GR 210428; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210428, December 07, 2016
HEIRS OF PACIFICO GONZALES, REPRESENTED BY ROGER BANZUELA, PETITIONERS, V. JUANITO DE LEON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The petitioners, Heirs of Pacifico Gonzales, sought exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage for their 49.8-hectare land in Cabuyao, Laguna. They presented substantial evidence supporting exemption, including a DENR Inspection Report stating the land had a slope exceeding 18% and was not irrigated or cultivated for rice and corn. Crucially, a Certification from the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) established that the property had been zoned as a municipal park by a 1979 ordinance, approved by the HLURB in 1980, long before the DAR issued Notices of Coverage in 1995 and 2000. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Office also certified the land was not covered by Operation Land Transfer. Despite this, the DAR, Office of the President, and Court of Appeals ruled the property was within CARP coverage, giving weight to the respondents’ claim of being farmer-beneficiaries.
ISSUE
Whether the subject property is exempt from CARP coverage.
RULING
Yes, the property is exempt. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and reinstated the DAR’s initial order granting exemption. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and hierarchical nature of the exemption process under DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 2000. The Court emphasized that the MARO’s primary finding of non-coverage, based on the land’s classification as a municipal park, is binding on the DAR Secretary. The zoning as a park, effected prior to the CARP coverage, is a valid exercise of police power and renders the land outside CARP’s ambit as it is neither agricultural nor alienable. The Court found the subsequent reversal by the DAR Secretary to be a grave abuse of discretion, as it disregarded conclusive evidence and settled jurisprudence that land classified for non-agricultural use before June 15, 1988, is exempt. The existence of occupants does not automatically create a tenancy relationship or convert the land to agricultural use. Justice must be applied equally, and the taking of property without legal basis constitutes an oppressive act of the state.