Bukluran ng Mamamayan ng Concepcion Sariaya, Quezon at Pinagbakuran, Inc. v. Heirs of Emiliano Gala

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 218541. June 20, 2018.]

BUKLURAN NG MAMAMAYAN NG CONCEPCION SARIAYA, QUEZON AT PINAGBAKURAN, INC. AT KALIPUNAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT MAGNINIYOG SA NIYUGAN GITNANG QUEZON AND THE FARMER BENEFICIARIES, petitioner,vs. HEIRS OF EMILIANO GALA NAMELY LUISMIL DE VILLA GALA, PURITA GALA PERDICES, CONCEPCION GALA SALES, CAYO DE VILLA GALA AND AIDA GALA SIU, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 20, 2018which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 218541 (Bukluran ng Mamamayan ng Concepcion Sariaya, Quezon at Pinagbakuran, Inc. at Kalipunan ng Manggagawa at Magniniyog sa Niyugan Gitnang Quezon and the Farmer Beneficiaries, v. Heirs of Emiliano Gala namely Luismil De Villa Gala, Purita Gala Perdices, Concepcion Gala Sales, Cayo De Villa Gala and Aida Gala Siu).

Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, 1 which seeks to assail the Resolution 2 dated May 22, 2015 and Decision 3 dated May 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135740, which upheld the decision of the Office of the President (OP) granting the application for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) parcels of land owned by respondents Heirs of Emilio Gala (respondents).

In 1998, an application for exemption from the CARP coverage was filed by respondents involving six parcels of land with an aggregate area of 461.2102 hectares located in Sariaya, Quezon. Their application was supported by the following, among others: (1) Certification dated May 4, 1988 from the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator which stated that the six parcels of land were classified in 1982 as non-agricultural lands through Municipal Ordinance No. 42 series of 1982 enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sariaya, Quezon; (2) Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Certification dated September 7, 1995 which stated that the six parcels of land appear to be within the Major Industrial Zone and Tourism Resort Zone based on the Municipal Ordinance of Sariaya enacted in 1982 as ratified by the HLURB under Resolution No. 92 dated October 6, 1982; (3) a National Irrigation Administration (NIA) Certification dated November 11, 1991 which stated that the six parcels of land are not irrigable and not covered by any irrigation project; and (4) Municipal Planning Development Office (MPDO) Certifications dated May 4, 1998 and May 23, 1998 which stated that the four parcels of land out of the six are within the Industrial Zone of Sariaya per 1982 Ordinance. 4 AIDSTE

Petitioners interposed their objection to the application on the ground that the same was a collateral attack on the validity of their titles.

It appears that in 1989, respondents voluntarily offered for expropriation five parcels of land of their agricultural landholdings to the government via the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme of the CARP. Consequently, titles over said parcels of land were issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. 5

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) conducted screening and selection of agrarian reform beneficiaries for the distribution of the agricultural lands covered with the new titles in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR ultimately selected the petitioners.

Consequently, titles in the name of the Republic of the Philippines were cancelled and in lieu thereof, Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were given to petitioners.

Later on, respondents filed the application for exemption over the awarded agricultural landholdings. 6

In an Order 7 dated April 25, 2008, the DAR denied the application for exemption, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Application for Exemption from CARP Coverage filed by Emilio Gala, et al., involving six (6) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 416.2102 hectares, located in Barangays Concepcion 1, Pinagbakuran Manggalang Kiling, Sariaya, Quezon is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.8

In a Motion for Reconsideration, the DAR partially granted the same and modified the earlier order in that it approved the application for exemption of 165.294 hectares only. The DAR ruled that though the subject lands are already reclassified as non-agricultural in 1982, they are not automatically removed outside the coverage of CARP as lands that are devoted to or suitable for agriculture are covered by CARP. However, the 295.9908 hectares cannot be exempted from the application of CARP since they are covered by CARP and CLOAs are already issued to farmer-beneficiaries. 9 The fallo thereof reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated 25 April 2008 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Order dated 25 April 2008 is MODIFIED to read as follows:

1. The Application for Exemption from CARP Coverage filed by Emiliano Gala, et al., with regard to the 165.2194 hectares not yet covered by the CLOA is APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

a) Disturbance compensation to the affected tenants, farmworkers, or bonafide occupants, if any, in such amount or kind as may be mutually agreed upon and approved by the DAR, shall be paid within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt by the Applicants of this Order, proof of such payment to be copy furnished the CLUPPI Secretariat within five (5) days from the expiration of the aforementioned 60-day period;

b) The Applicants shall allow duly authorized representatives of the DAR free and unhampered access to the subject property for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions thereof; and acEHCD

c) The DAR reserves the right to cancel or withdraw this Order for misrepresentation of facts integral to its issuances and/or violation of the law and applicable rules and regulations on CARP Exemption/Exclusion.

2. The Application for Exemption from CARP Coverage with regard to the 295.9908 hectares already covered by the CLOAs is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.10

Respondents filed an appeal before the OP, which was dismissed for lack of merit in an Order 11 dated December 16, 2013. The dispositive portion thereof states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.12

A motion for reconsideration filed by respondents was denied in a Resolution 13 dated May 12, 2014.

On appeal, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit in a Resolution 14 dated March 11, 2015. However, the petition was reinstated in a Resolution 15 dated May 22, 2015 after finding prima facie merit on the petition.

In a Decision dated May 29, 2015, the CA set aside the decision of the OP and ruled that the whole 461.2102 hectares should be exempted from the application of the CARP. Citing jurisprudence, the CA held that the lands already classified and identified as commercial, industrial or residential before June 15, 1988, the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) are outside the coverage of CARL and therefore, exempt from the CARP. The fallo thereof reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us in this Court SETTING ASIDE the December 16, 2013 decision and the May 12, 2014 resolution of the Office of the President in O.P. Case No. 09-C-120 and, in lieu thereof, RENDERING a new DECISION partly modifying the February 9, 2009 Resolution of the DAR Secretary, thus granting total exemption from CARP coverage of the lands which are the subject matter of petitioners' application, declaring as null and void the CLOA's issued for some 295.9908 hectares of land belonging to the petitioners and directing the register of deeds issuing the said [CLOA's] to cancel the same and reinstate the certificates of title from which such [CLOA's] were derived.

SO ORDERED. 16 SDHTEC

Hence, this petition.

In sum, the issue in this case is whether or not the parcels of land already awarded to petitioners are exempted from the coverage of the CARP.

We deny the petition.

The coverage of CARL, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, includes 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. 17

Under Section 3 (c) of the CARL, an agricultural land was defined as lands devoted to agricultural activity as defined therein and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.

Equally important is the fact that the power of the local governments to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands is a valid exercise of police power, to wit:

The regulation by local legislatures of land use in their respective territorial jurisdiction through zoning and reclassification is an exercise of police power. The power to establish zones for industrial, commercial and residential uses is derived from the police power itself and is exercised for the protection and benefit of the residents of a locality. 18

In this case, the six parcels of land, inclusive of the parcels of land already awarded to petitioners are classified as non-agricultural way back in 1982 in Municipal Ordinance No. 42 series of 1982.

However, it must be noted that the CARL took effect only on June 15, 1988. By jurisprudence, lands classified as non-agricultural before June 15, 1988 are outside the coverage of the CARL.

In the case of Froilan De Guzman, Angel Marcelo and Nicasio Magbitang v. Court of Appeals, Office of the President and the Municipality of Baliuag, Bulacan,19 citing Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developers and Investors Corp., v. Department of Agrarian Reform, SEC Benjamin T. Leong and DIR. Wilfredo Leano, DAR-REGION IV, 20 We emphasized that lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL including lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than the DAR. AScHCD

The DAR itself has recognized the prospective application of R.A. No. 6657, insofar as it provides under Section 3 (c) thereof that lands classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL are not covered by the CARL. Thus, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1990 provides: 21

Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. [No.] 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 Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use. (Emphasis supplied)

Being such, the award of CLOAs does not remove the parcels of land outside of the coverage of the CARP for CLOAs do not possess the character of indefeasibility of title, to wit:

CLOAS and EPs are similar in nature to a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) in ordinary land registration proceedings. CLTs, and in turn the CLOAs and EPs, are issued merely as preparatory steps for the eventual issuance of a certificate of title. They do not possess the indefeasibility of certificates of title. 22

That being said, the CA correctly ruled that the six parcels of land, including the parcels which were awarded to the petitioners as farmer-beneficiaries are excluded from the coverage of CARP.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the Resolution dated May 22, 2015 and Decision dated May 29, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 135740 are AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018. AcICHD

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 26-70.

2.Id. at 9-11.

3. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Melchor Quirino C. Sadang. Rollo, p. 22. Id. at 13-22.

4.Id. at 14-15.

5.Id. at 29.

6.Id. at 29-31.

7.Id. at 100-108.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 113-114.

10.Id. at 115-116.

11.Id. at 118-120.

12.Id. at 120.

13.Id. at 121-122.

14.Id. at 84-86.

15.Id. at 9-11.

16.Id. at 21-22.

17. Section 4 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

18.Heirs of Luis A. Luna, et al. v. Afable, et al., 702 Phil. 146, 168 (2013).

19. 535 Phil. 248, 256 (2006).

20. 296-A Phil. 271, 278 (1993).

21.De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19, id. at 257.

22.Department of Agrarian Reform, et al., v. Carriedo, 778 Phil. 656, 684 (2016).