ANINAO V. ASTURIAS
G.R. NO. 160420. July 28, 2005
FACTS:
Subject of this case are several parcels of
land with a total area of 507 hectares, more or less, which used to form part
of a larger expanse consisting of 807 hectares situated in Brgys. Baha and
Talibayog, Calatagan, Batangas, and formerly owned by Ceferino Ascue. Records
show that on various dates in 1989 and 1990, emancipation patents (EPs)
covering the disputed lands were issued to 323 agrarian reform beneficiaries
pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27
and/or Executive Order (EO) No. 228, s. of 1987, entitled “Declaring Full
Ownership to Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries Covered by [PD] No. 27.”
Sometime in 1995, the heirs of Ascue, with
the approval of the RTC handling the settlement his estate, sold to Asturias
Chemical Industries, Inc. the 807 hectares of land referred to at the outset.
Years later, Asturias, wrote a letter to
the DAR Region IV office saying that its Calatagan landholding could no longer
be considered for CARP coverage, it having “already been declared as mineral
land pursuant to a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (‘MPSA’) between the
government and Asturias”
On September 22, 1999, DAR Regional
Director (RD) Renato Herrera issued a certificate of exemption over the remaining
284.9323 hectares of land of Ascue, now owned by Asturias. The exemption order
was based on the findings of the joint LVP-DARBARC team that “only fifteen (15)
hectares, more or less, are planted with crops such as upland rice, bananas,
corn and coconut while the rest, with an area of 284.9323 hectares, are
undeveloped, slopes of more than 18%, rocky, swampy, and/or mangrove areas and
therefore not suitable for agricultural purposes.”
On October 22, 1999, the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) issued Res. No. 02 urging the
Registry of Deeds—Nasugbu, Batangas to cancel/consider null and void the land
transaction between Ascue and Asturias if proven that it was concluded in
violation of existing laws. This was followed by Res. No. 3, s. of 1999, urging
agrarian reform associations to gather and submit concrete evidence on the
alleged selling by agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) and EP holders of their
rights
ISSUE:
Propriety of the nullification of the
coverage under OLT of PD No. 27 of the tracts of land in question
RULING:
It is basic that the agrarian reform
program, be it under the aegis of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, otherwise
known as the Tenants Emancipation Decree, or Republic Act (RA) 6657, also known
as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) law, covers only
agricultural lands, meaning “lands devoted to agricultural activity as defined
in [RA 6657] and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land.” Presidential Decree No.
27, by its terms, applies to tenant-farmers of private agricultural lands
primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-crop or
lease-tenancy. On the other hand, the CARP law has, for its coverage, all
public and private agricultural lands, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced.
As may be noted, EPs were issued to
petitioners as agrarian reform beneficiaries or successors-in–interests
pursuant to the OLT program under P.D. No. 27. To come within the coverage of
the OLT, there must be showing that the land is devoted to rice or corn crops,
and there must be a system of share-crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein
when P.D. No. 27 took effect on October 21, 1972. If either requisite is
absent, exclusion from the OLT coverage lies and Eps, if issued, may be
cancelled.
In the case at bench, the more compelling
reason arguing for the propriety of the DAR’s assailed nullification action is
its determination that the property in question “had long ceased to be
agricultural and converted to mineral land even before it was placed under OLT
coverage.” For, lands classified as mineral are exempt from agrarian reform
coverage.
Comments
Post a Comment