GR 180471; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180471, March 26, 2010
ALANGILAN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, represented by ALBERTO ROMULO, as Executive Secretary, and ARTHUR P. AUTEA, as Deputy Secretary; and DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Alangilan Realty & Development Corporation owns a 17.4892-hectare land in Batangas City. On August 7, 1996, it filed an Application for Exclusion/Exemption from CARP Coverage with the DAR, claiming the land was classified as “reserved for residential” under a 1982 zoning ordinance and later as “residential-1” under a 1994 ordinance, thus exempt from CARP. The DAR Secretary denied the application on May 6, 1997, ruling that as of June 15, 1988 (effectivity of CARL), the land was still agricultural, with “reserved for residential” being merely a qualification, not a reclassification. The DAR noted the land was only reclassified to residential-1 in 1994, and an ocular inspection showed it was still used for agriculture (planted with mangoes and coconuts). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The Office of the President affirmed the DAR’s decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s petition, upholding the findings that the land remained agricultural and within CARP coverage.
ISSUE
Whether the Alangilan landholding is exempt from CARP coverage due to its classification as “reserved for residential” under the 1982 zoning ordinance and later as “residential-1” in 1994.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that for land to be exempt from CARP under DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, it must be classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988. The classification “Agricultural, reserved for residential” in the 1982 ordinance indicates the land remained agricultural, with “reserved for residential” merely a qualification for future use, not an actual reclassification. The reclassification to “residential-1” in 1994 occurred after CARL’s effectivity and did not automatically exempt the land from CARP, as no DAR conversion clearance was obtained. The Court deferred to the factual findings of the DAR Secretary, supported by substantial evidence, including the land’s agricultural use and the timing of reclassification. The power to determine CARP coverage lies with the DAR Secretary, and absent grave abuse of discretion, such findings are accorded respect and finality.