The Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Agrarian Reform’s authority to implement agrarian reform, even in areas designated for tourism. It ruled that classifying land as a tourist zone doesn’t automatically exclude it from agrarian reform coverage, emphasizing that the actual use and development of the land determine its eligibility. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the state’s interest in promoting tourism with its commitment to social justice through agrarian reform.

Hacienda Looc: Can Tourist Zones and Agrarian Reform Coexist?

This case revolves around Hacienda Looc, a large property in Nasugbu, Batangas, which was partly awarded to farmer-beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. (Fil-Estate) sought to exclude portions of this land from CARP coverage, arguing that Nasugbu had been declared a tourist zone, thus exempting it from agrarian reform. The legal question at the heart of the dispute is whether a general proclamation designating an area as a tourist zone automatically overrides the rights of farmers to agrarian reform benefits. The Supreme Court consolidated three petitions to resolve this issue, ultimately siding with the farmer-beneficiaries.

The dispute began when the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) acquired Hacienda Looc and later transferred it to the government. The Asset Privatization Trust (APT) offered to sell portions of the land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for distribution under CARP. Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) were issued to farmer-beneficiaries. However, Manila Southcoast Development Corporation (Manila Southcoast) subsequently purchased Hacienda Looc and sought the cancellation of these CLOAs. This led to a series of legal battles involving the DAR, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals.

Fil-Estate entered the picture through a joint venture agreement with Manila Southcoast, aiming to develop the land for tourism. Fil-Estate then petitioned for the exclusion of certain lots from CARP coverage, claiming they had slopes exceeding 18%. Agrarian Reform Secretary Garilao, however, declared 70 hectares of the land as covered under CARP. This decision was challenged, leading to the consolidated cases before the Supreme Court.

A key argument presented by Fil-Estate was based on Proclamation No. 1520, which declared Nasugbu as a tourist zone. Fil-Estate contended that this proclamation effectively reclassified the land, making it non-agricultural and therefore exempt from CARP. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, citing the landmark case of Roxas & Company, Inc. v. DAMBA-NSFW. In that case, the Court clarified that a general proclamation identifying an area as a tourist zone does not automatically convert all lands within that zone to non-agricultural use.

Instead, the Court emphasized the need for specific identification and segregation of areas with potential tourism value. The ponencia reiterated this principle, stating:

The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only “certain areas in the sector compromising the [three Municipalities that] have potential tourism value” and mandated the conduct of “necessary studies” and the segregation of “specific geographic areas” to achieve its purpose. Which is why the PP directed the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) to identify what those potential tourism areas are. If all the lands in those tourism zones were to be wholly converted to non-agricultural use, there would have been no need for the PP to direct the PTA to identify what those “specific geographic areas” are.

This interpretation aligns with the intent of agrarian reform laws, which aim to distribute agricultural land to landless farmers. The Supreme Court, therefore, affirmed the DAR’s authority to determine whether specific parcels of land within a proclaimed tourist zone should be covered by CARP.

The Court also addressed the procedural aspects of the case. Fil-Estate argued that the proper remedy to challenge the Agrarian Reform Secretary’s rulings was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, not an appeal to the Office of the President. The Supreme Court clarified that under existing rules, an appeal to the Office of the President was a valid step before seeking judicial review. This ruling underscores the importance of exhausting administrative remedies before resorting to court action.

Another procedural issue raised was the allegation of forum shopping against the farmer-beneficiaries. Fil-Estate claimed that the farmer-beneficiaries filed multiple pleadings raising the same issues in different forums. The Supreme Court found no merit in this claim, noting that the actions taken by the farmer-beneficiaries did not constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping. The Court also affirmed the Agrarian Reform Secretary’s authority to look into the validity of CLOA cancellations, even though the main issue was the exclusion of land from CARP coverage. This power is grounded in Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, which grants the DAR broad authority to resolve agrarian reform matters.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the DAR, through its Secretary, has primary jurisdiction to investigate acts aimed at circumventing the objectives of CARP. It emphasized that agrarian reform is a social welfare legislation, and doubts should be resolved in favor of the tenant or worker.

The court also validated a partial compromise agreement between Fil-Estate and some of the farmer-beneficiaries concerning Lots 780-12 and 780-13. Despite an initial issue with lack of Special Powers of Attorney, the parties’ later compliance solidified the enforceability of the partial agreement. The Court noted that since more than ten years had lapsed from the issuance of the CLOAs, the claimants were no longer prohibited from renouncing their rights over those lots. This part of the ruling demonstrates the potential for negotiated settlements in agrarian disputes, provided they comply with legal requirements and agrarian reform objectives.

In addressing the final issue regarding the validity of the cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award, the Court maintained that procedural lapses and the community of interest principle would not favor parties that did not avail of the appropriate remedies to challenge the orders. Del Mundo, et al. were unable to invoke communality of interest because their rights and interests were not intertwined with those who filed appeals.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether classifying land as a tourist zone automatically excludes it from agrarian reform coverage, overriding the rights of farmer-beneficiaries.
Did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the landowners or the farmer-beneficiaries?	The Supreme Court sided with the farmer-beneficiaries, affirming the Department of Agrarian Reform’s authority to implement agrarian reform even in areas designated for tourism.
What is the significance of Proclamation No. 1520 in this case?	Proclamation No. 1520 declared Nasugbu, Batangas, as a tourist zone. The landowners argued this exempted the land from agrarian reform, but the Court clarified that the proclamation alone did not automatically reclassify the land.
What did the Court say about the role of the Department of Agrarian Reform?	The Court emphasized that the DAR has primary jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters and the power to determine whether specific parcels of land should be covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
What is the “community of interest” principle mentioned in the decision?	The “community of interest” principle typically applies to an original action where parties have interwoven interests, and a reversal would affect all of them. In this case, it did not apply to Del Mundo, et al because their lack of appeal means their interests were not legally intertwined.
What is Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, and why is it relevant?	Section 50 grants the DAR broad authority to resolve agrarian reform matters, including investigating acts aimed at circumventing CARP. This allows the DAR to look into irregularities, even if not directly related to the main issue.
What should parties do if they disagree with a decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform?	Parties should first exhaust all administrative remedies, such as appealing to the Office of the President, before seeking judicial review in the courts.
What is the key takeaway from this case for landowners and farmer-beneficiaries?	The key takeaway is that classifying land as a tourist zone does not automatically exempt it from agrarian reform. Actual land use, development, and the intent of agrarian reform laws are crucial factors.

This ruling reinforces the state’s commitment to agrarian reform while acknowledging the importance of tourism. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers both economic development and social justice. The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the interplay between tourism proclamations and agrarian reform laws, ensuring that the rights of farmer-beneficiaries are protected while allowing for sustainable development.

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: Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. vs. Paulino Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 152797, September 18, 2019