G.R. No. 229983. July 29, 2019.
FARMER-BENEFICIARIES BELONGING TO THE SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG BAGUMBONG, JALAJALA, RIZAL, REPRESENTED BY THEIR PRESIDENT, TORIBIO M. MALABANAN, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF JULIANA MARONILLA, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. RAMON M. MARONILLA, Respondents.

FACTS

Juliana Maronilla was the registered owner of a 723.9428-hectare land in Jalajala, Rizal and Pakil, Laguna. Portions were placed under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) program under Presidential Decree No. 27, and Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and later Emancipation Patents (EPs) were issued to farmer-beneficiaries, including petitioners. In 1989, Juliana voluntarily offered the lands for sale to the DAR under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The DAR acquired the remaining portions and issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the farmer-beneficiaries.
After Juliana’s death, her heirs (respondents) filed an application for retention of a portion, which was granted. Subsequently, respondents filed an Application for Exemption Clearance from CARP Coverage for a 476.5006-hectare portion. They claimed the lands were classified as mineral, forest, residential, institutional, commercial, or agro-industrial in the Jalajala Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance No. 17 approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) on December 2, 1981, and thus were not agricultural lands under RA 6657 or PD 27. They submitted an HLURB certification detailing the zoning classifications (e.g., Forest Conservation, Riceland, Agro-industrial, Residential) and an NIA certification stating parts were not irrigated.
Petitioners intervened, arguing the zoning did not change the lands’ actual agricultural use and nature, and even if reclassified, it would not affect OLT coverage as the lands were devoted to rice and corn since October 21, 1972. An ocular inspection noted various uses, including forest conservation and riceland.
The DAR Secretary, through Order No. EX-0808-372 (2008), exempted a 447.4025-hectare portion from CARP coverage, conditioned on payment of disturbance compensation to affected tenants. The DAR found the lands were classified as non-agricultural per the 1981 zoning ordinance, which took effect before June 15, 1988 (the date of effectivity of RA 6657), and thus were outside CARP coverage under DOJ Opinion No. 44, s. 1990 and DAR Administrative Order No. 6, s. 1994. It also ordered the cancellation of EPs for lands classified as forest/conservation and within mountain slopes, as these were outside PD 27 coverage. The Office of the President and the Court of Appeals affirmed the DAR Order.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DAR Order exempting the subject lands from CARP coverage.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision.
The Court held that lands classified as non-agricultural (e.g., mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial) prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988, are outside the coverage of CARP. This is based on DOJ Opinion No. 44, s. 1990, which states that the CARP covers only agricultural lands, and lands classified as non-agricultural before RA 6657’s effectivity are not covered, regardless of their current use. DAR Administrative Order No. 6, s. 1994 implemented this opinion.
In this case, the subject lands were reclassified as non-agricultural (forest conservation, residential, institutional, agro-industrial) under Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 17, which was approved by the HSRC on December 2, 1981—well before June 15, 1988. This reclassification was valid and effective, notwithstanding the lands’ actual agricultural use at the time. The Court emphasized that a zoning ordinance, once approved by the HSRC/HLURB, has the force and effect of law and reclassifies land accordingly. Therefore, the exempted portions were correctly excluded from CARP.
Regarding the lands placed under OLT (PD 27), the Court ruled that the exemption also applies. PD 27 covers only lands “primarily devoted to rice and corn.” The evidence, including the HLURB certification and ocular inspection, showed that the exempted areas were classified and used as forest/conservation, not primarily for rice or corn. Thus, they were erroneously included under OLT, and the cancellation of the corresponding EPs was proper.
The Court also upheld the condition for payment of disturbance compensation to tenants/farmer-beneficiaries occupying the exempted lands, as required by Section 36(1) of RA 3844, as amended.
Finally, the Court found no merit in petitioners’ claim of waiver, as respondents’ voluntary offer to sell in 1989 did not waive their right to seek exemption, given that the application for exemption was based on a pre-existing zoning classification that rendered the lands outside CARP coverage. The petition was denied for lack of merit.