Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989

GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS JULIAN, SR., PEDRO RICALDE, VICENTE
RICALDE and ROLANDO SALAMAR, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE M. REYES, PAZ M. REYES and FE M.
REYES, respondents.

Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance for petitioners.

Leonardo N. Zulueta for Enrique Reyes, et al. Adolfo S. Azcuna for private respondents.

PARAS, J.:

Before us is a petition seeking the reversal of the decision rendered by the respondent Court of
Appeals**on March 3, 1987 affirming the judgment of the court a quo dated April 29, 1986, the
dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reading as follows;

WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by this Court on November 5, 1982 is

1. Declaring that Presidential Decree No. 27 is inapplicable to lands obtained thru

2. Declaring that the four registered co-owners will cultivate and operate the
farmholding themselves as owners thereof; and

3. Ejecting from the land the so-called tenants, namely; Gabino Alita, Jesus
Julian, Sr., Jesus Julian, Jr., Pedro Ricalde, Vicente Ricalde and Rolando
Salamar, as the owners would want to cultivate the farmholding themselves.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. (p. 31, Rollo)

The facts are undisputed. The subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of land,
acquired by private respondents' predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Said lands are situated at Guilinan, Tungawan,
Zamboanga del Sur.

Private respondents herein are desirous of personally cultivating these lands, but petitioners
refuse to vacate, relying on the provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and appurtenant regulations
issued by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (DAR for short), now Department of Agrarian
Reform (MAR for short).

On June 18, 1981, private respondents (then plaintiffs), instituted a complaint against Hon.
Conrado Estrella as then Minister of Agrarian Reform, P.D. Macarambon as Regional Director
of MAR Region IX, and herein petitioners (then defendants) for the declaration of P.D. 27 and all
other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General Orders issued in connection therewith as
inapplicable to homestead lands.

Defendants filed their answer with special and affirmative defenses of July 8, 1981.

Subsequently, on July 19, 1982, plaintiffs filed an urgent motion to enjoin the defendants from
declaring the lands in litigation under Operation Land Transfer and from being issued land
transfer certificates to which the defendants filed their opposition dated August 4, 1982.

On November 5, 1982, the then Court of Agrarian Relations 16th Regional District, Branch IV,
Pagadian City (now Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch XVIII) rendered its
decision dismissing the said complaint and the motion to enjoin the defendants was denied.

On January 4, 1983, plaintiffs moved to reconsider the Order of dismissal, to which defendants
filed their opposition on January 10, 1983.

Thus, on April 29, 1986, the Regional Trial Court issued the aforequoted decision prompting
defendants to move for a reconsideration but the same was denied in its Order dated June 6,
1986.

On appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals, the same was sustained in its judgment
rendered on March 3, 1987, thus:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error thereof, the decision appealed from is

SO ORDERED. (p. 34, Rollo)

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

The pivotal issue is whether or not lands obtained through homestead patent are covered by the
Agrarian Reform under P.D. 27.

The question certainly calls for a negative answer.

We agree with the petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from
the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping
social legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the
Constitution. However, such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the
enactment of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141. Thus,

The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor.
The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest
 house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for
the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and
to the things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself.
They have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human
beings, and the State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is
under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right. (Patricio v. Bayog,
112 SCRA 45)

In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the homesteaders'
rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In point is
Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides:

Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of
other natural resources, including lands of public domain under lease or
concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of
small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.

Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability
of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in question,
reading,

Section 6. Retention Limits. ...

... Provided further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory
heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act
shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.'

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS JULIAN, SR., PEDRO RICALDE, VICENTE
RICALDE and ROLANDO SALAMAR, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE M. REYES, PAZ M. REYES and FE M.
REYES, respondents

The Reyeses acquired two parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur through their predecessors-in-
interest who were originally granted homestead patents. They desired to cultivate these lands
personally, but Alita et.al. refused to vacate, relying on the provisions of the agrarian reform law
back then, PD 27. Thus, the Reyeses filed a complaint against the Minister of Agrarian Reform,
the MAR Regional Director, and Alita et. al. for the declaration of PD 27 and appurtenant
regulations as inapplicable to homestead lands.

The CA declared that PD 27 is inapplicable to homestead; that the Reyeses will cultivate their
farmholding as owners thereof; and ejectment of the so-called tenants Alita et. al.

ISSUE: Should agrarian reform under PD 27 be applicable to homestead lands?

HELD: No. The contention that PD 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage
of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation
CANNOT BE INVOKED to defeat the very purpose of the Public Land Act (CA 141).

The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives
a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and
plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of
the citizens to their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the
right to life itself. They have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human
beings, and the State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to
safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right.

Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to
prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.

Nota Bene, Sec. 6 of CARL provides that original homestead grantees or their direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act
shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.

Homestead Patent is one issued to: any citizen of this country; over the age of 18 years or the
head of a family; who is not the owner of more than twenty-four (24) hectares of land in the
Philippines or has not had the benefit of any gratuitous allotment of more than twenty- four (24)
hectares of land since the occupation of the Philippines by the United States. The applicant
must show that he has complied with the residence and cultivation requirements of the law;
must have resided continuously for at least one year in the municipality where the land is
situated; and must have cultivated at least one-fifth of the land applied for.

Buklod vs. EMRASON, G.R. No. 131481 and GR No. 131624, dated 16 March 2011
(645 SCRA 401)

Facts: In 1965, EM Ramos and Sons, Inc (EMRASON) acquired a 372-hectare land in Brgy.
Langkaan, Municipality of Dasmarias, Cavite.

The Municipality of Dasmarias, Cavite passed Municipal Ordinance 1 entitled An Ordinance

EMRASON applied for authorization to develop its 372-hectare land into a residential
subdivision named "Traveller's Life Homes" in 1972. The said municipalitys Council passed
Municipal Ordinance 29-A on May 1972 which approved EMRASONs application. However,
due to some unexpected problems, EMRASONs implementation of their subdivision project
was delayed.

Meanwhile, R.A. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, CARL for brevity)
became effective on 15 June 1988.

On September 23, 1988, the Municipal Mayor of Dasmarias, Cavite told EMRASON the
approval for its 372 hectares property in Barrios Bukal and Langkaan, Dasmarias, Cavite to be
developed into a residential, industrial, commercial and golf course project. The conversion was
done in conformity with the approved Development Plan of Municipality of Dasmarias, Cavite.

Then the Aquino government planned conversion of the tenanted neighboring property of the
National Development Company (NDC) into an industrial estate managed through a joint
venture scheme of NDC and Marubeni Corporation. As part of the conversion, each tenant-
farmer who opted to remain at the NDC property will receive three (3) hectares of land as
compensation. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was tasked to acquire additional lands
from nearby areas since NDC propertys size turned out insufficient for both demands of the
proposed industrial project and for the governments made commitment to the tenant-farmers of
giving them a new land. Thus, EMRASONs land was earmarked for the said acquisition.

On August 29, 1990, Office of Agrarian Reform Secretary Benjamin Leong sent out the first of
four batches of acquisition notices of EMRASONs property covering 303.38545 hectares of
land at Barangay Langkaan, Dasmarias, Cavite. EMRASON protested to these notices.

The Department of Agrarian Reform Region IVs Legal Division through its Hearing Officer
Victor Baguilat, through its 28 August 1992 decision, declared all the notices of acquisitions null
and void because the properties subject of acquisition proceedings are exempted from CARP
coverage, pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) of then Sec. Franklin Drilon. The said DOJ
Opinion stated that lands already converted to non-agricultural uses before effectivity of
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law are no longer covered by agrarian reform. DAR objected
to Baguilats decision as well as the opinion of Sec. Drilon since it maintains that it has to
provide the members of Buklod ng Maqbubukid Sa Lupaing Ramos (BUKLOD) three (3)
hectares of land as tenant-farmers of the NDC property.

The Court of Appeals via its 26 March 1997 decision ruled in favor of EMRASON and against
BUKLOD, stating that the land was already converted or classified as residential by the
Municipality of Dasmarias prior to Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Laws effectivity in 1988.

Issues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals was right in ruling that the land owned by EMRASON, Inc
was not covered by agrarian reform since it was classified as non-agricultural/residential
lands by Municipal Ordinance 29-A?

Legal Provisions cited:

Municipal Ordinance 29-A made by the Municipality of Dasmarinas which says, Resolved, as
it is hereby resolved, to approve the application for subdivision containing an area of Three
Hundred Seventy-Two (372) Hectares situated in Barrios Bocal and Langkaan, named as
Traveller's Life Homes. Resolved that the Municipal Ordinance regarding subdivision
regulations existing in this municipality shall be strictly followed by the subdivision.

Section 3 of the Local Autonomy Act (R.A. No. 2264), which empowers a Municipal Council to
adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations for the municipality where it belongs.

Section 4 of R.A. 6657 or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 which says that
agrarian reform shall "cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all
public and private agricultural lands.

Held/Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of EMRASON, Inc. It stated that the lands
involved in the present case are not subject to agrarian reform since it was classified as
residential land by Municipal Ordinance 29-A of Municipality of Dasmarias prior to the
effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. It also reiterated the ruling in Natalia vs.
Department of Agrarian Reform that since a special law classified the land for residential,
commercial, or industrial use, that land or property cannot be anymore subject to agrarian
reform. The Court also used sec. 3 of RA 2264 or Local Autonomy Act to validate EMRASONs
application via Ordinance 29-A made by the Municipality of Dasmarias, Cavite.
HEIRS OF DELESTE vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. 169913

Facts: Spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of
a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan City, consisting of 34.7 hectares (subject
property). Said spouses were childless, but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman
(Virgilio) by another woman.

When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject property. On February
16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP
16,000. The deed of sale was notarized on February 17, 1954 and registered on March 2, 1954.
Also, the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new tax declaration was
issued in the name of Deleste.

On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates that
tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and
awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property was placed under the said program.
However, only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) as the landowners. Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to the coverage
were sent to these heirs.

In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the Zoning Regulation of
Iligan City, reclassifying the subject property as commercial/residential.

Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of
private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject property. The CLTs
were registered on July 15, 1986. On February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein,
filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to
nullify private respondents EPs.

On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision
declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending issues of ownership, the
subsequent reclassification of the subject property into a residential/commercial land, and the
violation of petitioners constitutional right to due process of law.

Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486, reversed the ruling of the PARAD in its
Decision dated March 15, 2004. It held, among others, that the EPs were valid as it was the
heirs of Deleste who should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case No. 698 at
the time the subject property was placed under the coverage of the OLT Program considering
that DAR was not a party to the said case. Further, it stated that the record is bereft of any
evidence that the city ordinance has been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB), as mandated by DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and held
that whether the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT Program is an administrative
determination, the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the DAR Secretary or the latters
authorized representative. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the
DARAB in its Resolution dated July 8, 2004.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the subject property is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program

(2) Whether or not respondents acquired vested rights over the land under PD 27

Ruling:

(1) Yes. We agree with petitioners that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside
the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment by the City of Iligan of its
local zoning ordinance, City Ordinance No. 1313.

It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-
agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, this Court held that
pursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local Government Code,
municipal and/or city councils are empowered to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or
regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission. It was also emphasized
therein that the power of the local government to convert or reclassify lands from agricultural to
non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657 is not subject to the approval of the DAR.

Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which was enacted by the City of
Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject property into a commercial/residential area. DARAB,
however, believes that the approval of HLURB is necessary in order for the reclassification to be
valid.

We differ. As previously mentioned, City Ordinance No. 1313 was enacted by the City of Iligan
in 1975. Significantly, there was still no HLURB to speak of during that time. It was the Task
Force on Human Settlements, the earliest predecessor of HLURB, which was already in
existence at that time, having been created on September 19, 1973 pursuant to Executive Order
No. 419. It should be noted, however, that the Task Force was not empowered to review and
approve zoning ordinances and regulations.

Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential/commercial land with the
enactment of City Ordinance No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an agricultural
land within the ambit of RA 6657.

(2) No. It should be clarified that even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers are deemed owners as of
October 21, 1972, this is not to be construed as automatically vesting upon these tenant-
farmers absolute ownership over the land they were tilling. Certain requirements must also be
complied with, such as payment of just compensation, before full ownership is vested upon the
tenant-farmers.
Prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements, tenant-farmers have, at most, an inchoate
right over the land they were tilling. In recognition of this, a CLT is issued to a tenant-farmer to
serve as a provisional title of ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full
payment of just compensation or for as long as the tenant-farmer is an amortizing owner.

Land transfer under PD 27 is effected in two (2) stages. The first stage is the issuance of a CLT
to a farmer-beneficiary as soon as the DAR transfers the landholding to the farmer-beneficiary
in recognition that said person is its deemed owner. And the second stage is the issuance of an
EP as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or
lease rentals by the farmer-beneficiary.

In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it was
only in 1984 that private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an
inchoate right over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements.
Considering that the local zoning ordinance was enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved
by the HSRC in 1978, private respondents still had no vested rights to speak of during this
period, as it was only in 1984 that private respondents were issued the CLTs and were deemed
owners.

The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since reclassification had
taken place twenty-six (26) years prior to their issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued
prior to reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property, particularly Lot No.
1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.