The Supreme Court, in Farmer-Beneficiaries v. Heirs of Maronilla, addressed the complex interplay between land reclassification by local government units (LGUs) and the rights of farmer-beneficiaries under agrarian reform laws. The Court ruled that while LGUs have the authority to reclassify agricultural lands, this does not automatically exempt such lands from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage. Specifically, the decision clarifies that only forest lands primarily classified as such by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) are exempt. Lands secondarily reclassified by LGUs, such as those zoned for “forest conservation,” do not automatically fall under this exemption. This ruling ensures that farmer-beneficiaries’ rights are protected unless the land is genuinely designated for non-agricultural purposes, balancing local development with agrarian reform goals.

From Farms to Forests? Unraveling Land Use and Farmer Protection in Jalajala

This case revolves around a dispute over a vast tract of land in Jalajala, Rizal, originally owned by Juliana Maronilla. Following the implementation of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 and later the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), portions of these lands were distributed to farmer-beneficiaries (FBs). Emancipation patents (EPs) and certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs) were issued in their favor. However, the Heirs of Juliana Maronilla sought to exempt a significant portion of the land from CARP coverage, arguing that it had been reclassified as mineral, forest, residential, institutional, commercial, or agro-industrial as early as 1981, predating the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, the CARP law.

The legal crux of the matter lay in determining the effect of this reclassification on the FBs’ rights and the scope of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary’s authority to grant exemptions. The Heirs relied on Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, which states that lands classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, no longer require conversion clearance from the DAR. This prompted the question: Does a prior LGU reclassification automatically override the rights of farmers under agrarian reform laws?

The Supreme Court began by affirming the DAR Secretary’s jurisdiction over applications for exemption. It emphasized that determining whether land is agricultural or non-agricultural falls within the DAR’s expertise, particularly concerning Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases. DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994, reinforces this authority, empowering the DAR Secretary to grant or deny exemption clearances based on RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion No. 44. This ensures a specialized assessment of land classification issues, taking into account both legal provisions and technical considerations.

However, the Court clarified that the DAR Secretary’s jurisdiction does not extend to automatically canceling EPs and CLOAs. While the Heirs sought the cancellation of the FBs’ titles, the Court emphasized that such matters typically fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must involve an agrarian dispute, which is defined as:

“any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers’ associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.” (Section 3 (d) of RA 6657)

Since the cancellation of the titles stemmed from the land’s purported non-agricultural status rather than a tenurial dispute, the Court found no agrarian dispute to vest jurisdiction in the DARAB. Instead, the issue concerned the administrative implementation of agrarian reform, a matter within the DAR Secretary’s purview. Still, the Court specified that a separate case should be filed to formally cancel the EPs and CLOAs, ensuring that the affected FBs are properly involved as indispensable parties.

The Court then addressed the crucial issue of land classification. It distinguished between primary and secondary land classifications. Primary classification, as defined by Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, divides public domain lands into agricultural, forest, mineral, and national parks. This power rests with the President, acting on the recommendation of the DENR. Secondary classification, on the other hand, involves the further categorization of agricultural lands for specific uses, such as residential, commercial, or industrial.

This secondary classification authority is vested in LGUs, allowing them to reclassify agricultural lands through zoning ordinances. As the Court noted, prior to the Local Government Code of 1991, LGUs could already reclassify lands pursuant to Section 3 of RA 2264, the Local Autonomy Act of 1959. However, the pivotal question remained: What is the effect of LGU reclassification on agrarian reform coverage?

The Court emphasized that simply reclassifying agricultural lands as “forest conservation zones” does not automatically exempt them from CARP coverage. To be exempt under Section 3 (c) of RA 6657, the land must be primarily classified as forest land by the DENR. Reclassification by LGUs is a secondary classification that does not override the CARP’s coverage unless the land is actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, forest reserves, reforestation, or watersheds, as stipulated in Section 10 (a) of RA 6657.

The Court further clarified that agro-industrial lands generally fall within the ambit of agricultural land and are thus covered by the CARP. DOJ Opinion No. 67, Series of 2006, supports this view, asserting that agro-industrial lands are neither excluded by Section 3 (c) nor exempted by Section 10 of RA 6657. Only if the agro-industrial land is shown to be unsuitable for cultivation or dedicated to exempt activities, such as commercial livestock or poultry raising, can it be excluded.

Applying these principles, the Court partially approved the application for exemption. It upheld the exclusion of lands reclassified as residential or institutional, aligning with the principle that lands reclassified to non-agricultural uses before RA 6657’s effectivity are outside CARP coverage. However, it reversed the exclusion of lands reclassified as forest conservation or agro-industrial, emphasizing the need for primary DENR classification and actual use for exempt purposes.

The Court also addressed the issue of vested rights. While DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994, protects FBs’ rights over lands covered by PD 27, this protection applies only to rights vested before June 15, 1988. In this case, the land reclassification in 1981 predated the issuance and registration of EPs and CLOAs in favor of the FBs. As the rights of beneficiaries commence upon receipt of duly registered EPs or CLOAs, no vested rights had accrued before the reclassification.

Finally, the Court addressed the Heirs’ previous voluntary offer to sell (VOS) the land under CARP. It clarified that this offer was inconsequential because the land, or portions of it, was already beyond CARP coverage due to its reclassification. Juliana’s previous VOS was deemed ineffective, as the basis for exemption was the reclassification prior to June 15, 1988, not the withdrawal of the offer.

In its final disposition, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the DAR Secretary for proper disposition. It directed the DAR to determine whether the lands classified as forest conservation zones are actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, forest reserves, reforestation, or watersheds, as required by Section 10 (a) of RA 6657. It also mandated the payment of disturbance compensation to any affected tenants of the residential or institutional lands covered by TCT Nos. 164416, 164417, 164418, 164419, 164420, and (164432) M-13551 per the HSRC-approved LUP of Jalajala. This comprehensive approach aims to strike a balance between local land use planning and the protection of agrarian reform beneficiaries.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the reclassification of agricultural lands by a local government unit (LGU) automatically exempts those lands from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding land reclassification?	The Supreme Court ruled that LGU reclassification alone does not automatically exempt land from CARP; the land must also be primarily classified as non-agricultural by the DENR, or meet specific usage criteria.
What is the difference between primary and secondary land classification?	Primary classification, done by the DENR, categorizes land as agricultural, forest, mineral, or national park; secondary classification, done by LGUs, further categorizes agricultural land for specific uses like residential or commercial.
What is an agrarian dispute, and why is it important in this case?	An agrarian dispute involves tenurial arrangements on agricultural land; it’s important because it determines whether the DARAB or the DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over a case.
What are the conditions for exempting land from CARP under Section 10(a) of RA 6657?	Under Section 10(a), land must be actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, forest reserves, reforestation, or watersheds to be exempt from CARP coverage.
Are agro-industrial lands covered by CARP?	Yes, agro-industrial lands are generally covered by CARP unless they are unsuitable for cultivation or used for exempt activities like commercial livestock raising.
What is disturbance compensation, and when is it required?	Disturbance compensation is payment to tenants when they are dispossessed of land due to reclassification; it’s required when reclassification to residential, commercial, or industrial use is upheld.
What is the significance of June 15, 1988, in this case?	June 15, 1988, is the date RA 6657 took effect; reclassifications made before this date can affect agrarian reform coverage, but vested rights established before this date are protected.
Why was the voluntary offer to sell (VOS) deemed inconsequential?	The VOS was inconsequential because the land had already been reclassified before the offer, rendering it outside CARP coverage regardless of the offer.

This Supreme Court decision provides essential guidance on the relationship between local land use planning and national agrarian reform policies. By clarifying the scope of LGU reclassification authority and reaffirming the DAR’s role in protecting farmer-beneficiaries’ rights, the ruling seeks to achieve a more balanced and equitable approach to land management.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Farmer-Beneficiaries v. Heirs of Maronilla, G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019