G.R. No. 139592; October 5, 2000
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Green City Estate & Development Corporation, respondents.
FACTS
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued a Notice of Coverage over five parcels of land in Jala-Jala, Rizal, with a combined area of 112.0577 hectares, owned by Green City Estate & Development Corporation. The tax declarations classified the properties as agricultural. Green City applied for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), arguing the land was within the municipality’s residential and forest conservation zones per an approved zoning ordinance from 1981. It submitted certifications from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and local officials. The DAR Secretary denied the application, finding the local land use plan indicated most of the barangay was for agricultural use and questioning the definitiveness of the HLURB certification.
Green City appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court appointed a commission to conduct an ocular inspection. The commission’s report found significant portions of the land to be mountainous and residential. The DAR constituted its own verification team but raised a belated objection to the commission’s report, mainly concerning the lack of specific boundary delineations. The Court of Appeals reversed the DAR, declaring the mountainous and residential portions exempt from CARP, subject to boundary delineation, and remanded the case to the DAR Secretary for this purpose.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the DAR and exempting portions of the land from CARP coverage based on the commission’s report and the land’s physical features, notwithstanding its classification as agricultural in the tax declarations.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the primacy of the land’s actual physical condition and its legal reclassification over its mere tax declaration. While tax declarations are prima facie evidence of classification, they are not conclusive. The Court emphasized that for exemption under Section 3(c) of RA 6657 and related administrative orders, the crucial factor is whether the land was reclassified to non-agricultural uses before June 15, 1988. The HLURB certification confirmed the Jala-Jala zoning ordinance, which included the subject lands in residential and forest conservation zones, was approved in 1981. This constituted a valid reclassification.
Furthermore, the Court found no error in the appellate court’s reliance on the commission’s report. The commission, composed of members mutually acceptable to the parties, found the land to be physically mountainous and residential. The DAR’s own verification did not categorically refute these findings but only questioned the report’s specificity on boundaries—a matter the remand to the DAR was precisely intended to address. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the land’s actual use and legally approved reclassification, not just its tax description, governed its exemption from agrarian reform.