CMU vs.

DARAB
G.R. No. 100091

Facts:

Petitioner, the CMU, is an agricultural education 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 and agricultural school in Mindanao.
In 1960’s it was converted into a college with campus in Musuan, and became known as
the CMU. Primarily an agricultural university, the school was the answer to the need for training
people in order to develop the agricultural potential of the island of Mindanao.
On January 16, 1958 the late president Carlos P. Garcia, 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 3080
hectares was surveyed and registered and titled in the name of the petitioner.
In the early 1960’s student population of the school was less than 3000. By 1988, the
student population had expanded to some 13000 students. 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.
In 1984, the CMU approved Resolution No. 160, 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
4-5 hectares of land for the lowland rice project. 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.
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 of the CMU, were
hired workers or laborers of the participants in this program.
When 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 of "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 participants agreed not to allow their hired laborers or members of their family to
establish any house or live within the 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.
The one-year contracts expired on June 30, 1988. Some contracts were renewed. Those
whose contracts were not renewed were served with notices to vacate.
The non-renewal of the contracts, the discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar can project,
the loss of jobs due to termination or separation from the service and the alleged harassment by
school authorities, all contributed to, and precipitated the filing of, the complaint.
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.

Issue/s:
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 CARP.
Whether or not respondent Court of Appeals committed serious errors and GADALEJ in
dismissing the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirming the decision of DARAB

Held:
Petition is meritorious.

Ratio:
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.
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 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. 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
willfully violates the above provision of the Act shall be punished with imprisonment or fine at
the discretion of the Court. Therefore, 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 by the Court of Appeals,
segregating 400 hectares from the CMU land is primarily based on the alleged fact that the land
subject 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", and "there is no
definite and concrete showing that the use of said lands are essentially indispensable for
educational purposes". 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 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. 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.
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 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 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.
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. 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.
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.
In this case, 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.
We 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.
It is the opinion of the Court that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of grave
abuse of discretion by respondents Court of Appeals and DAR Adjudication Board. Declaring 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 ordered to
be set aside.

xxx

Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board 215
SCRA 86 (1992)
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
215 SCRA 86 (1992)

Facts:
On 16 January 1958, President Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation No. 467 reserving for the
Mindanao Agricultural College, now the CMU, a piece of land to be used as its future campus. In
1984, CMU embarked on a project titled "Kilusang Sariling Sikap" wherein parcels of land were
leased to its faculty members and employees. Under the terms of the program, CMU will assist
faculty members and employee groups through the extension of technical know-how, training
and other kinds of assistance. In turn, they paid the CMU a service fee for use of the land. The
agreement explicitly provided that there will be no tenancy relationship between the lessees and
the CMU.
When the program was terminated, a case was filed by the participants of the "Kilusang Sariling
Sikap" for declaration of status as tenants under the CARP. In its resolution, DARAB, ordered,
among others, the segregation of 400 hectares of the land for distribution under CARP. The land
was subjected to coverage on the basis of DAR's determination that the lands do not meet the
condition for exemption, that is, it is not "actually, directly, and exclusively used" for educational
purposes.

Issue:
Is the CMU land covered by CARP? Who determines whether lands reserved for public use by
presidential proclamation is no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and necessary for
the purpose for which they are reserved?

Held:
The land is exempted from CARP. CMU is in the best position to resolve and answer the
question of when and what lands are found necessary for its use. The Court also chided the
DARAB for resolving this issue of exemption on the basis of "CMU's present needs." The Court
stated that the DARAB decision stating that for the land to be exempt it must be "presently,
actively exploited and utilized by the university in carrying out its present educational program
with its present student population and academic faculty" overlooked the very significant factor
of growth of the university in the years to come.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN,
Petitioner,
vs
SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRIBUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N.
LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Respondent.
G.R. No. 178895

x-------------------------------------------------------x

SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRIBUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N.

LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Petitioner,
vs
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIA REFORM, through the Honorable Secretary, Respondent.
G.R. No. 179071 January 10, 2011

FACTS:
Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 160.1161 hectares
registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez AgriBusiness Corporation. Said parcels of land are
hereinafter described as follows:
On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga issued a
Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the aforementioned landholdings which
were subsequently placed under Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law).
On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO),
Davao Oriental, an Application for Exemption of the lots covered by TCT No. T12637 and
T12639 from CARP coverage. It alleged that pursuant to the case of Luz Farms v. DAR
Secretary said parcels of land are exempted from coverage as the said parcels of land with a total
area of 110.5455 hectares are used for grazing and habitat of petitioners 105 heads of cattle, 5
carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads of goats and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, the MARO conducted an onsite investigation on the
two parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock as enumerated. The Investigation
Report dated March 9, 1993 stated:
“Cognitive thereto, we are favorably recommending for the exemption from the coverage of
CARP based on LUZ FARMS as enunciated by the Supreme Court the herein Lot No. 1293-B
Psd-65835 under TCT No. T12639 except Lot No. 1298, Cad. 286 of TCT No. T12637 which is
already covered under the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Scheme and had already been valued
by the Land Valuation Office, Land Bank of the Philippines.”
On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T12635 covering Lots 1454A & 1296 was cancelled and a new one
issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP T16356. On February 7, 1994,
petitioner through its President, Salvador N. Lopez, Jr., executed a letteraffidavit addressed to the
respondent Secretary requesting for the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454A and 1296
on the ground that they needed the additional area for its livestock business. On March 28, 1995,
petitioner filed before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an application for the
exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454A and 1296 stating that it has been operating
grazing lands even prior to June 15, 1988 and that the said two (2) lots form an integral part of its
grazing land.
The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order dated March 5,
1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454A and 1296 on the ground that it was
not clearly shown that the same were actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising
since in its application, petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area.
The application for exemption, however of the other two (2) parcels of land was approved.
On its partial motion for reconsideration, petitioner argued that Lots 1454A & 1296 were taken
beyond the operation of the CARP pursuant to its reclassification to a Pollutive Industrial District
(Heavy Industry) per Resolution No. 39 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mati, Davao Oriental,
enacted on April 7, 1992. The DAR Regional Director denied the Motion.
The petitioner appealed the Regional Directors Orders to respondent DAR. On June 10, 1998,
the latter issued its assailed Order affirming the Regional Directors ruling on Lots 1454A & 1296
and further declared Lots 1298 and 1293B as covered by the CARP.
On October 17, 2002, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent
prompting the former to file the instant petition.
The Court of Appeals partially granted the SNLABC Petition and excluded the two (2) parcels of
land (Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] Nos. T12637 and T12639) located in Barrio Don
Enrique Lopez (the Lopez lands) from coverage of the CARL.
However, it upheld the Decisions of the Regional Director and the DAR Secretary denying the
application for exemption with respect to Lots 1454A and 1296 (previously under TCT No.
T12635) in Barrio Limot (the Limot lands). These lots were already covered by a new title under
the name of the Republic of the Philippines (RP T16356). The DAR and SNLABC separately
sought a partial reconsideration of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, but their
motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied.

ISSUE:
W/N the Lopez and Limot lands of SNLABC can be considered grazing lands for its livestock
business and are thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL under the Courts ruling in Luz
Farms v. DAR.

HELD:
NO. The Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to coconut trees and rubber
and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP coverage.
In the Report dated 06 April 1994, the team that conducted the inspection found that the entire
Limot lands were devoted to coconuts (41.5706 hectares) and rubber (8.000 hectares) and
recommended the denial of the application for exemption. Verily, the Limot lands were actually,
directly and exclusively used for agricultural activities, a fact that necessarily makes them
subject to the CARP. These findings of the inspection team were given credence by the DAR
Regional Director who denied the application, and were even subsequently affirmed by the DAR
Secretary and the Court of Appeals.
The MARO itself in the Investigation Report cited by no less than SNLABC, found that the
livestock were only moved to the Limot lands sporadically and were not permanently designated
there. The DAR Secretary even described SNLABCs use of the area as a seasonal extension of
the applicants grazing lands during the summer. Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to
have been actually, directly and exclusively used for SNLABCs livestock business, especially
since these were only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing areas. The said lands are
more suitable and are in fact actually, directly and exclusively being used for agricultural
purposes.

xxx

Republic v. Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. 639 SCRA 49

G.R. No. 178895/ G.R. No. 179071: January 10, 2011

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN

REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN Petitioner vs.
SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ,
JR., President and General Manager Respondent

SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ,

JR., President and General Manager Petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON.
SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN Respondent

SERENO, J.:

FACTS:
Two properties of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC) were placed under the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law CARL). SNLABC sought exemption of
their properties, arguing that due to the ruling in the Luz Farms case, land devoted to livestock is
outside the coverage of the CARL. Upon ocular inspection, the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO) found that one of the parcels of land, the Lopez land, were exempt from CARL
coverage. The other parcel, the Limot land, was not exempt. SNLABC appealed the finding with
the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The DAR, however, ruled that both Lopez and
Limot lands were subject to the CARL. SNLABC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals,
which rendered the assailed decision. The CA affirmed the findings of the MARO, that the
Lopez land was exclusively used for livestock. The MARO found that the Lopez lands were used
for grazing, and that such was its purpose even before the Luz Farms ruling. It was sufficiently
established by testimonies of the people thereabouts. Despite the presence of coconut trees in the
Lopez lands, it is still used primarily for raising livestock. There are also structures meant for
such a purpose. The Limot lands, on the other hand, were used both for coconut and rubber
plantations. The MARO found that it was only used as an extension of grazing land,
inconsistently at best. Both the DAR and SNLABC appealed the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Lopez and Limot Lands are under the coverage of CARL

HELD:
Both petitions are denied

Civil Law: The DAR argues that the tax declaration of the Lopez lands classify it as agricultural
land. Also, that the SNLABC was incorporated after the implementation of the CARL shows that
there is an attempt to evade CARL coverage. It is, however, doctrine that tax declarations
themselves are not conclusive evidence as to the classification of land. Also, it is the actual usage
of the land, not its classification, which determines its eligibility for CARL. As for the Lopez
lands, it has inherited by the owner of SNLABC as livestock land. Its use has been for raising
livestock even before the incorporation of SNLABC. Hence, the time of incorporation, and the
tax declaration are irrelevant.

As for the Limot lands, it is not enough that such are used as seasonal extensions of grazing land.
The livestock are not regularly situated in the land in question, but are only brought there at
times for grazing. It is land actually devoted to coconut and rubber. Hence, it cannot be exempted.
 G.R. No. 147146. July 29, 2005
JOSE, JULIO and FEDERICO, All Surnamed JUNIO, Petitioners,
vs.
ERNESTO D. GARILAO, in His Capacity as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioners claim that Sta. Lucia Realty Corporation and the Estate of Guillermo Villasor,
represented by Irving Villasor, are bulldozing and leveling certain parcel of agricultural lands in
Bacolod for the purpose of converting it into a residential subdivision; that as prospective CARP
beneficiaries of the land in question, ‘being former laborers, actual occupants and permanent
residents of Barangay Pahanocoy,’ their rights will be prejudiced by the illegal conversion of the
land into a residential subdivision.

On 1994, the DARAB OIC Executive Director forwarded the complaint to PARAD for appropriate
action. Before any hearing could be conducted thereon, the Secretary of the DAR issued an Order
exempting from CARP coverage such lands since the same was classified as residential prior to
the effectivity of CARL on June 15, 1988.

The Court of Appeals sustained the Exemption Order issued by public respondent. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject lands are covered by the CARP.

HELD:

The Petition is devoid of merit.

Section 4 of RA 6657 specifically provides lands covered by the CARP and it includes “All private
lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that
can be raised thereon.”

Section 3(c) of the CARL defines agricultural land as that which is "devoted to agricultural
activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."

The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL was explained further by the DAR in its
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing
Conversion of Private Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Uses," issued pursuant to Section 49
of CARL, which we quote:

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

According to DAR AO 6-94, an application for exemption from the coverage of the CARP must
be accompanied by a certification from the HLURB that the pertinent zoning ordinance has been
approved by the Board prior to June 15, 1988. In the instant case, the landowner did file an
accompanying Certification from the HLURB.

The Certifications carried the presumption of regularity in their issuance. Petitioners did not
present any evidence to overcome that presumption. The letter of the deputized zoning
administrator of Bacolod City -- cited by petitioners to contradict the Certifications -- did not touch
on, much less corroborate, their claim that the subject landholding remained classified as
agricultural. It merely restated what was already provided in the law -- that only the Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Bacolod City could reclassify lands.

Petitioners next assert that, for tax purposes, the subject property was declared by its owners as
agricultural land since time immemorial until at least 1994. It is settled, however, that a tax
declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning purposes. Under the Real
Property Tax Code, a tax declaration serves only to enable the assessor to identify a property for
assessment levels, not to bind a provincial/city assessor.

Consequently, even if the subject landholding has been declared as agricultural for taxation
purposes, once a local government has reclassified it as residential, that determination must prevail
for zoning purposes.