In a dispute over land in Rizal, the Supreme Court clarified that lands reclassified for non-agricultural use before the formal transfer to farmer-beneficiaries (FBs) are not covered by agrarian reform. The court held that while lands may be reclassified, this does not automatically divest FBs of their rights unless such rights were not yet vested before the reclassification. This decision underscores the importance of the timing of land reclassification relative to the vesting of rights in agrarian reform beneficiaries.

From Rice Fields to Residences: Zoning Laws Clash with Farmer Rights

The case of Farmer-Beneficiaries vs. Heirs of Juliana Maronilla revolves around a tract of land in Jalajala, Rizal, originally owned by Juliana Maronilla. After the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 27 and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), portions of this land were distributed to farmer-beneficiaries. However, the heirs of Juliana Maronilla applied for an exemption from CARP coverage, arguing that parts of the land had been reclassified as residential, commercial, or industrial as early as 1981, predating the full vesting of rights to the FBs. This reclassification, they contended, occurred via the Land Use Plan of Jalajala, approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), a precursor to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) initially granted the exemption for a significant portion of the land, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the DAR Secretary had the jurisdiction to grant the exemption and nullify the titles of the FBs, and whether the reclassification of the land indeed removed it from CARP coverage.

The Supreme Court addressed the jurisdiction issue first, affirming that the DAR Secretary is indeed empowered to determine land classification for agrarian reform purposes. According to the court, this authority stems from DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994, which implements Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 6657 (the CARP law) and Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. This opinion stipulates that lands classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, do not require conversion clearance from the DAR to be exempt from CARP.

However, the Supreme Court clarified that while the DAR Secretary can determine exemption, the cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) requires a separate proceeding.

[A] separate case should nonetheless still be filed by respondents (also before the DAR) for the purpose of cancelling the EP and CLOA titles of the affected tenants. This is because “[a]grarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries, or their heirs in case of death, and/or their associations are indispensable parties in petitions for cancellation” of the EPs/CLOAs, or other title issued to them under any agrarian reform program.

Moving to the substantive issue of CARP coverage, the Court delved into the classification of the land. It distinguished between primary and secondary land classifications. Primary classification, the Court explained, involves categorizing lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest, or mineral lands, a power vested in the President upon the recommendation of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Secondary classification, on the other hand, involves reclassifying agricultural lands into residential, commercial, or industrial zones, a power often delegated to local government units (LGUs).

The Court emphasized that for a land to be exempt from CARP based on its classification, it must not have been classified as mineral or forest by the DENR or designated for residential, commercial, or industrial use in town plans approved by the HLURB before June 15, 1988. This distinction is crucial because it affects the validity of the reclassification as a basis for CARP exemption.

In applying these principles to the case, the Supreme Court found that the DAR Secretary erred in excluding portions of the land reclassified as “forest conservation zones.” The Court reasoned that this reclassification, being a secondary one by the LGU, does not equate to a primary classification as forest land by the DENR. Therefore, such reclassification alone does not justify exemption from CARP under Section 3(c) of RA 6657.

However, the Supreme Court did not entirely dismiss the possibility of exemption for these “forest conservation zones.” It noted that under Section 10(a) of RA 6657, lands “actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, or watersheds” are exempt from CARP. Thus, the Court remanded this aspect of the case to the DAR Secretary to determine if these specific uses apply.

Regarding lands reclassified as “agro-industrial,” the Supreme Court held that these are generally covered by CARP. Citing DOJ Opinion No. 67, Series of 2006, the Court clarified that agro-industrial lands fall within the definition of agricultural land under RA 6657, unless they are shown to be unsuitable for agriculture or devoted to exempt activities like commercial livestock or poultry raising. The Court noted that agricultural lands are those lands which are arable or suitable lands that do not include commercial, industrial, and residential lands. Thus, unless the agro-industrial land is shown to be not arable, or is devoted to exempt activities such as commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising, fishpond and prawn farming, cattle-raising, or other activities which do not involve the growing of crops and accordingly reclassified therefor, the said land shall be within the coverage of the CARP.

Conversely, the Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of lands reclassified as residential or institutional, aligning with the principle that lands validly reclassified to non-agricultural uses before RA 6657’s effectivity are outside CARP coverage. However, even in these cases, the Court emphasized the need for disturbance compensation to any affected tenants, recognizing their right to security of tenure until legally dispossessed. The usufructuary rights of the affected FBs over their awarded lands shall not be diminished pending the cancellation of their EP and CLOA titles in the proper proceedings.

Crucially, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of vested rights. It clarified that while reclassification cannot divest FBs of rights that had already vested before June 15, 1988, in this case, the reclassification in 1981 predated the issuance and registration of EPs and CLOAs to the FBs. Thus, no vested rights had accrued before the reclassification, meaning the FBs could not invoke their titles as a bar to the exemption.

Finally, the Court dismissed the petitioners’ argument that Juliana Maronilla’s prior voluntary offer to sell (VOS) the land to the DAR precluded the exemption case. The Court stated that the basis for the exemption is not the withdrawal of the voluntary offer for sale (VOS) but the reclassification of the lands prior to June 15, 1988. Juliana’s previous VOS was ineffective because the subject lands cannot be the subject of the same, they being clearly beyond CARP coverage.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether lands reclassified for non-agricultural use before the formal transfer to farmer-beneficiaries are covered by agrarian reform. The Supreme Court clarified the conditions under which such lands could be exempted from CARP coverage.
What is the difference between primary and secondary land classification?	Primary classification categorizes lands into agricultural, forest, or mineral, a power of the President. Secondary classification involves reclassifying agricultural lands into residential, commercial, or industrial zones, often by LGUs.
What is the effect of a land being classified as a “forest conservation zone”?	A secondary classification as a “forest conservation zone” does not automatically exempt land from CARP. Exemption may be possible only if the land is actually and exclusively used for parks, forest reserves, reforestation, or watersheds.
Are lands classified as “agro-industrial” covered by CARP?	Yes, lands classified as agro-industrial are generally covered by CARP. Unless the land is shown to be not arable, or is devoted to exempt activities such as commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising, fishpond and prawn farming, cattle-raising, or other activities which do not involve the growing of crops and accordingly reclassified therefor, the said land shall be within the coverage of the CARP.
When can land reclassification divest rights from farmer-beneficiaries?	Land reclassification can divest rights from farmer-beneficiaries if the reclassification occurred before the farmer-beneficiaries’ rights were vested, meaning before the issuance and registration of EPs or CLOAs.
What is disturbance compensation, and when is it required?	Disturbance compensation is payment to tenants when they are legally dispossessed of their land due to reclassification. It is required to protect tenants’ rights to security of tenure.
What role does the DAR Secretary play in land reclassification and CARP?	The DAR Secretary has the authority to determine land classification for agrarian reform purposes and can grant exemptions from CARP coverage. However, a separate proceeding is needed to cancel EPs and CLOAs.
What is the significance of DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990?	DOJ Opinion No. 44 states that lands classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, do not need conversion clearance from DAR to be exempt from CARP.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of the timing of land reclassification in relation to the acquisition of rights by farmer-beneficiaries under agrarian reform laws. The ruling provides clarity on the scope of the DAR Secretary’s authority and the criteria for exempting lands from CARP, particularly concerning reclassifications made by local government units. These holdings serve to balance the interests of landowners with the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries, ensuring fairness in the implementation of agrarian reform programs.

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 vs. Heirs of Maronilla, G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019