By EDMER F. PANESA
April 11, 2010, 4:57pm [ Manila Bulletin Online ]
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has the “exclusive authority” to classify and identify landholdings for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), which sought to distribute lands to millions of landless farmers and farm workers in the country.
The ruling arose from the petition of the Alangilan Realty & Development Corp. (ARDC), which had questioned the 1997 decision of then DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao denying the application for exemption from CARP coverage of its 17-hectare property in Batangas City.
Garilao, in his assailed order, noted that, as of 1993, the Alangilan landholding remained “agricultural, reserved for residential” and it was classified as “residential-1” only on Dec. 12, 1994 under Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 706, series of 1994, or six years after the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) took effect on June 15, 1988.
The qualifying phrase “reserved for residential” means that the property was still classified as “agricultural,” and is therefore covered by the CARP, Garilao said. His order was affirmed by the Office of the President in 2003 and eventually by the Court of Appeals in 2007.
In its petition filed with the SC, ARDC claimed the power to classify lands is “essentially a legislative function that exclusively lies with the legislative authorities,” and thus, when the Batangas City council declared the Alangilan landholding as residential in its 1994 ordinance, its determination was conclusive and cannot be overruled by the DAR Secretary.
The SC did not agree with ARDC.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, the SC’s Third Division held that the “exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify landholdings for coverage under the CARP is reposed in the DAR Secretary.”
“The matter of CARP coverage, like the instant case for application for exemption, is strictly part of the administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter well within the competence of the DAR Secretary,” it added.
The SC said, “It is well established that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by the court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.”
“The factual findings of the DAR Secretary, who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified, or reversed.”
At the same time, the High Court said it was not convinced that the Alangilan property ceased to be agricultural at the time of CARL’s effectivity.
Although there was no doubt the landholding was classified as “agricultural, reserved for residential” in 1982 and was reclassified as “residential-1” in 1994, the court said the term “reserved for residential” did not change the nature of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural.
“As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land use. It does not denote that the property has already been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is not a land classification category,” the court said.
It held that “indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still agricultural.”
This, the court said, was bolstered by the fact that the city council had to pass an ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the landholding as “residential-1.”
“If, indeed, the landholding had already been earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 ordinance,” it pointed out.
“Not having been converted into, or classified as, residential before June 15, 1988, the Alangilan landholding is, therefore, covered by the CARP. The subsequent reclassification of the landholding as residential-1 in 1994 cannot place the property outside the ambit of the CARP, because there is no showing that the DAR Secretary approved the reclassification.”
CARP is a state policy that ensures and promotes welfare of landless farmers and farm workers, as well as elevation of social justice and equity among rural areas. It was established by CARL, which aimed for a nation with equitable land ownership and empowered agrarian reform beneficiaries while, at least, improving social lives.
However, there has been a growing trend of land conversion in the countryside suspiciously to evade coverage under the CARL.
____________________________________________________________
