The Supreme Court ruled that landowners applying for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) must conclusively prove their land was reclassified as residential before June 15, 1988, the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657. Failure to provide sufficient documentation, such as an approved zoning ordinance from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), will result in the land remaining under CARP coverage, making it subject to redistribution to qualified beneficiaries. This decision underscores the importance of proper documentation and adherence to procedural requirements in land use reclassification.

From Farmland to Subdivision: Did Reclassification Happen Before Agrarian Reform?

The case of Marcelo vs. Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Mariano revolves around a dispute over several land parcels in Nueva Ecija owned by the Marcelos. The petitioners sought to exempt their land from CARP coverage, arguing that it had been reclassified as residential as early as 1977 when the National Housing Authority (NHA) allegedly approved the conversion of the landholdings into Celia Subdivision. The Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Mariano opposed the application, contending that the reclassification never occurred before the enactment of CARP on June 15, 1988. The central legal question is whether the Marcelo family presented sufficient evidence to prove the land’s residential status prior to the CARP’s effectivity.

The legal framework for determining CARP coverage is primarily defined by Republic Act No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Section 4 of the law specifies that CARP covers “all public and private agricultural lands.” However, Section 3(c) clarifies that agricultural land refers to land “devoted to agricultural activity… and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land.”

Building on this, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Administrative Order No. 01, series of 1990, which further elaborated on the definition of agricultural lands:

[T]hose devoted to agricultural activity as defined in [R.A. No.] 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use.

This definition establishes two critical conditions for exemption: first, the land must be classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as residential, commercial, or industrial; and second, the HLURB or its predecessor agency must approve the relevant town plan and zoning ordinance before June 15, 1988. Thus, the timing and validity of the reclassification are paramount.

The Supreme Court, in analyzing the evidence, noted conflicting findings between the Office of the President (OP) and the Court of Appeals (CA). The OP initially favored the Marcelos, while the CA sided with the Samahang Magsasaka. Given these discrepancies, the Court undertook a factual review to determine whether the Marcelos adequately demonstrated their land’s reclassification before the critical date.

The Marcelos primarily relied on several key documents to support their claim. They presented a Certificate of Registration and License to Sell issued by the NHA, along with certifications from the HLURB and the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC). A Sangguniang Bayan resolution was also submitted to demonstrate local recognition of the land’s residential status.

However, the Court found these pieces of evidence insufficient. Specifically, it was established that the NHA’s certificate of registration and license to sell covered properties distinct from those being claimed for exemption. This discrepancy significantly undermined the petitioner’s argument that the land had been officially designated for residential use. The Court stated: “It is uncontroverted that the certificate of registration and license to sell cover properties other than those being applied for exemption.”

Furthermore, the Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2006-004, which purportedly ratified the reclassification, was deemed inadequate. The Court noted that the resolution was not a zoning ordinance or a comprehensive land use plan adopted by the Municipal Council of San Antonio and approved by the HLURB before June 15, 1988. It merely seemed to acquiesce to the request made by the petitioners. “By its terms, Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2006-004 does not purport to delineate an area or district in the municipality as residential,” the Court emphasized.

The HLURB certifications also failed to meet the necessary evidentiary threshold. While these certifications confirmed the existence of a certificate of registration and license to sell issued by the NHA, they did not demonstrate that the properties in question were part of the covered area or that the HLURB had approved a relevant zoning ordinance before the CARP’s effectivity. As the Court clarified: “Here, both HLURB certifications merely confirm the existence of a certificate of registration and license to sell issued by the NHA which, as aforesaid, cover an entirely different set of properties.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the Marcelos did not meet the burden of proving their land’s reclassification before the June 15, 1988 deadline. As such, the properties remained subject to CARP coverage. The Court underscored that coverage under the CARP is the general rule, and applicants bear the burden of proving that the property is exempt. The Court stated unequivocally, “Coverage under the CARP is the general rule, therefore, the applicant bears the burden of proving that the property is exempt. Petitioners fail to discharge this burden of proof, consequently, their application for exemption fails.”

The case reinforces the principle that any claims for exemption from agrarian reform laws must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Landowners must present credible documentation to demonstrate that their property was officially reclassified for non-agricultural use by authorized government agencies prior to the enactment of CARP. Failure to do so will result in the land remaining under the purview of agrarian reform, with potential implications for land redistribution and beneficiary rights.

Building on this principle, the ruling has significant practical implications. It underscores the importance of maintaining accurate and up-to-date land records. Landowners contemplating land use conversion must adhere to established legal procedures. They must secure necessary approvals from relevant government agencies, such as the HLURB, to ensure that their land is officially reclassified. This will provide landowners with the necessary legal basis to claim an exemption from CARP coverage.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the landowners presented sufficient evidence to prove that their land was reclassified as residential before June 15, 1988, the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
What is the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)?	CARP is a government initiative aimed at redistributing agricultural lands to landless farmers to promote social justice and equitable land ownership. It is governed by Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
What does it mean for land to be exempt from CARP coverage?	If a land is exempt from CARP coverage, it is not subject to redistribution to farmer beneficiaries under the program. This often applies to lands that have been reclassified for non-agricultural uses, such as residential, commercial, or industrial purposes.
What is the role of the HLURB in land reclassification?	The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) plays a crucial role in approving town plans and zoning ordinances. Their approval signifies that a local government’s land use plan aligns with national standards and policies, affecting land reclassification.
What type of evidence is needed to prove land reclassification before June 15, 1988?	To prove land reclassification before June 15, 1988, landowners need to present documents such as zoning ordinances approved by the HLURB or its predecessor agencies, official certifications, and other relevant records demonstrating the land’s non-agricultural status before the CARP’s effectivity.
What happens if a landowner fails to prove land reclassification before the deadline?	If a landowner fails to provide sufficient evidence to prove land reclassification before June 15, 1988, the land remains subject to CARP coverage. This means it can be distributed to qualified farmer beneficiaries.
Why was the Sangguniang Bayan resolution deemed insufficient in this case?	The Sangguniang Bayan resolution was deemed insufficient because it was not a zoning ordinance or a comprehensive land use plan approved by the HLURB before June 15, 1988. The Court determined that the resolution merely acquiesced to the landowner’s request rather than representing an official reclassification.
What is the significance of DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990?	DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 clarifies that the DAR’s authority to approve land conversions applies from the date of CARP’s effectivity. Thus, lands already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988, no longer need a conversion clearance from the DAR.

In conclusion, the Marcelo vs. Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Mariano case serves as a crucial reminder for landowners to diligently document and validate land use reclassifications. Meeting the evidentiary threshold for CARP exemption requires demonstrating that the land was officially reclassified before the enactment of the agrarian reform law. Failure to do so can have significant implications for land ownership and distribution.

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: ELFLEDA, ET AL. VS. SAMAHANG MAGSASAKA NG BARANGAY SAN MARIANO, G.R. No. 205618, September 16, 2019