Agrarian Reform vs Tourism: Resolving Land Use Conflicts in the Philippines

The Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. DAMBA-NFSW settles a recurring question in Philippine property law: does a presidential proclamation declaring an area a "tourist zone" automatically convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural use, thereby exempting them from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)? The answer, the Court held, is no. This decision clarifies the distinction between mere recognition of tourism potential and actual land reclassification, a distinction that continues to shape disputes between landowners, farmer-beneficiaries, and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).

The Facts of the Case

Roxas & Co., Inc. owned three haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas—Palico, Banilad, and Caylaway—totaling nearly 3,000 hectares. In 1988, the company offered Hacienda Caylaway for sale to the DAR under agrarian reform laws, while the other two haciendas were placed under compulsory acquisition. Later, Roxas & Co. withdrew its offer and applied for conversion of all three properties to non-agricultural use.

The company's central argument rested on Presidential Proclamation No. 1520, issued in 1975, which declared the municipalities of Maragondon and Ternate in Cavite and Nasugbu in Batangas as a "tourist zone." Roxas & Co. claimed this proclamation automatically reclassified its agricultural lands to non-agricultural use, exempting them from CARP coverage. The DAR, however, issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to farmer-beneficiaries over portions of the haciendas, leading to seven consolidated petitions before the Court.

The Core Issue

The principal question was whether PP 1520, by declaring Nasugbu a tourist zone, automatically converted all agricultural lands within the municipality to non-agricultural use. The company also raised alternative arguments based on a municipal zoning ordinance and sought to cancel CLOAs already issued to farmer-beneficiaries.

The Court's Ruling: No Automatic Conversion

The Supreme Court rejected Roxas & Co.'s interpretation of PP 1520. Examining the proclamation's preamble, the Court noted that it identified only "certain areas" with potential tourism value and directed the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) to conduct studies and identify does not automatically convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural use. Landowners must still undergo proper reclassification and conversion proceedings.

• To claim exemption from CARP based on a municipal zoning ordinance, landowners must prove with certainty that their specific parcels fall within the reclassified area. Vague certifications and discrepancies in titles will not suffice.
• The DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine whether lands are agricultural or exempt from CARP coverage. Its findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are generally given great weight by the courts.
• CLOAs issued to farmer-beneficiaries over lands later found to be exempt are not automatically void. They may be cancelled, but only through proper administrative proceedings, and disturbance compensation must be paid first.
• Landowners seeking exemption must submit a comprehensive land use plan and clearly identify the exact locations of their properties to establish their claim.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.