Land Reclassification as Municipal Park Prevails Over CARP Coverage

The Supreme Court has ruled that a parcel of land in Cabuyao, Laguna, reclassified as a municipal park through a zoning ordinance approved before the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law took effect, is not covered by the government's agrarian reform program. The ruling in Heirs of Pacifico Gonzales v. De Leon (G.R. No. 210428, December 7, 2016) clarifies when prior land classification prevails over subsequent CARP coverage notices.

The Dispute

The case involves 49.8 hectares in Sitio Guinting, Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna, registered under four Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of Pacifico Gonzales. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Notices of Coverage under Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) in 1995 and 2000.

The landowners sought exemption, presenting several pieces of evidence: a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Inspection Report showing the land had more than 18% slope, was not irrigated, 70% uncultivated, and not planted to rice and corn; a certification from the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator that the property was zoned as a municipal park under Municipal Ordinance No. 110-54, Series of 1979, approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on June 25, 1980; and a National Irrigation Administration certification that the land was not irrigable.

The respondents, claiming to be tenants and farmer-beneficiaries, opposed the exemption. The DAR initially approved the exemption but later revoked it, and the Office of the President and Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation.

The Legal Standard

The Supreme Court identified two conditions that must concur for land to be considered non-agricultural and outside CARP coverage, citing Heirs of Luis A. Luna v. Afable:

1. The land has been classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as residential, commercial, or industrial; and
2. The town plan and zoning ordinance embodying the classification has been approved by the HLURB or its predecessor agency prior to June 15, 1988.

The Court found that Municipal Ordinance No. 110-54, approved by the HLURB in 1980, clearly established that the subject property was outside CARP coverage. The Court emphasized that local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 2264 (the Local Autonomy Act of 1959), and that zoning is a valid exercise of police power.

The Court's Ruling

The Court held that the land was not agricultural and therefore not covered by CARP. Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly exempts lands with 18% slope and over, and Section 3(c) defines agricultural land as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land.

The Court also noted that the DENR Inspection Report's findings remained unrefuted. The Office of the President had relied on a "more recent certification" from the DENR claiming the slope was below 18%, but this certification was never presented to the petitioners — a violation of fair procedure.

On the tenancy issue, the Court found that the respondents failed to prove any tenancy relationship. Under Quintos v. DARAB, the burden of proof rests on the one claiming to be a tenant. The respondents presented no substantial evidence that they were farmers or tillers of the property. The Court also noted that the alleged PARO report identifying 36 "potential beneficiaries" was never shown to the petitioners and was merely tentative.

Practical Takeaways

• Prior zoning matters. Land classified as non-agricultural in a zoning ordinance approved by the HLURB before June 15, 1988 is outside CARP coverage.
• Evidence must be disclosed. Government agencies cannot rely on certifications or reports never shown to the landowner; doing so violates due process.
• Tenancy must be proven. A claim of tenancy requires substantial evidence of the relationship, including the landowner's consent and actual cultivation.
• Slope and cultivation are relevant. Lands with 18% slope or more, or not actually devoted to agricultural activity, may be exempt from CARP.
• Vested rights matter. If no vested rights accrued before reclassification, the zoning ordinance controls the land's classification.

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