6. Renman Ent. Inc. vs. CA 286 Scra 688

7/28/2019 6. Renman Ent. Inc. vs. CA 286 Scra 688

1/17

FIRST DIVISION

REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,

Petitioner,

- versus -

THE HON. COURT OF

APPEALS, HON. ERNESTO D.

GARILAO, in his capacity as

SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF

AGRARIAN REFORM andEDUARDO ADRIANO, PABLITO

ADRIANO, IGNACIO VILLENA,

DOMINGO SAYOTO,

DOMINADOR MANTILLAS,

PABLITO MANTILLAS,

GRACIANO MAGLIAN,

LEOPOLDO CALITIS, PRIMO

GALANG, RENE GALANG,

FRANCISCO HAYAG, MARCOSMENDOZA, NOE CABALLERO,

ROLANDO PADAR, FRANCISCO

SANTARIN, PEDRO PASTOR,

JR., ROLANDO PASTOR,

MELCHOR MENDOZA,

MARIANO CAPILI, CONRADO

FERRER, and MARGARITO

MENDOZA,

Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

EDUARDO ADRIANO, PABLITO

ADRIANO, IGNACIO VILLENA,

DOMINGO

SAYOTO, DOMINADOR

G.R. No. 132073

G.R. No. 132361


2/17

MANTILLAS, PABLITO

MANTILLAS, GRACIANO

MAGLIAN, LEOPOLDO

CALITIS, PRIMO GALANG,

RENE GALANG, FRANCISCO

HAYAG, MARCOS MENDOZA,

NOE CABALLERO, ROLANDO

PADAR, FRANCISCO

SANTARIN, PEDRO PASTOR,

SR., ROLANDO PASTOR,

MELCHOR MENDOZA,

MARCIANO CAPILI, CONRADO

FERRER, and MARGARITO

MENDOZA,*

Petitioners,

- versus-

HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,

and HON. ERNESTO D.

GARILAO, in his capacity as

SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN

REFORM,

Respondents.

Present:

PANGANIBAN, C.J.Chairperson,

YNARES-SANTIAGO,AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

CALLEJO, SR., andCHICO-NAZARIO,JJ.

Promulgated:

September 27, 2006

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

R E S O L U T I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO,J.:

Before this Court is a consolidation of two separate Petitions for Reviewon Certiorari filed by petitioner Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REMMAN) in G.R.

No. 132073, and petitioners Eduardo Adriano, et al., in G.R. No. 132361. Both

Petitions assail the Decision[1]dated 30 April 1997 and Resolution[2]dated 8January 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42004.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn1


3/17

REMMAN is a private domestic corporation engaged in the business ofdeveloping subdivisions. On 17 August 1995, REMMAN filed with the Secretary

of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the Socialized Housing

One-Stop Processing Center (SHOPC),[3] an application for exemption from thecoverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) over 17 parcels

of land with a total land area of 46.9180 hectares located at Bo. San Jose,Dasmarias, Cavite.[4]

As culled from the records, the subject parcels of land were covered byTransfer Certificate of Title No. T-7707, in the names of Nieves

Arguelles vda. de Saulog and Ignacio, Luciano, Virginia, Teodoro, Melquiades,

Maura, Ruben, and Lilia, all surnamed Saulog (Saulog family). The Saulog familyacquired the same by inheritance from EliseoSaulog, deceased spouse of

Nieves. On 7 February 1995, the Saulog family and REMMAN executed a Deed

of Sale over the subject parcels of land.

In support of its application, REMMAN proffered, inter alia: (1) a

certification by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC)[5] dated

16 February 1995, to the effect that the subject parcels of land are within theresidential zone; (2) a certification by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA)

dated 21 December 1995 signifying that the subject parcels of land are not irrigated

or irrigable within the areas programmed for irrigation development under the NIAIrrigation Development Program; and (3) a certification from the Office of the

Municipal Engineering of the Municipality of Dasmarias, Cavite, dated 8

February 1998, attesting that the subject parcels of land are within the residentialzone.

On 5 June 1996, the DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao rendered an

Order[6]denying the application for lack of merit.

The DAR Secretary ruled that REMMAN has no personality to file the actionas the Deed of Sale between the Saulog family and REMMAN was neither

notarized nor registered with the Register of Deeds; hence, the same is not binding

against third parties, and the Saulog family must still be deemed the owners of thesubject premises. In denying REMMANs application for exemption, the DAR

Secretary further relied on a certification dated 3 November 1995, issued by the

Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Dasmarias, Cavite, avowing to the effectthat the subject properties are covered by Operation Land Transfer under

Presidential Decree No. 27, and that there are twenty-four (24) farmer-beneficiaries occupying a total of 46.5935 hectares of the subject lots. In the same
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn4


4/17

order, the DAR Secretary found the subject parcels of land to be irrigated;

therefore, non-negotiable for conversion.

Moreover, in the Order of 5 June 1996, the DAR Secretary took note of

DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92, filed by the Saulog family for annulment andcancellation of the emancipation patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al., herein

petitioners in G.R. No. 132361. The controverted emancipation patents inDARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92 cover the subject parcels of land which are

sought to be exempted by REMMAN from coverage of the CARP. DARAB CaseNo. IV-Ca. 0087-92 was remanded by the DARAB Central Office to the

Adjudicator of Cavite for further proceedings.[7]

The dispositive portion of the Order of 5 June 1996, reads, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and after having found that theinstant application lacks merit, Order is hereby issued denying the same and

placing the herein properties involving seventeen (17) parcels of land with anaggregate area of 46.9180 hectares located at Brgy. San Jose,

Dasmarias, Cavite under CARP coverage.[8]

REMMAN filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereon.

On 4 September 1996, the DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao issued an

Order, modifying the Order of 5 June 1996. The DAR Secretary held that when

Presidential Decree No. 27 took effect, the subject parcels of land were owned incommon by the Saulog family. The same law applies to lands primarily devoted torice and corn under a system of share-crop or lease tenancy. The issue as to the

type of crops planted in the subject parcels of land and the tenancy relationship not

having been controverted, the DAR Secretary applied the rules on retention limitsas specified in Presidential Decree No. 27 and Letter of Instruction No.

474.[9] Ruling on the retention limits, the DAR Secretary reached the followingconclusion, viz[10]:

Name of

Co-owner

Tenanted R/C

lands owned

Other Agri.

Lands

PD 27

Coverage

Area

Retained ofTenanted

R/C Lands

Nieves 15.31915 has. 10.48575 has. 15.31915 has. 0.0 has.

Ignacio 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Luciano 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Virginia 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn8


5/17

Teodoro 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Melquiades 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Maura 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Ruben 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Lilia 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Marietta 1.39265 has. 0.95325 has. 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.

Further, it was held that the farmer-tenants occupying the retained area ofthe children of Nieves vda. de Saulog shall remain therein, subject to the option of

the farmers to accept disturbance compensation, in which case, they can vacate the

retained lands. The remaining lands were declared to be outside of the coverage ofthe Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law by virtue of Section 3(c)[11]of Republic

Act No. 6657, subject to the payment of disturbance compensation to qualified

farmer-beneficiaries. In the same vein, the DAR Secretary ruled that PresidentialDecree No. 27 has not been expressly repealed by Republic Act No. 6657; hence,

the tenant-farmers vested rights should still be respected. Thus, the municipalreclassification of the subject parcels of land cannot remove the vested rights of the

tenant-farmers granted to them by statute. Finally, on the issue of lack of standing

on the part of REMMAN to file the application for exemption, the DAR Secretary,

instead of strictly applying the procedural rules, relaxed the same.

The DAR Secretary disposed, thus:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, after having gone through allarguments, this Order is hereby issued:

1. Confirming the coverage of the 15.31915 hectare tenanted rice and corn

share of Nieves vda. de Saulog under Operation Land Transfer;

2. Granting the retention of the other heirs of 1.39265 hectares of tenanted

rice and corn, each, subject to the filing by the applicant of the proper

petition in the proper forum [or a total of 12.53385 hectares];

3. Requiring the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer to cause the

preparation of Contracts of Agricultural Leaseholds between the owners ofthe lands and the farmer-tenants of the retained areas;

4. Excluding from the coverage of Agrarian Reform the 19.065 hectare

land planted to mango by virtue of Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657, subjectto the payment of disturbance compensation; and
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn12


6/17

5. Instructing the Regional Director of Region IV and the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Officer to cause the proper execution of this

Order.[12]

Thereafter, REMMAN challenged the Orders of the DAR Secretary by filing

a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals.

In its Decision dated 30 April 1997, the Court of Appeals declined to rule

purely on the technical matters. Thus, the question as to REMMANs personalityto file the proceeding a quo was dispensed with. It affirmed the finding of the

DAR Secretary on the grant of partial exemption to the extent of the 19.065hectares planted with mango trees from the coverage of the CARP, as enunciated

in par. 4[13]of the dispositive portion of the Order of the DAR Secretary dated 4

September 1996; it differed, however, as to the grant of disturbance

compensation. The appellate court rationalized that the tenant-farmers are deemedowners of the land they are tilling under Presidential Decree No. 27, and

subsequently, Executive Order No. 228[14]declared them full ownersthereof. Hence, their ownership as vested can no longer be disturbed by the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and as such, the provisions of the aforesaidlaw which allow for exemptions from its coverage cannot apply to lands already

declared under Operation Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27.

On the issue of whether the subject lands are irrigated or irrigable, the Courtof Appeals held that the question loses its significance because the rule on the non-

negotiability of irrigated lands applies only to conversion proceedings but not toexclusion proceedings, as in the case at bar. The Court of Appeals decreed:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Secretary is hereby

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only with respect to No. 4 of the dispositive

portion, deleting therefrom the payment of disturbance compensation, such thatshould read thiswise:

4. Excluding from the coverage of Agrarian Reform the 19.065 hectare

land planted with mango by virtue of Sections 3 (c) and 11 of RA 6657.[15]

REMMAN filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration. In like manner,Eduardo Adriano, et al., filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereon. On 8 January

1998, the Court of Appeals denied the Motions.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn13


7/17

Dissatisfied with the ruling, REMMAN instituted the instant Petition,

docketed as G.R. No. 132073, setting forth numerous assignments of error, whichwe hereafter synthesize for purposes of clarity. Similarly, Eduardo Adriano, et al.,

filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 132361.[16]

REMMAN, petitioner in G.R. No. 132073, alleges that the Court of Appeals

failed to rule on the decisive factual and legal issues properly interposedtherewith. Simply stated, REMMAN posits that the Court of Appeals failed to rule

on the factual issues anent the reclassification of the subject lands into residentialland; the location of the subject lands in an urbanized area; and on the validity of

the emancipation patents issued to therein private respondents, Eduardo

Adriano, et al. It claims that the subject lands were effectively converted intoresidential lands by virtue of their being re-zoned as such by the

Sangguniang Bayan of Dasmarias, Cavite, and approved by the Human

Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the Housing and Land UseRegulatory Board. Relying on Republic Act No. 7279,[17]it theorizes that the landsin question are already urban land, especially in light of the fact that

Dasmarias, Cavite, has a population density of some 2,000 persons per square

kilometer. Moreover, it avers that the Court of Appeals failed to address thecrucial issue of whether Eduardo Adriano, et al.,qualified as farmer-beneficiaries

under Presidential Decree No. 27. REMMAN similarly assigns as error the

conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Eduardo Adriano, et al., are full owners ofthe subject premises by virtue of Executive Order No. 228 and Presidential Decree

No. 27, reiterating the arguments that it had raised before the appellate court.

Furthermore, REMMAN argues that the subject parcels of land are strip

lands which are reserved for uses other than agricultural under the provisions ofPresidential Decree No. 399; hence, the DAR Secretary was without reason to

deny the exemption applied for. REMMAN contests the validity of the

emancipation patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al.,on the ground that there

was a failure to comply with the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 27 in thatthere was neither payment of amortizations as required by the law nor was there

payment of realty taxes thereon by the tenant-farmers. According to REMMAN,

the emancipation patents were issued without payment of just compensation tothe Saulog family who are the previous owners of the parcels of land in question.

For their part, Eduardo Adriano, et al., petitioners in G.R. No. 132361,asseverate that they have been denied due process because they were not made

parties toREMMANs application for exemption from the coverage of the CARP;hence, they cannot be deemed affected thereby. They assail REMMANs failure to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn17


8/17

notify or apprise them of the application for exemption in light of the fact that they

are the actual tenants of the subject lands which they have cultivated for more thanthirty (30) years. Moreover, they contend that the Court of Appeals failed to heed

their prayer for ocular inspection of the subject properties, such that, a full

adjudication on the facts be rightly determined. In fine, it is prayed that the case beremanded to the court of origin for further proceedings and to grant them an

opportunity to refute the evidence presented by REMMAN before the DAR.

At the crux of the instant controversy is whether the subject parcels of landare exempted from the coverage of the CARP.

Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise referred to as the ComprehensiveAgrarian Reform Law (CARL), was enacted as a piece of social legislation

pursuant to the policy of the State to pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Program. It became effective on 15 June 1988. Section 4 thereof, specifies thelands covered by the CARP, thus:

SECTION 4. ScopeThe Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all

public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and

Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for

agriculture.

More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or

suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to

agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act untilCongress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity

considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public

domain;

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as

determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;

(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable foragriculture; and

(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of theagricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.


9/17

The exemption and exclusions of Republic Act No. 6657 are contained in

Section 10 thereof, viz:

SECTION 10.Exemptions and Exclusions Lands actually,

directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest

reserves, reforestration, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds andmangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimentalfarm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds

and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents

appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto,communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually

worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers

and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already

developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.

In the main, REMMAN hinges its application for exemption on the ground

that the subject lands had ceased to be agricultural lands by virtue of the zoningclassification by the Sangguniang Bayan of Dasmarias, Cavite, and approved by

the HSRC, specifying them as residential.

InNatalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture,[18] this Court resolved

the issue of whether lands already classified for residential, commercial or

industrial use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board(HLURB) and its precursor agencies, i.e.,National Housing Authority and Human

Settlements Regulatory Commission, prior to 15 June 1988, are covered byRepublic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Law of 1988. We answered in the negative, thus:

We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL. Section

4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardlessof tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private

agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as

"land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as

mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."The deliberations ofthe Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. "Agricultural lands" are

only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural lands" and "do not

include commercial, industrial and residential land.

x x x x

Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage

of CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior

to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn19


10/17

In its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private

Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined "agricultural

land" thusx x xAgricultural lands refers to those devoted to

agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as

mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classifiedin town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing

and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding

competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential,commercial or industrial use.

Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988,

respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. x x x.

However,Natalia should be cautiously applied in light of Administrative

Order 04, Series of 2003, which outlines the rules on the Exemption on Lands fromCARP Coverage under Section (3) of Republic Act No. 6657, and Department of

Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. It reads:

I. Prefatory Statement

Republic Act (RA) 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL),

Section 3, Paragraph (c) defines agricultural land as referring to land devoted

to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,residential, commercial or industrial land.

Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, (or DOJ Opinion 44-

1990 for brevity) and the case of Natalia Realty versus Department of AgrarianReform (12 August 2993, 225 SCRA 278) opines that with respect to the

conversion of agricultural land covered by RA 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the

authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve suchconversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity, on 15 June

1988. Thus, all lands that are already classified as commercial, industrial or

residential before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.

However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate

to divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by PresidentialDecree (PD) No. 27, which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988. (Emphasissupplied.)

As emphasized, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural cannot be

applied to defeat vested rights of tenant-farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27.


11/17

Indeed, in the recent case ofSta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation

v. Amante,[19] where the Court was confronted with the issue of whether thecontentious property therein is agricultural in nature on the ground that the same

had been classified as park since 1979 under the Zoning Ordinance ofCabuyao,

as approved by the HLURB, the Court said:

The Court recognizes the power of a local government to reclassify and

convert lands through local ordinance, especially if said ordinance is approved by

the HLURB. Municipal Ordinance No. 110-54 dated November 3, 1979, enactedby the Municipality of Cabuyao, divided the municipality into residential,

commercial, industrial, agricultural and institutional districts, and districts and

parks for open spaces. It did not convert, however, existing agricultural lands into

residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional. While it classifiedBarangay Casile into a municipal park, as shown in its permitted uses of land

map, the ordinance did not provide for the retroactivity of its classification. In Co

vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, it was held that an ordinance convertingagricultural lands into residential or light industrial should be given prospective

application only, and should not change the nature of existing agricultural lands in

the area or the legal relationships existing over such land. x x x.

A reading of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, series of 1981,

does not disclose any provision converting existing agricultural lands in the

covered area into residential or light industrial. While it declared that after thepassage of the measure, the subject area shall be used only for residential or light

industrial purposes, it is not provided therein that it shall have retroactive effect so

as to discontinue all rights previously acquired over lands located within the zone

which are neither residential nor light industrial in nature. This simply meansthat, if we apply the general rule, as we must, the ordinance should be given

prospective operation only. The further implication is that it should not change

the nature of existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationshipsexisting over such lands. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the case at bar, it appears on record that petitioners in G.R. No. 132361,

Eduardo Adriano, et al., were issued their respective emancipation patents[20]onvarious dates.[21] However, as was noted by the DAR Secretary in his Order

of 5 June 1996, there is a pending action involving the subject parcels of land,

docketed as DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92. The same action similarlyinvolves the annulment of the Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) and the

emancipation patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al .,thus:

[T]he subject parcels of land are also the subject matter of DARAB

Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92, which is one for annulment of the Resolution of

DAR Regional Director for Region IV, Certificates of Land Transfer,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn20


12/17

Emancipation Patents or CLOAs, which was resolved in favor of

cancellation. However, in a Resolution by the DARAB Central Office on the

same case dated May 18, 1995, it was ruled that the

decision decreeing the cancellation of the questioned EPs is not enforceable

against the recipients as they were not impleaded. Hence, the case was

remanded to the Adjudicator of Cavite for further proceedings.

[22]

Moreover, REMMAN, in its Petition before this Court, presents the

antecedents of DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92. Culled therefrom, it appearsthat on 6 February 1993, the Saulog family filed with the Office of the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), an action against DAR Regional

Director Wilfredo B. Leao, Region IV Provincial Agrarian Reform Officerof Cavite, Serapio T. Magpayo, and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, Leticia

R. Crucido of Dasmarias, Cavite, which case became DARAB Case No. IV-Ca.

0087-92. The CLT and the emancipation patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al.,are the subject matters therein. On 26 April 1993, the PARAD rendered a decisionagainst Eduardo Adriano, et al.[23] However, on appeal to the DAR Adjudication

Board (DARAB), DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92 was remandedto the

PARAD for further proceedings on the ground that the tenant-farmers, EduardoAdriano, et al., were not impleaded in the case. The record also shows that

Eduardo Adriano, et al. filed with the PARAD a Petition, docketed as DARAB

Case No. CA-0154-93, seeking to annul the 26 April 1993 decision of thePARAD. The current status of DARAB Case No. CA-0154-93 does not appear on

the records.

At any rate, DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92, involves, inter alia, thevalidity of the emancipation patents issued to tenant-farmers, Eduardo Adriano, et

al., who are the petitioners in G.R. No. 132361, and the private respondents inG.R. No. 132073. Inasmuch as the consolidated petitions before us raise the

question of the exemption of the subject parcels of land from CARP, which

parcels of land are similarly covered by existing emancipation patents, it

behooves this Court to hold in abeyance the judgment on the propriety of the

exemption sought by REMMAN, until after the issue as to the validity of the

emancipation patents (which precisely cover most of the subject parcels ofland) has been conclusively and finally determined.

To our mind, a complete resolution of the application for exemption of the

subject parcels of land from coverage of the CARP entails a finding of whether theemancipation patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al.,are null and void, or valid

and subsisting.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftn23


13/17

The issues are inextricably linked. We cannot decide on the question ofexemption without causing a preemption on the question of the validity of the

aforesaid emancipation patents. To ensure that our judgment

on REMMANs application for exemption is complete, the parties, and especially,the tenant-farmers, Eduardo Adriano, et al., must be afforded due opportunity to

ventilate their defenses in support of the emancipation patents issued in theirnames in the proceedings before the DARAB, in particular, DARAB Case No. IV-

Ca. 0087-92. This is especially significant in light of the principles and policiesbehind the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Indeed, Section 2 of Republic

Act No. 6657, pronounces in no uncertain terms that the welfare of the landless

farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote socialjusticeand to move the nation towardsound rural development and

industrialization, and the establishment ofowner cultivatorship of economic-size

farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture.

IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, we hold in abeyance the Resolution

of the consolidated Petitions in G.R. No. 132073 and G.R. No. 132361 until after a

final determination as to the validity of the emancipation patents issued to EduardoAdriano, et al. in DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92. No pronouncement as to

costs.

SO ORDERED.

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBANChief JusticeChairperson


14/17

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.

Associate Justice

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby

certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultationbefore the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

Chief Justice

* The following did not sign the Verification/Certification, to wit: DomingoSayoto,PablitoMantillas,FranciscoHayag, Marcos Mendoza,NoeCaballero, RolandoPadar, Pedro Pastor, Sr., and Conrado Ferrer.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Antonio M. Martinez with Associate Justices Lourdes K. Tayao-

Jagurosand Romeo A.Brawner, concurring;rollo(G.R. No. 132073), pp. 54-61.[2] Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A.Brawner(viceJ. Antonio Martinez, who was appointed to the

Supreme Court) with Associate Justices Ricardo P.Galvezand Marina L. Buzon, concurring; id.at82.[3] CREATING SOCIALIZED HOUSING ONE-STOP PROCESSING CENTERS TO FACILITATE THE

PROCESSING AND ISSUANCE OF PERMITS, CLEARANCES, CERTIFICATIONS AND LICENSES

APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIALIZED HOUSING

PROJECTS, AND DIRECTING ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CONCERNED TO SUPPORT THE

OPERATIONS OF THE SAID CENTERS (27 June 1994);SHOPCswere created pursuant to RepublicAct No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, Section 1 and Section

3, thereof, provides,thus:Sec. 1.Creation of Socialized Housing One-Stop Processing Centers- Thecreation of Socialized Housing One-Stop Processing Centers (SHOPCs) is hereby directed in all the

administrative regions of the country to be manned by representatives from the following agencies:

xxxx

c. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR);

xxxx

Sec. 3.Agency Responsibilities.- The SHOPC Desks shall have the following responsibilities:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref1


15/17

3. DAR Desk

a. Determine and fix the amount of disturbance compensation based on the formula

jointly set by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and Department of Agrarian Reform

(DAR) pursuant to Sec. 7 (1) of RA No. 6389, and ensure that the affected tenant-

farmers/farmworkersare duly compensated;

b. Evaluate applications for land conversion/exemption from CARP coverage that may

be referred or recommended by the HLURB Desk, and in meritorious cases, issue

conversion/exemption certificatestherefor; and

c. Perform such other responsibilities as may be required. (Italics supplied.)[4] Records, Vol. II, p. 329; The subject parcels of land are more particularly described, to wit:

Name of Registered Owner Title No. Area (in has.)

MariettaSaulogVergara T-231847 3.0000

MauraSaulogAguinaldo T-231848 3.0000

Virginia A.Saulog T-231849 3.0000TeodoroA.Saulog T-231850 3.0000

Ruben A.Saulog T-231851 3.0000

LiliaSaulogVenturina T-231852 3.0000MelquiadesA.Saulog T-231853 3.0000

Luciana A.Saulog T-231854 3.0000

Nieves ArguellesSaulog T-240093 1.5124

-do- T-240094 1.5124

-do- T-240095 1.5124

-do- T-240096 1.5124

-do- T-240097 1.5124

-do- T-240098 1.5124

-do- T-240099 1.5124

-do- T-240100 2.3322

-do- T-240101 9.9990[5] Executive Order No. 90 (1986) renamed the HSRC as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board

(HLURB) and was designated as the regulatory body for housing and land development under the Housing

and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC).[6] Rollo(G.R. No. 132073), pp. 223-227.[7] The pertinent portion of the Order of5 June 1996narrates the antecedents of DARAB Case No. IV-Ca.

0087-92, to wit:

xxxxRecords reveal that the herein properties are likewise the subject of DARAB Case No. IV-Ca.

0087-92 for annulment of the Resolution of DAR Regional Director for Region IV, Certificates of Land

Transfer, Emancipation Patents orCLOAs, which was resolved in favor of cancellation. However, in a

Resolution by the DARAB Central Office on the same case dated May 18, 1995, it was ruled that the

decision decreeing the cancellation of the questioned EPs is not enforceable against the recipients as theywere notimpleaded. Hence, the case was remanded to the Adjudicator of Cavite for further

proceedings. Rollo(G.R. No. 132073), pp. 224-225.[8] Id.at 226.[9] Letter of Instruction No. 474 to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, dated21 October 1976, places under

the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn

lands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of

more than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other

urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref5


16/17

[10] Rollo(G.R. No. 132073), pp. 272-273.[11] SEC. 3.Definitions.For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:

xxxx

( c)Agricultural Landrefers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act andnot classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.

[12] Rollo(G.R. No. 132073), pp. 276-277.[13] Par. 4 of thefalloof the Order of4 September 1996, states, to wit:

(4) Excluding from the coverage of Agrarian Reform the 19.065 hectare land planted tomango by virtue of Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657, subject to the payment of disturbance compensation.

[14] DECLARING FULL LAND OWNERSHIP TO QUALIFIED FARMER-BENEFICIARIES COVEREDBY P.D. NO. 27; DETERMINING THE VALUE OF REMAINING UNVALUED RICE

ANDCORNLANDSSUBJECT OF P.D. NO. 27; AND PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OFPAYMENT BY THE FARMER-BENEFICIARY AND MODE OF COMPENSATION TO THE

LANDOWNER; Enacted on17 July 1987.[15] Rollo(G.R. No. 132073), p. 61.[16] Rollo(G.R. No. 132361), p. 325; In our Resolution dated 26 July 1999, the Court resolved to deny the

Petition in G.R. No. 132361 for the failure of counsel of Eduardo Adriano, et al., Atty. Antonio K.Tupazto

comply with our Resolution dated 27 January 1999, requiring him to file the reply to respondents commentwithin the period allotted therein. On22 September 1999, we reconsidered the denial, and reinstated thePetition for further proceeding. G.R. No. 132073 and G.R. No. 132361 were consolidated per our

Resolution dated10 November 2003.[17] URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ACT.[18] G.R. No. 103302,12 August 1993, 225 SCRA 278, 282-284.[19] G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838,16 March 2005, 453 SCRA 432, 459-460.[20] Rollo(G.R. No. 132361), pp. 136-199. See alsoRollo(G.R. No. 132073), pp. 138-205.[21] On the face of the emancipation patents, it can be gleaned that they were issued on the following

dates,viz:16 March 1989,20 December 1989, and21 December 1989.[22] Rollo(G.R. No. 132073), pp. 224-225.[23]

The dispositive portion thereof, reads:WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the entire land in question consisting of the mango land

andricelandformerly under TCT No.T-7707, now TCT Nos.T-240093 to TCT No.T-

24101inclusive andTCT Nos.T-231847 to TCT Nos.T-23154 inclusive as exemptedfrom coverage of P.D. No. 27 and the CARP, considering that the mango land is not

subject of coverage by P.D. 27 and considering further, that the entire land have been

legally reclassified and converted into non-agricultural uses on 1981 before the CARP

Law took effect on June 15, 1988. Undue haste in the coverage of said land under P.D.

27, without CLTs, based on a wrong title, without hearing, amount to denial of due

process. Transfer of titles (EPs) without paying thelandowner,is also in violation of

law. In fine, the ResolutionExh.D, of the defendant-RegionalDirectorWilfredoB.Leano, and the Emancipation Patent (E.P.s) issued to the farmers

underExh. 3 to 26 are rendered ineffective, and the cancellation thereof, is in order.

2. Declaring as binding the reclassification and conversion of said land upon the

present farmers named in said 25 EPs whose tenancy relationship are (sic) hereby

terminated[,] reckoned with at the time of approval of the conversion on 1981, and

accordingly, ordering plaintiffs as landowners to pay said farmers the disturbance

compensation and other benefits in accordance with law.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20132073.htm#_ftnref11


17/17

3. Allowing plaintiffs to exercise their rights of retention of the land in question

pursuant to the CARP Law under the conditions therein prescribed.

4. Allowing plaintiffs to construct a perimeter fence on the portion of land

planted to mango trees subject to the restrictions provided by law, and to segregate same

from thericelandportion being not within the area covered by theE.Psof the farmersand not covered by P.D. 27northe CARP.

Pursuant to Rule XII, Sec. 2, this decision shall be immediately executory

regardless of appeal that may be taken insofar as the mango land is concerned, not the

Riceland portion where the farmers-holders ofE.P.sareafforeded(sic) their rights to be

heard. The mango land, if tenanted, the tenants are entitled to disturbance compensation

reckoned with at the time of approval of the conversion on 1981. SeeRollo(G.R. No.132073), pp. 212-213.

Documents

6. Renman Ent. Inc. vs. CA 286 Scra 688