally filing an affidavit reporting such inaction.
Within five (5) days from receipt of the affidavit of inaction, the PARO shall compel the
MARO to act upon the request. If the MARO still refuses to act for no justifiable reason, the
PARO shall, within twenty (20) days from receipt of the affidavit of inaction, perform by
himself the duties abandoned by the MARO. Meantime, the disciplining authority of the
DAR, shall, after proper investigation, impose upon said MARO the appropriate
administrative sanction(s).
21.8. At this juncture, the applicant has four (4) application forms left after furnishing two
(2) advance copies for the MARO and PARO. The applicant shall place said application forms
in the remaining four (4) folders and all the applicable documentary requirements set forth
in Section 10 hereof, all the originals being in one (1) folder, and the photocopies thereof
being in the three (3) other folders. These four (4) folders shall be the initiatory pleading of
the application for conversion.
21.9. The applicant shall submit to the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI the four (4) folders. The
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall then review the completeness of the folders. If found complete, the
applicant shall pay the filing fees and inspection cost (in accordance with Section 13
hereof) and post the necessary bond (in accordance with Section 24 hereof), after which
the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI may accept the application. Acceptance date of the folders shall be the
"Filing Date" of the application.
21.10. The distribution of the four (4) folders shall be as follows: The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI
shall keep a folder containing the originals and a folder containing photocopies. At the same
time, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI Secretariat shall transmit the remaining two (2) folders to the
PARO and MARO respectively. Immediate transmittal of said folders is important because
the PARO shall utilize the information therein when acting upon any protest against the
application, or when issuing any comment that he may wish to submit to the
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI in connection with the application.
21.11. Within ten (10) days from Filing Date, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall issue to the
applicant a Notice of Conduct of Ocular Inspection, indicating the date thereof. The ocular
inspection shall be held not earlier than ten (10) days nor later than twenty (20) days from
issuance date of the Notice of Conduct of Ocular .Inspection. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall
inform the MARO by the fastest means of communication of the date of ocular inspection
with instructions to ensure dissemination of the Notice to all farmers, agricultural lessees,
share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers, or occupants in the subject landholding.
21.12. The applicant shall transmit said Notice to the MARO and indicate the ocular
inspection date on the billboard(s) at least five (5) days before conduct of ocular inspection.
On or before ocular inspection date, the applicant shall submit to the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI a
proof that the MARO was able to receive a copy of said Notice.
 21.13. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall then conduct ocular inspection, and if possible, hold a
dialogue with the farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers, or
occupants found in the subject landholding.
21.14. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI ocular inspection team shall, within five (5) days from conduct
of ocular inspection, accomplish an Investigation Report which shall include the result of its
dialogue.
21.15. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall deliberate on the merits of the application and may call
the applicant and/or oppositor(s), if any, for clarificatory questioning, to judiciously resolve
any dispute arising from the application. The RCLUPPI shall invite the PARO to participate
in the deliberations. Upon his discretion, the PARO may submit a written comment to the
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI.
21.16. Within sixty (60) days from issuance of the MARO certification, but not later than
eighty (80) days from Filing Date, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall forward its recommendation,
together with the records, to the approving authority.
21.17. Within thirty (30) days from submission of the recommendation, the approving
authority shall resolve the application and furnish copies of the decision to the applicant
and oppositor(s), if any.
21.18. The filing of any protest shall interrupt any running period for processing
applications for conversion and shall lift the deadline for approving or disapproving the
application. Upon receipt of a protest, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall order the filing of a
comment, reply, rejoinder, and such other pleadings that may aid in a judicious resolution of
the protest issues, and thereafter schedule hearings where the parties may present their
respective evidence. After conclusion of the hearings, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall submit its
recommendation to the approving authority which shall resolve the protest simultaneously
with the application.
SECTION 22. Processing of Applications Involving Priority Development Areas and Projects. —
Applications involving "priority development areas and projects" under Section 6.1 hereof, and
housing projects under Section 6.2 hereof, shall follow the following steps:
22.1. The applicant shall first secure an Application Form from the RCLUPPI or CLUPPI.
22.2. Following the instructions that accompany the Application Form, the applicant shall
install the public notice billboard(s) required under Section 11 hereof.
22.3. Immediately thereafter, the applicant shall fill up the Application Form with all the
necessary data. He shall reproduce at least five (5) clear photocopies of the accomplished
Application Form and place them in five (5) separate folders (plus a sixth folder for the
original set), the distribution of which shall be as follows:
22.3.1. The original copy for the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI (the receiving clerk must
rubberstamp the words "ORIGINAL" on the original copy);
22.3.2. Three (3) photocopies for the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI; and
22.3.3. Two (2) photocopies which the applicant shall furnish to the MARO as
advance copies.
22.4. When furnishing the MARO with folders of the application, the applicant shall attach
to the filled-up application form, clear photocopies of the:
22.4.1. Title(s) required under either Section 10.4 and/or Section 10.5 hereof;
and
22.4.2. Directional sketch map required under Section 10.26 hereof.
22.5. Within five (5) days from receipt of the folders containing the documents in Section
22.4 hereof, the MARO shall keep one folder for himself and transmit the other folder to the
PARO.
22.6. MARO certification:
22.6.1. Priority development areas and projects under Section 6.1 hereof. Within
twenty (20) days from receipt of the above folder, the MARO shall: check the status of
CARP coverage on the subject land; inspect the billboard; check presence of farmers,
agricultural lessees, share tenants, farm workers, actual tillers, or occupants; post
notices of the application in a conspicuous place in the municipality and a
conspicuous place in the barangay covering the subject land (or a larger portion of
the subject land for properties that overlap on more than one barangay); prepare a
single-document MARO certification reporting the result of all the foregoing tasks;
and make available to the applicant the original copy of said MARO certification.
22.6.2. Housing projects under Section 6.2 hereof (EO-45-2001). Within ten (10)
days from receipt of the above folder, the MARO shall: check the status of CARP
coverage on the subject land; inspect the billboard; check presence of farmers,
agricultural lessees, share tenants, farm workers, actual tillers, or occupants; post
notices of the application in a conspicuous place in the municipality and a
conspicuous place in the barangay covering the subject land (or a larger portion of
the subject land for properties that overlap on more than one barangay); prepare a
single-document MARO certification reporting the result of all the foregoing tasks;
and make available to the applicant the original copy of said MARO certification.
22.7. MARO inaction:
22.7.1. Priority development areas and projects under Section 6.1 hereof. If the
MARO fails to act upon the request for issuance of the above certification within
twenty (20) days from receipt of the request, the applicant shall notify the PARO and
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI of such failure by personally filing an affidavit reporting such
inaction. Within five (5) days from receipt of the affidavit of inaction, the PARO shall
compel the MARO to act upon the request. If the MARO still refuses to act for no
justifiable reason, the PARO shall, within twenty (20) days from receipt of the affidavit
of inaction, perform by himself the duties abandoned by the MARO. Meantime, the
disciplining authority of the DAR shall, after proper investigation, impose upon said
MARO the appropriate administrative sanction(s).
22.7.2. Housing projects under Section 6.2 hereof (EO-45-2001). If the MARO fails
to act upon the request for said certification within ten (10) days from receipt of the
request, the applicant shall notify the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI of such failure by personally
filing an affidavit reporting such inaction. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall investigate the
reason for the non-issuance and take the steps necessary for the judicious resolution
 of the pending application for conversion. Simultaneously, the disciplining authority
of the DAR shall, after proper investigation, impose upon the erring MARO the proper
administrative sanction(s).
22.8. At this juncture, the applicant has four (4) application forms left after furnishing two
(2) advance copies for the MARO and PARO. The applicant shall place said application forms
in the remaining four (4) folders and all the applicable documentary requirements set forth
in Section 10 hereof, all the originals being in one (1) folder, and the photocopies thereof
being in the three (3) other folders. These four (4) folders shall be the initiatory pleading of
the application for conversion.
22.9. Filing Date:
22.9.1. Priority development areas and projects under Section 6.1 hereof . The
applicant shall submit to the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI the four (4) folders containing all the
applicable documentary requirements set forth in Section 10 hereof. The
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall then review the completeness of the application. If found
complete, the applicant shall pay the filing fee and inspection cost (in accordance with
Section 13 hereof) and post the necessary bond (in accordance with Section 24
hereof), after which the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI may accept the application. Acceptance
date of the folders shall be the "Filing Date" of the application.
22.9.2. Housing projects under Section 6.2 hereof (EO-45-2001). The applicant shall
submit to the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI the four (4) folders containing all the applicable
requirements set forth in Section 10 hereof except those in Sections 10.15 to 10.18
(certifications from the HLURB, DA, and DENR) which the applicant may submit at a
later time. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall then review the completeness of the
application. If found complete, the applicant shall pay the filing fee and inspection
cost (in accordance with Section 13 hereof) and post the necessary bond (in
accordance with Section 24 hereof), after which the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI may accept the
application. Acceptance date of the folders shall be the "Filing Date" of the application.
22.10. The distribution of the four (4) folders shall be as follows: The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI
shall keep a folder containing the originals and a folder containing photocopies. At the same
time, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI Secretariat shall transmit the remaining two (2) folders to the
PARO and MARO respectively. Immediate transmittal of said folders is important because
the PARO shall utilize the information therein when acting upon any protest against the
application, or when issuing any comment that he may wish to submit to the
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI in connection with the application.
22.11. Within five (5) days from Filing Date, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall issue to the
applicant a Notice of Conduct of Ocular Inspection, indicating the date thereof. The ocular
inspection shall be held not earlier than ten (10) days nor later than fifteen (15) days from
issuance date of the Notice of Conduct of Ocular Inspection. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall
inform the MARO by the fastest means of communication of the date of ocular inspection
with instructions to ensure dissemination of the Notice to all farmers, agricultural lessees,
share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers, or occupants in the subject landholding.
22.12. The applicant shall transmit said Notice to the MARO and indicate the ocular
inspection date on the billboard(s) at least five (5) days before conduct of ocular inspection.
On or before ocular inspection date, the applicant shall submit to the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI a
proof that the MARO was able to receive a copy of said Notice.
22.13. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall then conduct ocular inspection, and if possible, hold a
dialogue with the farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers,
and/or occupants found in the subject landholding.
22.14. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI ocular inspection team shall, within five (5) days from conduct
of ocular inspection, accomplish an Investigation Report which shall include the result of its
dialogue.
22.15. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall deliberate on the merits of the application and may call
the applicant and/or oppositor(s), if any, for clarificatory questioning to judiciously resolve
any dispute arising from the application. The RCLUPPI shall invite the PARO to participate
in the deliberations. Upon his discretion, the PARO may submit a written comment to the
RCLUPPI/CLUPPI.
22.16. RCLUPPI/CLUPPI recommendation:
22.16.1. Priority development areas and projects under Section 6.1 hereof . Within
forty (40) days from issuance of the MARO certification, but not later than sixty (60)
days from Filing Date, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall forward its recommendation,
together with the records, to the approving authority.
22.16.2. Housing projects under Section 6.2 hereof (EO-45-2001). Within thirty (30)
days from issuance of the MARO certification or filing of affidavit of MARO inaction,
but not later than forty (40) days from Filing Date, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall forward
its recommendation, together with the records, to the approving authority.
22.17. The filing of any protest shall interrupt the running period for processing
applications for conversion and shall lift the deadline for approving or disapproving the
application. Upon receipt of a protest, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall order the filing of a
comment, reply, rejoinder, and such other pleadings that may aid in a judicious resolution of
the protest issues, and thereafter schedule hearings where the parties may present their
respective evidence. After conclusion of the hearings, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall submit its
recommendation to the approving authority which shall resolve the protest simultaneously
with the application.
22.18. Protests against applications involving housing projects shall likewise interrupt the
running period and lift the deadline for approving or disapproving the application. In line
with Section 4(c) of EO 45-2001, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall make a preliminary
determination on whether or not the protest stands on valid grounds. When the protest
is prima facie meritorious, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall order the filing of a comment, reply,
rejoinder, and such other pleadings that may aid in a judicious resolution of the protest
issues, and thereafter schedule hearings where the parties may present their respective
evidence. After conclusion of the hearings, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall submit its
recommendation to the approving authority which shall resolve the protest simultaneously
with the application.
22.19. Approving Authority Decision:
 22.19.1. Priority development areas and projects under Section 6.1 hereof . Within
thirty (30) days from submission of the recommendation, the approving authority
shall resolve the application and furnish copies of the decision to the applicant and
oppositor(s), if any.
22.19.2. Housing projects under Section 6.2 hereof (EO-45-2001). Within thirty (30)
days from submission of the recommendation, the approving authority shall resolve
the application and furnish copies of the decision to the applicant and oppositor(s), if
any. The thirty (30) day period herein shall not run unless the applicant submits to
the approving authority the requirements set forth in Sections 10.15 and 10.16
(certifications from the HLURB and DA).
22.20. In housing projects under EO-45-2001, when the approving authority finds the
application meritorious, but the applicant has not yet submitted the necessary DENR
certifications referred to in Sections 10.17 and 10.18 hereof, the approving authority shall
not issue any Conversion Order, but may, in lieu thereof, issue a Provisional Conversion
Order. A Provisional Conversion Order does not allow the applicant to undertake any
development activity on the subject land. No reglementary period for filing a motion for
reconsideration or appeal shall run upon the issuance of a Provisional Conversion Order.
The issuance of the final Conversion Order or its denial shall be done only after the
approving authority has received from the DENR: a certification that the subject land is not
within the NIPAS; and an ECC or a certification that the same is not necessary.
SECTION 23. Bond. — To guarantee that the applicant shall not undertake premature conversion
pending consideration of the application, and ensure faithful compliance with the conditions of
the Conversion Order by the applicant/developer, cash or surety bonds shall be required
pursuant to Section 35, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.
23.1. No surety bond shall be acceptable except that issued by the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS), in line with the Office of the President (OP) Administrative Order
(AO) No. 33 [25 August 1987], as amended by OP-AO-141 [12 August 1994], "Prescribing
Guidelines for the Insurance of All Properties, Contracts, Rights of Action and other
Insurance Risks of the Government, Including Those in Which the Government Has an
Insurable Interest, with the General Insurance Fund of the Government Service Insurance
System". This Guidelines expressly repeals all provisions in DAR-MC-9-1999 relating to
posting of bond.
23.2. The PARO shall be the recommending authority in resolving all motions for
withdrawal or refund of bond.
SECTION 24. Bond To Guarantee Against Premature Conversion. —
24.1. The applicant shall, upon filing of the application, post a cash bond equivalent to at
least two point five percent (2.5%) of the zonal value of the land per latest issuance of the
Department of Finance, in the form of cash or manager's/cashier's check posted in favor of
the DAR.
24.2. In lieu of a cash bond, the applicant may post a surety bond, issued by the GSIS,
equivalent to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total zonal value of the land per latest
issuance of the Department of Finance, indicating the following conditions at the minimum
that:
 24.2.1. The bond is callable on demand;
24.2.2. The DAR shall forfeit the bond in favor of the Agrarian Reform Fund when
it finds the applicant carrying out any premature conversion activity; and
24.2.3. The validity of the bond shall be for a period of one (1) year, renewable by
not more than one (1) year when necessary.
24.3. The DAR shall forfeit the bond in favor of the Agrarian Reform Fund when the
applicant, or any person acting in his behalf, carries out any actual conversion activity on
the land prior to the application's approval. Forfeiture shall be without prejudice to the
filing of criminal charges against those responsible for premature conversion.
24.4. After faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of the bond, the applicant
may opt to refund or convert the same into a performance bond after issuance of the
Conversion Order.
24.5. The following projects shall be exempt from posting a "bond to guarantee against
premature conversion":
24.5.1. Socialized housing projects as certified by the HLURB;
24.5.2. Resettlement projects for families displaced by development of
government projects as certified by the National Housing Authority (NHA); and
24.5.3. Community Mortgage Program (CMP) projects as certified by the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
When the application involves a mixed use of socialized and non-socialized housing projects, the
application shall not enjoy any bond exemption for socialized housing unless at least eighty (80)
percent of the land applied for conversion shall be used directly and exclusively for socialized
housing.
SECTION 25. Convertibility of Bond. — An applicant who posted a "bond to guarantee against
premature conversion" using a GSIS surety bond may thereafter opt to convert said surety bond
into a performance bond after securing the consent of the GSIS, in line with Article 2079 of
the Civil Code.
SECTION 26. Performance Bond. — Within five (5) days from receipt of a copy of the Conversion
Order, the applicant shall post a performance bond in the form of either of the following:
26.1. Cash or manager's/cashier's check equivalent to at least two point five percent
(2.5%) of the total zonal value of the land per latest issuance of the Department of Finance;
or
26.2. GSIS surety bond equivalent to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total zonal value
of the land per latest issuance of the Department of Finance, indicating the following
conditions at the minimum that:
26.2.1. The bond is callable on demand;
26.2.2. A photocopy of the approved Conversion Order is attached and forms part
of the bond;
 26.2.3. The DAR shall forfeit the bond in favor of the Agrarian Reform Fund when
it finds the applicant in default of his obligation to complete development of the land
and/or comply with any of the conditions in the Conversion Order; and
26.2.4. The validity of the bond shall be equivalent to the prescribed period of
development of the area under the Conversion Order.
SECTION 27. Reimbursement for Government Investment. — Pursuant to DA-AO-6-1998, in case of
approved conversion of land within SAFDZ, the registered owner shall pay the government,
through the Treasurer of the Philippines, the amount equivalent to the government's investment
cost, including inflation, estimated to include all expenditures for capital goods expended by any
and all agencies, financed from public, national or local budget resources, whether sourced from
domestic or foreign, on the land applied for land use conversion, provided, that:
27.1. The valuation of such investments will be equivalent to the total government
expenditure made on the land in question, adjusted for average inflation over the period
starting from the beginning of investment up to the month of approval of conversion;
27.2. The valuation shall be determined jointly by the Municipal Assessor and Municipal
Treasurer, in consultation with those agencies which have made public investments in the
area; and
27.3. The payment of the landowner shall be made in a single, lump sum payment to the
Treasurer of the Philippines through the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality where the
farmland concerned is located.
SECTION 28. Disturbance Compensation. —
28.1. The applicant and/or landowner and/or developer shall pay disturbance
compensation in cash or kind or combination of cash and kind to the farmers, agricultural
lessees, share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers, and/or occupants affected by the
conversion, in such amounts or under such terms as the parties may mutually agree upon.
28.2. The amount of disturbance compensation shall not be less than five (5) times the
average of the gross harvests on the target landholding during the last five (5) preceding
calendar years, pursuant to Section 36 of RA 3844, as amended by Section 7 of RA 6389.
28.3. Compensation in kind may consist of some or all or mixture of housing, homelots,
employment, and/or other benefits. The DAR shall approve the terms of any agreement for
the payment of disturbance compensation and monitor compliance therewith. In no case
shall compliance with the terms and conditions thereof extend beyond sixty (60) days from
the date of approval of the application for conversion.
28.4. If the parties fail to agree on the amount of disturbance compensation, or raise an
issue questioning the lease or tenancy relationship or any other prejudicial issue that tends
to justify non-payment of disturbance compensation, either or both parties may refer the
issue to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) for resolution. While the case
is pending before the Adjudicating Authority, the landowner(s)/applicant(s) may not evict
said farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers, or occupants,
until such time when the Adjudicating Authority resolves the prejudicial issue(s) with
finality.
 28.5. The applicant shall furnish the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI with proof of payment of
disturbance compensation within five (5) days from receipt of payment.

ARTICLE IV

Conversion to Homelot
SECTION 29. Criteria. — Conversion to a homelot is allowable when: the applicant owns the lot
that he proposes to convert; he intends to establish a dwelling place for himself on said lot; the lot
has an area not exceeding five hundred (500) square meters; and the conversion shall be from
agricultural to purely residential use.
SECTION 30. Documentary Requirements. —
30.1. Official receipt showing proof of payment of filing fee and inspection cost;
30.2. Duly accomplished application for conversion subscribed and sworn to before a
notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths;
30.3. True copy of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) of the subject land, certified by the Register of Deeds not earlier than thirty (30) days
prior to application filing date.
In case of untitled land, the following shall be required in lieu of a title:
30.3.1. Certification from the DENR Community Environment and Natural
Resources Officer (CENRO) that the landholding has been classified as alienable and
disposable; and
30.3.2. Certification from the DENR CENRO (for administrative confirmation of
imperfect title) or the Clerk of Court (for judicial confirmation of imperfect title) that
the titling process/proceedings has commenced and there are no adverse claimants;
30.4. True copy of the Certificate of Title of the subject land as of 15 June 1988, and all
successor Titles until the present Title referred to in Section 10.4 hereof, if applicable.
30.5. Directional sketch map to guide the ocular inspection team in locating the homelot.
SECTION 31. Procedure. —
31.1. The applicant shall first secure an Application Form from the RCLUPPI.
31.2. Following the instructions that accompany the Application Form, the applicant shall
fill up the same with all the necessary data, and thereafter, reproduce at least three (3) clear
photocopies of the accomplished Application Form which he shall place in three (3)
separate folders (plus a fourth folder for the original set), the distribution of which shall be
as follows:
31.2.1. The original copy for the RCLUPPI (the receiving clerk must rubberstamp
the words "ORIGINAL" on the original copy);
31.2.2. One (1) photocopy for the RCLUPPI;
31.2.3. One (1) photocopy for the PARO; and
31.2.4. One (1) photocopy for the MARO.
 31.3. The RCLUPPI shall then review the completeness of the application folders. If found
complete, the applicant shall pay a filing fee amounting to Five Hundred Pesos (P500) and
the inspection cost amounting to One Thousand Pesos (P1,000). Acceptance date of the
application folders shall be the "Filing Date" of the application.
31.4. Within five (5) days from Filing Date, the RCLUPPI shall transmit two (2) of the above
folders, containing photocopies, to the PARO and MARO, respectively.
31.5. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the folder, the MARO shall: check the status of
CARP coverage on the subject landholding, post notices of the application in a conspicuous
place in the municipality and a conspicuous place in the barangay covering the subject
landholding; and submit a report thereon to the PARO.
31.6. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the MARO report, the PARO shall issue to the
applicant a Notice of Conduct of Ocular Inspection indicating the date thereof. The ocular
inspection shall be held not earlier than fifteen (15) days nor later than thirty (30) days
from issuance date of the Notice of Conduct of Ocular Inspection.
31.7. The PARO and MARO or their representatives shall conduct ocular inspection in the
presence of the applicant and oppositor(s), if any.
31.8. Within thirty (30) days from conduct of ocular inspection, the PARO shall submit a
report and forward the records to the RCLUPPI.
31.9. The RCLUPPI shall deliberate on the merits of the application and may call the
applicant and/or oppositor(s), if any, for clarificatory questioning, to judiciously resolve any
dispute arising from the application.
31.10. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the PARO report, the RCLUPPI shall submit its
recommendation to the Regional Director.
31.11. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the RCLUPPI recommendation, the Regional
Director shall promulgate his decision on whether to grant or deny conversion.
31.12. The filing of a protest shall interrupt the running of any of the foregoing deadline
periods. The RCLUPPI shall thereupon proceed to hear the protest and thereafter submit its
recommendation to the Regional Director who shall resolve the protest simultaneously with
the application.

ARTICLE V

Issuance of Conversion Order and its Effects

SECTION 32. Issuance of Order. — No Conversion Order (or its denial) shall be valid without the
following information:
32.1. Conversion case number.
32.2. OCT/TCT numbers and corresponding lot numbers. In case of untitled lands, the lot
numbers and corresponding survey plan numbers.
32.3. Names of all registered landowners for each parcel of land.
32.4. Name of applicant or representative, if the applicant is not the landowner.
 32.5. Name of developer.
32.6. Proposed use of the land.
32.7. Total area applied for conversion.
32.8. Total area approved or disapproved for conversion; and
32.9. Date of approval or denial of the order.
SECTION 33. Conditions of Conversion Order. — The approval of the application for conversion
shall be subject to the following conditions:
33.1. The applicant shall not undertake any development until all the applicable permits
and clearances from the other concerned government agencies have been granted.
33.2. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Conversion Order, the landowner shall
post a performance bond in accordance with Sections 25 or 26 hereof.
33.3. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Conversion Order, the landowner shall
request the Register of Deeds to annotate on the property's title the land use allowed under
the Conversion Order.
33.4. Within sixty (60) days from receipt of the Conversion Order, the landowner shall
return to the CLUPPI or RCLUPPI a certified true copy of the title that already contains the
annotation indicating the land use allowed under the Conversion Order.
33.5. Within sixty (60) days from receipt of the Conversion Order, the landowner, solidarity
with his co-owner(s) and developer(s), shall pay disturbance compensation to the affected
farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers, or occupants, in
such amounts or kinds as the parties may mutually agree upon, subject to the approval of
the DAR.
33.6. Within one (1) year from issuance of the Conversion Order, the landowner and/or
developer shall commence development on the property approved for conversion, and shall
complete development not later than the deadline(s) set forth in its site development plan
schedule, but in no case shall development extend beyond five (5) years from issuance of
the Conversion Order.
33.7. For housing projects, the landowner shall secure an ECC, if applicable, prior to
undertaking any development therein.
33.8. The landowner and his representatives shall allow DAR officials free and
unhampered access into the property approved for conversion for the purpose of
monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions thereof.
33.9. The landowner and future landowner(s) of the property approved for conversion
shall not change its use to another use not authorized under the Conversion Order without
prior consent from the DAR. This prohibition extends to changes in housing standards,
changes in selling schemes, changes from social housing to open market housing or vice-
versa, and all other similar changes.
33.10. The landowner and/or developer shall submit quarterly reports on the status of
development to the MARO, PARO, and DAR Regional Office covering the subject property.
 33.11. The grant of a Conversion Order alone shall not be a ground for eviction. Any person
who desires to evict occupants on the basis of the Conversion Order shall invoke other
meritorious grounds and file the proper action.
33.12. The DAR reserves the right to revoke the Conversion Order upon valid grounds and
after proper investigation.
SECTION 34. Effects of approval of conversion — The approval of an application for conversion
shall have, but shall not be limited to, the following effects:
34.1. It shall be limited to the specific use of the land authorized in the Conversion Order;
34.2. It shall be subject to the schedule indicated in the detailed site development, work
and financial plans, but in no case shall the period of development extend beyond five (5)
years from issuance of the Conversion Order except as authorized by the Secretary or the
approving official on meritorious grounds, provided that, if the development cannot be
accomplished within five (5) years, the grantee of the Conversion Order shall submit a
written request for extension within the six (6) months before the lapse of the five (5)-year
period, and provided further, that the extended development period shall be one (1) year
for every five (5) hectares, but in no case shall the extension exceed five (5) years.
34.3. The conditions thereof shall be binding upon successors-in-interest of the
property; HTacDS
34.4. The applicant shall allow duly authorized representatives of DAR free and
unhampered access to the property subject of the Conversion Order to monitor compliance
with the terms and conditions thereof;
34.5. The use authorized in the Conversion Order shall be annotated on the title of the
subject property; and
34.6. It shall be without prejudice to the ancestral domain claims of indigenous peoples, if
any, pursuant to RA 8371 or the "Indigenous Peoples Rights Act".
SECTION 35. Distribution of copy of Conversion Order. —
35.1. For monitoring purposes, the RCLUPPI shall furnish the CLUPPI with copies of all
Conversion Orders issued at the regional level.
35.2. The RCLUPPI/CLUPPI shall be responsible and liable for giving a copy of the
Conversion Order (or its denial) to all parties listed in the Conversion Order.
35.3. The Registry of Deeds of the locality wherein the area applied for conversion is
located, among others, shall be given a copy of the Conversion Order. The applicant, upon
filing of the application for conversion, shall give the complete address of the local Registry
of Deeds to the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI Secretariat.
35.4. The DENR's Environmental Management Bureau (EMB), and all other concerned
agencies and parties, shall be given a copy of the Conversion Order or its denial.

ARTICLE VI

Motion for Reconsideration

SECTION 36. Motion for Reconsideration — A party may file only one (1) motion for
reconsideration of the decision, resolution, or final order of the Regional Director or Secretary,
and may do so only within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of
the challenged decision, resolution, or final order. The pendency of a timely motion for
reconsideration by the proper party shall stay execution of the challenged decision, resolution, or
final order.
36.1. At the Regional Director's level, if the motion for reconsideration is denied, the
movant may perfect an appeal before the Secretary within only the remainder of said non-
extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days. If the motion for reconsideration is granted,
resulting to the reversal of the original decision, the aggrieved party may perfect an appeal
before the Secretary within a full but non-extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days
from receipt of the reversed resolution.
36.2. At the Office of the Secretary's level, if the motion for reconsideration is denied, the
movant may perfect an appeal before the Office of the President (OP) within fifteen (15)
calendar days from receipt of the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.

ARTICLE VII

Appeals
SECTION 37. Who May Appeal. — Only the aggrieved party or parties who is/are either the
applicant(s) or protestor(s)/oppositor(s), or both, or their successor(s)-in-interest, may appeal
the decision, resolution, or final order of the Regional Director or Secretary within the periods
prescribed in Section 33 hereof. The appellant(s) shall furnish copies of the appeal pleadings to
all parties and to the RCLUPPI, Regional Director, CLUPPI, and Secretary.
SECTION 38. When to Appeal. — The appellant(s) may perfect his/their appeal within a non-
extendible period of fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the decision, resolution, or final
order of the approving authority. The moment the DAR loses jurisdiction over a case by reason of
an appeal to the OP, the applicable rules of the OP shall then govern the appeal.
SECTION 39. Where to File an Appeal. —
39.1. Appeal from the decision, resolution, or final order of the Regional Director to the
Secretary shall be made by filing a Notice of Appeal before the Office of the Regional
Director of origin, furnishing copies thereof to all adverse parties, if any, together with
payment of the requisite appeal fees to the cashier of the regional office of origin.
39.2. Appeal from the decision, resolution, or final order of the Secretary shall be made by
filing a Notice of Appeal before either the Office of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
(BALA) Director, or directly at the OP, furnishing copies thereof to all adverse parties, if any,
together with payment of the requisite appeal fees to the cashier of either the DAR or OP.
39.3. Appeal from the decision, resolution, or final order of the Secretary may be taken to
the Court of Appeals by certiorari in accordance with Section 54 of RA 6657.
SECTION 40. Appeal by a Pauper Litigant. — A party opposing an application for conversion, who
is a farmer, agricultural lessee, share tenant, farmworker, actual tiller, occupant, member of a
farmers' collective or cooperative, or any other person directly working on the land may allege
that he is a pauper litigant without need for further proof. He shall enjoy pauper litigant
privileges such as exemption from payment of appeal fees.
SECTION 41. Appeal Pleadings. — For appeals from the Regional Director to the Secretary, the
appellant shall submit an appeal brief with the BALA within fifteen (15) days from perfection of
the appeal, furnishing a copy thereof to all parties and to the RCLUPPI, Regional Director and
CLUPPI. The appellee may submit a comment (not motion to dismiss) within ten (10) days from
receipt of the appeal brief, furnishing a copy thereof to the appellant and to the RCLUPPI,
Regional Director and CLUPPI. Within fifteen (15) days from filing of appellee's comment, the
BALA shall issue a preliminary order stating either that:
41.1. The pleadings on record need further clarification and the conduct of a clarificatory
hearing is necessary. Ten (10) days after the termination thereof, the parties may be
ordered to simultaneously file their respective appeal memorandum.
41.2. The pleadings on record are insufficient for a proper determination of the issues
raised and so the parties shall simultaneously file their respective appeal memorandum
within ten (10) days from receipt of order for simultaneous filing.
41.3. The pleadings on record are sufficient for deciding the appeal and henceforth the
deciding authority shall promulgate its decision.
Upon submission of sufficient pleadings, the BALA Director shall submit his recommendation to
the deciding authority.
SECTION 42. Perfection of Appeal. —
42.1. The filing of a proper notice of appeal and payment of requisite appeal fees in due
time perfects the appeal with respect to the subject matter thereof.
42.2. The office that rendered the challenged decision, resolution, or final order loses
jurisdiction over the case after perfection of the appeal and expiration of the period to
appeal by all other parties.
SECTION 43. DAR Representation on Appeal. —
43.1. The Secretary shall represent the DAR in all appeals to the OP.
43.2. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) shall represent the DAR in all appeals to the
Court of Appeals. Alternatively, the OSG may deputize any DAR lawyer to represent the DAR
in said appeals.
SECTION 44. Execution Pending Appeal. —
44.1. Appeal from the Regional Director — The appeal shall stay execution of the decision,
resolution, or final order of the Regional Director unless the Secretary directs execution
pending appeal when the exceptional nature and circumstances of the case so requires (EO
292-1987, Book VII, Chapter 4, Section 21).
44.2. Appeal to the OP — The appeal shall stay execution of the decision, resolution, or
final order of the Secretary unless the OP directs execution pending appeal upon such terms
and conditions as it may deem just and reasonable (OP-AO-18-1987Section 4).
SECTION 45. Finality of Conversion Order. — The Conversion Order or its denial shall become final
and executory after all parties were able to receive a copy of the Order, and after the lapse of
fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt by the party who last receives a copy of the Order, and no
motion for reconsideration or appeal has been filed. The Head of the Legal Division of the
Regional Office or the BALA Director, as the case may be, shall issue the appropriate Certificate of
Finality.

ARTICLE VIII

Revocation or Withdrawal of Conversion Orders

SECTION 46. Filing of Petition. — Any person may file a petition to revoke, and the landowner
may file a petition to withdraw, the Conversion Order before the approving authority within
ninety (90) days from discovery of facts warranting revocation or withdrawal, but not more than
one (1) year from issuance of the Conversion Order. When the petition alleges any of the grounds
in the enumeration in the next section, the filing period shall be within ninety (90) days from
discovery of such facts but not beyond the development period stipulated in the Conversion
Order. Within the DAR, only the Secretary may resolve petitions that question the jurisdiction of
the recommending body or approving authority.
SECTION 47. Grounds. — The following acts or omissions shall warrant revocation of the
Conversion Order:
47.1. Lack of jurisdiction of the approving authority;
47.2. Misrepresentation or concealment of facts material to the grant of conversion;
47.3. Non-compliance with the conditions of the Conversion Order;
47.4. Non-compliance with the agreement on disturbance compensation payment;
47.5. Conversion to a use other than that authorized in the Conversion Order, or
47.6. Any other serious violation of agrarian laws.
SECTION 48. General Procedure. —
48.1. Upon receipt of the petition, the approving authority shall order the respondent(s) to
file a comment within fifteen (15) days from receipt of said order.
48.2. The proceedings shall be non-litigious in nature. Except for basic essential
requirements of due process, the approving authority shall refrain from strict application of
procedural technicalities and rules governing admissibility and sufficiency of evidence
obtaining in judicial courts.
48.3. The approving authority shall undertake reasonable means to ascertain the facts of
the controversy, including a thorough examination of witnesses, and, ocular inspection of
the premises in question, as may be necessary.
48.4. The approving authority shall render a decision on the merits of the case within
thirty (30) days from the time the case is deemed submitted for resolution.,
SECTION 49. Effect of Revocation or Withdrawal of Conversion Order. — The land subject thereof
shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to CARP coverage as
circumstances may warrant.

ARTICLE IX
 Monitoring of Land Use Conversion
SECTION 50. Responsibility for Monitoring Illegal Conversion. — The Provincial/City Task Forces
on Illegal Conversion, created pursuant to DAR-DOJ Joint AO 5-1994, shall monitor cases of illegal
conversion of agricultural lands in the provinces or cities, as the case may be. The PARO shall
submit quarterly reports on illegal conversion to the National Task Force on Illegal Conversion at
the DAR Central Office.
SECTION 51. Compliance Monitoring. — Compliance with the terms and conditions of the
Conversion Order shall be monitored, as follows:
51.1. The landowner or developer shall submit quarterly reports on the status of the
development to the RCLUPPI and the PARO with jurisdiction over the property.
51.2. The RCLUPPI shall turn over reports to the designated office in the Regional Office
which shall monitor compliance by the applicant/developer with the terms and conditions
of the conversion, including the posting of the approved order. It shall submit quarterly
reports to the CLUPPI regarding the status of land use conversions, copy furnished the DAR
Provincial and Municipal Offices concerned.
51.3. The CLUPPI shall evaluate and consolidate the reports submitted by the Regional
Office, and render quarterly reports on the status of the land use conversion applications to
the Secretary, through the Undersecretary for Field Operations and Support Services, copy
furnished the National Task Force on Illegal Conversion.
51.4. The BARC and representative of Non-Government Organizations/People's
Organizations (NGO/PO) may be authorized by the DAR Secretary or Regional Director to
assist in monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of the Conversion Order, as
may be necessary.

ARTICLE X

Investigation and Prosecution

SECTION 52. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. — The following acts or omissions are prohibited:
52.1. The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-agricultural
use with intent to avoid the application of the CARP on his landholdings and to dispossess
his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them, as provided for under Section 73 (c) of RA
6657;
52.2. The change of the nature of lands outside urban centers and city limits, either in
whole or in part, after the effectivity of RA 6657, as provided in Section 73 (e) thereof;
52.3. Premature conversion as defined under Section 4 of RA 8435 and Section 2 hereof, or
the undertaking of any development activity, the results of which modify or alter the
physical characteristics of the agricultural lands to render them suitable for non-
agricultural purposes without an approved Conversion Order from the DAR;
52.4. Unauthorized conversion or changing the current use of the land from agricultural
(e.g. rice land) to another agricultural use, the effect of which is to exempt the land from
CARP coverage (e.g. livestock, poultry, aquaculture) without a Conversion Order from the
 DAR, or changing the use of the land to one other than that allowed under the Conversion
Order issued by the DAR as defined under Section 2 hereof.
SECTION 53. Who May be Held Liable. —
53.1. Any landowner or developer, who commits any act which constitutes illegal,
premature or unauthorized conversion, including, their accomplices and accessories, if any,
shall be investigated pursuant to these Rules.
53.2. If the offender is a corporation or an association, the officer responsible therefor
shall be held liable.
SECTION 54. Investigating Officials. —
54.1. The DAR Officials, who are designated members of the Provincial/City Task Forces on
Illegal Conversion pursuant to DAR-DOJ Joint AO-5-1994, shall be primarily responsible for
the investigation, gathering of evidence, and the filing of the complaints against illegal,
premature or unauthorized conversions within their respective areas of jurisdiction.
54.2. The Secretary may, however, direct such other officials as may be appropriate to
investigate cases of illegal, premature, or unauthorized conversion. He may constitute a
team composed of national and/or local DAR officials, representatives from other law
enforcement agencies, and volunteers from NGOs/POs for this purpose.
54.3. The Secretary or his duly authorized representative shall be furnished copies of the
investigation reports and other relevant documents for appropriate action.
SECTION 55. Duties of Provincial/City Task Forces on Illegal Conversion. — In accordance
with DAR-DOJ Joint AO-5-1994, the Provincial/City Task Forces on Illegal Conversion shall
perform the following duties and responsibilities:
55.1. DAR Members:
55.1.1. Conduct actual ocular inspection and case build-up;
55.1.2. File the necessary complaint/affidavit together with supporting
documents before the task force member prosecutor;
55.1.3. Investigate all ongoing development project and conversion of agricultural
land;
55.1.4. Monitor the conversion situation in the province and cities within the
province;
55.1.5. Report to the National Task Force on the conversion situation in the
province and cities within the province; and
55.1.6. Perform such other related functions, which may be assigned by the
National Task Force on Illegal Conversion.
55.2. DOJ Prosecutor Members:
55.2.1. Conduct inquest or preliminary investigation, as the case may be;
55.2.2. Recommend and file criminal cases against the landowners and
developers involved in illegal conversion of agricultural lands under RA 6657;
 55.2.3. Submit to the National Task Force a monthly progress/status report of all
cases involving illegal conversion of agricultural lands; and
55.2.4. Perform such other related functions, which may be assigned by the
National Task Force on Illegal Conversion.
SECTION 56. Evidentiary Requirements. — In illegal, premature or unauthorized conversions, the
investigating officials mentioned in Section 51 hereof shall be responsible for securing the
evidence necessary to support the charges.
SECTION 57. Administrative Action. — The following procedure shall be followed in the
administrative investigation of illegal, premature, or unauthorized conversions:
57.1. On the basis of the complaint or report received, the Secretary or his duly authorized
representative shall conduct an investigation to determine if a prima faciecase of illegal,
premature, or unauthorized conversion exists.
57.2. Upon determination of the prima facie case, the Secretary, or Regional Director (for
those cases where he was the approving authority), shall issue a cease and desist order
(CDO) directing the respondent to stop any and all development activities in the area and
requiring him to explain within ten (10) days from receipt of the CDO why he should not be
penalized for violation of existing laws, rules and regulations on land use conversion.
57.3. After the lapse of the period to answer, whether or not an answer has been filed,
administrative proceedings shall be conducted to determine if the respondent can be held
liable for illegal, premature, or unauthorized conversion. The proceedings shall not be
bound by the technical rules of procedure and evidence, but shall proceed in a most
expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in
accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. The investigating official shall
have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission
of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories
and issue subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs
through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. He shall likewise have the power to
punish for direct and indirect contempt in the same manner and subject to the same
penalties as provided in the Rules of Court, in accordance with Section 50 of RA 6657.
57.4. Upon determination that the respondent committed illegal, premature, or
unauthorized conversion, the cash bond or performance bond, if any, shall be cancelled and
forfeited in favor of the government, without prejudice to the imposition of other penalties
or sanctions, as may be warranted.
57.5. Any government official who, directly or indirectly, assisted or took part in the
commission of illegal, premature or unauthorized conversion shall be administratively
charged or dealt with in accordance with pertinent laws and regulations.
SECTION 58. Institution of Criminal Action. —
58.1. The DAR members of Provincial/City Task forces on Illegal Conversion shall be
primarily responsible for filing complaints of illegal or premature conversion pursuant
to RA 6657 or RA 8435 before the Office of the Provincial or City Prosecutor. However, the
Secretary or the National Task Force on Illegal Conversion may directly institute such
 criminal action in flashpoint cases or those, which, in his judgment, would require
immediate action to protect public interest.
58.2. The DOJ prosecutor-members of the Provincial/City Task Forces on Illegal
Conversion shall conduct inquest or preliminary investigation, as the case maybe, and
recommend the filing of criminal cases in court against the landowners, developers, and all
those responsible for illegal or premature conversion, as the evidence may warrant.
58.3. However, unauthorized conversions as defined herein shall not warrant criminal
prosecution but only administrative sanctions, as may be appropriate.
SECTION 59. Prosecution of Illegal Conversion Cases. — The prosecution of illegal conversion cases
shall be the primary responsibility of the designated provincial/city prosecutors, with active
support from the concerned DAR Officials.
SECTION 60. Role of National Task Force on Illegal Conversion. — Pursuant toDAR-DOJ Joint AO-4-
1993, the National Task Force on Illegal Conversion shall perform the following duties and
responsibilities:
60.1. Identify and set priority areas or provinces where illegal conversion of agricultural
lands are rampant;
60.2. Report to the Secretaries of the DAR and the DOJ on the conversion situation in the
country;
60.3. Recommend the issuance and/or amendment of guidelines and circulars on
conversion and/or illegal conversion of agricultural lands;
60.4. Designate such persons who will coordinate and monitor the activities of the
Provincial Task Forces on Illegal Conversion; and
60.5. Perform such other related functions as may be assigned by the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform and the Secretary of the Department of Justice.

ARTICLE XI

Penalties and Sanctions

SECTION 61. Administrative Sanctions. — The DAR may impose any or all of the following
sanctions after determining, in an appropriate administrative proceeding, that a violation of these
Rules has been committed:
61.1. Revocation or withdrawal of the authorization for land use conversion;
61.2. Blacklisting of the applicant, developer or representative;
61.3. Automatic disapproval of pending and subsequent conversion applications that the
offender may file with the DAR;
61.4. Issuance of cease and desist order by the Secretary or Regional Director, as the case
may be, upon verified reports that premature, illegal or unauthorized conversion activities
are being undertaken; or
61.5. Forfeiture of cash bond or performance bond.
SECTION 62. Administrative Sanctions against DAR officials or employees. — The DAR may impose
against its own officials or employees the following sanctions, in accordance with the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service [effective 26 September 1999], specifically Rule
IV, Section 52, sub-section "C", numbers "13" to "15", to wit:
62.1. Failure to act promptly on letters and request within fifteen (15) days from receipt,
except as otherwise provided in the rules implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards of Public Officials and Employees:
1st Offense — Reprimand;
2nd Offense — Suspension 1 to 30 days;
3rd Offense — Dismissal.
62.2. Failure to process documents and complete action on document and papers within a
reasonable time from preparation thereof, except as otherwise provided in the rules
implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees:
1st Offense — Reprimand;
2nd Offense — Suspension 1 to 30 days;
3rd Offense — Dismissal.
62.3. Failure to attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of the office, or
act promptly and expeditiously on public transactions:
1st Offense — Reprimand;
2nd Offense — Suspension 1 to 30 days;
3rd Offense — Dismissal.
SECTION 63. Criminal Penalties. —
63.1. Pursuant to Section 73 (c), (e) and 74 of RA 6657, any person who knowingly or
willfully converts agricultural lands into any non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the
application of said Act and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them; or
who changes the nature of the land outside urban centers and city limits in whole or in part
after the effectivity of RA 6657 shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1)
month to not more than three (3) years or a fine of not less than fifteen thousand
(P15,000.00) pesos, or both, at the discretion of the court.
63.2. Any person found guilty of premature or illegal conversion under RA 8435 shall be
penalized, in accordance with Section 11 thereof, with imprisonment of two (2) to six (6)
years, or a fine equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the government's investment
cost, or both, at the discretion of the court, and an accessory penalty of forfeiture of the land
and any improvement thereon.

ARTICLE XII

Transitory and Final Provisions

SECTION 64. Effect of Pending Applications. — This Administrative Order shall apply
prospectively to all applications for land use conversion. Existing rules shall govern all pending
applications for land use conversion. Grantees of previous conversion orders who were not yet
able to complete development of properties approved for conversion may request for extension of
the development period by first posting a new performance bond in accordance with Sections 23
to 26 of this Administrative Order.
SECTION 65. Repealing Clause. — This Administrative Order amends or repeals all other DAR
issuances inconsistent herewith.
SECTION 66. Separability Clause. — Any judicial pronouncement declaring as unconstitutional
any provision or portion of this Administrative Order shall not affect the validity of the other
provisions herein.
SECTION 67. Effectivity. — This Administrative Order shall take effect ten (10) days after
complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers with nationwide circulation.
Diliman, Quezon City, 28 February 2002. CDAHIT
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE : THE HON. CARLOS FORTICH ET. AL VS. THE HON. RENATO CORONA (G.R
NO. 131457, APRIL 24,1998 ) DECISION, OPINION AND RESOLUTION OF THE MOTIN FOR
RECONSIDERATION

The dramatic and well-publicized hunger strike staged by some alleged farmer-beneficiaries
in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform compound in Quezon City on October 9, 1997
commanded nationwide attention that even church leaders and some presidential candidates
tried to intervene for the strikers cause.

The strikers protested the March 29, 1996 Decision[1] of the Office of the President (OP),
issued through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, which
approved the conversion of a one hundred forty-four (144)-hectare land from agricultural to
agro-industrial/institutional area. This led the Office of the President, through then Deputy
Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona, to issue the so-called Win-Win Resolution[2] on November
7, 1997, substantially modifying its earlier Decision after it had already become final and
executory. The said Resolution modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-industrial
area only to the extent of forty-four (44) hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred (100)
hectares to be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.

But, did the Win-Win Resolution culminate in victory for all the contending parties?

The above-named petitioners cried foul. They have come to this Court urging us to annul and
set aside the Win-Win Resolution and to enjoin respondent Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao of the
Department of Agrarian Reform from implementing the said Resolution.

Thus, the crucial issue to be resolved in this case is: What is the legal effect of the Win-Win
Resolution issued by the Office of the President on its earlier Decision involving the same subject
matter, which had already become final and executory?

The antecedent facts of this controversy, as culled from the pleadings, may be stated as
follows:

1. This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by
the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the
petitioners. The property is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371[3] of the Registry
of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon.
 2. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing
Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), a multinational corporation, for a period of
ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Growers Agreement duly annotated in the certificate
of title. The lease expired in April, 1994.

3. In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the
land value at P2.38 million.[4]

4. NQSRMDC resisted the DARs action. In February, 1992, it sought and was granted by the
DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
in DARAB Case No. X-576, a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction which ordered the
DAR Region X Director, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land
Bank), and their authorized representatives to desist from pursuing any activity or activities
concerning the subject land until further orders.[5]

5. Despite the DARAB order of March 31, 1992, the DAR Regional Director issued a
memorandum, dated May 21, 1992, directing the Land Bank to open a trust account for P2.38
million in the name of NQSRMDC and to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just
compensation of the subject property. NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed on June 9,
1992 an Omnibus Motion to enforce the DARAB order of March 31, 1992 and to nullify the
summary proceedings undertaken by the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank on the valuation
of the subject property.

6. The DARAB, on October 22, 1992, acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion by (a) ordering
the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank to seriously comply with the terms of the order dated
March 31, 1992; (b) nullifying the DAR Regional Directors memorandum, dated May 21, 1992,
and the summary proceedings conducted pursuant thereto; and (c) directing the Land Bank to
return the claim folder of Petitioner NQSRMDCs subject property to the DAR until further orders.
[6]

7. The Land Bank complied with the DARAB order and cancelled the trust account it opened
in the name of petitioner NQSRMDC.[7]

8. In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon, headed by

Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6,[8] dated January 7, 1993, designating certain
areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the
subject property is situated.

9. What happened thereafter is well-narrated in the OP (TORRES) Decision of March 29,

1996, pertinent portions of which we quote:
Pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao, Bukidnon, on March 4, 1993, enacted Ordinance No. 24
converting or re-classifying 144 hectares of land in Bgy. San Vicente, said Municipality, from
agricultural to industrial/institutional with a view of providing an opportunity to attract
investors who can inject new economic vitality, provide more jobs and raise the income of its
people.
Parenthetically, under said section, 4th to 5th class municipalities may authorize the classification
of five percent (5%) of their agricultural land area and provide for the manner of their utilization
or disposition.
On 12 October 1993, the Bukidnon Provincial Land Use Committee approved the said
Ordinance. Accordingly, on 11 December 1993, the instant application for conversion was filed by
Mr. Gaudencio Beduya in behalf of NQSRMDC/BAIDA (Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development
Association).
Expressing support for the proposed project, the Bukidnon Provincial Board, on the basis of a
Joint Committee Report submitted by its Committee on Laws, Committee on Agrarian Reform and
Socio-Economic Committee approved, on 1 February 1994, the said Ordinance now docketed as
Resolution No. 94-95. The said industrial area, as conceived by NQSRMDC (project proponent) is
supposed to have the following components:
1. The Development Academy of Mindanao which constitutes the following: Institute for
Continuing Higher Education; Institute for Livelihood Science (Vocational and Technical School);
Institute for Agribusiness Research; Museum, Library, Cultural Center, and Mindanao Sports
Development Complex which covers an area of 24 hectares;
2. Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Park which consists of corn processing for corn oil, corn starch,
various corn products; rice processing for wine, rice-based snacks, exportable rice; cassava
processing for starch, alcohol and food delicacies; processing plants, fruits and fruit products
such as juices; processing plants for vegetables processed and prepared for market; cold storage
and ice plant; cannery system; commercial stores; public market; and abattoir needing about 67
hectares;
3. Forest development which includes open spaces and parks for recreation, horse-back riding,
memorial and mini-zoo estimated to cover 33 hectares; and
4. Support facilities which comprise the construction of a 360-room hotel, restaurants,
dormitories and a housing project covering an area of 20 hectares.
The said NQSRMDC Proposal was, per Certification dated January 4, 1995, adopted by the
Department of Trade and Industry, Bukidnon Provincial Office, as one of its flagship projects.The
same was likewise favorably recommended by the Provincial Development Council of Bukidnon;
the municipal, provincial and regional office of the DAR; the Regional Office (Region X) of the
DENR (which issued an Environmental Compliance Certificate on June 5, 1995); the Executive
Director, signing By Authority of PAUL G. DOMINGUEZ, Office of the President Mindanao; the
Secretary of DILG; and Undersecretary of DECS Wilfredo D. Clemente.
In the same vein, the National Irrigation Administration, Provincial Irrigation Office, Bagontaas
Valencia, Bukidnon, thru Mr. Julius S. Maquiling, Chief, Provincial Irrigation Office, interposed NO
OBJECTION to the proposed conversion as long as the development cost of the irrigation systems
thereat which is P2,377.00 per hectare be replenished by the developer x x x. Also, the Kisolon-
San Vicente Irrigators Multi Purpose Cooperative, San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, interposed no
objection to the proposed conversion of the land in question as it will provide more economic
benefits to the community in terms of outside investments that will come and employment
opportunities that will be generated by the projects to be put up x x x.
On the same score, it is represented that during the public consultation held at the Kisolan
Elementary School on 18 March 1995 with Director Jose Macalindong of DAR Central Office and
DECS Undersecretary Clemente, the people of the affected barangay rallied behind their
respective officials in endorsing the project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable recommendation, however, on November 14, 1994, the
DAR, thru Secretary Garilao, invoking its powers to approve conversion of lands under Section 65
of R.A. No. 6657, issued an Order denying the instant application for the conversion of the subject
land from agricultural to agro-industrial and, instead, placed the same under the compulsory
coverage of CARP and directed the distribution thereof to all qualified beneficiaries on the
following grounds:
1. The area is considered as a prime agricultural land with irrigation facility;
2. The land has long been covered by a Notice of Compulsory Acquisition (NCA);
3. The existing policy on withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not applicable;
4. There is no clear and tangible compensation package arrangements for the beneficiaries;
5. The procedures on how the area was identified and reclassified for agro-industrial project has
no reference to Memo Circular No. 54, Series of 1993, E.O. No. 72, Series of 1993, and E.O. No. 124,
Series of 1993.
A Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was filed on January 9, 1995 by applicant but
the same was denied (in an Order dated June 7, 1995).[9]

10. Thus, the DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director to proceed with the
compulsory acquisition and distribution of the property.[10]

11. Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon appealed[11] the order of denial to the Office of
the President and prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same
would be more beneficial to the people of Bukidnon.

12. To prevent the enforcement of the DAR Secretarys order, NQSRMDC, on June 29, 1995,
filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction,
[12] docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 37614.

13. Meanwhile, on July 25, 1995, the Honorable Paul G. Dominguez, then Presidential
Assistant for Mindanao, after conducting an evaluation of the proposed project, sent a
memorandum[13] to the President favorably endorsing the project with a recommendation that
the DAR Secretary reconsider his decision in denying the application of the province for the
conversion of the land.

14. Also, in a memorandum[14] to the President dated August 23, 1995, the Honorable Rafael
Alunan III, then Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG),
recommended the conversion of the subject land to industrial/institutional use with a request
that the President hold the implementation of the DAR order to distribute the land in question.

15. On October 23, 1995, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 37614, issued a
Resolution[15] ordering the parties to observe status quo pending resolution of the petition. At
the hearing held in said case on October 5, 1995, the DAR, through the Solicitor General,
manifested before the said court that the DAR was merely in the processing stage of the
applications of farmers-claimants and has agreed to respect status quo pending the resolution of
the petition.[16]

16. In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary
Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the
DAR Secretarys decision, the pertinent portions of which read:
After a careful evaluation of the petition vis--vis the grounds upon which the denial thereof by
Secretary Garilao was based, we find that the instant application for conversion by the
Municipality of Sumilao, Bukidnon is impressed with merit. To be sure, converting the land in
question from agricultural to agro-industrial would open great opportunities for employment and
bring about real development in the area towards a sustained economic growth of the
municipality. On the other hand, distributing the land to would-be beneficiaries (who are not
even tenants, as there are none) does not guarantee such benefits.
Nevertheless, on the issue that the land is considered a prime agricultural land with irrigation
facility it maybe appropriate to mention that, as claimed by petitioner, while it is true that there
is, indeed, an irrigation facility in the area, the same merely passes thru the property (as a right of
way) to provide water to the ricelands located on the lower portion thereof. The land itself,
subject of the instant petition, is not irrigated as the same was, for several years, planted with
pineapple by the Philippine Packing Corporation.
On the issue that the land has long been covered by a Notice of Compulsory Acquisition (NCA)
and that the existing policy on withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not applicable,
suffice it to state that the said NCA was declared null and void by the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) as early as March 1, 1992. Deciding in favor of NQSRMDC,
the DARAB correctly pointed out that under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6657, the subject property could
not validly be the subject of compulsory acquisition until after the expiration of the lease contract
with Del Monte Philippines, a Multi-National Company, or until April 1994, and ordered the DAR
Regional Office and the Land Bank of the Philippines, both in Butuan City, to `desist from pursuing
any activity or activities covering petitioners land.
On this score, we take special notice of the fact that the Quisumbing family has already
contributed substantially to the land reform program of the government, as follows: 300 hectares
of rice land in Nueva Ecija in the 70s and another 400 hectares in the nearby Municipality of
Impasugong, Bukidnon, ten (10) years ago, for which they have not received just compensation
up to this time.
Neither can the assertion that there is no clear and tangible compensation package arrangements
for the beneficiaries hold water as, in the first place, there are no beneficiaries to speak about, for
the land is not tenanted as already stated.
Nor can procedural lapses in the manner of identifying/reclassifying the subject property for
agro-industrial purposes be allowed to defeat the very purpose of the law granting autonomy to
local government units in the management of their local affairs. Stated more simply, the language
of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, supra, is clear and affords no room for any other interpretation. By
unequivocal legal mandate, it grants local government units autonomy in their local affairs
including the power to convert portions of their agricultural lands and provide for the manner of
their utilization and disposition to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant
communities.
WHEREFORE, in pursuance of the spirit and intent of the said legal mandate and in view of the
favorable recommendations of the various government agencies abovementioned, the subject
Order, dated November 14, 1994 of the Hon. Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform, is hereby
SET ASIDE and the instant application of NQSRMDC/BAIDA is hereby APPROVED.[17]

17.On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for reconsideration of the OP decision.

18 On September 11, 1996, in compliance with the OP decision of March 29, 1996, NQSRMDC
and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) executed a Memorandum of
Agreement whereby the former donated four (4) hectares from the subject land to DECS for the
establishment of the NQSR High School.[18]

When NQSRMDC was about to transfer the title over the 4-hectare donated to DECS, it
discovered that the title over the subject property was no longer in its name. It soon found out
that during the pendency of both the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, with Preliminary
Injunction it filed against DAR in the Court of Appeals and the appeal to the President filed by
Governor Carlos O. Fortich, the DAR, without giving just compensation, caused the cancellation of
NQSRMDCs title on August 11, 1995 and had it transferred in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines under TCT No. T-50264[19] of the Registry of Deeds of Bukidnon. Thereafter, on
September 25, 1995, DAR caused the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)
No. 00240227 and had it registered in the name of 137 farmer-beneficiaries under TCT No. AT-
3536[20] of the Registry of Deeds of Bukidnon.

19. Thus, on April 10, 1997, NQSRMDC filed a complaint[21] with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon (Branch 9), docketed as Civil Case No. 2687-97, for annulment and
cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others. The RTC then issued a
Temporary Restraining Order on April 30, 1997[22] and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on May
19, 1997,[23] restraining the DAR and 141 others from entering, occupying and/or wresting from
NQSRMDC the possession of the subject land.

20. Meanwhile, on June 23, 1997, an Order[24] was issued by then Executive Secretary Ruben
D. Torres denying DARs motion for reconsideration for having been filed beyond the
reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. The said order further declared that the March 29, 1996
OP decision had already become final and executory.

21. The DAR filed on July 11, 1997 a second motion for reconsideration of the June 23, 1997
Order of the President.

22. On August 12, 1997, the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC was
challenged by some alleged farmers before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari
and prohibition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 44905, praying for the lifting of the injunction and for
the issuance of a writ of prohibition from further trying the RTC case.

23. On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger strike in front
of the DAR Compound in Quezon City to protest the OP Decision of March 29, 1996. On October
10, 1997, some persons claiming to be farmer-beneficiaries of the NQSRMDC property filed a
motion for intervention (styled as Memorandum In Intervention) in O.P. Case No. 96-C-6424,
asking that the OP Decision allowing the conversion of the entire 144-hectare property be set
aside.[25]

24. President Fidel V. Ramos then held a dialogue with the strikers and promised to resolve
their grievance within the framework of the law. He created an eight (8)-man Fact Finding Task
Force (FFTF) chaired by Agriculture Secretary Salvador Escudero to look into the controversy and
recommend possible solutions to the problem.[26]

25. On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers protest by issuing
the so-called Win/Win Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Office of the President, through Executive
Secretary Ruben Torres, dated March 29, 1996, is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
1. NQSRMDCs application for conversion is APPROVED only with respect to the approximately
forty-four (44) hectare portion of the land adjacent to the highway, as recommended by the
Department of Agriculture.
2. The remaining approximately one hundred (100) hectares traversed by an irrigation canal and
found to be suitable for agriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries in
accordance with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law with a right of way to said
portion from the highway provided in the portion fronting the highway. For this purpose, the DAR
and other concerned government agencies are directed to immediately conduct the segregation
survey of the area, valuation of the property and generation of titles in the name of the identified
farmer-beneficiaries.
3. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby directed to carefully and meticulously determine
who among the claimants are qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
4. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby further directed to expedite payment of just
compensation to NQSRMDC for the portion of the land to be covered by the CARP, including other
lands previously surrendered by NQSRMDC for CARP coverage.
5. The Philippine National Police is hereby directed to render full assistance to the Department of
Agrarian Reform in the implementation of this Order.
We take note of the Memorandum in Intervention filed by 113 farmers on October 10, 1997
without ruling on the propriety or merits thereof since it is unnecessary to pass upon it at this
time.
SO ORDERED.[27]

A copy of the Win-Win Resolution was received by Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon,
Mayor Rey B. Baula of Sumilao, Bukidnon, and NQSRMDC on November 24, 1997[28] and, on
December 4, 1997, they filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition (under Rule 65 of the
Revised Rules of Court) and injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction (under Rule 58, ibid.), against then Deputy Executive
Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao.

On December 12, 1997, a Motion For Leave To Intervene[29] was filed by alleged farmer-
beneficiaries, through counsel, claiming that they are real parties in interest as they were
previously identified by respondent DAR as agrarian reform beneficiaries on the 144-hectare
property subject of this case. The motion was vehemently opposed[30] by the petitioners.

In seeking the nullification of the Win-Win Resolution, the petitioners claim that the Office of
the President was prompted to issue the said resolution after a very well-managed hunger strike
led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically
blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease
the farmers, by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared
final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997.[31] Thus, petitioners further allege,
respondent then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona committed grave abuse of
discretion and acted beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned Resolution of 7
November 1997.[32] They availed of this extraordinary writ of certiorari because there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[33] They never filed a
motion for reconsideration of the subject Resolution because (it) is patently illegal or contrary to
law and it would be a futile exercise to seek a reconsideration .[34]

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition and prayed that it be
dismissed outright on the following grounds:

(1) The proper remedy of petitioners should have been to file a petition for review directly
with the Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court;

(2) The petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed Win-Win
Resolution before filing the present petition; and

(3) Petitioner NQSRMDC is guilty of forum-shopping.

These are the preliminary issues which must first be resolved, including the incident on the
motion for intervention filed by the alleged farmer-beneficiaries.

Anent the first issue, in order to determine whether the recourse of petitioners is proper or
not, it is necessary to draw a line between an error of judgment and an error of
jurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, and which error is reviewable only by an appeal.[35] On the other hand, an error of
jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-
judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is
tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.[36] This error is correctable only by the
extraordinary writ of certiorari.[37]

It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of
any quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions,[38] including the Office of the
President,[39] may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for
review[40] within fifteen (15) days from notice of the said judgment, final order or resolution,
[41] whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.[42]

However, we hold that, in this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is
inapplicable considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged
resolution is patently illegal[43] and was issued with grave abuse of discretion and beyond his
(respondent Secretary Renato C. Coronas) jurisdiction[44] when said resolution substantially
modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had long become final and
executory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an
error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy
to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under
Rule 65, as what the petitioners have correctly done. The pertinent portion of Section 1 thereof
provides:
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy,
and adequate 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 be
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting
such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

x x x x x x x x x.

The office of a writ of certiorari is restricted to truly extraordinary cases cases in which the act of
the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void.[45]

The aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 65 mandates that the person aggrieved by the assailed
illegal act may file a verified petition (for certiorari) in the proper court. The proper court where
the petition must be filed is stated in Section 4 of the same Rule 65 which reads:
SEC. 4. Where petition filed.- The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of
the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the
acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional
Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It
may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or
omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the
petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. (4a)

Under the above-quoted Section 4, the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Regional Trial
Court have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari,[46] prohibition[47] and
mandamus.[48] But the jurisdiction of these three (3) courts are also delineated in that, if the
challenged act relates to acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or
person, the petition must be filed with the Regional Trial Court which exercises jurisdiction over
the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. And if it involves the act or omission of a
quasi-judicial agency, the petition shall be filed only with the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise
provided by law or the Rules of Court. We have clearly discussed this matter of concurrence of
jurisdiction in People vs. Cuaresma, et. al.,[49] through now Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, thus:
x x x. This Courts original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari (as well as
prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared
by this Court with Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance), which may issue the
writ, enforceable in any part of their respective regions. It is also shared by this Court, and by the
Regional Trial Court, with the Court of Appeals (formerly, Intermediate Appellate Court),
although prior to the effectivity of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 on August 14, 1981, the latters
competence to issue the extraordinary writs was restricted to those in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be taken as according to parties
seeking 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 should also serve as a general determinant of the
appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs. A becoming regard for that judicial
hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against
first level (inferior) courts should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the
latter, with the Court of Appeals. (Citations omitted)

But the Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition
filed directly to it if compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised,
warrant. This has been the judicial policy to be observed and which has been reiterated in
subsequent cases, namely:[50] Uy vs. Contreras, et. al.,[51] Torres vs. Arranz,[52] Bercero vs. De
Guzman,[53] and Advincula vs. Legaspi, et. al.[54] As we have further stated in Cuaresma:
x x x. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts 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 established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent
inordinate demands upon the Courts time and attention which are better devoted to those
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Courts
docket.

Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take primary jurisdiction over the present
petition in the interest of speedy justice[55] and to avoid future litigations so as to promptly put
an end to the present controversy which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked
national interest because of the magnitude of the problem created by the issuance of the assailed
resolution. Moreover, as will be discussed later, we find the assailed resolution wholly void and
requiring the petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of Appeals would only result in a
waste of time and money.

That the Court has the power to set aside its own rules in the higher interests of justice is
well-entrenched in our jurisprudence. We reiterate what we said in Piczon vs. Court of Appeals:
[56]
Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment
of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to
frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Time and again, this
Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever
the higher interests of justice so require. In the instant petition, we forego a lengthy disquisition
of the proper procedure that should have been taken by the parties involved and proceed directly
to the merits of the case."

As to the second issue of whether the petitioners committed a fatal procedural lapse when
they failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution before seeking judicial
recourse, suffice it to state that the said motion is not necessary when the questioned resolution
is a patent nullity,[57] as will be taken up later.
 With respect to the third issue, the respondents claim that the filing by the petitioners of: (a)
a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. SP No. 37614) with the
Court of Appeals; (b) a complaint for annulment and cancellation of title, damages and injunction
against DAR and 141 others (Civil Case No. 2687-97) with the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay,
Bukidnon; and (c) the present petition, constitute forum shopping.

We disagree.

The rule is that:

There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. The principle applies not only
with respect to suits filed in the courts but also in connection with litigation commenced in the
courts while an administrative proceeding is pending, as in this case, in order to defeat
administrative processes and in anticipation of an unfavorable administrative ruling and a
favorable court ruling. This specially so, as in this case, where the court in which the second suit
was brought, has no jurisdiction (citations omitted).
The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping has been laid
down in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez (145 SCRA 34), x x x and that is, forum shopping exists
where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case
will amount to res judicata in the other, as follows:
There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC Case No. 86-36563 identity of
parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions, as well as identity
of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the
identity on the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other
action, will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the action
under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action pendant.'[58]

It is clear from the above-quoted rule that the petitioners are not guilty of forum
shopping. The test for determining whether a party has violated the rule against forum shopping
is where a final judgment in one case will amount to res adjudicata in the action under
consideration. A cursory examination of the cases filed by the petitioners does not show that the
said cases are similar with each other. The petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals sought
the nullification of the DAR Secretarys order to proceed with the compulsory acquisition and
distribution of the subject property. On the other hand, the civil case in RTC of Malaybalay,
Bukidnon for the annulment and cancellation of title issued in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines, with damages, was based on the following grounds: (1) the DAR, in applying for
cancellation of petitioner NQSRMDCs title, used documents which were earlier declared null and
void by the DARAB; (2) the cancellation of NQSRMDCs title was made without payment of just
compensation; and (3) without notice to NQSRMDC for the surrender of its title. The present
petition is entirely different from the said two cases as it seeks the nullification of the assailed
Win-Win Resolution of the Office of the President dated November 7, 1997, which resolution was
issued long after the previous two cases were instituted.

The fourth and final preliminary issue to be resolved is the motion for intervention filed by
alleged farmer-beneficiaries, which we have to deny for lack of merit. In their motion, movants
contend that they are the farmer-beneficiaries of the land in question, hence, are real parties in
interest. To prove this, they attached as Annex I in their motion a Master List of Farmer-
Beneficiaries. Apparently, the alleged master list was made pursuant to the directive in the
dispositive portion of the assailed Win-Win Resolution which directs the DAR to carefully and
meticulously determine who among the claimants are qualified farmer-beneficiaries. However, a
perusal of the said document reveals that movants are those purportedly Found Qualified and
Recommended for Approval. In other words, movants are merely recommendee farmer-
beneficiaries.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in interest is a party who would be benefited
or injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Real interestmeans
a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent,
subordinate or consequential interest.[59] Undoubtedly, movants interest over the land in
question is a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in interest.

Furthermore, the challenged resolution upon which movants based their motion is, as
intimated earlier, null and void. Hence, their motion for intervention has no leg to stand on.

Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision dated March 29,1996 can
still be substantially modified by the Win-Win Resolution.

We rule in the negative.

The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the President of the Philippines
are embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7 thereof provides:
SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall, except as otherwise
provided for by special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of
a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within
such period.
Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained, save
in exceptionally meritorious cases. (Emphasis ours)

It is further provided for in Section 9 that The Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character
whenever practicable.

When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23,1997 declaring the Decision
of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for
reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so
modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority
to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which
second motion became the basis of the assailed Win-Win Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative
Order No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one (1)
motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996. And even
if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in exceptionally meritorious
cases, as provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not
have been entertained considering that the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably
filed, thereby allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the
Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29,1996
Decision which had already become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and
basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations.

In San Luis, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.[60] we held:

Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commission and the Office of the President had long
become final and executory, the same can no longer be reviewed by the courts. It is well-
established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative agencies,
rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the force and binding
effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata [Brillantes v. Castro,
99 Phil. 497 (1956), Ipekdijna Merchandizing Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430,
September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72.] The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter
once judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-
judicial acts of public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their
jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers [Brillantes v.
Castro, supra at 503].

The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or

quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble
purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all.[61] This is a fundamental principle in our
justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence
to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any
act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down.

Therefore, the assailed Win-Win Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of
March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void. Such void resolution, as aptly stressed
by Justice Thomas A. Street[62] in a 1918 case,[63] is a lawless thing, which can be treated as an
outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.[64]

WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Resolution dated
November 7, 1997, issued by the Office of the President in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, is hereby
NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Motion For Leave To Intervene filed by alleged farmer-
beneficiaries is hereby DENIED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

• DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT ON THE SUMILAO CASE (ON THE
REVOCATION OF THE CONVERSION CODE)