Alita v CA Facts:

Facts: Private respondents' predecessors-in- The case is a petition regarding Department

interest acquired the subject parcel of lands of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board’s
through homestead patent under the (DARAB) order of compulsory acquisition of
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141. petitioner’s property under the
Private respondents herein are desirous of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
personally cultivating these lands, but
(CARP). Sta. Rosa was the registered owner
petitioners refuse to vacate, relying on the
of two parcels of land in Cabuyao Laguna.
provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316. On June
According to them, these lands are
18, 1981, private respondents instituted a
watersheds which provide clean and potable
complaint for the declaration of P.D. 27 and
(drinkable) water to the Canlubang
all other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and
community and that 90 light industries are
General Orders issued in connection
located in that area. They were alleging
therewith as inapplicable to lands obtained
respondents usurped its rights over their
through homestead law. The RTC dismissed
property thereby destroying the ecosystem.
the complaint but on motion for
Since the said land provides water to the
reconsideration it declared that P.D. 27 is not
residents, respondents sought an easement
applicable to homestead lands. On appeal to
of a right of a way to and from Barangay
the CA, the decision of the RTC was
Castile, to which, by counterclaim, Sta. Rosa
sustained.
sought ejectment against respondents.
Issue: Whether or not lands acquired through Respondents went to the DAR and filed a
homestead law are covered by CARP case for compulsory acquisition of the Sta.
Rosa Property under the Comprehensive
Held:Petitioners is correct in saying that P.D.
Agrarian Reform Program. Compulsory
27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants
acquisition is the power of the government to
fromthe bondage of the soil and transferring
acquire private rights in land without the
to them ownership of the land they till is a
willing consent of its owner or occupant in
sweeping social legislation, a remedial
order to benefit the society. The said land
measure promulgated pursuant to the social
was inspected by the Municipal and Agrarian
justice precepts of the Constitution.
Reform Officer, and upon consensus of the
However, such contention cannot be invoked
authorities concerned, they decided that the
to defeat the very purpose of the enactment
said land must be placed under compulsory
of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act
acquisition. Petitioners filed an objection on
No. 141. The Philippine Constitution likewise
the ground that: The area is not appropriate
respects the superiority of the homesteaders'
for agricultural purposes. The area was
rights over the rights of the tenants
rugged in terrain with slopes 18% and above.
guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute.
(which falls under the exception in
Provided, that the original homestead
compulsory acquisition of CARP) The
grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who
occupants of the land were illegal settlers or
still own the original homestead at the time of
(squatters) who by no means are entitled to
the approval of this Act shall retain the same
the land as beneficiaries. Another issue
areas as long as they continue to cultivate
raised by the petitioners was that the DAR
said homestead.
failed to follow the due process because
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp vs. instead of paying just compensation, a trust
Court of Appeals account was made in favour of the
petitioners. Issues: 1. Whether these parcels
of land fall within the coverage of the · LLDA discovered that the City
Compulsory Acquisition Program of the Government of Caloocan has been
CARP? 2. Whether the petition of land maintaining the open dumpsite at the
conversion of the parcels of land may be Camarin Area without a requisite
granted? Court Ruling: 1. Art. 67 of the Water Environmental Compliance Certificate from
Code: Any watershed or any area of land the Environmental Management Bureau of
adjacent to any surface water or overlying the DENR. They also found the water to have
any ground water may be declared by DENR been directly contaminated by the operation
as a protected area. In this case, the DENR of the dumpsite.
did not declare the land as a protected area,
· LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order
In the past the municipality issued a
against the City Government and other
resolution that the said land is an agricultural
entities to completely halt, stop and desist
land. 2. Although evidence of petitioners is
from dumping any form or kind of garbage
strong, the Supreme Court opines that the
and other waste matter on the Camarin
area must be maintained for watershed
dumpsite.
purposes for ecological and environmental
considerations despite the 88 families who · The City Government went to the
are beneficiaries of the CARP. It is important Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City to file
that a larger view of the situation be taken an action for the declaration of nullity of the
because of the thousands of residents cease and desist order and sought to be
downstream if the watershed will not be declared as the sole authority empowered to
protected and maintained for its natural promote the health and safety and enhance
purpose. 3. D the right of the people in Caloocan City to a
balanced ecology within its territorial
espite Supreme Court’s strong opinion of
jurisdiction.
protection of watersheds as an
intergenerational · LLDA sought to dismiss the complaint,
invoking the Pollution Control Law that the
responsibility, they however ordered to
review of cease and desist orders of that
DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the
nature falls under the Court of Appeals and
case since the said land falls under
not the RTC.
exception.
· RTC denied LLDA’s motion to dismiss,
LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY vs COURT OF APPEALS and issued a writ of preliminary injunction
(Romero[1], 1994) enjoining LLDA from enforcing the cease and
desist order during the pendency of the case.
FACTS
· The Court of Appeals promulgated a
· The residents of Tala Estate, Barangay decision that ruled that the LLDA has no
Camarin, Caloocan City raised a complaint power and authority to issue a cease and
with the Laguna Lake Development Authority desist order enjoining the dumping of
(LLDA), seeking to stop the operation of the garbage.
City Government of Caloocan of an 8.6
· The residents seek a review of the
hectare open garbage dumpsite in Tala
decision.
Estate, due to its harmful effects on the
health of the residents and the pollution of ISSUE
the surrounding water.
WoN the LLDA has authority and power to among the representatives of the city
issue an order which, in its nature and effect government, LLDA and the residents.
was injunctive.
THEORY OF THE PARTIES
2. LLDA has the authority to issue the
City Government of Caloocan: As a local cease and desist order.
government unit, pursuant to the general
a. Explicit in the law.
welfare provision of the Local Government
Code, they have the mandate to operate a · §4, par. (3) explicitly authorizes the
dumpsite and determine the effects to the LLDA to make whatever order may be
ecological balance over its territorial necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
jurisdiction.
· While LLDA was not expressly
LLDA: As an administrative agency which conferred the power “to issue an ex-parte
was granted regulatory and adjudicatory cease and desist order” in that language, the
powers and functions by RA No. 4850, it is provision granting authority to “make (…)
invested with the power and authority to orders requiring the discontinuance of
issue a cease and desist order pursuant to pollution”, has the same effect.
various provisions in EO No. 927.
RULING
b. Necessarily implied powers.
YES.
· Assuming arguendo that the cease and
1. LLDA is mandated by law to manage desist order” was not expressly conferred by
the environment, preserve the quality of law, there is jurisprudence enough to the
human life and ecological systems and effect.
prevent undue ecological disturbances,
deterioration and pollution in the Laguna · While it is a fundamental rule that an
Lake area and surrounding provinces and administrative agency has only such power
cities, including Caloocan. as expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise
a settled rule that an administrative agency
· While pollution cases are generally has also such powers as are necessarily
under the Pollution Adjudication Board under implied in the exercise of its express powers.
the Department of Environment and Natural Otherwise, it will be reduced to a “toothless”
Resources, it does not preclude mandate paper agency.
from special laws that provide another forum.
· In Pollution Adjudication Board vs Court
· In this case, RA No. 4850 provides that of Appeals, the Court ruled that the PAB has
mandate to the LLDA. It is mandated to pass the power to issue an ex-parte cease and
upon or approve or disapprove plans and desist order on prima facie evidence of an
programs of local government offices and establishment exceeding the allowable
agencies within the region and their standards set by the anti-pollution laws of the
underlying environmental/ecological country.
repercussions.
· LLDA has been vested with sufficiently
· The DENR even recognized the primary broad powers in the regulation of the projects
jurisdiction of the LLDA over the case when within the Laguna Lake region, and this
the DENR acted as intermediary at a meeting includes the implementation of relevant anti-
pollution laws in the area.
Milestone Farms vs Office of the RTC reversed the decision of MCTC
President
CA ruled in favor of Milestone
FACTS:
DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order
Among the pertinent secondary purposes of exempting from CARP only 240.9776
Milestone Farms are 1) to engage in the hectares of the 316.0422 hectares previously
raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; 2) exempted by Director Dalugdug, and
to breed, raise, and sell poultry; and 3) to declaring 75.0646 hectares of the property to
import cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and be covered by CARP.
animal food necessary for the raising of said
Office of the President primarily reinstated
cattle, pigs, and other livestock
the decision of Director Dalugdug but when
On June 10, 1988, CARL took effect the farmers filed a motion for
reconsideration, Office of the President
In May 1993, petitioner applied for the
reinstated the decision of Director Garilao.
exemption/exclusion of its 316.0422-hectare
property pursuant to the aforementioned CA primarily ruled in favor of Milestone in
ruling of this Court in Luz Farms. exempting the entire property from the
coverage of CARP. However, six months
Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, DAR
earlier, without the knowledge of the CA – as
issued AO No. 9, Series of 1993, setting forth
the parties did not inform the appellate court
rules and regulations to govern the exclusion
– then DAR Secretary Villa issued DAR
of agricultural lands used for livestock,
conversion order granting petitioner’s
poultry, and swine raising from CARP
application to convert portions of the
coverage.
316.0422-hectare property from agricultural
Milestone re-documented its application to residential and golf courses use. The
pursuant to said AO. portions converted was with a total area of
153.3049 hectares. With this Conversion
DAR’s Land Use Conversion and Exemption Order, the area of the property subject of the
Committee (LUCEC) conducted an ocular controversy was effectively reduced to
inspection on petitioner’s property and 162.7373 hectares.
recommended the exemption of petitioner’s
316.0422-hectare property from the With the CA now made aware of these
coverage of CARP. developments, particularly Secretary Villa’s
Conversion Order, CA had to acknowledge
DAR Regional Director Dalugdug adopted that the property subject of the controversy
LUCEC’s recommendation would now be limited to the remaining
The Pinugay Farmers, represented by 162.7373 hectares. CA, in its amended
Balajadia, moved for the reconsideration of decision, states that the subject landholding
the said Order, but the same was denied by from the coverage of CARP is hereby lifted,
Director Dalugdug. Hence, they filed an and the 162.7373 hectare-agricultural
appeal with DAR Secretary portion thereof is hereby declared covered
by the CARP.
Subsequently, Milestone filed a complaint for
Forcible Entry against Balajadia and ISSUE: Whether or not Milestone’s property
company before the MCTC. should be exempted from the coverage of
CARP
MCTC ruled in favor of Milestone
HELD: industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on
or after the effectivity of Republic Act No.
No.
6657 on 15 June 1988 pursuant to Section
When CA made its decision, DAR AO No. 9 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 and other
was not yet declared unconstitutional by the pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be
Supreme Court. Thus, it could not be said converted to such uses. The 2 earlier AOs
that the CA erred or gravely abused its was further amended by an AO issued Feb
discretion in respecting the mandate of DAR 2002 - 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land
A.O. No. 9, which was then subsisting and in Use Conversion; covers all applications for
full force and effect. conversion from agricultural to non-
agricultural uses or to another agricultural
As correctly held by respondent OP, the CA use.
correctly held that the subject property is not
exempt from the coverage of the CARP, as
substantial pieces of evidence show that the
The AO was amended again in 2007 to
said property is not exclusively devoted to
include provisions particularly addressing
livestock, swine, and/or poultry raising.
land conversion in time of exigencies and
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND calamities. To address the conversion to
BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. lands to non agricultural, Sec of DAR
(CREBA) v. THE SECRETARY OF suspended processing and approval of land
AGRARIAN REFORM conversion through DAR Memo 88. CREBA
claims that there is a slowdown of housing
projects because of such stoppage
FACTS: Oct 1997 Sec of DAR issued DAR
A.O. entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures
Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands ISSUES: Is DAR's AO unconstitutional?
to Non Agricultural Uses. The said AO
embraced all private agricultural lands
regardless of tenurial arrangement and HELD: RA 6657 and 8435 defines
commodity produced and all untitled agricultural land as lands devoted to or
agricultural lands and agricultural lands suitable for the cultivation of the soil, planting
reclassified by LGU into non-agricultural of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of
uses after 15 June 1988. March 1999, Sec livestock, poultry or fish, including the
DAR issued Revised Rules and Regulations harvesting of such farm products, and other
on Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non farm activities and practices performed by a
AgriculturalUses, it covers the following: (1) farmer in conjunction with such farming
those to be converted to residential, operations done by a person whether natural
commercial, industrial, institutional and other or juridical, and not classified by the law as
non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
devoted to another type of agricultural industrial land. However, he issued an AO
activity such as livestock, poultry, and included in this definition - lands not
fishpond ─ the effect of which is to exempt reclassified as residential, commercial,
the land from the Comprehensive Agrarian industrial or other non-agricultural uses
Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) before 15 June 1988. In effect, lands
those to be converted to non-agricultural use reclassified from agricultural to residential,
other than that previously authorized; and (4) commercial, industrial, or other non-
those reclassified to residential, commercial, agricultural uses after 15 June 1988 are
considered to be agricultural lands for
purposes of conversion, redistribution, or
otherwise. This is violation of RA 6657
because there is nothing in Section 65 of
Republic Act No. 6657 or in any other
provision of law that confers to the DAR the
jurisdiction or authority to require that non-
awarded lands or reclassified lands be
submitted to its conversion authority.
Also, it violates Section 20 of Republic Act
No. 7160, because it was not provided
therein that reclassification by LGUs shall be
subject to conversion procedures or
requirements, or that the DARs approval or
clearance must be secured to effect
reclassification.The said Section 2.19 of
DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, also
contravenes the constitutional mandate on
local autonomy under Section 25, Article II
and Section 2, Article X of the 1987
Philippine Constitution. There is deprivation
of liberty and property without due process of
law because under DAR AO No. 01-02, as
amended, lands that are not within DARs
jurisdiction are unjustly, arbitrarily and
oppressively prohibited or restricted from
legitimate use on pain of administrative and
criminal penalties. More so, there is
discrimination and violation of the equal
protection clause of the Constitution because
the aforesaid administrative order is patently
biased in favor of the peasantry at the
expense of all other sectors of society.
DISMISSED.