CARP Coverage and Landowner Rights in Reclassified Areas: DAR v. Berenguer

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) aims to distribute agricultural lands to landless farmers, but not every rural property falls within its reach. In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Berenguer (G.R. No. 154094, March 9, 2010), the Supreme Court protected the rights of landowners whose properties had been reclassified as residential and industrial, and whose lands were never truly agricultural. The ruling is a reminder that CARP coverage has firm limits, and that government agencies cannot disregard those limits in the name of land reform.

The Facts of the Case

The Berenguer family owned about 58 hectares in Barangay Bibincahan, Sorsogon City, covered by several Transfer Certificates of Title. In 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued notices of coverage, placing the properties under CARP pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The family protested and applied for exclusion, arguing that their lands were not agricultural.

While the application was pending, the DAR Secretary cancelled their titles and awarded the lands to the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative, not to the workers actually tilling the property. The DAR also issued a writ of possession in favor of Baribag. The Berenguers elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in their favor. The DAR appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue

The central question was whether the Berenguer lands were subject to CARP coverage, considering that they had been classified as residential and industrial as early as 1981 by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and were located within the poblacion of Sorsogon.

The Ruling: Lands Outside CARP Coverage

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and ruled in favor of the Berenguers. The Court held that the lands were not agricultural and therefore outside the coverage of the CARL.

The Court applied the presumption established in Hilario v. Intermediate Appellate Court: a lot inside the poblacion is presumed residential, commercial, or non-agricultural unless there is clearly preponderant evidence showing it is agricultural. Since the Berenguer properties were within the poblacion of Sorsogon and part of the Central Business District, the presumption applied.

The Court also cited Natalia Realty Corporation v. DAR, which defined "agricultural land" as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission confirm that commercial, industrial, and residential lands are not covered by agrarian reform.

The Court likewise rejected the DAR's argument that the number of cattle found on the property was insufficient to prove it was devoted to livestock raising. Citing Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR, the Court noted that livestock and poultry raising were never intended to be included in agrarian reform coverage. The Court added that the low cattle count could be explained by pestilence, cattle rustling, or sale of cattle, and did not automatically mean the land was not devoted to livestock.

The DAR's Other Errors

The Court also found that the DAR committed serious procedural violations. First, the DAR designated Baribag as beneficiary without showing that the cooperative qualified under Section 22 of the CARL, which mandates a specific order of priority for beneficiaries, beginning with agricultural lessees and share tenants, then regular and seasonal farmworkers. The DAR excluded the actual workers based on mere speculation about their lack of interest.

Second, the DAR cancelled all of the Berenguers' titles without respecting their right of retention under Section 6 of the CARL, which allows landowners to retain five hectares. The Court held that this deprived the landowners of property without due process.

Third, the writ of execution issued by the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator was premature because the DAR Secretary had not yet resolved the appeal, and Baribag was not even a party to the exclusion proceedings.

Practical Takeaways

• Poblacion lands are presumed non-agricultural. A property located within a poblacion is presumed residential, commercial, or non-agricultural, and is therefore outside CARP coverage unless the DAR proves otherwise with clear and preponderant evidence.
• Prior land classification matters. If a property was classified as residential, commercial, or industrial in a land use plan or zoning ordinance approved before June 15, 1988, it is generally beyond CARP coverage.
• Livestock raising is not agrarian reform land. Lands devoted to livestock and poultry raising are not covered by CARP, per the Luz Farms ruling.
• Beneficiaries must be chosen by law. The DAR must strictly follow the order of priority in Section 22 of the CARL when designating beneficiaries. Landowners' actual workers cannot be bypassed based on speculation.
• Retention rights are protected. Even if land is covered by CARP, the landowner retains the right to keep five hectares, and the DAR cannot cancel titles without respecting this right.

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