G.R. No.

166748               April 24, 2009 Miguel Banag situated at Malhacan,

Meycauayan, Bulacan, owned by
LAUREANO V. HERMOSO, as represented Amos Francia, et al. under the
by his Attorney-in-Fact FLORIDA L. coverage of Operation Land Transfer
UMANDAP, Petitioner, pursuant to P.D. 27; and
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF 2. DIRECTING the DAR personnel
ANTONIO FRANCIA and PETRA FRANCIA, concerned to process the issuance of
NAMELY: BENJAMIN P. FRANCIA, emancipation patents in favor of said
CECILIA FRANCIA, AMOS P. FRANCIA, Laureano Hermoso and Miguel Banag
JR., FRANCISCO F. VILLARICA, DANILO after a parcellary mapping have been
F. VILLARICA, RODRIGO F. VILLARICA, undertaken by the Bureau of Lands
MELCHOR F. VILLARICA, JESUS F. over the subject landholdings.
VILLARICA, BENILDA F. VILLARICA and
ERNESTO F. VILLARICA, Respondents. SO ORDERED.5

DECISION Respondents filed an omnibus motion for

reconsideration and reinvestigation. On
NACHURA, J.: December 9, 1995, the DAR affirmed with
modification the earlier order, and disposed of
Before the Court is a petition for review on the case as follows:
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
assailing the Decision1 dated October 15, WHEREFORE, all premises considered,
2004 and the Resolution2 dated January 19, ORDER is hereby issued AFFIRMING the
2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. first dispositive portion of the Order, dated
SP No. 77546. July 4, 1995, issued in the instant case, but
MODIFYING the second dispositive portion of
The case involves parcels of land located at the same now to read, as follows:
Malhacan, Meycauyan, Bulacan, identified as
Lot No. 3257 owned by Petra Francia and Lot 1. PLACING the subject two (2)
3415 owned by Antonio Francia. The lots parcels of land being tenanted by
comprises an area of 2.5 and 1.5850 petitioners Laureano Hermoso and
hectares, respectively, and forms part of a Miguel Banag situated at Malhacan,
larger parcel of land with an area of 32.1324 Meycauayan, Bulacan, owned by
hectares co-owned by Amos, Jr., Benjamin, Amos Francia, et al. under the
Cecilia, Petra, Antonio and Rufo, all coverage of Operation Land Transfer
surnamed Francia.3 pursuant to P.D. 27; and

Since 1978, petitioner and Miguel Banag 2. DIRECTING the DAR personnel
(Banag) have been occupying and cultivating concerned to hold in abeyance the
Lot Nos. 3257 and 3415 as tenants thereof. processing of the emancipation patent
They filed a petition for coverage of the said of Miguel Banag until the issue of
lots under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. tenancy relationship in DARAB Cases
27.4 On July 4, 1995, the Department of Nos. 424-Bul’92 and 425-Bul’92 is
Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued an order finally resolved and disposed.
granting the petition, the dispositive portion of
which reads: No further motion of any and/or the same
nature shall be entertained.
WHEREFORE, foregoing facts and
jurisprudence considered, Order is hereby SO ORDERED.6
issued:
In a separate development, petitioner and
1. PLACING the subject two (2) Banag filed with the Department of Agrarian
parcels of land being tenanted by Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
petitioners Laureano Hermoso and consolidated Cases Nos. 424-BUL-92 and
425-BUL-92. The cases delved on whether SO ORDERED.18
both petitioner and Banag are tenants of
respondents in the subject landholding. On Respondents then filed with the CA a petition
June 3, 1996, the DARAB rendered a for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Decision7 upholding the tenancy relationship Court. They maintained that P.D. No. 27 does
of petitioner and Banag with the respondents. not cover the subject parcels of land pursuant
Respondents filed a motion for to the June 5, 1973 Order of the DAR
reconsideration but the same was denied. A Secretary reclassifying the lands and
petition for review on certiorari was filed declaring the same as suited for residential,
before the CA. However, the petition was commercial, industrial or other urban
denied on technical grounds in a purposes. Furthermore, the Housing and
Resolution8 dated October 9, 1996. A motion Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
for reconsideration was filed, but the same reclassified the lands as early as October 14,
was likewise denied in a Resolution9 dated 1978.
December 27, 1996. The case was eventually
elevated to this Court in G.R. No. 127668. On On October 15, 2004, the CA rendered the
March 12, 1997, the Court denied the petition assailed Decision,19 the fallo of which reads:
for lack of verification,10 and subsequently,
also denied the motion for reconsideration in WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
a Resolution11 dated July 14, 1997. GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed
decision of the Office of the President is
Earlier, on January 20, 1997, Banag filed hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new
before the DAR, an urgent ex-parte motion decision is hereby rendered dismissing the
for the issuance of an emancipation patent. Petition for Coverage under P.D. No. 27 filed
On March 13, 1997, the DAR granted the by respondents [now herein petitioner].
motion.12 On March 21, 1997, respondents
filed a motion for reconsideration. They SO ORDERED.20
claimed that the lands involved have been
approved for conversion to urban purposes in Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.
an Order13 dated June 5, 1973 issued by the On January 19, 2005, the CA rendered the
DAR Secretary. The conversion order stated assailed Resolution21 denying the motion for
that the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under reconsideration.
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 does not
cover the subject parcels of land.14 On March Hence, the instant petition.
10, 1998, the DAR issued an
Order15 affirming the March 13, 1997 order The sole issue in this petition is whether Lot
granting the motion for issuance of Nos. 3257 and 3415 are covered by P.D. No.
emancipation patent in favor of Banag. On 27.
March 30, 1998, respondents filed a notice of
appeal and correspondingly filed their appeal Petitioner avers that the final and executory
memorandum.16 On April 21, 2003, the Office decision of this Court in G.R. No. 127668
of the President through the Deputy affirming that he is a tenant of the landholding
Executive Secretary rendered a in question entitles him to avail of the right
17
Decision  denying respondents’ appeal. The granted under PD 27. In other words,
dispositive portion of the decision reads: because of the finality of the decision
declaring him a tenant of the landholding in
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the question, in effect, the subject lots are
instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the considered as agricultural lands and are thus
questioned Order dated 10 March 1998 of the covered by P.D. No. 27. Parenthetically, we
DAR Secretary AFFIRMED in toto. take judicial notice of the decision of the
Court in G.R. No. 127668, in which the
Parties are required to INFORM this Office, tenancy relationship between petitioner and
within five (5) days from notice, of the dates respondents was upheld. That decision is
of their receipt of this Decision. already final and executory.
Respondents, for their part, claim that the On the other hand, Section 20 of R.A. No.
lands were already declared suited for 7160 otherwise known as the Local
residential, commercial, industrial or other Government Code of 199124 states:
urban purposes in accordance with the
provisions of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844 as SECTION 20. Reclassification of Lands. —
early as 1973. Hence, they are no longer
subject to P.D. No. 27. (a) A city or municipality may, through
an ordinance passed by the
We resolve to deny the petition. sanggunian after conducting public
hearings for the purpose, authorize the
Section 3, Article XII22 of the Constitution reclassification of agricultural lands
mandates that alienable lands of the public and provide for the manner of their
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. utilization or disposition in the following
cases: (1) when the land ceases to be
The classification of lands of the public economically feasible and sound for
domain is of two types, i.e., primary agricultural purposes as determined by
classification and secondary classification. the Department of Agriculture or (2)
The primary classification comprises where the land shall have substantially
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, greater economic value for residential,
and national parks. These are lands commercial, or industrial purposes, as
specifically mentioned in Section 3, Article XII determined by the sanggunian
of the Constitution. The same provision of the concerned: Provided, That such
Constitution, however, also states that reclassification shall be limited to the
agricultural lands of the public domain may following percentage of the total
further be classified by law according to the agricultural land area at the time of the
uses to which they may be devoted. This passage of the ordinance:
further classification of agricultural lands is
referred to as secondary classification.23 (1) For highly urbanized and
independent component cities,
Under existing laws, Congress has granted fifteen percent (15%);
authority to a number of government
agencies to effect the secondary (2) For component cities and
classification of agricultural lands to first to the third class
residential, commercial or industrial or other municipalities, ten percent
urban uses. (10%); and

Thus, Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 or the (3) For fourth to sixth class
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law municipalities, five percent
(CARL) of 1988, which took effect on June (5%): Provided, further, That
15, 1988, explicitly provides: agricultural lands distributed to
agrarian reform beneficiaries
Section 65. Conversion of Lands.— After the pursuant to Republic Act
lapse of five (5) years from its award, when Numbered Sixty-six hundred
the land ceases to be economically feasible fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657),
and sound for agricultural purposes, or the otherwise known as "The
locality has become urbanized and the land Comprehensive Agrarian
will have a greater economic value for Reform Law", shall not be
residential, commercial or industrial affected by the said
purposes, the DAR, upon application of the reclassification and the
beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice conversion of such lands into
to the affected parties, and subject to existing other purposes shall be
laws, may authorize the reclassification or governed by Section 65 of said
conversion of the land and its disposition: Act.
Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully
paid his obligation.
 (b) The President may, when public will convert the landholding, if suitably
interest so requires and upon located, into residential, factory,
recommendation of the National hospital or school site or other useful
Economic and Development Authority, non-agricultural purposes: Provided,
authorize a city or municipality to That the agricultural lessee shall be
reclassify lands in excess of the limits entitled to disturbance compensation
set in the next preceding paragraph. equivalent to five years rental on his
landholding in addition to his rights
(c) The local government units shall, in under Sections twenty-five and thirty-
conformity with existing laws, continue four, except when the land owned and
to prepare their respective leased by the agricultural lessor, is not
comprehensive land use plans more that five hectares, in which case
enacted through zoning ordinances instead of disturbance compensation
which shall be the primary and the lessee may be entitled to an
dominant bases for the future use of advanced notice of at least one
land resources: Provided, That the agricultural year before ejectment
requirements for food production, proceedings are filed against him:
human settlements, and industrial Provided, further, That should the
expansion shall be taken into landholder not cultivate the land
consideration in the preparation of himself for three years or fail to
such plans. substantially carry out such conversion
within one year after the dispossession
(d) Where the approval by a national of the tenant, it shall be presumed that
agency is required for reclassification, he acted in bad faith and the tenant
such approval shall not be shall have the right to demand
unreasonably withheld. Failure to act possession of the land and recover
on a proper and complete application damages for any loss incurred by him
for reclassification within three (3) because of said dispossessions;
months from receipt of the same shall
be deemed as approval thereof. (2) The agricultural lessee failed to
substantially comply with any of the
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be terms and conditions of the contract or
construed as repealing, amending, or any of the provisions of this Code
modifying in any manner the unless his failure is caused by
provisions of R.A. No. 6657. fortuitous event or force majeure;

But even long before these two trail-blazing (3) The agricultural lessee planted
legislative enactments, there was already crops or used the landholding for a
R.A. No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land purpose other than what had been
Reform Code, which was approved on previously agreed upon;
August 8, 1963, Section 36 of which reads:
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to
SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; adopt proven farm practices as
Exceptions.—Notwithstanding any agreement determined under paragraph 3 of
as to the period or future surrender, of the Section twenty-nine;
land, agricultural lessee shall continue in the
enjoyment and possession of his landholding (5) The land or other substantial
except when his dispossession has been permanent improvement thereon is
authorized by the Court in a judgment that is substantially damaged or destroyed or
final and executory if after due hearing it is has unreasonably deteriorated through
shown that: the fault or negligence of the
agricultural lessee;
(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a
member of his immediate family will (6) The agricultural lessee does not
personally cultivate the landholding or pay the lease rental when it falls due:
 Provided, That if the non-payment of On the basis of these definitions, the subject
the rental shall be due to crop failure to parcels of land cannot be considered as
the extent of seventy-five per centum within the ambit of P.D. No. 27. This
as a result of a fortuitous event, the considering that the subject lots were
non-payment shall not be a ground for reclassified by the DAR Secretary as suited
dispossession, although the obligation for residential, commercial, industrial or other
to pay the rental due that particular urban purposes way before petitioner filed a
crop is not thereby extinguished; or petition for emancipation under P.D. No. 27.
The pertinent portions of the June 5, 1973
(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee Order25 read:
on his landholding in violation of the
terms of paragraph 2 of Section Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act
twenty-seven. 3844, as amended, the said requests of the
petitioners were referred to the National
The petitioner in the instant case claims that Planning Commission as well as to the
he is entitled to the issuance of an Agrarian Reform Team Leader, Valenzuela,
emancipation patent under P.D. No. 27. The Bulacan for proper investigation.
said decree promulgated by then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, on October 21, 1972, is The National Planning Commission in
entitled, "DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION compliance therewith after due investigation
OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF and physical survey of the subject areas,
THE SOIL TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE favorably recommended the suitability of the
OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL same to residential, commercial, industrial or
AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND other urban purposes.
MECHANISMS THEREFOR". However, the
law specifically applied "to tenant-farmers of Similarly, the Agrarian Reform Team in
private agricultural lands primarily devoted to Valenzuela, Bulacan after due investigation
rice and corn under a system of share thereof found the parcels of land subject
tenancy or lease tenancy, whether classified hereof highly suitable for conversion into
as landed estate or not." urban purposes in view of his findings and
verification of the location, facilities necessary
For the parcels of land subject of this petition for urban development and also, the low
to come within the coverage of P.D. No. 27, it agricultural income thereof (unirrigated), of
is necessary to determine whether the land is the said land. The Team Leader concerned in
agricultural. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 his recommendation submitted to this Office
defines agricultural land, as follows: made mentioned (sic) that in his declaration
of the suitability of the subject properties for
(c) Agricultural Land refers to the land urban purposes, he believes that the
devoted to agricultural activity as conformity of the tenants consisting of eleven
defined in this Act and not classified as (11) tenants are no longer needed so long as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial the petitioners are willing to pay the
or industrial land. disturbance compensation as provided for by
law. The petitioners manifested to the Team
and Section 3(b) specifies agricultural Leader concerned their willingness to pay
activity as: each and every tenant the disturbance
compensation according to law. To show
(b) Agriculture, Agriculture Enterprise further their sincerity to comply with the
or Agricultural Activity means provisions of the law on disturbance
cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, compensation, and to show that their
growing of fruit trees, including the (petitioners) purpose of the instant request is
harvesting of such farm products, and not to evade the provisions of Decree 27,
other farm activities and practices they stated in their letter-request that they will
performed by a farmer in conjunction not eject any tenants therefrom, nor
with such farming operations done by dispossessed (sic) them of their landholdings
persons whether natural or juridical.
until after they are fully and justly paid the determined and fixed by the proper court in
disturbance compensation according to law. the absence of any mutual agreement thereto
by and between the agricultural lessees and
The subject parcels of land are not included the owner-petitioners.
in the land transfer operation according to the
team’s report. SO ORDERED.26

It maybe mentioned in this connection, that The main contention of petitioner for the
from the report of the National Planning approval of the emancipation patent in his
Commission submitted to this Office, it favor under P.D. No. 27 is the fact that
appears that the subject properties are respondents were not able to realize the
strategically located in the urban center of the actual conversion of the land into residential
town of Meycauayan wherein there are purposes. To bolster his claim, petitioner
already existing developed and occupied relies on Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844, viz.:
residential subdivisions and even low cost
housing projects subsidized by funds from SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding;
government financial institution. Likewise, Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any
there are also industrial establishments in its agreement as to the period or future
vicinity according to the National Planning surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee
Commission’s report. shall continue in the enjoyment and
possession of his landholding except when
In view of the foregoing, and considering the his dispossession has been authorized by the
parcels of land subject hereof to be suited for Court in a judgment that is final and
residential, commercial, industrial or other executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
urban purposes as found and recommended
by the National Planning Commission and the (1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a
Agrarian Reform Team concerned, and member of his immediate family will
considering further that the said parcels of personally cultivate the landholding or will
land by reason of their location and the convert the landholding, if suitably located,
existence of developed and occupied into residential, factory, hospital or school site
residential subdivisions and industrial or other useful non-agricultural purposes:
establishments in the immediate vicinity Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be
maybe considered as one of the possible entitled to disturbance compensation
areas to be reserved for urban development equivalent to five years rental on his
as contemplated in the Letter of Instruction landholding in addition to his rights under
No. 46 of the President, and considering Sections twenty-five and thirty-four, except
finally, that the right of the agricultural tenants when the land owned and leased by the
therein will be fully compensated and there agricultural lessor, is not more than five
will be no ejectment of tenants until after full hectares, in which case instead of
payment thereof, as manifested by the disturbance compensation the lessee may be
petitioners, the instant requests of the entitled to an advanced notice of at least one
petitioners should be, as hereby it is, given agricultural year before ejectment
due course and the parcels of land subject proceedings are filed against him: Provided,
thereof are hereby declared suited for further, That should the landholder not
residential, commercial, industrial or other cultivate the land himself for three years or
urban purposes in accordance with the fail to substantially carry out such conversion
provisions of Republic Act 3844, as within one year after the dispossession of the
amended. tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in
bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to
It is understood however, that no agricultural demand possession of the land and recover
tenants and/or lessees shall be ejected from damages for any loss incurred by him
or dispossessed of their landholdings by because of said dispossessions.
virtue of this Order not until after they are duly
and justly paid the disturbance compensation xxxx27
according to law, the amount of which maybe
However, the provision of R.A. No. 3844 had this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
already been amended by R.A. No. 6389, as residential, commercial or industrial land."
early as September 10, 1971. Section 36 (1) The deliberations of the Constitutional
of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, now reads: Commission confirm this limitation.
"Agricultural lands" are only those lands
SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; which are "arable and suitable agricultural
Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any lands" and "do not include commercial,
agreement as to the period or future industrial and residential lands."
surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee
shall continue in the enjoyment and Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the
possession of his landholding except when undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
his dispossession has been authorized by the Subdivision cannot in any language be
Court in a judgment that is final and considered as "agricultural lands." These lots
executory if after due hearing it is shown that: were intended for residential use. They
ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval
(1) The landholding is declared by the of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan
department head upon recommendation of Reservation. Even today, the areas in
the National Planning Commission to be question continued to be developed as a low-
suited for residential, commercial, industrial cost housing subdivision, albeit at a snail's
or some other urban purposes: Provided, pace. This can readily be gleaned from the
That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled fact that SAMBA members even instituted an
to disturbance compensation equivalent to action to restrain petitioners from continuing
five times the average of the gross harvests with such development. The enormity of the
on his landholding during the last five resources needed for developing a
preceding calendar years; subdivision may have delayed its completion
but this does not detract from the fact that
xxxx28 these lands are still residential lands and
outside the ambit of the CARL. 31
Under R.A. No. 6389, the condition imposed
on the landowner to implement the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
conversion of the agricultural land to non- instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
agricultural purposes within a certain period The Decision dated October 15, 2004 and the
was deleted. With the enactment of the Resolution dated January 19, 2005 of the
amendatory law, the condition imposed on Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
the landowner to implement the conversion of 77546 are hereby affirmed. The case is
the agricultural land to a non-agricultural remanded to the Provincial Agrarian Reform
purpose within a certain period was Adjudicator of Bulacan for the proper
deleted.29 The remedy left available to the computation of the disturbance compensation
tenant is to claim disturbance compensation. of petitioner.

In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of SO ORDERED.

Agrarian Reform30 , the Court held that lands
not devoted to agricultural activity and those ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
that were previously converted to non- Associate Justice
agricultural uses are outside the coverage of
the CARL, viz.:

We now determine whether such lands are Case Digest:

covered by the CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657
provides that the CARL shall "cover, G.R. No. 166748               April 24, 2009
regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private PACIFICO M. VALIAO, for himself and in
agricultural lands." As to what constitutes behalf of his co-heirs LODOVICO,
"agricultural land," it is referred to as "land RICARDO, BIENVENIDO, all Surnamed
devoted to agricultural activity as defined in VALIAO and NEMESIO M. GRANDEA,
Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE court's findings in its Decision dated June 23,
PHILIPPINES, MACARIO ZAFRA, and 2005.
MANUEL YUSAY, Respondents.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
FACTS: which was denied by the CA. Hence, the
present petition.
On August 11, 1987, petitioners filed with the
RTC an application for registration of a parcel ISSUE:
of land situated in Barrio Galicia, Municipality
of Ilog, Negros Occidental. Is the piece of land in question alienable and
disposable land of the public domain.
On June 20, 1988, private oppositors filed
their Motion to Dismiss the application on the HELD:
following grounds: (1) the land applied for has
not been declared alienable and disposable; Under Rule 45, the principle is well-
(2) res judicata has set in to bar the established that this Court is not a trier of
application for registration; and (3) the facts and that only questions of law may be
application has no factual or legal basis. raised. This rule, however, is subject to
certain exceptions. One of these is when the
On August 24, 1988, the Republic of the findings of the appellate court are contrary to
Philippines (Republic), through the Office of those of the trial court. Due to the divergence
the Solicitor General (OSG), opposed the of the findings of the CA and the RTC, the
application for registration. Court will now re-examine the facts and
evidence adduced before the lower courts.
On July 3, 1989, the RTC denied private
oppositors' Motion to Dismiss. Trial thereafter Under Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree
ensued. No. (PD) 1529, otherwise known as the
Property Registration Decree, petitioners
In support of their application for registration, need to prove that: (1) the land forms part of
petitioners alleged that they acquired the the alienable and disposable land of the
subject property in 1947, upon the death of public domain; and (2) they, by themselves or
their uncle Basilio who purchased the land through their predecessors-in-interest, have
from a certain Fermin Payogao, pursuant to a been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
Deed of Sale dated May 19, 1916 entirely notorious possession and occupation of the
handwritten in Spanish language. Basilio subject land under a bona fide claim of
possessed the land in question from May 19, ownership from June 12, 1945 or earlier.
1916 until his death in 1947. Basilio's
possession was open, continuous, peaceful, No such evidence was offered by the
adverse, notorious, uninterrupted and in the petitioners to show that the land in question
concept of an owner. Upon Basilio's death, has been classified as alienable and
the applicants as co-heirs possessed the said disposable land of the public domain. In the
land until 1966, whenoppositor Zafra absence of incontrovertible evidence to prove
unlawfully and violently dispossessed them of that the subject property is already classified
their property, which compelled them to file as alienable and disposable, we must
complaints of Grave Coercion and Qualified consider the same as still inalienable public
Theft against Zafra. domain. Verily, the rules on the confirmation
of imperfect title do not apply unless and until
The RTC, in its Decision dated December 15, the land subject thereof is released in an
1995, granted petitioners' application for official proclamation to that effect so that it
registration of the subject property. may form part of the disposable agricultural
lands of the public domain.
Aggrieved by the Decision, the private
oppositors and the Republic, through
Assistant Prosecutor Josue A. Gatin, filed an
appeal with the CA, which reversed the trial