Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 165547            January 24, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by its Secretary, RENE C. VILLA, Petitioner,
vs.
SARANGANI AGRICULTURAL CO., INC., ACIL CORPORATION, NICASIO ALCANTARA and TOMAS ALCANTARA, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

AZCUNA, J.:

This is a petition for review1 by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) seeking the reversal of the Decision and Resolution, dated July 19, 2004 and September 24, 2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79899, entitled "Sarangani Agricultural Co, Inc., et al. v. Hon. Manuel Domingo, et al."

Respondents are the owners of the lands in question which have been reclassified from agricultural into non-agricultural uses by virtue of a municipal zoning ordinance, and are included in the comprehensive land use plan of the Municipality of Alabel.

The antecedents are as follows:

The Province of Sarangani was created pursuant to Republic Act No. 7228 on March 16, 1992, composed of seven (7) municipalities, namely, Alabel, Glan, Maasin, Maitum, Malapatan, Malungon and Kiamba which were segregated from the Province of South Cotabato. Under said Act, the Municipality of Alabel was made the capital of the new province where the capitol building and all other national and provincial offices shall be established.2

On February 14, 1997, the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passed Resolution No. 97-08 or "Resolution Adopting and Endorsing the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive Development Plan (MCDP 1995-2005) of the Municipality of Alabel and Its Land Use Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Adoption and Approval of the Provincial Governor, Honorable Priscilla L. Chiongbian, Thru The Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani Province."

On January 30, 1998, pursuant to Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, and to accelerate the development and urbanization of Alabel, the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passed Resolution No. 98-03 reclassifying lots that were located within the built-up areas, based on the 1995-2005 Land Use Plan of the municipality, from agricultural to non-agricultural uses.3

On March 2, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani approved Resolution No. 98-018 or the "Resolution Adopting the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive Development Plan (MCDP 1995-2205) and the Land Use Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Municipality of Alabel, Sarangani Per Resolution No. 97-08 and Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08, S. of 1997 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel." A portion of the area involving 376.5424 hectares, however, was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) commercial farms deferment scheme.4

The Zoning Certification issued by the office of the Municipal Planning and Development Council (MPDC) showed that respondents’ properties located at Barangay Maribulan, Alabel were among those reclassified from agricultural and pasture land to residential, commercial institutional, light industrial and open space in the 1995-2005 land use plan of Alabel. 5

On July 2, 1998, respondent Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI) filed an application for land use conversion of the following parcels of land with an aggregate area of 1,005 hectares:

Registered Owner TCT No. Lot No. Area (Ha.) Area Applied (Ha.)
SACI T-7207 1-C 52.4365 52.4365
SACI T -48807 (T-4807) 2 181.3353 181.3353
SAC I T -48808 (T-4808) 3 281.0874 281.0874
SACI T -48809 (T-4809) 4 241.7880 241.7880
SAC I T-48810 (T-4810) 5 40.6738 40.6738
SACI T -48811 (T-4811) 6 137.0340 137.0340
SACI T-48812 (T-4812) 7 12.3265 12.3265
Nicasio Alcantara T-(10885) T-44538 10 20.9149 20.9149
SACI T-9210 2 12.1425 12.1425
Tomas Alcantara T-14359 (T-1185) 39 10.9390 10.9390
Nicasio Alcantara Untitled 53 5.0672 5.0672
ACIL Corporation T-(41758) (T-4150) 806 3.3115 3.3115
SACI Untitled 807 6.7871 6.7871

Accompanying SACI’s application for conversion were the documents required under the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997.6

Subsequently, a Site Inspection Report was prepared by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Office (Region XI) and was indorsed to DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr.

On March 16, 1999, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the Provincial Land Use Technical Committee (PLUTC)7 conducted an inspection of the subject properties. In a Memorandum dated July 9, 1999, the PLUTC recommended that SACI’s application be made subject to the following conditions: 1) presentation by SACI of its development plan; 2) submission of the lacking documents; 3) re-survey and segregation of the property according to use or project in coordination with the DAR Regional Office; and, 4) submission of the resulting map indicating the technical description of the area per actual use/project attested by the Regional Director.

Meanwhile, on March 22, 1999, members of the Sarangani Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. (SARBAI) sent a letter-petition to the DAR Secretary oppposing the application for land use conversion filed by SACI. SARBAI alleged that its members were merely forced to sign the waiver of rights, considering that the commercial farm deferment period ended on June 15, 1998. Later, an "Urgent Petition for the Denial of Land Use Conversion Application of Banana Commercial Farm of SACI" was filed by SARBAI and was received by the PARC Secretariat on July 14, 1999.

In the March 30, 2000 deliberation of the PLUTC, the committee agreed to recommend the disapproval of 158.0672 hectares that had been planted with bananas and coconuts. The committee noted that said portion of the property was still viable for agriculture, irrigated, with Notice of Coverage, and under protest or with opposition from SARBAI. It likewise recommended that the decision as to the rest of the area applied for conversion shall be deferred subject to the submission of the following within a period of thirty (30) days: 1) a five-year comprehensive development plan; 2) a survey plan signed by the Regional Technical Director of Land Management Service and noted by the DAR Regional Director (Region XI); 3) SACI’s proof of undertaking, which will contain the package of benefits it intends to give to the affected farm workers except those working in the banana plantation; 4) the concurrence of all the workers who would be affected by the proposed conversion, which concurrence should be noted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) and acknowledged by a notary public.

On its part, SACI contended that 1) its projects were aligned to address the current and anticipated commercial and residential needs of Sarangani province, and the removal of any portion of its property included in its comprehensive development plan will affect the viability of the plan; 2) the banana plantations will be transformed into a socialized housing subdivision which will be made available to the displaced workers and the other low income earners of Alabel; 3) the company will construct and install power generation facilities in the entire area; 4) at the time the application for land use conversion was filed, no Notice of Coverage was ever issued by DAR, and the subsequent issuance of such notice was highly irregular because the same may be issued only after the final resolution of the application for land use conversion; and 5) the previous Order of Deferment cannot be a legal barrier to the filing of an application for land use conversion.

On November 9, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied SACI’s application for land use conversion. The pertinent portion of the Order reads:

… The proponent also submitted another DA certification stating that 12 parcels of land (Lot Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 807, 53, 10, 39 and 806) with an area of 816.7401 hectares, located at Maribulan, Alabel, Sarangani are part of expansion for urbanizing areas. Though discussed on several meetings, no decision was made on the application since the applicant was not able to comply with the documentary requirements and clarify the issues raised by the Committee.

[I]n [the] 30 March 2000 Meeting of the PLUTC, the Committee deliberated again [on] the subject application and agreed to recommend the disapproval of 158.0672 hectares area planted to banana[s] and coconuts. The Committee noted that said portion of the property is still viable for agriculture, irrigated, with Notice of Coverage and with protest or opposition from SARBAI. The Committee also agreed to request the DAR to determine the metes and bounds of the area planted to banana[s] and coconuts vis-à-vis areas devoted to other enterprises. Relative to the rest of the area applied for conversion, the committee deferred its decision subject to the submission of a 5-year comprehensive development plan, showing among others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific lots involved and the corresponding proposed use.

…The Committee acceded to the request of SACI and deferred its recommendation to deny conversion of that portion of the property planted to banana[s] and coconut[s] pending submission of a manifesto or SACI’s proof of undertaking that it will compensate farm workers affected by showing, among others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific lots involved and the corresponding proposed use [of] the conversion, concurred by the workers/oppositors, noted by the MARO and duly notarized. The Committee also requested SACI to submit details of the pomelo farm in Malandag being offered as a replacement farm for the relocation of the farm workers. SACI was given a 30-day period to submit these documents.

SACI, however, failed to submit the oath of undertaking to pay disturbance compensation to affected workers being required by the Committee and as provided under DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999. Instead, SACI submitted an undertaking executed by the affected workers stating that they are amenable to the package of benefits offered by the company. Nevertheless, those who executed the deed of undertaking did not represent the majority of the farm workers. Out of the 95 regular banana workers only 45 and eight (8) supervisors including four (4) workers who were not included in the workers’ master list of SACI executed a deed of undertaking. As regards the 105-hectare pomelo farm, SACI failed to affirm whether they are going to pursue their offer. Likewise, DAR Region XI reported that coverage of the same area is on-going, and a different group of potential beneficiaries have already been identified. Therefore, it could no longer be offered as a relocation site. Foregoing considered, the Committee, during its 18 August 2000 Meeting, sustained its earlier recommendation to deny the conversion of that portion of the property planted to bananas and coconuts.

With regard to the rest. of the area, the Committee deferred its decision subject to the delineation by the SACI of the total area that they can develop within the allowed five­-year period. Likewise, the PLUTC is requesting the SACI to submit a revised five-year development plan that will show the schedule of development by phase, by year, and the proposed use for each parcel of land.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The application filed by the Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI), represented by Cynthia Adao-Prat, involving parcels of land planted to banana[s] and coconut[s] and with Notice of Coverage identified as TCT Nos. T-10885 (20.9149 ha.), T-14359 (10.9390 ha.), T-41718 (3.3115 ha.), OCT No. V-19574 or T-9210 (12.1425 ha.), Lot 807 (6.7871 ha.) and portion of P-V-125 (95.00 ha.) and [an] area covered by Lot 53 (5.0672 ha.) with an aggregate area of 154.622 [actually it is 154.1622] hectares is hereby DENIED. The Dar Regional Office of Region XI is hereby instructed to determine the metes and bounds of the area subject for distribution to the qualified FWBs.

2. The resolution of the application involving the rest of the area applied for conversion is DEFERRED pending submission by the applicant of a revised five-year development plan indicating the specific use of each parcel of land.

SO ORDERED.8

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution, dated September 24, 2004.

Their Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order having been denied, respondents appealed to the Office of the President (O.P. Case No. 02-1-47.4, alleging that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform committed serious errors in 1) finding that a notice of coverage had been issued for the banana area of the landholdings; 2) giving undue significance to the protest or opposition by SARBAI; 3) requiring a deed of undertaking even after applicant-appellant’s written commitment to pay whatever lawful obligation SACI may incur as a consequence of the conversion; 4) holding that farms with commercial farm deferment cannot be applied for conversion; 5) ruling that irrigated lands suitable for agriculture were disqualified for conversion; and 6) ruling that applicant-­appellant had not submitted a five-year development plan.9

In a Decision dated June 30, 2003, the Office of the President through Presidential Assistant Manuel C. Domingo dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the challenged DAR Orders. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied,10 so they filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review raising substantially the same issues.

On July 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE. Consequently, the assailed Decision and Order dated June 30, 2003 and September 12, 2003, respectively, of the Office of the President, as well as the Orders dated November 9, 2000 and August 28, 2002 of the DAR Secretary are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the DAR directs the MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the distribution of the banana and coconut areas subject of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage. The Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby directed to issue a conversion order covering the aforesaid area under the terms and conditions as provided in pertinent guidelines of the department. As to the rest of the area applied for conversion, action on which has been deferred, the DAR Regional Office (DAR Region No. XI) is hereby DIRECTED to expedite the processing and evaluation of petitioners’ land use conversion application in accordance with the provisions of DAR AO No.7, Series of 1997, and DAR AO No. 01-99 whenever the provisions of the latter issuance are made applicable to those applications filed before its effectivity.

The DAR Secretary and all officers and employees acting on his behalf are hereby enjoined from proceeding with the distribution of petitioners’ lands under compulsory acquisition provided in Sec. 16 of R.A. No. 6657. Whatever actions already taken in pursuance of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage under CARP are hereby nullified for DAR’s failure to observe due process therein.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.11

Hence, this petition alleging that the Court of Appeals erred:

I

WHEN IT RULED THAT THE JUNE 16, 1998 NOTICE OF COVERAGE WAS ILLEGAL AS DAR ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS.

II

WHEN IT RULED THAT DAR SHOULD USE THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANS AND ACCOMPANYING ORDINANCE OF THE LOCAL SANGGUNIAN AS PRIMARY REFERENCE SO AS NOT TO DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT (LGU) CONCERNED IN RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN AREAS TO ACHIEVE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS IN PURSUANCE TO ITS MANDATE TOWARDS THE GENERAL WELFARE.

III

WHEN IT FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BASIC PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OR PRECONDITIONS FOR LAND CLASSIFICATION/CONVERSION AND THE BASIC MANDATE OF THE CARP.

With regard to the first issue on due process, this Court holds that, under the circumstances, a notice of coverage is not an indispensable requirement before DAR can acquire the subject lots or commercial farms, which are covered by a deferment period12 under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or R.A. No 6657 upon its effectivity on June 15, 1998. The pertinent provision of the law states:

Sec. 11. Commercial Farming. – Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetables and cut-flower farms, cacao, coffee and rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act.13 In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the Government shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or associations, which shall thereafter manage the said lands for the workers-beneficiaries. (AS amended by R.A. 7881; Rules and regulations on the acquisition, valuation compensation and distribution of deferred commercial farms – DAR AO No. 09, s. 1998)

DAR Administrative Order No.9, Series of 1998,14 on the Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition, Valuation, Compensation and Distribution of Deferred Commercial Farms applies to all commercial farms as defined under Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657:15

SEC. 2. Statement of Policies. – The acquisition, valuation, compensation, distribution, operation and management of deferred commercial farms shall be governed by the following policies:

(a) All commercial farms whose deferment expired as of June 15, 1998 shall be subject to immediate acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Those whose deferments have yet to expire will be acquired and distributed only upon expiration of their respective deferment period as originally determined by the Department of Agrarian reform (DAR), or earlier if the DAR determines that the purpose for which it was deferred no longer exists and revokes its deferment;

The process of acquisition of these commercial farms by DAR is specifically provided under Article III, Section 9 of the above administrative order, to wit:

SEC. 9. Procedure for Acquisition.—The acquisition of deferred commercial farms shall be governed by the following procedures:

(a) Voluntary Offer to Sell/Compulsory Acquisition

1) The Order of Deferment previously issued over the landholding shall serve, upon expiration of the deferment period of the subject commercial farm, as the Notice of Coverage,[16] supported by the Compliance Work Program and Summary of Exceptions (Form A) originally submitted with the approved deferment application. However, for record purposes, the landowner shall be served a Notice of Expiration of Deferment (Annex 2) which shall contain a reminder of his right of retention, should he wish to exercise the same;

2) In general, the procedure for acquisition shall follow DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1998, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1996, entitled "Revised Rules and Procedures governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands subject of Voluntary offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657," subject to certain modifications intended to expedite the process as provided herein.

Clearly, it was unnecessary for petitioner to issue a notice of coverage to respondents in order to place the properties in question under CARP coverage. Hence, the contention by respondents that due process was not duly observed by petitioner must fail. Accordingly, the denial of the application for conversion must be upheld.

As regards the second issue, DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997, or the Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses prescribes the guidelines for land use conversion:

VI. POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

A. …

B. General Guidelines

…

b) Conversion may be allowed if at the time of the application, the lands are reclassified as commercial, industrial, residential or other non-agricultural in the new or revised town plans promulgated by the local government unit (LGU) and approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) after June 15, 1988, in accordance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, as implemented by MC No. 54, and Executive Order No. 72, Series of 199317 of the Office of the President.

In connection with the afore-stated administrative order, Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, empowers the local government units to reclassify agricultural lands:

Sec. 20. Reclassification of Lands. - (a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the Sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the Sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance:

(1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, FIFTEEN PERCENT (15%);

(2) For component cities and first to third class municipalities, ten percent (10%), and

(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%); Provided further, That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law," shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act.

…

(c) The local government units shall in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted though zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided, That the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such plans.1avvphi1.net

…

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing, amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.18

Memorandum Circular No. 54 "Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 Otherwise Known as the Local Government Code of 1991 Authorizing Cities and Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands Into Non-Agricultural Uses" issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 8, 1993 specified the scope and limitations on the power of the cities and municipalities to reclassify agricultural lands into other uses. It provided that all ordinances authorizing reclassification of agricultural lands shall be subject to the review and approval of the province in the case of component cities or municipalities, or by the HLURB for highly urbanized or independent component cities in accordance with Executive Order No. 72, Series of 1993, thus:

SECTION 4. Use of the comprehensive land use plans19 and ordinances as primary reference documents in land use conversions. - Pursuant to RA 6657 and EO 129-A, actions on applications for land use conversions on individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of DAR, which shall utilize as its primary reference documents the comprehensive land use plans and accompanying ordinance passed upon and approved by the LGUs concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy.

Hence, with regard to agricultural lands that have been reclassified for non-agricultural uses by the local government unit concerned, the CA is correct in declaring that DAR should refer to the comprehensive land use plans and the ordinances of the Sanggunian in assessing land use conversion applications, thus:

Construing Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code and the subsequent administrative issuances implementing the same, we are of the opinion that while the DAR retains the responsibility for approving or disapproving applications for land use conversion filed by individual landowners on their landholdings, the exercise of such authority should be confined to compliance with the requirements and limitations under existing laws and regulations, such as the allowable percentage of agricultural [area] to be reclassified, ensuring sufficient food production, areas non-negotiable for conversion and those falling under environmentally critical areas or highly restricted for conversion under the NIPAS law. Definitely, the DAR’s power in such cases may not be exercised in such a manner as to defeat the very purpose of the LGU concerned in reclassifying certain areas to achieve social and economic benefits in pursuit of its mandate towards the general welfare. Precisely, therefore, the DAR is required to use the comprehensive land use plans and accompanying ordinances of the local Sanggunian as primary references in evaluating applications for land use conversion filed by individual landowners. In this case, petitioners have already complied with the standard requirements laid down under the applicable rules and regulations of the DAR....20

The conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses shall be strictly regulated and may be allowed only when the conditions prescribed under R.A. No. 6657 are present.21 In this regard, the Court agrees with the ratiocination of the CA that DAR’s scope of authority in assessing land use conversion applications is limited to examining whether the requirements prescribed by law and existing rules and regulations have been complied with. This holds true in the present case where, because of the creation of the Province of Sarangani and in view of its thrust to urbanize, particularly its provincial capital which is the Municipality of Alabel, the local government has reclassified certain portions of its land area from agricultural to non-agricultural. Thus, to reiterate, in accordance with E.O. No. 72, Series of 1993, and subject to the limitations prescribed by law, DAR should utilize the comprehensive land use plans in evaluating the land use conversion application of respondents whose lands have already been reclassified by the local government for non-­agricultural uses.

This is not to say, however, that every property of respondents which is included in the comprehensive land use plan of the Municipality of Alabel shall be automatically granted non-coverage. As mentioned earlier, said application is subject to the limitations and conditions prescribed by law. One such limitation that is present here is that a portion of respondents’ property of 376.5424 hectares, a portion totaling 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares which are planted to bananas and coconuts, are covered by CARL’s ten-year deferment scheme, which has expired on June 15, 1998. By law, these lands are subject to redistribution to CARP beneficiaries upon the lapse of the ten-year period, counted from the date of the effectivity of the CARL or R.A. No. 6657 on June 15, 1988, which was way before the creation of the Province of Sarangani and the eventual reclassification of the agricultural lands into non-agricultural in the Municipality of Alabel where respondents’ properties are located.

In short, the creation of the new Province of Sarangani, and the reclassification that was effected by the Municipality of Alabel did not operate to supersede the applicable provisions of R.A. No. 6657.

Moreover, Section 20 of the LGC of 1991 on the reclassification of lands explicitly states that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed as repealing, amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657." Thus, where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for application.22

In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it unnecessary to discuss the third issue presented in the petition.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED insofar as the issue on due process is concerned. In connection with this, the denial by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of respondents’ application for conversion with regard to the 154.622 [or 154.1622] hectares, the deferment period of which has already expired, is AFFIRMED; and the Orders of the DAR dated November 9, 2000 and August 28, 2002, directing the MARO of Alabel, Sarangani to proceed with the distribution of the banana and coconut areas subject of the June 16, 1998 Notice of Coverage, are REINSTATED. The Decision and Resolution, dated July 19, 2004 and September 24, 2004, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79899, are hereby MODIFIED accordingly.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chairperson
Chief Justice

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice		 RENATO C. CORONA
Asscociate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice


Footnotes

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Rollo, p. 55.

3 Id.

4 Id.

5 Id.

6 These documents are the following: 1) certified true copies of Resolution No. 98-018 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel; 2) certification of the Provincial Planning and Development Office (PPDO); 3) zoning certification issued by the MPDC of Alabel, Sarangani stating that the properties are included in the 1995-2005 Land Use Plan, and reclassified according to SB Resolution No. 97-08; 4) certification issued by the Municipal Agriculturist; 5) court clearance; 6) certification issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) that the area is within an agricultural zone; and, 7) certification issued by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) Regional Irrigation Manager, and field verification reports of the Provincial Irrigation Manager that the area is not irrigated and not covered by an irrigation project (Rollo, pp. 56-57).

7 PLUTC is composed of representatives from the following government agencies: the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Department of Tourism (DOT), HLURB, and the PARC Secretariat.

8 Rollo, pp. 62-64.

9 Id. at 67.

10 In a Resolution dated September 12, 2003.

11 Rollo, pp. 83-84.

12 Sec. 3…

(f) Deferment period refers to the ten (10) year period counted from the start of commercial production and operation as provided in Sec. 11 of RA 6657, whereby the acquisition and distribution of commercial farms has been postponed.

13 Emphasis supplied.

14 Issued on December 23, 1998.

15 As amended by Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7881.

16 Emphasis supplied.

17 Executive Order No. 72 "Providing for the Preparation and Implementation of the Comprehensive

Land Use Plans of Local Government Units Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991 and Other Pertinent Laws" was issued on March 25, 1993.

18 Emphasis supplied.

19 Comprehensive Land Use Plan refers to a document accompanied by maps and similar illustrations which represent the community-desired pattern of population distribution and a proposal for the future allocation of land to the various land-using activities. It identifies the allocation, character and extent of the area’s land resources to be used for different purposes and includes the process and the criteria employed in the determination of the land use (Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999).

20 Rollo, p. 82.

21 Article 1, Section l(c), DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999.

22 Cebu Portland Cement Co. v. Municipality of Naga, G.R. No. 24116, August 22, 1968,24 SCRA 708, 712.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation