GR 191545; (March, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 191545 March 29, 2017
HEIRS OF AUGUSTO SALAS, JR., represented by TERESITA D. SALAS, Petitioners vs. MARCIANO CABUNGCAL, et al., represented by JOSE C. BASCONILLO, Respondents
FACTS
Augusto Salas, Jr. was the registered owner of a 148-hectare agricultural land in Lipa City, Batangas, cultivated by respondents as tenant farmers. On December 2, 1981, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC, now HLURB) approved the Lipa City Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance, which reclassified Salas’s land as a “farmlot subdivision” for cultivation, livestock, or agro-forestry. In 1987, Salas entered into a development agreement with Laperal Realty Corporation, and the HLURB issued a Development Permit for a “Nature Farmlots” subdivision. Salas subsequently subdivided the property into numerous lots, with new titles issued in his name. Respondents continued to farm the land.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the agricultural land, reclassified as a “farmlot subdivision” and subsequently subdivided, is exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
RULING
No, the land remains subject to CARP coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), ruling that the reclassification and subdivision did not convert the land to non-agricultural use. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between reclassification and conversion. Reclassification, which changes the legal use of land through a zoning ordinance, is distinct from conversion, which is the physical act of changing the current use of the land. The 1981 zoning ordinance merely authorized future use as a farmlot subdivision but did not automatically change the land’s actual, physical character, which remained agricultural. The issuance of a development permit and subdivision titles were preparatory steps that did not constitute actual conversion. Critically, the land was never subjected to the DAR’s conversion process under DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990. Since the land remained physically agricultural and was tenanted at the time of CARP’s effectivity, it was covered by the program. The Court emphasized that the power to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands lies with the DAR, and the HLURB’s permit for a farmlot subdivision did not absolve the land from CARP coverage without the requisite DAR clearance.