ROMAN CATHOLIC G.R. No. 139285ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES,Petitioner, Present:QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,- versus - CARPIO,CARPIO MORALES,TINGA, andVELASCO, JR., JJ.SECRETARY OF AGRARIANREFORM and DAR REGIONAL Promulgated:DIRECTOR (Region V),Respondents. December 21, 2007x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x 

D E C I S I O N 

VELASCO, JR., J.: 

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) has truly noble goals, and these noble goals should not be stymied by the creation of exemptions or exceptions not contemplated by the law.

 The Case

 In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under

Rule 45, petitioner Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres (Archbishop) questions the February 4, 1999 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 48282, which upheld the December 8, 1997 and June 10, 1998 Orders of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).  

The Facts Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668 hectares. Of that land, 249.0236 hectares are planted with rice and corn, while the remaining 19.5432 hectares are planted with coconut trees. In 1985, Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office No. 19, Naga City, Camarines Sur several petitions for exemption of certain properties located in various towns of Camarines Sur from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27.[2] Two of these petitions were denied in an Order dated November 6, 1986, issued by the Regional Director of DAR, Region V, Juanito L. Lorena.[3]

 Archbishop appealed from the order of the Regional Director, and sought exemption from OLT coverage of all lands planted with rice and corn which were registered in the name of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Caceres. In his appeal, Archbishop cited the following grounds:

 a) That said properties are all covered

by conditional donations subject to the prohibitions of

the donors to SELL, EXCHANGE, LEASE, TRANSFER, ENCUMBER OR MORTGAGE the properties;

b) That they are used for charitable and religious purposes;

c) That the parishes located in depressed areas badly need them for the furtherance of their mission work, propagation of the faith, maintenance and support of their chapels, churches and educational religious institutions like the Holy Rosary Major and Minor Seminaries for the promotion of the priesthood vocation;

d) For the preservation of good relationship between church and state thru non-infringement of the right to exercise religious profession and worship;

e) For the maintenance of the Cathedral and Peafrancia Shrine, which now include the Basilica Minore Housing our venerable image of Our Lady of Peafrancia and the venerable portrait of Divine Rostro;

f) That the petitioner (church) is amenable to continue the leasehold system with the present cultivators or tenants.[4]

  This appeal was denied by then DAR Secretary

Ernesto D. Garilao in an Order dated December 8, 1997.[5] A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated June 10, 1998.[6]

 The matter was then raised to the CA via Petition

for Review on Certiorari. Archbishop argued that even if the lands in question are registered in his name, he holds the lands in trust for the benefit of his followers as cestui que trust. Archbishop further argued that the deeds of donation by which the lands were transferred to him imposed numerous fiduciary obligations, such that he cannot sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber, or mortgage the subject lands. By this reasoning, Archbishop concluded that he is not the landowner contemplated by PD 27 and Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, the CARL of 1988. He then prayed that the assailed orders of the DAR be reversed, or in the alternative, that the alleged beneficiaries of the trust be each allowed to exercise rights of retention over the landholdings.[7]

 

1

The petition was dismissed by the CA in its February 4, 1999 Decision.[8] Archbishop filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied in the June 18, 1999 CA Resolution.[9]

 Archbishop now brings the matter before us

through this petition.    

The Issues Archbishop raises issues he had raised previously, which, he contends, the CA failed to properly address. He claims that the CA erred in holding that he is only entitled to assert one right of retention as the subject properties are registered in his name. He further claims that an express trust had been created wherein he only held naked title to the subject properties on behalf of the beneficiaries. He argues that it is not the landowner contemplated by the law, but merely a trustee, and as such is entitled to as many rights of retention on behalf of the beneficiaries of each particular property. He then raises the question of the applicability of the ruling in The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. v. The Land Registration Commission and the Register of Deeds of Davao City,[10] which, he cites, ruled that properties held by the Church are held by it as a mere administrator for the benefit of the members of that particular religion. As Archbishop claims to be merely an administrator of the subject properties, he argues that these subject properties should have been exempt from the OLT. 

The Courts Ruling 

The petition has no merit. Archbishops arguments, while novel, must fail in the face of the law and the dictates of the 1987 Constitution. The laws simply speak of the landowner without qualification as to under what title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the landowner holds naked title only or can exercise all the rights of ownership. Archbishop would have us read deeper into the law, to create exceptions that are not stated in PD 27 and RA 6657, and to do so would be to frustrate the revolutionary intent of the law, which is the redistribution of agricultural land for the benefit of landless farmers and farmworkers.Archbishop was found to be the registered owner of the lands in question, and does not contest that fact. For the purposes of the law, this makes him the landowner, without the necessity of going beyond the registered titles. He cannot demand a deeper examination of the registered titles and demand further that the intent of the original owners be ascertained and followed. To adopt his reasoning would create means of sidestepping the law, wherein the mere act of donation places lands beyond the reach of agrarian reform. 

There can be no claim of more than one right of retention per landowner. Neither PD 27 nor RA 6657 has a provision for a landowner to exercise more than one right of retention. The law is simple and clear as to the retention limits per landowner. PD 27 states, In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it; while RA 6657 states: 

SEC. 6. Retention Limits.Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.  Nothing in either law supports Archbishops claim

to more than one right of retention on behalf of each cestui que trust. The provisions of PD 27 and RA 6657 are plain and require no further interpretationthere is only one right of retention per landowner, and no multiple rights of retention can be held by a single party. Furthermore, the scheme proposed by Archbishop would create as many rights of retention as there are beneficiaries, which could in effect protect the entire available land area from agrarian reform. Under Archbishops reasoning, there is not even a definite landowner to claim separate rights of retention, and no specific number of rights of retention to be claimed by the landowners. There is simply no basis in the law or jurisprudence for his argument that it is the beneficial ownership that should be used to determine which party would have the right of retention.

 Archbishop makes much of the conditional

donation, that he does not have the power to sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber or mortgage the transferred properties. He claims that these conditions do not make him

2

the landowner as contemplated by the law. This matter has already been answered in Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, Cebu City (Hospicio) v. Department of Agrarian Reform.[11] In that case, wherein Act No. 3239 prohibited the sale under any consideration of lands donated to the Hospicio, a charitable organization, the Court found that the lands of the Hospicio were not exempt from the coverage of agrarian reform. In characterizing the sale of land under agrarian reform, we stated:

 Generally, sale arises out of

contractual obligation. Thus, it must meet the first essential requisite of every contract that is the presence of consent. Consent implies an act of volition in entering into the agreement. The absence or vitiation of consent renders the sale either void or voidable.

In this case, the deprivation of the Hospicios property did not arise as a consequence of the Hospicios consent to the transfer. There was no meeting of minds between the Hospicio, on one hand, and the DAR or the tenants, on the other, on the properties and the cause which are to constitute the contract that is to serve ultimately as the basis for the transfer of ownership of the subject lands. Instead, the obligation to transfer arises by compulsion of law, particularly P.D. No. 27.[12]

We discussed further: The twin process of

expropriation under agrarian reform and the payment of just compensation is akin to a forced sale, which has been aptly described in common law jurisdictions as sale made under the process of the court and in the mode prescribed by law, and which is not the voluntary act of the owner, such as to satisfy a debt, whether of a mortgage, judgment, tax lien, etc. The term has not been precisely defined in this jurisdiction, but reference to the phrase itself is made in Articles 223, 242, 237 and 243 of the Civil Code, which uniformly exempt the family home from execution, forced sale, or attachment. Yet a forced sale is clearly different from the sales described under Book V of the Civil Code which are conventional sales, as it does not arise from the consensual agreement of the vendor and vendee, but by compulsion of law. Still, since law is recognized as one of the sources of obligation, there can be no dispute on the efficacy of a

forced sale, so long as it is authorized by law.[13]

Archbishops claim that he does not have jus disponendi over the subject properties is unavailing. The very nature of the compulsory sale under PD 27 and RA 6657 defeats such a claim. Other less scrupulous parties may even attempt creating trusts to prevent their lands from coming under agrarian reform, and say that the trustee has no power to dispose of the properties. The disposition under PD 27 and RA 6657 is of a different character than what is contemplated by jus disponendi, wherein under these laws, voluntariness is not an issue, and the disposition is necessary for the laws to be effective. 

Under PD 27 and RA 6657, Archbishop cannot claim that the alleged conditions of the donations would have primacy over the application of the law. This forced sale is not even a violation of the conditions of the donation, since it is by application of law and beyond Archbishops control. The application of the law cannot and should not be defeated by the conditions laid down by the donors of the land. If such were allowed, it would be a simple matter for other landowners to place their lands without limit under the protection of religious organizations or create trusts by the mere act of donation, rendering agrarian reform but a pipe dream.Archbishops contention that he is merely an administrator of the donated properties will not serve to remove these lands from the coverage of agrarian reform. Under PD 27, the coverage is lands devoted to rice and corn. Section 4 of RA 6657 states, 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. The lands in Archbishops name are agricultural lands that fall within the scope of the law, and do not fall under the exemptions. The exemptions under RA 6657 form an exclusive list, as follows:

SEC. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.

(a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.

(b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued under the Agrarian Reform Program.

In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law,

3

by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the actual regular workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act.  When the workers or tenants do not agree to this exemption, the fishponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker-beneficiaries or tenants who shall form cooperative or association to manage the same.

In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the consent of the farmworkers shall no longer be necessary; however, the provision of Section 32-A hereof on incentives shall apply.

(c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed, shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act. (As amended by R. A. 7881)

Archbishop would claim exemption from the coverage of agrarian reform by stating that he is a mere administrator, but his position does not appear under the list of exemptions under RA 6657. His claimed status as administrator does not create another class of lands exempt from the coverage of PD 27 or RA 6657, and The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc.[14] does not create another definition for the term landowner. We explained in Hospicio:

 It is axiomatic that where a

general rule is established by a statute with exceptions, the Court will not curtail nor add to the latter by implication, and it is a rule that an express exception excludes all others. We cannot simply impute into a statute an exception which the Congress did not incorporate. Moreover general welfare

legislation such as land reform laws is to be construed in favor of the promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic security of the people. Since a broad construction of the provision listing the properties exempted under the CARL would tend to denigrate the aims of agrarian reform, a strict application of these exceptions is in order.[15]

Archbishop cannot claim exemption in behalf of the millions of Filipino faithful, as the lands are clearly not exempt under the law. He should not fear that his followers are simply being deprived of land, as under both PD 27 and RA 6657, he is entitled to just compensation, which he may then use for the benefit of his followers. His situation is no different from other landowners affected by agrarian reformthey are somewhat deprived of their land, but it is all for a greater good.

 As Association of Small Landowners in the

Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[16] recognized the revolutionary character of the expropriation under the agrarian reform law, we follow such lofty ideal for the resolution of this case.This grand purpose under the CARL must not be hindered by the simple expedient of appending conditions to a donation of land, or by donating land to a church. This is not to cast aspersions on religious organizations, but it is not fitting for them to be used as vehicles for keeping land out of the hands of the landless. The law is indubitably in line with the charitable ideals of religious organizations to ensure that the land they own falls into the hands of able caretakers and owners. As a religious leader, Archbishop can take solace in the fact that his lands are going to be awarded to those who need and can utilize them to the fullest.

 WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition,

and AFFIRM the February 4, 1999 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 48282.

 SO ORDERED.

4

G.R. No. 103302 August 12, 1993

NATALIA REALTY, INC., AND ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORP., petitioners, vs.DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SEC. BENJAMIN T. LEONG and DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR REGION IV, respondents.

Lino M. Patajo for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

 

BELLOSILLO, J.:

Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precursor agencies 1 prior to 15 June 1988, 2 covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988? This is the pivotal issue in this petition for certiorari assailing the Notice of Coverage 3 of the Department of Agrarian Reform over parcels of land already reserved as townsite areas before the enactment of the law.

Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of three (3) contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, with areas of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares and 2.7080 hectares, or a total of 125.0078 hectares, and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31527 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal.

On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation.

Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into low-cost housing subdivisions within the reservation, petitioner Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC, for brevity), as developer of NATALIA properties, applied for and was granted preliminary approval and locational clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. The necessary permit for Phase I of the subdivision project, which consisted of 13.2371 hectares, was issued sometime in 1982; 4 for Phase II, with an area of 80,000 hectares, on 13 October 1983; 5 and for Phase III, which consisted of the remaining 31.7707 hectares, on 25 April 1986. 6 Petitioner were likewise issued development permits 7 after complying with the requirements. Thus the NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.

On 15 June 1988, R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988" (CARL, for brevity), went into effect. Conformably therewith, respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR, for brevity), through its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued on 22 November 1990 a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the notice of Coverage.

EDIC also protested to respondent Director Wilfredo Leano of the DAR Region IV Office and twice wrote him requesting the cancellation of the Notice of Coverage.

On 17 January 1991, members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA, for the brevity), filed a complaint against NATALIA and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain petitioners from developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA members. 8 The Regional Adjudicator temporarily restrained petitioners from proceeding with the development of the subdivision. Petitioners then moved to dismiss the complaint; it was denied. Instead, the Regional Adjudicator issued on 5 March 1991 a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Petitioners NATALIA and EDIC elevated their cause to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB); however, on 16 December 1991 the DARAB merely remanded the case to the Regional Adjudicator for further proceedings. 9

In the interim, NATALIA wrote respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform reiterating its request to set aside the Notice of Coverage. Neither respondent Secretary nor respondent Director took action on the protest-letters, thus compelling petitioners to institute this proceeding more than a year thereafter.

NATALIA and EDIC both impute grave abuse of discretion to respondent DAR for including undedeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of the CARL. They argue that NATALIA properties already ceased to be agricultural lands when they were included in the areas reserved by presidential fiat for the townsite reservation.

Public respondents through the Office of the Solicitor General dispute this contention. They maintain that the permits granted petitioners were not valid and binding because they did not comply with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957, otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree," in that no application for conversion of the NATALIA lands from agricultural residential was ever filed with the DAR. In other words, there was no valid conversion. Moreover, public respondents allege that the instant petition was prematurely filed because the case instituted by SAMBA against petitioners before the DAR Regional Adjudicator has not yet terminated. Respondents

5

conclude, as a consequence, that petitioners failed to fully exhaust administrative remedies available to them before coming to court.

The petition is impressed with merit. A cursory reading of the Preliminary Approval and Locational Clearances as well as the Development Permits granted petitioners for Phases I, II and III of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision reveals that contrary to the claim of public respondents, petitioners NATALIA and EDIC did in fact comply with all the requirements of law.

Petitioners first secured favorable recommendations from the Lungsod Silangan Development Corporation, the agency tasked to oversee the implementation of the development of the townsite reservation, before applying for the necessary permits from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. 10 And, in all permits granted to petitioners, the Commission stated invariably therein that the applications were in "conformance" 11 or "conformity" 12 or "conforming" 13 with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957. Hence, the argument of public respondents that not all of the requirements were complied with cannot be sustained.

As a matter of fact, there was even no need for petitioners to secure a clearance or prior approval from DAR. The NATALIA properties were within the areas set aside for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Since Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 created the townsite reservation for the purpose of providing additional housing to the burgeoning population of Metro Manila, it in effect converted for residential use what were erstwhile agricultural lands provided all requisites were met. And, in the case at bar, there was compliance with all relevant rules and requirements. Even in their applications for the development of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision, the predecessor agency of HLURB noted that petitioners NATALIA and EDIC complied with all the requirements prescribed by P.D. 957.

The implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957 applied to all subdivisions and condominiums in general. On the other hand, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 referred only to the Lungsod Silangan Reservation, which makes it a special law. It is a basic tenet in statutory construction that between a general law and a special law, the latter prevails. 14

Interestingly, the Office of the Solicitor General does not contest the conversion of portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which have already been developed. 15 Of course, this is contrary to its earlier position that there was no valid conversion. The applications for the developed and undeveloped portions of subject subdivision were similarly situated. Consequently, both did not need prior DAR approval.

We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land." 16 The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. "Agricultural lands" are only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands." 17

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in question continued to be developed as a low-cost housing subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be gleaned from the fact that SAMBA members even instituted an action to restrain petitioners from continuing with such development. The enormity of the resources needed for developing a subdivision may have delayed its completion but this does not detract from the fact that these lands are still residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL.

Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, 18 DAR itself defined "agricultural land" thus —

. . . Agricultural lands refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use.

Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.

Be that as it may, the Secretary of Justice, responding to a query by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, noted in an

6

Opinion 19 that lands covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 1637, inter alia, of which the NATALIA lands are part, having been reserved for townsite purposes "to be developed as human settlements by the proper land and housing agency," are "not deemed 'agricultural lands' within the meaning and intent of Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. " Not being deemed "agricultural lands," they are outside the coverage of CARL.

Anent the argument that there was failure to exhaust administrative remedies in the instant petition, suffice it to say that the issues raised in the case filed by SAMBA members differ from those of petitioners. The former involve possession; the latter, the propriety of including under the operation of CARL lands already converted for residential use prior to its effectivity.

Besides, petitioners were not supposed to wait until public respondents acted on their letter-protests, this after sitting it out for almost a year. Given the official indifference, which under the circumstances could have continued forever, petitioners had to act to assert and protect their interests. 20

In fine, we rule for petitioners and hold that public respondents gravely abused their discretion in issuing the assailed Notice of Coverage of 22 November 1990 by of lands over which they no longer have jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Notice of Coverage of 22 November 1990 by virtue of which undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision were placed under CARL coverage is hereby SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.

7

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN G.R. No. 162070REFORM, represented by SECRETARYJOSE MARI B. PONCE (OIC), Present:Petitioner, Davide, C.J.,Puno,Panganiban,Quisumbing,Ynares-Santiago,Sandoval-Gutierrez,Carpio,- versus - Austria-Martinez,Corona,Carpio Morales,Callejo, Sr.,Azcuna,Tinga,Chico-Nazario andGarcia, JJ.DELIA T. SUTTON, ELLA T.SUTTON-SOLIMAN and Promulgated:HARRY T. SUTTON,Respondents. October 19, 2005x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x  

DECISION  PUNO, J.:  This is a petition for review filed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 19, 2003 and February 4, 2004, respectively, which declared DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9, series of 1993, null and void for being violative of the Constitution. The case at bar involves a land in Aroroy, Masbate, inherited by respondents which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. On October 26, 1987, pursuant to the then existing agrarian reform program of the government, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS)[1] their landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law. 

On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect. It included in its coverage farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine.

 On December 4, 1990, in an en banc decision in

the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR,[2] this Court ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land. Hence, we declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL insofar as they included livestock farms in the coverage of agrarian reform.

In view of the Luz Farms ruling, respondents filed with petitioner DAR a formal request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to

cattle-raising and thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL.[3]

 On December 21, 1992, the Municipal Agrarian

Reform Officer of Aroroy, Masbate, inspected respondents land and found that it was devoted solely to cattle-raising and breeding. He recommended to the DAR Secretary that it be exempted from the coverage of the CARL.

 On April 27, 1993, respondents reiterated to

petitioner DAR the withdrawal of their VOS and requested the return of the supporting papers they submitted in connection therewith.[4] Petitioner ignored their request.

 On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9,

series of 1993,[5] which provided that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the CARL. In determining the area of land to be excluded, the A.O. fixed the following retention limits, viz: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per 1 head of animal shall be retained by the landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded from the operations of the CARL. On February 4, 1994, respondents wrote the DAR Secretary and advised him to consider as final and irrevocable the withdrawal of their VOS as, under the Luz Farms doctrine, their entire landholding is exempted from the CARL.[6]

 On September 14, 1995, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao issued an Order[7] partially granting the application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of CARL. Applying the retention limits outlined in the DAR A.O. No. 9, petitioner exempted 1,209 hectares of respondents land for grazing purposes, and a maximum of 102.5635 hectares for infrastructure. Petitioner ordered the rest of respondents landholding to be segregated and placed under Compulsory Acquisition. 

Respondents moved for reconsideration. They contend that their entire landholding should be exempted as it is devoted exclusively to cattle-raising. Their motion was denied.[8] They filed a notice of appeal[9] with the Office of the President assailing: (1) the reasonableness and validity of DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, which provided for a ratio between land and livestock in determining the land area qualified for exclusion from the CARL, and (2) the constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, in view of the Luz Farms case which declared cattle-raising lands excluded from the coverage of agrarian reform. On October 9, 2001, the Office of the President affirmed the impugned Order of petitioner DAR.[10] It ruled that DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, does not run counter to the Luz Farms case as the A.O. provided the guidelines to determine whether a certain parcel of land is being used for cattle-raising. However, the issue on the constitutionality of the assailed A.O. was left for the determination of the courts as the sole arbiters of such issue.

8

 On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondents. It declared DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, void for being contrary to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the land reform program of the government. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 is hereby DECLARED null and void. The assailed order of the Office of the President dated 09 October 2001 in so far as it affirmed the Department of Agrarian Reforms ruling that petitioners landholding is covered by the agrarian reform program of the government isREVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.[11]

Hence, this petition.

The main issue in the case at bar is the constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribes a maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising.Invoking its rule-making power under Section 49 of the CARL, petitioner submits that it issued DAR A.O. No. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be retained by a landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and private agricultural lands under the coverage of agrarian reform. Petitioner also contends that the A.O. seeks to remedy reports that some unscrupulous landowners have converted their agricultural farms to livestock farms in order to evade their coverage in the agrarian reform program. Petitioners arguments fail to impress. 

Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature, i.e., the power to make rules and regulations. They have been granted by Congress with the authority to issue rules to regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to them. Delegated rule-making has become a practical necessity in modern governance due to the increasing complexity and variety of public functions. However, while administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law, they are not immune from judicial review.[12]They may be properly challenged before the courts to ensure that they do not violate the Constitution and no grave abuse of administrative discretion is committed by the administrative body concerned. The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules and regulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution.[13] The rule-making power of an administrative agency may not be used to abridge the authority given to it by Congress or by the Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the scope

intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative agencies and the scope of their regulations.[14]

 In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O.

is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry- raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of agriculture or agricultural activity. The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological appurtenances.[15]

 Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to

regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O. 

The subsequent case of Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR[16] reiterated our ruling in the Luz Farms case. In Natalia Realty, the Court held that industrial, commercial and residential lands are not covered by the CARL.[17] We stressed anew that while Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover all public and private agricultural lands, the term agricultural land does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial. Thus, in Natalia Realty, even portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision, which are arable yet still undeveloped, could not be considered as agricultural lands subject to agrarian reform as these lots were already classified as residential lands.

 A similar logical deduction should be followed in the case at bar. Lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, lands and thus exempt from agrarian reform. Petitioner DAR argues that, in issuing the impugned A.O., it was seeking to address the reports it has received that some unscrupulous landowners have been converting their agricultural lands to livestock farms to avoid their coverage by the agrarian reform. Again, we find neither merit nor logic in this contention. The undesirable scenario which petitioner seeks to prevent with the issuance of the A.O. clearly does not apply in this case. Respondents family acquired their landholdings as early as 1948. They have

9

long been in the business of breeding cattle in Masbate which is popularly known as the cattle-breeding capital of the Philippines.[18] Petitioner DAR does not dispute this fact. Indeed, there is no evidence on record that respondents have just recently engaged in or converted to the business of breeding cattle after the enactment of the CARL that may lead one to suspect that respondents intended to evade its coverage. It must be stressed that what the CARL prohibits is the conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes after the effectivity of the CARL. There has been no change of business interest in the case of respondents.

 Moreover, it is a fundamental rule of statutory

construction that the reenactment of a statute by Congress without substantial change is an implied legislative approval and adoption of the previous law. On the other hand, by making a new law, Congress seeks to supersede an earlier one.[19] In the case at bar, after the passage of the 1988 CARL, Congress enacted R.A. No. 7881[20] which amended certain provisions of the CARL. Specifically, the new law changed the definition of the terms agricultural activity and commercial farming by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising.[21] With this significant modification, Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform.

 In sum, it is doctrinal that rules of administrative

bodies must be in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution. They cannot amend or extend the Constitution. To be valid, they must conform to and be consistent with the Constitution. In case of conflict between an administrative order and the provisions of the Constitution, the latter prevails.[22] The assailed A.O. of petitioner DAR was properly stricken down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverage of agrarian reform beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution.

 IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is

DISMISSED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 19, 2003 and February 4, 2004, respectively, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

 SO ORDERED. 

 MILESTONE FARMS, INC.,

Petitioner,G.R. No.

Present:

10

- versus -

 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,Respondent.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.: 

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Amended Decision[2] dated October 4, 2006 and its Resolution[3] dated March 27, 2008.

 The Facts

  

Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) was incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 1960.[4] Among its pertinent secondary purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; to acquire lands by purchase or lease, which may be needed for this purpose; and to sell and otherwise dispose of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock and their produce when advisable and beneficial to the corporation; (2) to breed, raise, and sell poultry; to purchase or acquire and sell, or otherwise dispose of the supplies, stocks, equipment, accessories, appurtenances, products, and by-products of said business; and (3) to import cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock as may be authorized by law.[5]

On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took effect, which included the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. However, on December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform[6] that agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 

Thus, in May 1993, petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion of its 316.0422-hectare property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (T-410434) M-15750, (T-486101) M-7307, (T-486102) M-7308, (T-274129) M-15751, (T-486103) M-7309, (T-486104) M-7310, (T-332694) M-15755, (T-486105) M-7311, (T-486106) M-7312, M-8791, (T-486107) M-7313, (T-486108) M-7314, M-8796, (T-486109) M-7315, (T-486110) M-9508, and M-6013, and located in Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, from the coverage of the CARL, pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this Court in Luz Farms. 

Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 (DAR A.O. No. 9), setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage. Thus, on January 10, 1994, petitioner re-documented its application pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9.[7]

 Acting on the said application, the DARs Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted an ocular inspection on petitioners property and arrived at the following findings:

  [T]he actual land utilization for livestock, swine and poultry is 258.8422 hectares; the area which served as infrastructure is 42.0000 hectares; ten (10) hectares are planted to corn and the remaining five (5) hectares are devoted to fish culture; that the livestock population are 371 heads of cow, 20 heads of horses, 5,678 heads of swine and 788 heads of cocks; that the area being applied for exclusion is far below the required or ideal area which is 563 hectares for the total livestock population; that the approximate area not directly used for livestock purposes with an area of 15 hectares, more or less, is likewise far below the allowable 10% variance; and, though not directly used for livestock purposes, the ten (10) hectares planted to sweet corn and the five (5) hectares devoted to fishpond could be considered supportive to livestock production.

  

The LUCEC, thus, recommended the exemption of petitioners 316.0422-hectare property from the coverage of CARP. Adopting the LUCECs findings and recommendation, DAR Regional Director Percival Dalugdug (Director Dalugdug) issued an Order dated June 27, 1994, exempting petitioners 316.0422-hectare property from CARP.[8]

11

The Southern Pinugay Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. (Pinugay Farmers), represented by Timiano Balajadia, Sr. (Balajadia), moved for the reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied by Director Dalugdug in his Order dated November 24, 1994.[9] Subsequently, the Pinugay Farmers filed a letter-appeal with the DAR Secretary. 

Correlatively, on June 4, 1994, petitioner filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against Balajadia and company before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Teresa-Baras, Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. 781-T.[10] The MCTC ruled in favor of petitioner, but the decision was later reversed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, of Tanay, Rizal. Ultimately, the case reached the CA, which, in its Decision[11] dated October 8, 1999, reinstated the MCTCs ruling, ordering Balajadia and all defendants therein to vacate portions of the property covered by TCT Nos. M-6013, M-8796, and M-8791. In its Resolution[12] dated July 31, 2000, the CA held that the defendants therein failed to timely file a motion for reconsideration, given the fact that their counsel of record received its October 8, 1999 Decision; hence, the same became final and executory.

 

In the meantime, R.A. No. 6657 was amended by R.A. No. 7881,[13] which was approved on February 20, 1995. Private agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising were excluded from the coverage of the CARL. On October 22, 1996, the fact-finding team formed by the DAR Undersecretary for Field Operations and Support Services conducted an actual headcount of the livestock population on the property. The headcount showed that there were 448 heads of cattle and more than 5,000 heads of swine.

 The DAR Secretarys Ruling

  On January 21, 1997, then DAR Secretary

Ernesto D. Garilao (Secretary Garilao) issued an Order exempting from CARP only 240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 hectares previously exempted by Director Dalugdug, and declaring 75.0646 hectares of the property to be covered by CARP.[14]

 Secretary Garilao opined that, for private

agricultural lands to be excluded from CARP, they must already be devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising as of June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect. He found that the Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle submitted by petitioner showed that only 86 heads of cattle were registered in the name of petitioners president, Misael Vera, Jr., prior to June 15, 1988; 133 were subsequently bought in 1990, while 204 were registered from 1992 to 1995. Secretary Garilao gave more weight to the certificates rather than to the headcount because the same explicitly provide for the number of cattle owned by petitioner as of June 15, 1988.

 

Applying the animal-land ratio (1 hectare for grazing for every head of cattle/carabao/horse) and the infrastructure-animal ratio (1.7815 hectares for 21 heads of cattle/carabao/horse, and 0.5126 hectare for 21 heads of hogs) under DAR A.O. No. 9, Secretary Garilao exempted 240.9776 hectares of the property, as follows:

 1. 86 hectares for the 86

heads of cattle existing as of 15 June 1988;

 2. 8 hectares for

infrastructure following the ratio of 1.7815 hectares for every 21 heads of cattle;

 3.      8 hectares for the 8

horses; 4.      0.3809 square meters

of infrastructure for the 8 horses; [and] 

5.      138.5967 hectares for the 5,678 heads of swine.[15]

  Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,

[16] submitting therewith copies of Certificates of Transfer of Large Cattle and additional Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle issued to petitioner prior to June 15, 1988, as additional proof that it had met the required animal-land ratio. Petitioner also submitted a copy of a Disbursement Voucher dated December 17, 1986, showing the purchase of 100 heads of cattle by the Bureau of Animal Industry from petitioner, as further proof that it had been actively operating a livestock farm even before June 15, 1988. However, in his Order dated April 15, 1997, Secretary Garilao denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.[17]

 Aggrieved, petitioner filed its Memorandum on

Appeal[18] before the Office of the President (OP). 

The OPs Ruling On February 4, 2000, the OP rendered a

decision[19] reinstating Director Dalugdugs Order dated June 27, 1994 and declared the entire 316.0422-hectare property exempt from the coverage of CARP.

 However, on separate motions for reconsideration

of the aforesaid decision filed by farmer-groups Samahang Anak-Pawis ng Lagundi (SAPLAG) and Pinugay Farmers, and the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of DAR, the OP issued a resolution[20]dated September 16, 2002, setting aside its previous decision. The dispositive portion of the OP resolution reads:

  

WHEREFORE, the Decision subject of the instant separate motions for reconsideration is hereby SET

12

ASIDE and a new one entered REINSTATING the Order dated 21 January 1997 of then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao, as reiterated in another Order of 15 April 1997, without prejudice to the outcome of the continuing review and verification proceedings that DAR, thru the appropriate Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, may undertake pursuant to Rule III (D) of DAR Administrative Order No. 09, series of 1993.

 SO ORDERED.[21]

  

The OP held that, when it comes to proof of ownership, the reference is the Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle. Certificates of cattle ownership, which are readily available being issued by the appropriate government office ought to match the number of heads of cattle counted as existing during the actual headcount. The presence of large cattle on the land, without sufficient proof of ownership thereof, only proves such presence.

 Taking note of Secretary Garilaos observations,

the OP also held that, before an ocular investigation is conducted on the property, the landowners are notified in advance; hence, mere reliance on the physical headcount is dangerous because there is a possibility that the landowners would increase the number of their cattle for headcount purposes only. The OP observed that there was a big variance between the actual headcount of 448 heads of cattle and only 86 certificates of ownership of large cattle.

 Consequently, petitioner sought recourse from the CA.[22]

  

The Proceedings Before the CA and Its Rulings  On April 29, 2005, the CA found that, based on

the documentary evidence presented, the property subject of the application for exclusion had more than satisfied the animal-land and infrastructure-animal ratios under DAR A.O. No. 9. The CA also found that petitioner applied for exclusion long before the effectivity of DAR A.O. No. 9, thus, negating the claim that petitioner merely converted the property for livestock, poultry, and swine raising in order to exclude it from CARP coverage. Petitioner was held to have actually engaged in the said business on the property even before June 15, 1988. The CA disposed of the case in this wise:

 WHEREFORE, the instant

petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Resolution of the Office of the President dated September 16, 2002 is hereby SET ASIDE, and its Decision dated February 4, 2000 declaring the entire 316.0422 hectares

exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is hereby REINSTATED without prejudice to the outcome of the continuing review and verification proceedings which the Department of Agrarian Reform, through the proper Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, may undertake pursuant to Policy Statement (D) of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993. 

SO ORDERED.[23]

  

Meanwhile, six months earlier, or on November 4, 2004, without the knowledge of the CA as the parties did not inform the appellate court then DAR Secretary Rene C. Villa (Secretary Villa) issued DAR Conversion Order No. CON-0410-0016[24](Conversion Order), granting petitioners application to convert portions of the 316.0422-hectare property from agricultural to residential and golf courses use. The portions converted with a total area of 153.3049 hectares were covered by TCT Nos. M-15755 (T-332694), M-15751 (T-274129), and M-15750 (T-410434). With this Conversion Order, the area of the property subject of the controversy was effectively reduced to 162.7373 hectares.

On the CAs decision of April 29, 2005, Motions for Reconsideration were filed by farmer-groups, namely: the farmers represented by Miguel Espinas[25] (Espinas group), the Pinugay Farmers,[26] and the SAPLAG.[27] The farmer-groups all claimed that the CA should have accorded respect to the factual findings of the OP. Moreover, the farmer-groups unanimously intimated that petitioner already converted and developed a portion of the property into a leisure-residential-commercial estate known as the Palo Alto Leisure and Sports Complex (Palo Alto).

 Subsequently, in a Supplement to the Motion for

Reconsideration on Newly Secured Evidence pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993[28] (Supplement) dated June 15, 2005, the Espinas group submitted the following as evidence:

 1) Conversion Order[29] dated November 4, 2004,

issued by Secretary Villa, converting portions of the property from agricultural to residential and golf courses use, with a total area of 153.3049 hectares; thus, the Espinas group prayed that the remaining 162.7373 hectares (subject property) be covered by the CARP;

 2) Letter[30] dated June 7, 2005 of both incoming

Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Bismark M. Elma (MARO Elma) and outgoing MARO Cesar C. Celi (MARO Celi) of Baras, Rizal, addressed to Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) II of Rizal, Felixberto Q. Kagahastian, (MARO Report), informing the latter, among others, that Palo Alto was already under development and the lots therein were being offered for sale; that there were actual tillers on the subject property; that there were

13

agricultural improvements thereon, including an irrigation system and road projects funded by the Government; that there was no existing livestock farm on the subject property; and that the same was not in the possession and/or control of petitioner; and

 3) Certification[31] dated June 8, 2005, issued by

both MARO Elma and MARO Celi, manifesting that the subject property was in the possession and cultivation of actual occupants and tillers, and that, upon inspection, petitioner maintained no livestock farm thereon.

 Four months later, the Espinas group and the

DAR filed their respective Manifestations.[32] In its Manifestation dated November 29, 2005, the DAR confirmed that the subject property was no longer devoted to cattle raising. Hence, in its Resolution[33] dated December 21, 2005, the CA directed petitioner to file its comment on the Supplement and the aforementioned Manifestations. Employing the services of a new counsel, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Rejoinder,[34] and prayed that the MARO Report be disregarded and expunged from the records for lack of factual and legal basis.

 With the CA now made aware of these

developments, particularly Secretary Villas Conversion Order of November 4, 2004, the appellate court had to acknowledge that the property subject of the controversy would now be limited to the remaining 162.7373 hectares. In the same token, the Espinas group prayed that this remaining area be covered by the CARP.[35]

On October 4, 2006, the CA amended its earlier Decision. It held that its April 29, 2005 Decision was theoretically not final because DAR A.O. No. 9 required the MARO to make a continuing review and verification of the subject property. While the CA was cognizant of our ruling in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sutton,[36] wherein we declared DAR A.O. No. 9 as unconstitutional, it still resolved to lift the exemption of the subject property from the CARP, not on the basis of DAR A.O. No. 9, but on the strength of evidence such as the MARO Report and Certification, and the Katunayan[37] issued by the Punong Barangay, Alfredo Ruba (Chairman Ruba), of Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, showing that the subject property was no longer operated as a livestock farm. Moreover, the CA held that the lease agreements,[38] which petitioner submitted to prove that it was compelled to lease a ranch as temporary shelter for its cattle, only reinforced the DARs finding that there was indeed no existing livestock farm on the subject property. While petitioner claimed that it was merely forced to do so to prevent further slaughtering of its cattle allegedly committed by the occupants, the CA found the claim unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the CA opined that petitioner should have asserted its rights when the irrigation and road projects were introduced by the Government within its property. Finally, the CA accorded the findings of MARO Elma and MARO Celi the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions in the absence of evidence proving misconduct and/or dishonesty when they inspected the subject property and rendered their report. Thus, the CA disposed:

WHEREFORE, this Courts Decision dated April 29, 2005 is hereby amended in that the exemption of the subject landholding from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is hereby lifted, and the 162.7373 hectare-agricultural portion thereof is hereby declared covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

 SO ORDERED.[39]

  Unperturbed, petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration.[40] On January 8, 2007, MARO Elma, in compliance with the Memorandum of DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres, tendered another Report[41] reiterating that, upon inspection of the subject property, together with petitioners counsel-turned witness, Atty. Grace Eloisa J. Que (Atty. Que), PARO Danilo M. Obarse, Chairman Ruba, and several occupants thereof, he, among others, found no livestock farm within the subject property. About 43 heads of cattle were shown, but MARO Elma observed that the same were inside an area adjacent to Palo Alto. Subsequently, upon Atty. Ques request for reinvestigation, designated personnel of the DAR Provincial and Regional Offices (Investigating Team) conducted another ocular inspection on the subject property on February 20, 2007. The Investigating Team, in its Report[42] dated February 21, 2007, found that, per testimony of petitioners caretaker, Rogelio Ludivices (Roger),[43] petitioner has 43 heads of cattle taken care of by the following individuals: i) Josefino Custodio (Josefino) 18 heads; ii) Andy Amahit 15 heads; and iii) Bert Pangan 2 heads; that these individuals pastured the herd of cattle outside the subject property, while Roger took care of 8 heads of cattle inside the Palo Alto area; that 21 heads of cattle owned by petitioner were seen in the area adjacent to Palo Alto; that Josefino confirmed to the Investigating Team that he takes care of 18 heads of cattle owned by petitioner; that the said Investigating Team saw 9 heads of cattle in the Palo Alto area, 2 of which bore MFI marks; and that the 9 heads of cattle appear to have matched the Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle submitted by petitioner.

 Because of the contentious factual issues and the

conflicting averments of the parties, the CA set the case for hearing and reception of evidence on April 24, 2007.[44] Thereafter, as narrated by the CA, the following events transpired:

  

On May 17, 2007, [petitioner] presented the Judicial Affidavits of its witnesses, namely, [petitioners] counsel, [Atty. Que], and the alleged caretaker of [petitioners] farm, [Roger], who were both cross-examined by counsel for farmers-

14

movants and SAPLAG. [Petitioner] and SAPLAG then marked their documentary exhibits. On May 24, 2007, [petitioners] security guard and third witness, Rodolfo G. Febrada, submitted his Judicial Affidavit and was cross-examined by counsel for fa[r]mers-movants and SAPLAG. Farmers-movants also marked their documentary exhibits. Thereafter, the parties submitted their respective Formal Offers of Evidence. Farmers-movants and SAPLAG filed their objections to [petitioners]Formal Offer of Evidence. Later, [petitioner] and farmers-movants filed their respective Memoranda. In December 2007, this Court issued a Resolution on the parties offer of evidence and considered [petitioners] Motion for Reconsiderationsubmitted for resolution.[45]

  

Finally, petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its Resolution[46] dated March 27, 2008. The CA discarded petitioners reliance on Sutton. It ratiocinated that the MARO Reports and the DARs Manifestation could not be disregarded simply because DAR A.O. No. 9 was declared unconstitutional. The Sutton ruling was premised on the fact that theSutton property continued to operate as a livestock farm. The CA also reasoned that, in Sutton, this Court did not remove from the DAR the power to implement the CARP, pursuant to the latters authority to oversee the implementation of agrarian reform laws under Section 50[47] of the CARL. Moreover, the CA found:

 Petitioner-appellant claimed

that they had 43 heads of cattle which are being cared for and pastured by 4 individuals. To prove its ownership of the said cattle, petitioner-appellant offered in evidence 43 Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle. Significantly, however, the saidCertificates were all dated and issued on November 24, 2006, nearly 2 months after this Court rendered its Amended Decision lifting the exemption of the 162-hectare portion of the subject landholding. The acquisition of such cattle after the lifting of the exemption clearly reveals that petitioner-appellant was no longer operating a livestock farm, and suggests an effort to create a semblance

of livestock-raising for the purpose of its Motion for Reconsideration.[48]

  On petitioners assertion that between MARO

Elmas Report dated January 8, 2007 and the Investigating Teams Report, the latter should be given credence, the CA held that there were no material inconsistencies between the two reports because both showed that the 43 heads of cattle were found outside the subject property.

 Hence, this Petition assigning the following errors:

 I.

 THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT LANDS DEVOTED TO LIVESTOCK FARMING WITHIN THE MEANING OF LUZ FARMS AND SUTTON, AND WHICH ARE THEREBY EXEMPT FROM CARL COVERAGE, ARE NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO DARS CONTINUING VERIFICATION AS TO USE, AND, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH VERIFICATION, MAY BE ORDERED REVERTED TO AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION AND COMPULSORY ACQUISITION[;] 

II. 

GRANTING THAT THE EXEMPT LANDS AFORESAID MAY BE SO REVERTED TO AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION, STILL THE PROCEEDINGS FOR SUCH PURPOSE BELONGS TO THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE DAR, BEFORE WHICH THE CONTENDING PARTIES MAY VENTILATE FACTUAL ISSUES, AND AVAIL THEMSELVES OF USUAL REVIEW PROCESSES, AND NOT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION OVER ISSUES COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO REVERSION [; AND] 

III. 

IN ANY CASE, THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE

15

IS NO LONGER BEING USED FOR LIVESTOCK FARMING.[49]

  Petitioner asseverates that lands devoted to

livestock farming as of June 15, 1988 are classified as industrial lands, hence, outside the ambit of the CARP; that Luz Farms, Sutton, and R.A. No. 7881 clearly excluded such lands on constitutional grounds; that petitioners lands were actually devoted to livestock even before the enactment of the CARL; that livestock farms are exempt from the CARL, not by reason of any act of the DAR, but because of their nature as industrial lands; that petitioners property was admittedly devoted to livestock farming as of June 1988 and the only issue before was whether or not petitioners pieces of evidence comply with the ratios provided under DAR A.O. No. 9; and that DAR A.O. No. 9 having been declared as unconstitutional, DAR had no more legal basis to conduct a continuing review and verification proceedings over livestock farms. Petitioner argues that, in cases where reversion of properties to agricultural use is proper, only the DAR has the exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and decide the same; hence, the CA, in this case, committed serious errors when it ordered the reversion of the property and when it considered pieces of evidence not existing as of June 15, 1988, despite its lack of jurisdiction; that the CA should have remanded the case to the DAR due to conflicting factual claims; that the CA cannot ventilate allegations of fact that were introduced for the first time on appeal as a supplement to a motion for reconsideration of its first decision, use the same to deviate from the issues pending review, and, on the basis thereof, declare exempt lands reverted to agricultural use and compulsorily covered by the CARP; that the newly discovered [pieces of] evidence were not introduced in the proceedings before the DAR, hence, it was erroneous for the CA to consider them; and that piecemeal presentation of evidence is not in accord with orderly justice. Finally, petitioner submits that, in any case, the CA gravely erred and committed grave abuse of discretion when it held that the subject property was no longer used for livestock farming as shown by the Report of the Investigating Team. Petitioner relies on the 1997 LUCEC and DAR findings that the subject property was devoted to livestock farming, and on the 1999 CA Decision which held that the occupants of the property were squatters, bereft of any authority to stay and possess the property.[50]

 On one hand, the farmer-groups, represented by

the Espinas group, contend that they have been planting rice and fruit-bearing trees on the subject property, and helped the National Irrigation Administration in setting up an irrigation system therein in 1997, with a produce of 1,500 to 1,600 sacks of palay each year; that petitioner came to court with unclean hands because, while it sought the exemption and exclusion of the entire property, unknown to the CA, petitioner surreptitiously filed for conversion of the property now known as Palo Alto, which was actually granted by the DAR Secretary; that petitioners bad faith is more apparent since, despite the conversion of the 153.3049-hectare portion of the property, it still seeks to exempt the entire property in this case; and that the fact

that petitioner applied for conversion is an admission that indeed the property is agricultural. The farmer-groups also contend that petitioners reliance on Luz Farms and Sutton is unavailing because in these cases there was actually no cessation of the business of raising cattle; that what is being exempted is the activity of raising cattle and not the property itself; that exemptions due to cattle raising are not permanent; that the declaration of DAR A.O. No. 9 as unconstitutional does not at all diminish the mandated duty of the DAR, as the lead agency of the Government, to implement the CARL; that the DAR, vested with the power to identify lands subject to CARP, logically also has the power to identify lands which are excluded and/or exempted therefrom; that to disregard DARs authority on the matter would open the floodgates to abuse and fraud by unscrupulous landowners; that the factual finding of the CA that the subject property is no longer a livestock farm may not be disturbed on appeal, as enunciated by this Court; that DAR conducted a review and monitoring of the subject property by virtue of its powers under the CARL; and that the CA has sufficient discretion to admit evidence in order that it could arrive at a fair, just, and equitable ruling in this case.[51]

 On the other hand, respondent OP, through the

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), claims that the CA correctly held that the subject property is not exempt from the coverage of the CARP, as substantial pieces of evidence show that the said property is not exclusively devoted to livestock, swine, and/or poultry raising; that the issues presented by petitioner are factual in nature and not proper in this case; that under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, questions of fact may be raised by the parties and resolved by the CA; that due to the divergence in the factual findings of the DAR and the OP, the CA was duty bound to review and ascertain which of the said findings are duly supported by substantial evidence; that the subject property was subject to continuing review and verification proceedings due to the then prevailing DAR A.O. No. 9; that there is no question that the power to determine if a property is subject to CARP coverage lies with the DAR Secretary; that pursuant to such power, the MARO rendered the assailed reports and certification, and the DAR itself manifested before the CA that the subject property is no longer devoted to livestock farming; and that, while it is true that this Courts ruling in Luz Farms declared that agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded from the CARP, the said ruling is not without any qualification.[52]

 In its Reply[53] to the farmer-groups and to the

OSGs comment, petitioner counters that the farmer-groups have no legal basis to their claims as they admitted that they entered the subject property without the consent of petitioner; that the rice plots actually found in the subject property, which were subsequently taken over by squatters, were, in fact, planted by petitioner in compliance with the directive of then President Ferdinand Marcos for the employer to provide rice to its employees; that when a land is declared exempt from the CARP on the ground that it is not agricultural as of the time the CARL took effect, the use and disposition of that land is entirely and forever

16

beyond DARs jurisdiction; and that, inasmuch as the subject property was not agricultural from the very beginning, DAR has no power to regulate the same. Petitioner also asserts that the CA cannot uncharacteristically assume the role of trier of facts and resolve factual questions not previously adjudicated by the lower tribunals; that MARO Elma rendered the assailed MARO reports with bias against petitioner, and the same were contradicted by the Investigating Teams Report, which confirmed that the subject property is still devoted to livestock farming; and that there has been no change in petitioners business interest as an entity engaged in livestock farming since its inception in 1960, though there was admittedly a decline in the scale of its operations due to the illegal acts of the squatter-occupants.

 Our Ruling

  The Petition is bereft of merit.  Let it be stressed that when the CA provided in

its first Decision that continuing review and verification may be conducted by the DAR pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9, the latter was not yet declared unconstitutional by this Court. The first CA Decision was promulgated on April 29, 2005, while this Court struck down as unconstitutional DAR A.O. No. 9, by way of Sutton, on October 19, 2005. Likewise, let it be emphasized that the Espinas group filed the Supplement and submitted the assailed MARO reports and certification on June 15, 2005, which proved to be adverse to petitioners case. Thus, it could not be said that the CA erred or gravely abused its discretion in respecting the mandate of DAR A.O. No. 9, which was then subsisting and in full force and effect.

 

While it is true that an issue which was neither alleged in the complaint nor raised during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process,[54] the same is not without exception,[55] such as this case. The CA, under Section 3,[56] Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, can, in the interest of justice, entertain and resolve factual issues. After all, technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, and not suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from a rigid enforcement of the rules may thus be allowed to attain the prime objective of dispensing justice, for dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.[57] Moreover, petitioner cannot validly claim that it was deprived of due process because the CA afforded it all the opportunity to be heard.[58] The CA even directed petitioner to file its comment on the Supplement, and to prove and establish its claim that the subject property was excluded from the coverage of the CARP. Petitioner actively participated in the proceedings before the CA by submitting pleadings and pieces of documentary evidence, such as the Investigating Teams Report and judicial affidavits. The CA also went further by setting the case for hearing. In all these proceedings, all the

parties rights to due process were amply protected and recognized. 

With the procedural issue disposed of, we find that petitioners arguments fail to persuade. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. InSutton, we held:

 

In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of agriculture or agricultural activity. The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological appurtenances.

Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O.[59]

 

Indeed, as pointed out by the CA, the instant case does not rest on facts parallel to those of Sutton because, in Sutton, the subject property remained a livestock farm. We even highlighted therein the fact that there has been no change of business interest in the case of respondents.[60] Similarly, in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Uy,[61] we excluded a parcel of land from CARP coverage due to the factual findings of the MARO, which were confirmed by the DAR, that the property was entirely devoted to livestock farming. However, in A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., represented by

17

Carmen Z. Arnaiz v. Office of the President; Department of Agrarian Reform; Regional Director, DAR Region V, Legaspi City; Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR Provincial Office, Masbate, Masbate; and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR Municipal Office, Masbate, Masbate,[62] we denied a similar petition for exemption and/or exclusion, by according respect to the CAs factual findings and its reliance on the findings of the DAR and the OP that the subject parcels of land were not directly, actually, and exclusively used for pasture.[63]

Petitioners admission that, since 2001, it leased another ranch for its own livestock is fatal to its cause.[64] While petitioner advances a defense that it leased this ranch because the occupants of the subject property harmed its cattle, like the CA, we find it surprising that not even a single police and/or barangay report was filed by petitioner to amplify its indignation over these alleged illegal acts. Moreover, we accord respect to the CAs keen observation that the assailed MARO reports and the Investigating Teams Report do not actually contradict one another, finding that the 43 cows, while owned by petitioner, were actually pastured outside the subject property.

`

Finally, it is established that issues of Exclusion and/or Exemption are characterized as Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases which are well within the DAR Secretarys competence and jurisdiction.[65] Section 3, Rule II of the 2003 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Rules of Procedure provides:

Section 3. Agrarian Law Implementation Cases.

The Adjudicator or the Board shall have no jurisdiction over matters involving the administrative implementation of RA No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules and administrative orders, which shall be under the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Office of the Secretary of the DAR in accordance with his issuances, to wit:

 x x x x

3.8 Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and poultry raising.

  

Thus, we cannot, without going against the law, arbitrarily strip the DAR Secretary of his legal mandate to exercise jurisdiction and authority over all ALI cases. To succumb to petitioners contention that when a land is declared exempt from the CARP on the ground that it is not agricultural as of the time the CARL took effect, the use and disposition of that land is entirely and forever beyond

DARs jurisdiction is dangerous, suggestive of self-regulation. Precisely, it is the DAR Secretary who is vested with such jurisdiction and authority to exempt and/or exclude a property from CARP coverage based on the factual circumstances of each case and in accordance with law and applicable jurisprudence. In addition, albeit parenthetically, Secretary Villa had already granted the conversion into residential and golf courses use of nearly one-half of the entire area originally claimed as exempt from CARP coverage because it was allegedly devoted to livestock production. In sum, we find no reversible error in the assailed Amended Decision and Resolution of the CA which would warrant the modification, much less the reversal, thereof. 

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals Amended Decision dated October 4, 2006 and Resolution dated March 27, 2008 are AFFIRMED. No costs.

  SO ORDERED. 

G.R. No. 100091 October 22, 1992

18

CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED ITS PRESIDENT DR. LEONARDO A. CHUA, petitioner, vs.THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, THE COURT OF APPEALS and ALVIN OBRIQUE, REPRESENTING BUKIDNON FREE FARMERS AGRICULTURAL LABORERS ORGANIZATION (BUFFALO), respondents.

 

CAMPOS, JR., J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to nullify the proceedings and decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB for brevity) dated September 4, 1989 and to set aside the decision the decision * of the Court of Appeals dated August 20, 1990, affirming the decision of the DARAB which ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of suitable, compact and contiguous portions of the Central Mindanao University (CMU for brevity) land and their inclusion in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP for brevity) for distribution to qualified beneficiaries, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

This case originated in a complaint filed by complainants calling themselves as the Bukidnon Free Farmers and Agricultural Laborers Organization (BUFFALO for brevity) under the leadership of Alvin Obrique and Luis Hermoso against the CMU, before the Department of Agrarian Reform for Declaration of Status as Tenants, under the CARP.

From the records, the following facts are evident. The petitioner, the CMU, is an agricultural educational institution owned and run by the state located in the town of Musuan, Bukidnon province. It started as a farm school at Marilang, Bukidnon in early 1910, in response to the public demand for an agricultural school in Mindanao. It expanded into the Bukidnon National Agricultural High School and was transferred to its new site in Managok near Malaybalay, the provincial capital of Bukidnon.

In the early 1960's, it was converted into a college with campus at Musuan, until it became what is now known as the CMU, but still primarily an agricultural university. From its beginning, the school was the answer to the crying need for training people in order to develop the agricultural potential of the island of Mindanao. Those who planned and established the school had a vision as to the future development of that part of the Philippines. On January 16, 1958 the President of the Republic of the Philippines, the late Carlos P. Garcia, "upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 53, of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended", issued Proclamation No. 476, withdrawing from sale or settlement and reserving for the

Mindanao Agricultural College, a site which would be the future campus of what is now the CMU. A total land area comprising 3,080 hectares was surveyed and registered and titled in the name of the petitioner under OCT Nos. 160, 161 and 162. 1

In the course of the cadastral hearing of the school's petition for registration of the aforementioned grant of agricultural land, several tribes belonging to cultural communities, opposed the petition claiming ownership of certain ancestral lands forming part of the tribal reservations. Some of the claims were granted so that what was titled to the present petitioner school was reduced from 3,401 hectares to 3,080 hectares.

In the early 1960's, the student population of the school was less than 3,000. By 1988, the student population had expanded to some 13,000 students, so that the school community has an academic population (student, faculty and non-academic staff) of almost 15,000. To cope with the increase in its enrollment, it has expanded and improved its educational facilities partly from government appropriation and partly by self-help measures.

True to the concept of a land grant college, the school embarked on self-help measures to carry out its educational objectives, train its students, and maintain various activities which the government appropriation could not adequately support or sustain. In 1984, the CMU approved Resolution No. 160, adopting a livelihood program called "Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program" under which the land resources of the University were leased to its faculty and employees. This arrangement was covered by a written contract. Under this program the faculty and staff combine themselves to groups of five members each, and the CMU provided technical know-how, practical training and all kinds of assistance, to enable each group to cultivate 4 to 5 hectares of land for the lowland rice project. Each group pays the CMU a service fee and also a land use participant's fee. The contract prohibits participants and their hired workers to establish houses or live in the project area and to use the cultivated land as a collateral for any kind of loan. It was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the faculty and/or employees. This particular program was conceived as a multi-disciplinary applied research extension and productivity program to utilize available land, train people in modern agricultural technology and at the same time give the faculty and staff opportunities within the confines of the CMU reservation to earn additional income to augment their salaries. The location of the CMU at Musuan, Bukidnon, which is quite a distance from the nearest town, was the proper setting for the adoption of such a program. Among the participants in this program were Alvin Obrique, Felix Guinanao, Joven Caballero, Nestor Pulao, Danilo Vasquez, Aronio Pelayo and other complainants. Obrique was a Physics Instructor at the CMU while the others were employees in the lowland rice project. The other complainants who were not members of the faculty or non-academic staff CMU, were hired workers or laborers of the participants in this program. When

19

petitioner Dr. Leonardo Chua became President of the CMU in July 1986, he discontinued the agri-business project for the production of rice, corn and sugar cane known as Agri-Business Management and Training Project, due to losses incurred while carrying on the said project. Some CMU personnel, among whom were the complainants, were laid-off when this project was discontinued. As Assistant Director of this agri-business project, Obrique was found guilty of mishandling the CMU funds and was separated from service by virtue of Executive Order No. 17, the re-organization law of the CMU.

Sometime in 1986, under Dr. Chua as President, the CMU launched a self-help project called CMU-Income Enhancement Program (CMU-IEP) to develop unutilized land resources, mobilize and promote the spirit of self-reliance, provide socio-economic and technical training in actual field project implementation and augment the income of the faculty and the staff.

Under the terms of a 3-party Memorandum of Agreement 2 among the CMU, the CMU-Integrated Development Foundation (CMU-IDF) and groups or "seldas" of 5 CMU employees, the CMU would provide the use of 4 to 5 hectares of land to a selda for one (1) calendar year. The CMU-IDF would provide researchers and specialists to assist in the preparation of project proposals and to monitor and analyze project implementation. The selda in turn would pay to the CMU P100 as service fee and P1,000 per hectare as participant's land rental fee. In addition, 400 kilograms of the produce per year would be turned over or donated to the CMU-IDF. The participants agreed not to allow their hired laborers or member of their family to establish any house or live within vicinity of the project area and not to use the allocated lot as collateral for a loan. It was expressly provided that no tenant-landlord relationship would exist as a result of the Agreement.

Initially, participation in the CMU-IEP was extended only to workers and staff members who were still employed with the CMU and was not made available to former workers or employees. In the middle of 1987, to cushion the impact of the discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar cane project on the lives of its former workers, the CMU allowed them to participate in the CMU-IEP as special participants.

Under the terms of a contract called Addendum To Existing Memorandum of Agreement Concerning Participation To the CMU-Income Enhancement Program, 3 a former employee would be grouped with an existing selda of his choice and provided one (1) hectare for a lowland rice project for one (1) calendar year. He would pay the land rental participant's fee of P1,000.00 per hectare but on a charge-to-crop basis. He would also be subject to the same prohibitions as those imposed on the CMU employees. It was also expressly provided that no tenant-landlord relationship would exist as a result of the Agreement.

The one-year contracts expired on June 30, 1988. Some contracts were renewed. Those whose contracts were not renewed were served with notices to vacate.

The non-renewal of the contracts, the discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar cane project, the loss of jobs due to termination or separation from the service and the alleged harassment by school authorities, all contributed to, and precipitated the filing of the complaint.

On the basis of the above facts, the DARAB found that the private respondents were not tenants and cannot therefore be beneficiaries under the CARP. At the same time, the DARAB ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of suitable, compact and contiguous portions of the CMU land and their inclusion in the CARP for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.

The petitioner CMU, in seeking a review of the decisions of the respondents DARAB and the Court of Appeals, raised the following issues:

1.) Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to hear and decide Case No. 005 for Declaration of Status of Tenants and coverage of land under the CARP.

2.) Whether or not respondent Court of Appeals committed serious errors and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in dismissing the Petition for Review onCertiorari and affirming the decision of DARAB.

In their complaint, docketed as DAR Case No. 5, filed with the DARAB, complainants Obrique, et al. claimed that they are tenants of the CMU and/or landless peasants claiming/occupying a part or portion of the CMU situated at Sinalayan, Valencia, Bukidnon and Musuan, Bukidnon, consisting of about 1,200 hectares. We agree with the DARAB's finding that Obrique, et. al. are not tenants. Under the terms of the written agreement signed by Obrique, et. al., pursuant to the livelihood program called "Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program", it was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the faculty and staff (participants in the project). The CMU did not receive any share from the harvest/fruits of the land tilled by the participants. What the CMU collected was a nominal service fee and land use participant's fee in consideration of all the kinds of assistance given to the participants by the CMU. Again, the agreement signed by the participants under the CMU-IEP clearly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed, and that the participants are not share croppers nor lessees, and the CMU did not share in the produce of the participants' labor.

In the same paragraph of their complaint, complainants claim that they are landless peasants. This allegation requires proof and should not be accepted as factually true. Obrique is not a landless peasant. The facts showed he was Physics Instructor at CMU holding a very responsible position was separated from the service on account of

20

certain irregularities he committed while Assistant Director of the Agri-Business Project of cultivating lowland rice. Others may, at the moment, own no land in Bukidnon but they may not necessarily be so destitute in their places of origin. No proof whatsoever appears in the record to show that they are landless peasants.

The evidence on record establish without doubt that the complainants were originally authorized or given permission to occupy certain areas of the CMU property for a definite purpose — to carry out certain university projects as part of the CMU's program of activities pursuant to its avowed purpose of giving training and instruction in agricultural and other related technologies, using the land and other resources of the institution as a laboratory for these projects. Their entry into the land of the CMU was with the permission and written consent of the owner, the CMU, for a limited period and for a specific purpose. After the expiration of their privilege to occupy and cultivate the land of the CMU, their continued stay was unauthorized and their settlement on the CMU's land was without legal authority. A person entering upon lands of another, not claiming in good faith the right to do so by virtue of any title of his own, or by virtue of some agreement with the owner or with one whom he believes holds title to the land, is a squatter. 4 Squatters cannot enter the land of another surreptitiously or by stealth, and under the umbrella of the CARP, claim rights to said property as landless peasants. Under Section 73 of R.A. 6657, persons guilty of committing prohibited acts of forcible entry or illegal detainer do not qualify as beneficiaries and may not avail themselves of the rights and benefits of agrarian reform. Any such person who knowingly and wilfully violates the above provision of the Act shall be punished with imprisonment or fine at the discretion of the Court.

In view of the above, the private respondents, not being tenants nor proven to be landless peasants, cannot qualify as beneficiaries under the CARP.

The questioned decision of the Adjudication Board, affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, segregating 400 hectares from the CMU land is primarily based on the alleged fact that the land subject hereof is "not directly, actually and exclusively used for school sites, because the same was leased to Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Philippines)".

In support of this view, the Board held that the "respondent University failed to show that it is using actually, really, truly and in fact, the questioned area to the exclusion of others, nor did it show that the same is directly used without any intervening agency or person", 5 and "there is no definite and concrete showing that the use of said lands are essentially indispensable for educational purposes". 6 The reliance by the respondents Board and Appellate Tribunal on the technical or literal definition from Moreno's Philippine Law Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary, may give the ordinary reader a classroom meaning of the phrase "is actually directly and exclusively", but in so doing they missed the true meaning

of Section 10, R.A. 6657, as to what lands are exempted or excluded from the coverage of the CARP.

The pertinent provisions of R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, are as follows:

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.

More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest of mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits ad determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;

(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

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

Sec. 10 EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production

21

centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act. (Emphasis supplied).

The construction given by the DARAB to Section 10 restricts the land area of the CMU to its present needs or to a land area presently, actively exploited and utilized by the university in carrying out its present educational program with its present student population and academic facility — overlooking the very significant factor of growth of the university in the years to come. By the nature of the CMU, which is a school established to promote agriculture and industry, the need for a vast tract of agricultural land and for future programs of expansion is obvious. At the outset, the CMU was conceived in the same manner as land grant colleges in America, a type of educational institution which blazed the trail for the development of vast tracts of unexplored and undeveloped agricultural lands in the Mid-West. What we now know as Michigan State University, Penn State University and Illinois State University, started as small land grant colleges, with meager funding to support their ever increasing educational programs. They were given extensive tracts of agricultural and forest lands to be developed to support their numerous expanding activities in the fields of agricultural technology and scientific research. Funds for the support of the educational programs of land grant colleges came from government appropriation, tuition and other student fees, private endowments and gifts, and earnings from miscellaneous sources. 7 It was in this same spirit that President Garcia issued Proclamation No. 476, withdrawing from sale or settlement and reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural College (forerunner of the CMU) a land reservation of 3,080 hectares as its future campus. It was set up in Bukidnon, in the hinterlands of Mindanao, in order that it can have enough resources and wide open spaces to grow as an agricultural educational institution, to develop and train future farmers of Mindanao and help attract settlers to that part of the country.

In line with its avowed purpose as an agricultural and technical school, the University adopted a land utilization program to develop and exploit its 3080-hectare land reservation as follows: 8

No. of Hectares Percentage

a. Livestock and Pasture 1,016.40 33

b. Upland Crops 616 20

c. Campus and Residential sites 462 15

d. Irrigated rice 400.40 13

e. Watershed and forest reservation 308 10

f. Fruit and Trees Crops 154 5

g. AgriculturalExperimental stations 123.20 4

3,080.00 100%

The first land use plan of the CARP was prepared in 1975 and since then it has undergone several revisions in line with changing economic conditions, national economic policies and financial limitations and availability of resources. The CMU, through Resolution No. 160 S. 1984, pursuant to its development plan, adopted a multi-disciplinary applied research extension and productivity program called the "Kilusang Sariling Sikap Project" (CMU-KSSP). The objectives 9 of this program were:

1. Provide researches who shall assist in (a) preparation of proposal; (b) monitor project implementation; and (c) collect and analyze all data and information relevant to the processes and results of project implementation;

2. Provide the use of land within the University reservation for the purpose of establishing a lowland rice project for the party of the Second Part for a period of one calendar year subject to discretionary renewal by the Party of the First Part;

3. Provide practical training to the Party of the Second Part on the management and operation of their lowland project upon request of Party of the Second Part; and

4. Provide technical assistance in the form of relevant livelihood project specialists who shall extend expertise on scientific methods of crop production upon request by Party of the Second Part.

In return for the technical assistance extended by the CMU, the participants in a project pay a nominal amount as service fee. The self-reliance program was adjunct to the CMU's lowland rice project.

22

The portion of the CMU land leased to the Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Phils., Inc.) was leased long before the CARP was passed. The agreement with the Philippine Packing Corporation was not a lease but a Management and Development Agreement, a joint undertaking where use by the Philippine Packing Corporation of the land was part of the CMU research program, with the direct participation of faculty and students. Said contracts with the Philippine Packing Corporation and others of a similar nature (like MM-Agraplex) were made prior to the enactment of R.A. 6657 and were directly connected to the purpose and objectives of the CMU as an educational institution. As soon as the objectives of the agreement for the joint use of the CMU land were achieved as of June 1988, the CMU adopted a blue print for the exclusive use and utilization of said areas to carry out its own research and agricultural experiments.

As to the determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for use by the CMU, the school is in the best position to resolve and answer the question and pass upon the problem of its needs in relation to its avowed objectives for which the land was given to it by the State. Neither the DARAB nor the Court of Appeals has the right to substitute its judgment or discretion on this matter, unless the evidentiary facts are so manifest as to show that the CMU has no real for the land.

It is our opinion that the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated August 20, 1990, is not covered by the CARP because:

(1) It is not alienable and disposable land of the public domain;

(2) The CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific limits as determined by Congress;

(3) It is private land registered and titled in the name of its lawful owner, the CMU;

(4) It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A. 6657 because the lands are actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for educational purposes, and for establishing seed and seedling research and pilot production centers. (Emphasis supplied).

Under Section 4 and Section 10 of R.A. 6657, it is crystal clear that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited only to matters involving the implementation of the CARP. More specifically, it is restricted to agrarian cases and controversies involving lands falling within the coverage of

the aforementioned program. It does not include those which are actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for, among such purposes, school sites and campuses for setting up experimental farm stations, research and pilot production centers, etc.

Consequently, the DARAB has no power to try, hear and adjudicate the case pending before it involving a portion of the CMU's titled school site, as the portion of the CMU land reservation ordered segregated is actually, directly and exclusively used and found by the school to be necessary for its purposes. The CMU has constantly raised the issue of the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction and has questioned the respondent's authority to hear, try and adjudicate the case at bar. Despite the law and the evidence on record tending to establish that the fact that the DARAB had no jurisdiction, it made the adjudication now subject of review.

Whether the DARAB has the authority to order the segregation of a portion of a private property titled in the name of its lawful owner, even if the claimant is not entitled as a beneficiary, is an issue we feel we must resolve. The quasi-judicial powers of DARAB are provided in Executive Order No. 129-A, quoted hereunder in so far as pertinent to the issue at bar:

Sec. 13. –– AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD — There is hereby created an Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the office of the Secretary. . . . The Board shall assume the powers and functions with respect to adjudication of agrarian reform cases under Executive Order 229 and this Executive Order . . .

Sec. 17. –– QUASI JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters including implementation of Agrarian Reform.

Section 50 of R.A. 6658 confers on the DAR quasi-judicial powers as follows:

The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. . . .

Section 17 of Executive Order No. 129-A is merely a repetition of Section 50, R.A. 6657. There is no doubt that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute in the implementation of the CARP. An agrarian

23

dispute is defined by the same law as any controversy relating to tenurial rights whether leasehold, tenancy stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture. 10

In the case at bar, the DARAB found that the complainants are not share tenants or lease holders of the CMU, yet it ordered the "segregation of a suitable compact and contiguous area of Four Hundred hectares, more or less", from the CMU land reservation, and directed the DAR Regional Director to implement its order of segregation. Having found that the complainants in this agrarian dispute for Declaration of Tenancy Status are not entitled to claim as beneficiaries of the CARP because they are not share tenants or leaseholders, its order for the segregation of 400 hectares of the CMU land was without legal authority. w do not believe that the quasi-judicial function of the DARAB carries with it greater authority than ordinary courts to make an award beyond what was demanded by the complainants/petitioners, even in an agrarian dispute. Where the quasi-judicial body finds that the complainants/petitioners are not entitled to the rights they are demanding, it is an erroneous interpretation of authority for that quasi-judicial body to order private property to be awarded to future beneficiaries. The order segregation 400 hectares of the CMU land was issued on a finding that the complainants are not entitled as beneficiaries, and on an erroneous assumption that the CMU land which is excluded or exempted under the law is subject to the coverage of the CARP. Going beyond what was asked by the complainants who were not entitled to the relief prayed the complainants who were not entitled to the relief prayed for, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion because it implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

The education of the youth and agrarian reform are admittedly among the highest priorities in the government socio-economic programs. In this case, neither need give way to the other. Certainly, there must still be vast tracts of agricultural land in Mindanao outside the CMU land reservation which can be made available to landless peasants, assuming the claimants here, or some of them, can qualify as CARP beneficiaries. To our mind, the taking of the CMU land which had been segregated for educational purposes for distribution to yet uncertain beneficiaries is a gross misinterpretation of the authority and jurisdiction granted by law to the DARAB.

The decision in this case is of far-reaching significance as far as it concerns state colleges and universities whose resources and research facilities may be gradually eroded by misconstruing the exemptions from the CARP. These state colleges and universities are the main vehicles for our scientific and technological advancement in the field of agriculture, so vital to the existence, growth and development of this country.

It is the opinion of this Court, in the light of the foregoing analysis and for the reasons indicated, that the evidence is

sufficient to sustain a finding of grave abuse of discretion by respondents Court of Appeals and DAR Adjudication Board. We hereby declare the decision of the DARAB dated September 4, 1989 and the decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 20, 1990, affirming the decision of the quasi-judicial body, as null and void and hereby order that they be set aside, with costs against the private respondents.

SO ORDERED

24

G.R. No. 158228             March 23, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by its Secretary, ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN,petitioner, vs.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS), respondent.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated October 29, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 64378, which reversed the August 30, 2000 decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, as well as the Resolution dated May 7, 2003, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

In controversy are Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D consisting of an aggregate area of 189.2462 hectares located at Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros Occidental, respectively. On October 21, 1921, these lands were donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of Education).2 Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the name of respondent DECS under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167175.3

On July 15, 1985, respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from crop year 1984-1985 to crop year 1993-1994. The contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from crop year 1995-1996 to crop year 2004-2005.4

On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers of the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante.5

After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that the subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a conference with the farmer beneficiaries.6 Then, MARO Piñosa submitted his report to OIC-PARO Stephen M. Leonidas, who recommended to the DAR Regional Director the approval of the coverage of the landholdings.

On August 7, 1998, DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres approved the recommendation, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the petition is granted. Order is hereby issued:

1. Placing under CARP coverage Lot 2509 with an area of 111.4791 hectares situated at Had. Fe, Escalante, Negros Occidental and Lot 817-D with an area of 77.7671 hectares situated at Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros Occidental;

2. Affirming the notice of coverage sent by the DAR Provincial Office, Negros Occidental dated November 23, 1994;

3. Directing the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of Negros Occidental and the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officers of Sagay and Escalante to facilitate the acquisition of the subject landholdings and the distribution of the same qualified beneficiaries.

SO ORDERED.7

Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which affirmed the Order of the Regional Director. 8

Aggrieved, respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.9

Hence, the instant petition for review.

The pivotal issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).

The general policy under CARL is to cover as much lands suitable for agriculture as possible.10 Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 sets out the coverage of CARP. It states that the program shall:

"… cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture."

More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account, ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;

25

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;

(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

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

Section 3(c) thereof defines "agricultural land," as "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land." The term "agriculture" or "agricultural activity" is also defined by the same law as follows:

Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprises or Agricultural Activity means 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 persons whether natural or juridical.11

The records of the case show that the subject properties were formerly private agricultural lands owned by the late Esteban Jalandoni, and were donated to respondent DECS. From that time until they were leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation, the lands continued to be agricultural primarily planted to sugarcane, albeit part of the public domain being owned by an agency of the government.12 Moreover, there is no legislative or presidential act, before and after the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, classifying the said lands as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. Indubitably, the subject lands fall under the classification of lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture.

Respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground that all the income derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs and renovations of schools in the nearby locality.

Petitioner DAR, on the other hand, argued that the lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP coverage because the same are not actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to be exempt from the coverage, it is the land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.

We agree with the petitioner.

Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption, viz:

x x x x x x x x x

c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, … , shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.13

x x x x x x x x x

Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;" and 2) the purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes."

The importance of the phrase "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary" cannot be understated, as what respondent DECS would want us to do by not taking the words in their literal and technical definitions. The words of the law are clear and unambiguous. Thus, the "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is applicable in this case. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.14

We are not unaware of our ruling in the case of Central Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board,15 wherein we declared the land subject thereof exempt from CARP coverage. However, respondent DECS’ reliance thereon is misplaced because the factual circumstances are different in the case at bar.

Firstly, in the CMU case, the land involved was not alienable and disposable land of the public domain because it was reserved by the late President Carlos P. Garcia under Proclamation No. 476 for the use of Mindanao Agricultural College (now CMU).16 In this case, however, the lands fall under the category of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

Secondly, in the CMU case, the land was actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for school sites and campuses. Although a portion of it was being used by the Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Phils., Inc.) under a "Management and Development Agreement", the undertaking was that the land shall be used by the Philippine Packing Corporation as part of the CMU research program, with direct participation of faculty and students. Moreover, the land was part of the land utilization program developed by the CMU for its "Kilusang Sariling Sikap Project" (CMU-KSSP), a multi-disciplinary applied research extension and productivity

26

program.17 Hence, the retention of the land was found to be necessary for the present and future educational needs of the CMU. On the other hand, the lands in this case were not actually and exclusively utilized as school sites and campuses, as they were leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation, not for educational purposes but for the furtherance of its business. Also, as conceded by respondent DECS, it was the income from the contract of lease and not the subject lands that was directly used for the repairs and renovations of the schools in the locality.

Anent the issue of whether the farmers are qualified beneficiaries of CARP, we disagree with the Court of Appeals’ finding that they were not.

At the outset, it should be pointed out that the identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under CARP is vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Section 15, R.A. No. 6657, which states:

SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. — The DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:

(a) names and members of their immediate farm household;

(b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the length of tenurial relationship;

(c) location and area of the land they work;

(d) crops planted; and

(e) their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.

A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.

In the case at bar, the BARC certified that herein farmers were potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject properties.18 Further, on November 23, 1994, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage placing the subject properties under CARP. Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP,19 it behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion

committed by the administrative agency. In this case, there was none.

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is the bastion of social justice of poor landless farmers, the mechanism designed to redistribute to the underprivileged the natural right to toil the earth, and to liberate them from oppressive tenancy. To those who seek its benefit, it is the means towards a viable livelihood and, ultimately, a decent life. The objective of the State is no less certain: "landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization."20

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 29, 2002, in CA-G.R. SP No. 64378 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision dated August 30, 2000 of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform placing the subject lands under CARP coverage, is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

27

G.R. No. 103125 May 17, 1993

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE and HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines Sur, petitioners, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN JOAQUIN and EFREN SAN JOAQUIN,respondents.

The Provincial Attorney for petitioners.

Reynaldo L. Herrera for Ernesto San Joaquin.

 

QUIASON, J.:

In this appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 20551 entitled "Ernesto N. San Joaquin, et al., v. Hon. Benjamin V. Panga, et al.," this Court is asked to decide whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject, to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the implementator of the agrarian reform program.

On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees.

The "WHEREAS" clause o:f the Resolution states:

WHEREAS, the province of Camarines Sur has adopted a five-year Comprehensive Development plan, some of the vital components of which includes the establishment of model and pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops, soil testing and tissue culture laboratory centers, 15 small scale technology soap making, small scale products of plaster of paris, marine biological and sea farming research center,and other progressive feasibility concepts objective of which is to provide the necessary scientific and technology know-how to farmers and fishermen in Camarines Sur and to establish a housing project for provincial government employees;

WHEREAS, the province would need additional land to be acquired either by

purchase or expropriation to implement the above program component;

WHEREAS, there are contiguous/adjacent properties to be (sic) present Provincial Capitol Site ideally suitable to establish the same pilot development center;

WHEREFORE . . . .

Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis R.Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin, docketed as Special Civil Action Nos. P-17-89 and P-19-89 of the Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur, presided by the Hon. Benjamin V. Panga.

Forthwith, the Province of Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of writ of possession. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion.

The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. In an order dated December 6, 1989, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of P5,714.00, the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents may suffer in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ of possession in an order dated January18, 1990.

The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief from the order, authorizing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of their property and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss. Both motions were denied in the order dated February 1990.

In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked: (a) that Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be declared null and void; (b) that the complaints for expropriation be dismissed; and (c) that the order dated December 6, 1989 (i) denying the motion to dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property subject of the expropriation and the order dated February 26, 1990, denying the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside. They also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of injunction.

In its answer to the petition, the Province of Camarines Sur claimed that it has the authority to initiate the expropriation proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government

28

Code (B.P. Blg. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose.

Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General stated that under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no need for the approval by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project.

The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court, allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' lands and the order denying the admission of the amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings until after the Province of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of the property of the private respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural land.

Hence this petition.

It must be noted that in the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked for: (i) the dismissal of the complaints for expropriation on the ground of the inadequacy of the compensation offered for the property and (ii) the nullification of Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur.

The Court of Appeals did not rule on the validity of the questioned resolution; neither did it dismiss the complaints. However, when the Court of Appeals ordered the suspension of the proceedings until the Province of Camarines Sur shall have obtained the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to change the classification of the lands sought to be expropriated from agricultural to non-agricultural use, it assumed that the resolution is valid and that the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.

Modernly, there has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of "public purpose" or "public use" for which the power of eminent domain may be exercised. The old concept was that the condemned property must actually be used by the general public (e.g. roads, bridges, public plazas, etc.) before the taking thereof could satisfy the constitutional requirement of "public use". Under the new concept, "public use" means public advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for tourists or housing project (Heirs of Juancho Ardano v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 [1983]; Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SC.RA 461 [1987]).

The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a public purpose. The establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, the center would make available to the community invaluable information and technology on agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution. As held in Sumulong v. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461, "Housing is a basic human need. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum the general welfare."

It is the submission of the Province of Camarines Sur that its exercise of the power of eminent domain cannot be restricted by the provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657), particularly Section 65 thereof, which requires the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform before a parcel of land can be reclassified from an agricultural to a non-agricultural land.

The Court of Appeals, following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, held that the Province of Camarines Sur must comply with the provision of Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of the San Joaquins.

In Heirs of Juancho Ardana v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220, petitioners raised the issue of whether the Philippine Tourism Authority can expropriate lands covered by the "Operation Land Transfer" for use of a tourist resort complex. There was a finding that of the 282 hectares sought to be expropriated, only an area of 8,970 square meters or less than one hectare was affected by the land reform program and covered by emancipation patents issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. While the Court said that there was "no need under the facts of this petition to rule on whether the public purpose is superior or inferior to another purpose or engage in a balancing of competing public interest," it upheld the expropriation after noting that petitioners had failed to overcome the showing that the taking of 8,970 square meters formed part of the resort complex. A fair and reasonable reading of the decision is that this Court viewed the power of expropriation as superior to the power to distribute lands under the land reform program.

The Solicitor General denigrated the power to expropriate by the Province of Camarines Sur by stressing the fact that local government units exercise such power only by delegation. (Comment, pp. 14-15; Rollo, pp. 128-129)

It is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature (City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 28l US 439, 74 L.ed. 950, 50 SCt. 360). It is also

29

true that in delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments (Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684). While such delegated power may be a limited authority, it is complete within its limits. Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly expressed, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations.

Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local Government Code, which provides:

A local government unit may, through its head and acting pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian exercise the right of eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for public use or purpose.

Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government, units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law that the Court of Appeals could cite to justify the intervention of the Department of Agrarian Reform in expropriation matters is Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which reads:

Sec. 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases 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, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.

The opening, adverbial phrase of the provision sends signals that it applies to lands previously placed under the agrarian reform program as it speaks of "the lapse of five (5) years from its award."

The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority of the

Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries.

Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted by implication (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d. 241).

To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.

Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use (United States Ex Rel Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch, 327 US 546, 90 L. ed. 843, 66 S Ct 715; State ex rel Twin City Bldg. and Invest. Co. v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 1, 174 NW 885, 8 ALR 585).

There is also an ancient rule that restrictive statutes, no matter how broad their terms are, do not embrace the sovereign unless the sovereign is specially mentioned as subject thereto (Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 124 SCRA 1 [1983]). The Republic of the Philippines, as sovereign, or its political subdivisions, as holders of delegated sovereign powers, cannot be bound by provisions of law couched in general term.

The fears of private respondents that they will be paid on the basis of the valuation declared in the tax declarations of their property, are unfounded. This Court has declared as unconstitutional the Presidential Decrees fixing the just compensation in expropriation cases to be the value given to the condemned property either by the owners or the assessor, whichever was lower ([Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 [1987]). As held in Municipality of Talisay v. Ramirez, 183 SCRA 528 [1990], the rules for determining just compensation are those laid down in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, which allow private respondents to submit evidence on what they consider shall be the just compensation for their property.

30

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial court's order allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings; and (c) requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert or reclassify private respondents' property from agricultural to non-agricultural use.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it sets aside the order of the trial court, denying the amended motion to dismiss of the private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

31

G.R. No. 158314             June 3, 2004

SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA SA SAN JOSEP, represented by DOMINADOR MAGLALANG, petitioner, vs.MARIETTA VALISNO, ADELA, AQUILES, LEANDRO, HONORIO, LUMEN, NICOLAS, all surnamed VALISNO; RANDY V. WAGNER, MARIA MARTA B. VALISNO, NOELITO VALISNO, MARY ANN L. VALISNO, PHILIP V. BRANZUELA and BRENDON V. YUJUICO; MA. CRISTINA VALISNO, BENEDICTO V. YUJUICO, GREGORIO V. YUJUICO and LEONORA V. YUJUICO, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

The sole issue in this petition for review on certiorari is whether or not the grandchildren of the late Dr. Nicolas Valisno Sr. are entitled to retention rights as landowners under Republic Act No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (hereafter, "CARL").

The original 57-hectare property, situated in La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, was formerly registered in the name of Dr. Nicolas Valisno, Sr. under Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-38406. Before the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 27,1 the land was the subject of a judicial ejectment suit, whereby in 1971, the Valisnos’ tenants were ejected from the property.2 Among these tenants was Dominador Maglalang, who represents the SMSJ in the instant proceedings.

Meanwhile, on October 20 and 21, 1972, Dr. Valisno mortgaged 12 hectares of his property to Renato and Angelito Banting.3 Thereafter, the property was subdivided into ten lots and on November 8, 1972, individual titles were issued in the name of the eight children of Nicolas, Angelito Banting, and Renato Banting.4

After the mortgage on the 12 hectare portion was foreclosed and the property sold at public auction, four grandchildren of Dr. Nicolas Valisno, namely: Maria Cristina F. Valisno, daughter of Romulo D. Valisno; and Leonora Valisno Yujuico, Benedicto Valisno Yujuico and Gregorio Valisno Yujuico, children of Marietta Valisno redeemed the same from the mortgagees.5 At the time of the redemption, Maria Cristina, Leonora and Gregorio were all minors; only Benedicto was of legal age, being then 26 years old.6 The redemption was made on October 25, 1973, but the titles to the land were not transferred to the redemptioners until November 26, 1998.7

Subsequently, the entire 57-hectare property became the subject of expropriation proceedings before the Department of Agrarian Reform ("DAR"). In 1994, Dominador Maglalang, in behalf of the SMSP, filed a petition for

coverage of the subject landholding under the CARL, which petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.8 On June 14, 1995, Rogelio Chaves, DAR Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer ("PARO"), issued a Memorandum stating that the property had been subdivided among the heirs of Dr. Nicolas Valisno Sr. before the issuance of PD 27 into tracts of approximately six hectares each.9 Nevertheless, PARO Chaves added that the excess over the five-hectare retention limit could still be covered under RA 6657.10

On appeal, the Office of the Regional Director issued an Order dated January 2, 1996, declaring the Valisno property exempt from the coverage of PD 27 and RA 6657.11 This was reversed by then Secretary Garilao, who held that the property is covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, subject to the retention rights of the heirs of Nicolas, Sr. The Valisno heirs filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order, but the same was denied.

On September 25, 1997, the Valisno heirs filed a Consolidated Application for Retention and Award under RA 6657. Specifically, the petition was filed by (1) Adela, Aquiles, Leandro, Honorio, Lumen, Nicolas and Marietta Valisno, seven children of Nicolas Valisno, Sr., who applied for retention rights as landowners; (2) Randy V. Wagner, Maria Marta B. Valisno, Noelito Valisno, Mary Ann L. Valisno, Philip V. Branzuela and Brendon V. Yujuico, grandchildren of Nicolas Sr. (hereafter collectively the "Grandchildren-Awardees"), who applied to be considered qualified child-awardees; and (3) Ma. Cristina Valisno, Benedicto V. Yujuico, Gregorio V. Yujuico and Leonora V. Yujuico, likewise grandchildren of Nicolas Sr. (hereafter collectively the "Redemptioner-Grandchildren"), who applied for retention rights as landowners over the 12-hectare portion of the property alleged to have been mortgaged by Nicolas Sr. in 1972 to Angelito and Renato Banting.

The SMSJ, through Dominador Maglalang, opposed the Consolidated Application for Retention, specifically objecting to the award in favor of the Grandchildren-Awardees because they are not actually tilling nor directly managing the land in question as required by law.

On November 4, 1998, Regional Director Renato F. Herrera issued an Order which pertinently reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, an ORDER is hereby issued as follows:

1. GRANTING the application for retention of the heirs of Dr. Nicolas Valisno, Sr., namely: Marietta Valisno; Honorio Valisno; Leandro Valisno; Adela Valisno; Nicolas Valisno, Jr.; Aquiles Valisno; and Lumen Valisno of not more than five (5) hectares each or a total of 35 hectares covered by Title Nos. 118446, 118443, 118442, 118440,

32

118445, 118441 and 118444, respectively, all located at La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija;

2. PLACING the excess of 19.0 hectares, more or less, under RA 6657 and acquiring the same thru Compulsory Acquisition for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries taking into consideration the basic qualifications set forth by law;

3. DENYING the request for the award to children of the applicants for utter lack of merit; and

4. DIRECTING the applicants-heirs to cause the segregation and survey of the retained area at their own expense and to submit within thirty (30) days the final approved survey plan to this Office.

SO ORDERED.12

On appeal, the DAR Secretary affirmed the Order of the Regional Director with the following relevant ratiocination:

In the second assignment of error, appellants faulted the Regional Director for not giving due consideration to the two (2) mortgages constituted by the original owner over a portion of his landholding in 1972 and redeemed by the latter’s grandchildren in 1973, when the 12-hectare land subject of the mortgages were ordered to be distributed to CARP beneficiaries.

x x x           x x x           x x x

The alleged redemption of the mortgaged property by the four (4) grandchildren of Nicolas Valisno, Sr., namely Ma. Cristina, Leonora, Gregorio and Benedicto, is not likewise worthy of any credence. The mortgaged property was allegedly redeemed on October 25, 1973. From the evidence on record, three (3) of the alleged redemptioners represented to be of legal age in the Discharge of Mortgage were still minors, hence, without any legal capacity at the time the redemption was made.13

On June 23, 2000, the motion for reconsideration filed by the heirs of Dr. Valisno was denied.14

Respondent heirs filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred (1) in disallowing the award of one hectare to each of the seven Grandchildren-Awardees of Dr. Nicolas Valisno, as qualified children-awardees under the CARL; and (2) in

not recognizing the redemption made by the four grandchildren of Dr. Nicolas Valisno over the 12-hectare riceland mortgaged to Renato and Angelito Banting.15

On March 26, 2002, the Court of Appeals reversed the Orders of the DAR Secretary, granted the award of one hectare each for the seven Grandchildren-Awardees, and affirmed the retention rights of the Redemptioner-Grandchildren over three hectares each, or a total of 12 hectares.16

Petitioners filed a partial motion for reconsideration, assailing the right of retention of the four Redemptioner-Grandchildren over the 12-hectare property, and praying that an amended decision be rendered placing the 12 hectares under the coverage of the CARP.17 This motion was denied on March 25, 2003.18

Hence, this appeal, on the sole assignment of error:

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN, IN EFFECT, IT RULED THAT THE REDEMPTIONERS (GRANDCHILDREN OF THE DECEASED NICOLAS VALISNO, SR.) WERE ENTITLED TO RETENTION RIGHTS AS LANDOWNERS UNDER THE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE REDEMPTION WAS DONE BY THEIR PARENTS (CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED) ONLY IN THEIR NAME AND FOR THEIR BENEFIT.19

The appeal lacks merit.

The Court of Appeals found the following facts relevant: First, that the mortgages were constituted over a 12-hectare portion of Dr. Valisno’s estate in 1972. Second, that the titles to the property were transferred to the names of the mortgagees in 1972, viz., TCT No. NT-118447, covering a 6-hectare property in La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, issued in the name of Angelito Banting; and TCT No. NT-118448, likewise covering a 6-hectare property in La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, issued in the name of Renato Banting. Third, these properties were redeemed by the Redemptioner-Grandchildren on October 25, 1973, at the time of which redemption three of the four Redemptioner-Grandchildren were minors.

It is a well-settled rule that only questions of law may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an appeal bycertiorari.20 Findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court.21 The only time this Court will disregard the factual findings of the Court of Appeals (which are ordinarily accorded great respect) is when these are based on speculation, surmises or conjectures or when these are not based on substantial evidence.22

33

In the case at bar, no reason exists for us to disregard the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. The factual findings are borne out by the record and are supported by substantial evidence.

Given these settled facts, the resolution of the sole issue in this case hinges on (1) the validity of the redemption in 1973, made when three of the Redemptioner-Grandchildren were minors; and (2) if the redemption was valid, the determination of the retention rights of the Redemptioner-Grandchildren, if any, under RA 6557.

The relevant laws governing the minors’ redemption in 1973 are the general Civil Code provisions on legal capacity to enter into contractual relations. Article 1327 of the Civil Code provides that minors are incapable of giving consent to a contract. Article 1390 provides that a contract where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent is voidable or annullable. Thus, the redemption made by the minors in 1973 was merely voidable or annullable, and was not void ab initio, as petitioners argue.

Any action for the annulment of the contracts thus entered into by the minors would require that: (1) the plaintiff must have an interest in the contract; and (2) the action must be brought by the victim and not the party responsible for the defect.23 Thus, Article 1397 of the Civil Code provides in part that "[t]he action for the annulment of contracts may be instituted by all who are thereby obliged principally or subsidiarily. However, persons who are capable cannot allege the incapacity of those with whom they contracted." The action to annul the minors’ redemption in 1973, therefore, was one that could only have been initiated by the minors themselves, as the victims or the aggrieved parties in whom the law itself vests the right to file suit. This action was never initiated by the minors. We thus quote with approval the ratiocination of the Court of Appeals:

Respondents contend that the redemption made by the petitioners was simulated, calculated to avoid the effects of agrarian reform considering that at the time of redemption the latter were still minors and could not have resources, in their own right, to pay the price thereof.

We are not persuaded. While it is true that a transaction entered into by a party who is incapable of consent is voidable, however such transaction is valid until annulled. The redemption made by the four petitioners has never been annulled, thus, it is valid.24

The transfer of the titles to the two 6-hectare properties in 1972 removed the parcels of land from the entire Valisno estate. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Renato Banting and Angelito Banting became the registered owners of the property in 1972. These two separate properties were then transferred to the Redemptioner-Grandchildren in 1973. Regardless of the source of their

funds, and regardless of their minority, they became the legal owners of the property in 1973.

Moreover, although Maria Cristina, Leonora and Gregorio were all minors in 1973, they were undoubtedly of legal age in 1994, when SMSP initiated the petition for coverage of the subject landholding under the CARL, and of course were likewise of legal age in 1997, when all the Valisno heirs filed their Consolidated Application for Retention and Award under RA 6657.

As owners in their own right of the questioned properties, Redemptioner-Grandchildren enjoyed the right of retention granted to all landowners. This right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature.25 It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner.26 A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to leave the landowner’s dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process.

In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,27 we held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under PD 27 are entitled to the new retention rights under RA 6657.28 The retention rights of landowners are provided in Sec. 6 of RA 6657, which reads in relevant part:

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

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner.

34

Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a lease-holder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.

This section defines the nature and incidents of a landowner’s right of retention. For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and it does not exceed the retention ceiling of five hectares, a landowner’s choice of the area to be retained must prevail.

Each of the four Redemptioner-Grandchildren is thus entitled to retain a parcel of land with a ceiling of five hectares, for a total of 20 hectares. The parcels of land in question total only 12 hectares, or only three hectares each, which is well within the statutory retention limits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59752 dated March 26, 2002, and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 25, 2003, which upheld the retention rights of respondents Ma. Cristina Valisno, Benedicto V. Yujuico, Gregorio V. Yujuico and Leonora V. Yujuico, areAFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

35