GR 147146; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 147146. July 29, 2005.
JOSE, JULIO and FEDERICO, All Surnamed JUNIO, Petitioners, vs. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, in His Capacity as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, claiming to be potential agrarian reform beneficiaries, filed a complaint with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) to enjoin the development of Lot 835-B in Bacolod City into a residential subdivision. They argued that the land was agricultural and its conversion would prejudice their rights. Before the DARAB could act, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Exemption Order dated September 13, 1994, excluding the lot from CARP coverage. The Order was based on a Certification and a 1976 City Council Resolution, approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission in 1980, classifying the land as residential prior to June 15, 1988, the effectivity date of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The Court of Appeals upheld the DAR Secretary’s Order, prompting this Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether Lot 835-B is exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
RULING
Yes, the land is exempt. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, ruling that lands already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, are outside CARP coverage and do not require a DAR conversion clearance. The legal logic is anchored on the clear definition in Section 3(c) of CARL (RA 6657), which states that “agricultural land” refers to land devoted to agricultural activity “and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial.” The Court found that the 1976 Bacolod City zoning ordinance, duly approved by the national housing authority in 1980, effectively reclassified the subject property as residential long before CARL’s effectivity. This prior legal classification is controlling. The subsequent physical use of portions for agriculture, such as tree-planting, does not revert its legal status or nullify the valid zoning classification. Therefore, the DAR Secretary correctly applied Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, and committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Exemption Order based on the established pre-CARL reclassification.