G.R. No. 197127 July 15, 2015
NOEL L. ONG, OMAR ANTHONY L. ONG, and NORMAN L. ONG, Petitioners, vs. NICOLASA O. IMPERIAL, DARIO R. ECHALUCE, ROEL I. ROBELO, SERAFIN R. ROBELO, EFREN R. ROBELO, RONILO S. AGNO, LORENA ROBELO, ROMEO O. IMPERIAL, NANILON IMPERIAL CORTEZ, JOVEN IMPERIAL CORTEZ, and RODELIO O. IMPERIAL, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are the registered owners of a 405,645-square meter parcel of land in Daet, Camarines Norte. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage over the property on August 14, 1994. Petitioners protested, claiming the land was used as a grazing area before the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and was thus exempt. The MARO rejected this, stating petitioners had confirmed the land was used for coconut production. On September 23, 1996, a Notice of Acquisition was issued. Petitioners then filed an application for exemption clearance with the DAR Regional Office, claiming the land had been reclassified as residential built-up area under a 1978 Town Plan and a 1980 Zoning Ordinance. They submitted certifications from the Deputized Zoning Administrator (DZA) and the HLURB. The DAR Regional Director requested revalidation from the DZA, who explained the 1978 map showed actual use, while his certification reflected the property’s classification as residential built-up area, considering its location near barangay centers and roads. A DAR investigating team found the land was agricultural, tenanted, and had a Notice of Coverage, but also noted it had been reclassified as residential prior to June 15, 1988, and was not irrigated. The team recommended denial. The Regional Director concurred, stating the built-up area limit under the 1978 plan had been exhausted. The DAR Secretary denied the application, finding the DZA’s justification insufficient and noting no proof the 1982 land use plan was HLURB-approved. The Secretary’s order was upheld on reconsideration. Meanwhile, a CLOA was issued to respondents on October 27, 2000. Petitioners appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Petitioners then filed this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the subject property is exempt from CARP coverage due to its reclassification as residential land prior to June 15, 1988.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that for land to be exempt under DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, the reclassification must be pursuant to a valid ordinance enacted prior to June 15, 1988, and the land must no longer be agricultural. The certifications presented by petitioners were insufficient. The DZA’s certification conflicted with the official 1978 land use map, which showed the land as agricultural. The DZA’s explanation that the map reflected 1978 actual use, while the certification reflected the property’s classification, was correctly rejected by the DAR Secretary as lacking substantial evidence. The DAR Secretary’s finding that the built-up area limit had been exhausted was factual and accorded respect. Furthermore, petitioners failed to present the requisite certification from the HLURB that the zoning ordinance reclassifying the land was approved prior to June 15, 1988, as required by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994. The HLURB certification submitted only confirmed the approval of the 1978 Town Plan, not a subsequent ordinance reclassifying the specific property. The burden of proof for exemption lies with the landowner, and petitioners failed to discharge this burden. The issuance of the CLOA to the farmer-beneficiaries vested them with ownership, making the land acquisition process complete.