Ros, et al. vs DAR, et al.G.R. No. 132477, August 31, 2005

FACTS:Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land. By virtue of a MunicipalOrdinance, these lands were reclassified as industrial lands. As part of their preparation for thedevelopment of the subject lands as an industrial park, petitioners secured all the necessary permits andappropriate government certifications.However, the DAR disallowed the conversion of the subject lands for industrial use and directed thepetitioners to cease and desist from further developments on the land.Petitioners filed with the RTC a Complaint for Injunction with Application for TemporaryRestraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. However, the RTC, ruling that it is the DAR whichhas jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint.When the case was brought to the SC, it was referred to the CA. However, the CA affirmed thedismissal of the case. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:1. Whether or not the DAR has the primary jurisdiction over the case.After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as Comprehensive AgrarianReform Program, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR.The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to approve or disapprove applicationsfor conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses, pursuantto Section 4(i) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987.Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, likewise empowers the DAR to authorize under certain conditions, the reclassification orconversion of agricultural lands.It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the complaint forinjunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and appellate courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy overwhich jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Foragrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); morespecifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

2. Whether or not the RTC can issue a writ of injunction against the DAR.Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 6657 provides:SEC. 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. No injunction, restrainingorder, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of AgrarianReform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program

CREBA V SECPonente: Perez

Nature: This case is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction) under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by herein petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) seeking to nullify and prohibit the enforcement of Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order (AO) No. 01-02, as amended by DAR AO No. 05-07, and DAR Memorandum No. 88, for having been issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as some provisions of the aforesaid administrative issuances are illegal and unconstitutional.

 Facts::Oct 1997 Sec of DAR issued DAR A.O. entitled Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses: said AO embraced all private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced and all untitled agri lands and agri lands reclassified by LGU into non-agri uses after 15 June 1988: March 1999, Sec DAR issued Revised Rules and Regulations on Conversion of Agri Lands to Non Agri Uses, it covers the following:(1) those to be converted to residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity such as livestock, poultry, and fishpond ─ the effect of which is to exempt the land from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) those to be converted to non-agricultural use other than that previously authorized; and (4) those reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such uses.: The 2 earlier AOs were further amended by an AO issued Feb 2002 - 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion; covers all applications for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural use. : The AO was amended again in 2007 t include provisions particularly addressing land conversion in time of exigencies and calamities: To address the conversion to lands to non agri, Sec of DAR suspended processing and approval of land conversion through DAR Memo 88: Creba claims that there is a slowdown of housing projects because of such stoppage Issues: WON DAR AO is unconstitutional CREBA: SEC DAR gravely abused his discretion: RA 6657 and 8435 defines agri lands as lands devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by a person whether natural or juridical, and not classified by the law as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land: However, he issued an AO included in this definition  - lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988: In effect, lands reclassified from agricultural to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988 are considered to be agricultural lands for purposes of conversion, redistribution, or otherwise: This is violation of RA 6657 bec there is nothing in Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657 or in any other provision of law that confers to the DAR the jurisdiction or authority to require that non-awarded lands or reclassified lands be submitted to its conversion authority: It also violates Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160, because it was not provided therein that reclassification by LGUs shall be subject to conversion procedures or requirements, or that the DAR’s approval or clearance must be secured to effect reclassification. : The said Section 2.19 of DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, also contravenes the constitutional mandate on local autonomy under Section 25, Article II and Section 2, Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. : There is deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law because under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, lands that are not within DAR’s jurisdiction are unjustly, arbitrarily and oppressively prohibited or restricted from legitimate use on pain of administrative and criminal penalties. More so, there is

discrimination and violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because the aforesaid administrative order is patently biased in favor of the peasantry at the expense of all other sectors of society. SC: DISMISSEDJURISCIDTION / PROCEDURAL: Although RTC, CA and SC have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writes of certiorari and prohibition etc but such concurrence doesn’t give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum: Heirs of Hinog v Melicor and People v Cuaresma – THERE IS HIERARCHY OF COURTS. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition: petitioner failed to specifically and sufficiently set forth special and important reasons to justify direct recourse to this Court and why this Court should give due course to this petition in the first instance, hereby failing to fulfill the conditions set forth in Heirs of Bertuldo Hinog v. Melicor. The present petition should have been initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 are: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board, or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law: The Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not fall within the ambit of a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. He was exercising quasi-legislative functions; there was no adjudication of rights: It is beyond the province of certiorari to declare the aforesaid administrative issuances unconstitutional and illegal becausecertiorari is confined only to the determination of the existence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.  AUTHORITY OF DAR SEC: Section 5(c) of executive order 129-A authorized the DAR to establish and promulgate operational policies, rules and regulations and priorities for agrarian reform implementation.  Section 4(k) thereof authorized the DAR to approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses.  Similarly, Section 5(l) of the same executive order has given the DAR the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law.  Section 7 of the aforesaid executive order clearly provides that “the authority and responsibility for the exercise of the mandate of the [DAR] and the discharge of its powers and functions shall be vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform: DAR AO As amended, merely refers to the category of agricultural lands that may be the subject for conversion to non-agricultural uses and is not in any way confined to agricultural lands in the context of land redistribution as provided for under Republic Act No. 6657Doj Opiniion – recognizes that DAR has been given the authority to approve land conversion: The authority of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to include “lands not reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988” in the definition of agricultural lands finds basis in jurisprudence.  In Ros v. Department of Agrarian Reform, this Court has enunciated that after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR.  However, agricultural lands, which

are already reclassified before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 which is 15 June 1988, are exempted from conversion: Alarcon v. Court of Appeals ruled that reclassification of lands does not suffice.  Conversion and reclassification differ from each other.  Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for land use conversion.  In view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use.  He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes: Effectivity of RA 6657 is the cut off period for automatic classification: Roxas & Company, Inc. v. DAMBA-NFSW and the Department of Agrarian Reform, reclassification of lands denotes their allocation into some specific use and providing for the manner of their utilization and disposition or the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan.  For reclassified agricultural lands, therefore, to be used for the purpose to which they are intended there is still a need to change the current use thereof through the process of conversion.  The authority to do so is vested in the DAR, which is mandated to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity.  Thus, notwithstanding the reclassification of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, they must still undergo conversion before they can be used for other purposes. : Republic v. Estonilo, only a positive act of the President is needed to segregate or reserve a piece of land of the public domain for a public purpose.  As such, reservation of public agricultural lands for public use or purpose in effect converted the same to such use without undergoing any conversion process and that they must be actually, directly and exclusively used for such public purpose for which they have been reserved, otherwise, they will be segregated from the reservations and transferred to the DAR for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the CARP: power of the LGUs to reclassify agricultural lands is not absolute.  The authority of the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural lands covered by Republic Act No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses has been validly recognized by said Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 by explicitly providing therein that, “nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any manner the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657: DAR AO does not also violate the due process clause, as well as the equal protection clause of the Constitution.  In providing administrative and criminal penalties in the said administrative order, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform simply implements the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Prohibited acts and omissions) and Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8435 (Penalty for agricultural inactivity and Premature conversion): The issuance of said Memorandum No. 88 was made pursuant to the general welfare of the public, thus, it cannot be argued that it was made without any basis, therefore it is constitutional. 

 Fortich vs. Corona (G.R. No. 131457)

Facts:- This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners.

- In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI) for a period of ten (10) years. The lease expired in April, 1994.

- During the existence of the lease, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38 million.

- NQSRMDC sought and was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction which ordered the DAR Region X Director, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank), and their authorized representatives "to desist from pursuing any activity or activities" concerning the subject land "until further orders."

- Despite the DARAB order of March 31, 1992, the DAR Regional Director issued a memorandum directing the Land Bank to open a trust account for P2.38 million in the name of NQSRMDC and to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation of the subject property. NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed an Omnibus Motion to enforce the DARAB order of March 31, 1992 and to nullify the summary proceedings undertaken by the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank on the valuation of the subject property.

- DARAB acted favorably on the Omnibus Motion. Land Bank complied with the DARAB.

- In the meantime, the Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6, 8 dated January 7, 1993, designating certain areas along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the subject property is situated.

- Pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao, Bukidnon, on March 4, 1993, enacted Ordinance No. 24 converting or re-classifying 144 hectares of land in Bgy. San Vicente, said Municipality, from agricultural to industrial/institutional with a view of providing an opportunity to attract investors who can inject new economic vitality, provide more jobs and raise the income of its people.

- Under said section, 4th to 5th class municipalities may authorize the classification of five percent (5%) of their agricultural land area and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition.

- On 11 December 1993, the instant application for conversion was filed by Mr. Gaudencio Beduya in behalf of NQSRMDC/BAIDA (Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Association). This was favorably recommended by a lot government officials. The people of the affected barangay even rallied behind their respective officials in endorsing the project.

- Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable recommendation, however, on November 14, 1994, the DAR, thru Secretary Garilao, invoking its powers to approve conversion of lands under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued an Order denying the instant application for the conversion of the subject land from agricultural to agro-industrial and, instead, placed the same under the compulsory coverage of CARP and directed the distribution thereof to all qualified beneficiaries.

- Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was filed by applicant but the same was denied. Thus, the DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director "to proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of the property."

- Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon appealed" the order of denial to the Office of the President and prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land as the same would be more beneficial to the people of Bukidnon.

- NQSRMDC filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, prohibition with preliminary injunction.

- Meanwhile, on July 25, 1995, the Honorable Paul G. Dominguez, then Presidential Assistant for Mindanao, after conducting an evaluation of the proposed project, sent a memorandum to the President favorably endorsing the project with a recommendation that the DAR Secretary reconsider his decision in denying the application of the province for the conversion of the land.

- On October 23, 1995, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution ordering the parties to observe status quo pending resolution of the petition.

- In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the DAR Secretary's decision. It stated that: deciding in favor of NQSRMDC, the DARAB correctly pointed out that under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6657, the subject property could not validly be the subject of compulsory acquisition until after the expiration of the lease contract with Del Monte Philippines, a Multi-National Company, or until April 1994. xxx the language of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, supra, is clear and affords no room for any other interpretation. By unequivocal legal mandate, it grants local government units autonomy in their local affairs including the power to convert portions of their agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization and disposition to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities.

- On September 11, 1996, in compliance with the OP decision of March 29, 1996, NQSRMDC and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) executed a Memorandum of Agreement whereby the former donated four (4) hectares from the subject land to DECS for the establishment of the NQSR High School.

- When NQSRMDC was about to transfer the title over the 4-hectare donated to DECS, it discovered that the title over the subject property was no longer in its name. It soon found out that during the pendency of both the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, with Preliminary Injunction it filed against DAR in the Court of Appeals and the appeal to the President filed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, the DAR, without giving just compensation, caused the cancellation of NQSRMDC's title on August 11, 1995 and had it transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. On September 25, 1995, DAR caused the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00240227 and had it registered in the name of 137 farmer-beneficiaries.

- On April 10, 1997, NQSRMDC filed a complaint 21 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for annulment and cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR and 141 others. RTC then issued a Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction restraining the DAR and 141 others from entering, occupying and/or wresting from NQSRMDC the possession of the subject land.

- On August 12, 1997, the said writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC was challenged by some alleged farmers before the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari and prohibition praying for the lifting of the injunction and for the issuance of a writ of prohibition from further trying the RTC case.

- On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon City to protest the OP Decision of March 29, 1996.

- On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers' protest by issuing the so-called "Win/Win" Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona which modified the decision of the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, dated March 29, 1996:

NQSRMDC's application for conversion is APPROVED only with respect to the approximately forty-four (44) hectare portion of the land adjacent to the highway.

remaining approximately one hundred (100) hectares traversed by an irrigation canal and found to be suitable for agriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries in accordance with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law with a right of way to said portion from the highway provided in the portion fronting the highway.

- A copy of the "Win-Win" Resolution was received by Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon, Mayor Rey B. Baula of Sumilao, Bukidnon, and NQSRMDC on November 24, 1997 and, on December 4, 1997, they filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction against then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao.

- Respondents, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition and prayed that it be dismissed outright.

[long discussion on rules of procedure]

Issues:

1. Whether or not the power of the local government units to reclassify lands is subject to the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).

2. Whether the final and executory Decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the "Win-Win" Resolution was ruled upon by the SC in the negative.

Held:

1 st issue : (as was stated in the OP Decision) Local Government Units need not obtain the approval of the DAR to convert or reclassify lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use. It should be stressed that when the March 29, 1996 OP Decision was declared final and executory, vested rights were acquired by the herein petitioners, namely, the province of Bukidnon, the municipality of Sumilao, Bukidnon, and the NQSR Management and Development Corporations, and all others who should be benefited by the said decision. The issue here is not a question of technicality but that of substance and merit. Whether the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao has the legal authority to reclassify the land into industrial/institutional use, the March 29, 1996 OP Decision has thoroughly and properly disposed the issue. Converting the land in question from agricultural to agro-industrial would open great opportunities for employment and bring about real development in the area towards a sustained economic growth of the municipality.

Procedural lapses in the manner of identifying/reclassifying the subject property for agro-industrial purposes cannot be allowed to defeat the very purpose of the law granting autonomy to local government units in the management of their

local affairs. Stated more simply, the language of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 is clear and affords no room for any other interpretation. By unequivocal legal mandate, it grants local governments units autonomy in their local affairs including the power to convert portions of their agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization and disposition to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities.

2 nd issue : When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution.

The assailed "Win-Win" Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void.