NRI and EDIC vs DAR Sec Leong and Dir. Leano

EN BANC

[ G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993 ]

NATALIA REALTY, INC., AND ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CORP., PETITIONERS,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SEC. BENJAMIN T. LEONG AND DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR-REGION IV, RESPONDENTS.

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari, assailing the Notice of Coverage of the Department of Agrarian Reform over parcels of land already reserved as townsite areas before the enactment of the law.

Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. is the owner of a 125.0078-ha land set aside by Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 (1979) as townsite area for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC), the developer of the area, was granted preliminary approval and locational clearances by the then Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) for the establishment of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision therein. In November 1990, a Notice of Coverage was issued by DAR on the undeveloped portion of the landholding. The developer filed its objections and filed this case imputing grave abuse of discretion to respondent DAR for including the undeveloped portions of its landholding within the coverage of CARP.

Issue:

·         Whether or not lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, and approved by HLURB and its precursor agencies prior to 15 June 1988, are covered by RA 6657.

Held:

Sec. 4 of RA 6657 states that the CARL covers "regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private and agricultural lands" and as per the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, "agricultural lands" covered by agrarian reform refers only to those which are "arable and suitable lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands."

The land subject of the controversy has been set aside for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation by Proclamation No. 1637 prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 and in effect converted these lands into residential use. Since the Natalia lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, DAR is bound by such conversion, and thus it was an error to include these within the coverage of CARL.

Exemptions and Exclusions

Sec. 10 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 7881 (1995), specifically enumerates the exemptions and exclusions from CARP, as follows:

a)         Lands actually, directly or exclusively used for parks and wild-life, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 10 [a], as amended by Rep. Act No. 7881 [1995]).

b)         Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) under CARP (Sec. 10 [b]).

c)         Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedling research and pilot production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed (Sec. 10 [c]).

Lands devoted to raising of livestock, swine and poultry. The Luz Farms Case. Before its amendment by RA 7881, Sec. 3(b) of RA 6657 included in its definition of agricultural activity the "raising of livestock, poultry or fish". Likewise, the original Sec. 11 of RA 6657 on commercial farming provided that "lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising shall be subject to compulsory acquisition within ten (10) years from the effectivity of the Act." However, the Supreme Court in Luz Farms vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra, held that Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 (along with Sec. 13 and 32) are unconstitutional in far as they include the raising of livestock and swine in the coverage of CARP.

The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Certiorari, and the Notice of Coverage of 22 November 1990 by virtue of which undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision were placed under CARL coverage was set aside.