G.R. No. 224831 , September 15, 2021
Orlando D. Garcia, Amado Q. Calalang, Fernando Q. Calalang, and Bonifacio Q. Calalang, Petitioners, vs. Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. (SVHFI) is the registered owner of a 25.5699-hectare parcel of land in Barangay Cacutud, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Petitioners are alleged farmer-beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and recipients of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) covering portions of the subject land. On September 20, 2002, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) sent a Notice of Coverage to SVHFI. SVHFI filed a letter-protest on November 14, 2002, arguing the land was lahar-prone, unsuitable for agriculture, and that its coverage was unconstitutional. Despite this, the Land Bank of the Philippines issued a Memorandum of Valuation on April 22, 2004, and deposited compensation. CLOAs were registered and distributed to farmer-beneficiaries covering 6.4515 hectares in July 2005. It was later discovered SVHFI had sold the land to the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) two years after the Notice of Coverage. On January 16, 2006, the DAR Regional Director denied SVHFI’s protest, ruling the land was agricultural and within CARP coverage, and that the sale to BCDA was in bad faith. This order became final on November 20, 2006. However, in 2007, petitioners filed a protest before the DAR Center for Land Use Policy, Planning, and Implementation (DAR-CLUPPI), and SVHFI filed a Sworn Application for Exemption Clearance. On December 10, 2007, the DAR Secretary granted SVHFI’s application, ruling the property had been reclassified to non-agricultural purposes prior to June 15, 1988, per DOJ Opinion No. 44, and that portions had been developed into the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied. The Office of the President and the Court of Appeals affirmed the DAR Secretary’s grant of exemption.

ISSUE

Whether the DAR Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting SVHFI’s application for exemption from CARP coverage.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the DAR Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the exemption. The DAR Secretary’s finding that the land was reclassified as residential per the approved Comprehensive Land Use Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Mabalacat, Pampanga, ratified by the HLURB on December 4, 1980, prior to June 15, 1988, was supported by substantial evidence. Pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, lands already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, are outside CARP coverage. The Court emphasized that the determination of land classification is a factual matter, and the DAR Secretary’s findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great weight and respect. The Court also noted that the property had been substantially developed into an expressway, confirming its non-agricultural use. The Court further ruled that the prior finality of the DAR Regional Director’s 2006 Order did not preclude the DAR Secretary from acting on the separate application for exemption, as the latter involved a different remedy and was within the Secretary’s exclusive jurisdiction. The issuance of CLOAs did not bar the exemption application since the coverage was erroneous from the beginning, and thus the CLOAs did not confer vested rights.