THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.139592.October5,2000.]
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESrep.bytheDEPARTMENT
OFAGRARIANREFORM,petitioner,vs.HON.COURTOF
APPEALSandGREENCITYESTATE&DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,respondents.
TheExecutiveDirector,Litigation,LAOforDepartmentofAgrarianReform.
FroilanM.Bacungan&Associatesforprivaterespondent.
SYNOPSIS
Thefiveparcelsoflandinissuehaveacombinedareaofapproximately112.0577
hectaressituatedinBgy.Punta,MunicipalityofJalaJala,ProvinceofRizal.The
Taxdeclarationclassifiedthepropertiesasagricultural.WhenpetitionerDAR
subjectedthelandstocompulsoryacquisitionpursuanttotheCARL,private
respondentappliedforexemptiontherein.Thesamewasdenied,andonappeal,
theCourtofAppealscreatedacommissiontoconductocularinspectionand
surveytheland.Later,basedonthereportsubmittedbythecommission,the
CourtofAppealsreversedtheOrderoftheDARandexemptedthelandsfrom
CARL.
TheCourtaffirmedthedecisionoftheappellatecourt.Thecommissionwas
createdwithoutobjectionfromthepartiesandbasedontheirreport,itwasfound
thatthelandusemapsubmittedbyprivaterespondentwasanappropriate
documentconsistentwiththeexistinglanduse.Itwasconfirmedthatthelandsare
notwhollyagriculturalastheyconsistofmountainousareawithanaverageof28
degreeslopecontaining66.5hectaresalevel,unirrigatedareaof34hectaresof
which5to6hectaresareplantedtopalayandaresidentialareaof8hectares.
TheCARLhasfurtherprovidedthatalllandswith18%slopeandoverexcept
thosealreadydevelopedshallbeexemptfromthecoverageofCARL.
SYLLABUS
1.
LABORANDSOCIALLEGISLATIONCOMPREHENSIVEAGRARIAN
REFORMLAWTAXDECLARATIONSNOTCONCLUSIVEBASISOFLAND
CLASSIFICATION.RepublicActNo.6657otherwiseknownasthe
ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw(CARL)OF1998coversallpublicand

privateagriculturallands.Thesamelawdefinesagriculturalas"landdevotedto
agriculturalactivityasdefinedinthisActandnotclassifiedasmineral,forest,
residential,commercialorindustrialland.Thereisnolaworjurisprudencethat
holdsthatthelandclassificationembodiedinthetaxdeclarationsisconclusive
andfinalnorwouldproscribeanyfurtherinquiry.Furthermore,thetaxdeclarations
areclearlynotthesolebasisoftheclassificationofaland.Infact,DAR
AdministrativeOrderNo.6listsotherdocuments,asidefromtaxdeclarations,that
mustbesubmittedwhenapplyingforexemptionfromCARP.InHalilivs.Courtof
Appeals,wesustainedthetrialcourtwhenitruledthattheclassificationmadeby
theLandRegulatoryBoardofthelandinquestionoutweighedtheclassification
statedinthetaxdeclaration.TheclassificationoftheBoardinsaidcasewasmore
recentthanthatofthetaxdeclarationandwasbasedonthepresentconditionof
thepropertyandthecommunitythereat.
2.
ID.ID.UNDEVELOPEDLANDSWITH18%SLOPEANDOVER,
EXEMPTED.Thecommissioner'sreportontheactualconditionofthe
propertiesconfirmsthefactthatthepropertiesarenotwhollyagricultural.In
essence,thereportofthecommissionshowedthatthelandofprivaterespondent
consistsofamountainousareawithanaverage28degreeslopecontaining66.5
hectaresalevel,unirrigatedareaof34hectaresofwhich5to6hectaresare
plantedtopalayandaresidentialareaof8hectares...Section10oftheCARLis
clearonthispointwhenitprovidesthat"alllandswitheighteenpercent(18%)
slopeandover,exceptthosealreadydevelopeddealbeexemptfromthe
coverageofthisAct."
ACa DTH

3.
REMEDIALLAWEVIDENCECREDIBILITYOFWITNESSESCOURT
APPOINTEDCOMMISSIONERSUPHELDINTHEABSENCEOFWORK
IRREGULARITY.Theteamofcommissionersappointedbyrespondentcourt
wascomposedofpersonswhoweremutuallyacceptabletotheparties.Thus,in
theabsenceofanyirregularityinthesurveyandinspectionofthesubject
properties,andnoneisalleged,thereportofthecommissionersdeservesfullfaith
andcreditandwefindnoreversibleerrorinthereliancebytheappellatecourt
uponsaidreport.

DECISION

GONZAGAREYES,J :
p

ThisisapetitionforreviewbycertiorarioftheDecision1oftheCourtofAppeals
datedDecember9,1998thatreversedtheOrderofpetitioner,theDepartmentof
AgrarianReform(petitionerDAR),byexemptingtheparcelsoflandofprivate
respondentGreenCityEstateandDevelopmentCorporation(privaterespondent)
fromagrarianreform.AlsoassailedinthisinstantpetitionistheResolutiondated
May11,1998issuedbythesamecourtthatdeniedtheMotionforReconsideration
ofpetitionerDAR.

Thefiveparcelsoflandinissuehasacombinedareaofapproximately112.0577
hectaressituatedatBarangayPunta,MunicipalityofJalaJala,ProvinceofRizal,
coveredbyTransferCertificatesofTitleNos.M45856,M45857,M45858,M
45859andM45860oftheRegisterofDeedsofRizal.Privaterespondent
acquiredthelandbypurchaseonMay26,1994fromMarcelaBorjavda.De
Torres.Thetaxdeclarationsclassifiedthepropertiesasagricultural.
CDAHIT

OnJune16,1994,petitionerDARissuedaNoticeofCoverageofthesubject
parcelsoflandundercompulsoryacquisitionpursuanttoSection7,ChapterIIof
R.A.6657ortheComprehensiveLandReformLawof1998(CARL).
OnJuly21,1994,privaterespondentfiledwiththeDARRegionalOfficean
applicationforexemptionofthelandfromagrarianreform,pursuanttoDAR
AdministrativeOrderNo.6,seriesof19942andDOJOpinionNo.44,seriesof
1990.AdministrativeOrderNo.6providestheguidelinesforexemptionfromthe
ComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram(CARP)coveragewhileDOJOpinion
No.44,Seriesof1990,authorizestheDARtoapproveconversionofagricultural
landscoveredbyRA6651tononagriculturaluseseffectiveJune15,1988.
Insupportofitsapplicationforexemption,privaterespondentsubmittedthe
followingdocuments:
1.

Certifiedphotocopiesofthetitlesandtaxdeclarations.

2.

Vicinityandlocationplans.

3.

CertificationoftheMunicipalPlanningandDevelopment

CoordinatoroftheOfficeoftheMayorofJalaJala.
4.

ResolutionNo.R36,seriesof1981oftheHLURB.

5.

CertificationfromtheNationalIrrigationAdministration.

OnOctober12,1994,theDARRegionalDirectorrecommendedadenialofthe
saidpetition,onthegroundthatprivaterespondent"failedtosubstantiatetheir
(sic)allegationthatthepropertiesareindeedinthemunicipality'sresidentialand
forestconservationzoneandthatportionsofthepropertiesarenotirrigatednor
irrigable".
OnFebruary15,1995,privaterespondentfiledanAmendedPetitionfor
Exemption/ExclusionfromCARPcoverage.Thistime,privaterespondentalleged
thatthepropertyshouldbeexemptedsinceitiswithintheresidentialandforest
conservationzonesofthetownplan/zoningordinanceofJalaJala.Theamended
petitionforexemptionshowedthataportionofabout15hectaresofthelandis
irrigatedricelandwhichprivaterespondentofferedtoselltothefarmer
beneficiariesortotheDAR.Insupportofitsamendedpetition,privaterespondent
submittedthefollowingadditionaldocuments:
1.

CertificationletterfromtheHLURBthatthespecific

propertiesarewithintheresidentialandforestconservation
zone.

2.

CertificationfromtheHLURBthatthetownplan/zoning

ordinanceofJalaJalawasapprovedonDecember2,1981
bytheHumanSettlementsCommission.
3.

Undertakingthatthelandownerisreadyandwillingtopay

disturbancecompensationtothetenantsforsuchamount
asmaybeagreeduponordirectedbytheDAR.
4.

Vicinityplan.

5.

Amendedsurveyplanwhichindicatestheirrigatedriceland

thatisnowexcludedfromtheapplication.
6.

CertificationoftheJalaJalaMunicipalPlanningand

DevelopmentCoordinatortotheeffectthattheproperties
coveredarewithintheresidentialandforestconservation
areaspursuanttothezoningordinanceofJalaJala.
IASCTD

OnOctober19,1995,theDARSecretaryissuedanOrderdenyingtheapplication
forexemptionofprivaterespondent,onthegroundsthatthelanduseplanofJala
Jala,whichdiffersfromitslandusemap,intendstodevelop73%ofBarangay
PuntaintoanagriculturalzonethatthecertificationissuedbytheHousingand
LandUseRegulatoryBoard(HLURB)isnotdefiniteandspecificandthatthe
certificationissuedbytheNationalIrrigationAuthority(NIA)thattheareaisnot
irrigatednorprogrammedforirrigation,isnotconclusiveontheDAR,sincebig
areasinthemunicipalityarerecipientsofJICAfundedIntegratedJalaJalaRural
DevelopmentProjects.Themotionforreconsiderationfiledbyprivaterespondent
waslikewisedeniedbytheDARSecretary.
PrivaterespondentthenappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.Duringthecourseof
theappeal,saidcourtcreatedacommissioncomposedofthree(3)members
taskedtoconductanocularinspectionandsurveyofthesubjectparcelsofland
andtosubmitareportontheresultofsuchinspectionandsurvey.Toverifythe
reportofthecommission,theDARconstituteditsownteamtoinspectandreport
onthepropertyinquestion.TheverificationreportoftheDAR,dulyfiledwiththe
CourtofAppeals,objectedtothereportofthecommissionmainlyduetothelack
ofspecificboundariesdelineatingthesurveyedareas.
OnDecember9,1998,theCourtofAppealsissueditsDecisionthatreversedthe
assailedDARorders,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
"WHEREFORE,theOrdersoftherespondentSecretarydated
October19,1995andNovember15,1995areherebyREVERSED,
andjudgmentisherebyrendereddeclaringthoseportionsofthe
landofthepetitionerwhicharemountainousandresidential,as
foundbytheCourts(sic)commissioners,tobeexemptfromthe
ComprehensiveAgrarianReformProgram,subjecttotheir
delineation.Therecordsofthiscaseareherebyordered
remandedtotherespondentSecretaryforfurtherproceedingsin
thedeterminationoftheboundariesofthesaidareas."3

HencethispetitionforreviewwhereinpetitionerDARseeksthereversalofthe
foregoingdecisiononthegroundthatthehonorableCourtofAppealserred:
1.

WHENITRULEDTHATTHEREWASNODEFINITE

CLASSIFICATIONOFTHEPROPERTIESINVOLVED
WHEN,PERTHECORRESPONDINGTAX
DECLARATIONS,THEYAREGENERALLYCLASSIFIEDAS
AGRICULTURAL.
2.

WHENITRULEDTHATTHEPHYSICALFEATURESOF

THELANDASOF1980ORBEFOREASAPPEARINGIN
TABLE33OFTHEZONINGORDINANCEISTHE
PRESENTCLASSIFICATIONOFTHELANDHOLDINGS
INVOLVEDand
3.

WHENITMADEARULINGONHOWSUBJECT

LANDHOLDINGBECLASSIFIED(WHETHERCOVERED
BYAGRARIANREFORMFORBEINGAGRICULTURAL
LANDORNOT)ANDDISPOSEDOFSOLELYONTHE
BASISOFTHEPHYSICALCONDITIONOFTHELAND
IRRESPECTIVEOFTHELEGALISSUERAISEDONTHEIR
LEGALCLASSIFICATION,AFUNCTIONTHATISVESTED
INCONGRESS.4

Thepetitionhasnomerit.
RepublicActNo.6657otherwiseknownastheComprehensiveAgrarianReform
Law(CARL)of1998coversallpublicandprivateagriculturallands.Thesamelaw
definesagriculturalas"landdevotedtoagriculturalactivityasdefinedinthisAct
andnotclassifiedasmineral,forest,residential,commercialorindustrialland".5
PrivaterespondentsoughtexemptionfromthecoverageofCARLontheground
thatitsfiveparcelsoflandarenotwhollyagricultural.Thelandusemapofthe
municipality,certifiedbytheOfficeoftheMunicipalPlanningandDevelopment
Coordinator(MPDC)ofJalaJalaandthereportofthecommissionconstitutedby
theCourtofAppealsestablishedthatthepropertiesliemostlywithintheresidential
andforestconservationzone.
PetitionerDARmaintainsthatthesubjectpropertieshavealreadybeenclassified
asagriculturalbasedonthetaxdeclarations.6TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral
(OSG)andpetitionerDARareoneincontendingthattheclassificationoflands
oncedeterminedbylawmaynotbevariedoralteredbytheresultsofamere
ocularoraerialinspection.7
Weareunabletosustainpetitioner'scontention.Thereisnolaworjurisprudence
thatholdsthatthelandclassificationembodiedinthetaxdeclarationsis
conclusiveandfinalnorwouldproscribeanyfurtherinquiry.Furthermore,thetax
declarationsareclearlynotthesolebasisoftheclassificationofaland.Infact,

DARAdministrativeOrderNo.6listsotherdocuments,asidefromtax
declarations,thatmustbesubmittedwhenapplyingforexemptionfromCARP.8In
Halilivs.CourtofAppeals,9wesustainedthetrialcourtwhenitruledthatthe
classificationmadebytheLandRegulatoryBoardofthelandinquestion
outweighedtheclassificationstatedinthetaxdeclaration.Theclassificationofthe
Boardinsaidcasewasmorerecentthanthatofthetaxdeclarationandwas
basedonthepresentconditionofthepropertyandthecommunitythereat.10
Inthiscase,theCourtofAppealswasconstrainedtoresorttoanocular
inspectionofsaidpropertiesthroughthecommissionitcreatedconsideringthat
theopinionofpetitionerDARconflictedwiththelandusemapsubmittedin
evidencebyprivaterespondent.Respondentcourtalsonotedthatevenfromthe
beginningthepropertiesofprivaterespondenthadnodefinitedelineationand
classification.11Hence,thesurveyofthepropertiesthroughthecourtappointed
commissionerswasthejudiciousandequitablesolutiontofinallyresolvetheissue
oflandclassificationanddelineation.
EIAa DC

TheOSGstressesthattobeexemptfromCARPunderDOJOpinionNo.44,the
landmusthavebeenclassifiedasindustrial/residentialbeforeJune15,1988.12
Basedonthispremise,theOSGpointsoutthatnosuchclassificationwas
presentedexceptthemunicipality'sallegedlandusemapin1980showingthat
subjectparcelsoflandfallwithinthemunicipality'sforestconservationzone.13
TheOSGfurtherarguesthatassumingthatachangeintheuseofthesubject
propertiesin1980mayjustifytheirexemptionfromCARPunderDOJOpinionNo.
44,suchlanduseof1980was,nevertheless,repealed/amendedwhenthe
HLURBapprovedthemunicipality'sComprehensiveDevelopmentPlanfor
BarangayPuntafortheyears1980to2000initsResolutionNo.33,seriesof
1981.14TheplanforBarangayPunta,wheretheparcelsoflandinissueare
located,allegedlyenvisionthedevelopmentofthebarangayintoaprogressive
agriculturalcommunitywiththelimitedallocationofonly51hectaresforresidential
useandnoneforcommercialandforestconservationzoneuse.15
Theforegoingargumentsareuntenable.Weareinfullagreementwithrespondent
Courtwhenitrationalizedthatthelandusemapisthemoreappropriatedocument
toconsider,thus:
"Thepetitioner(hereinprivaterespondent)presenteda
developmentplanoftheMunicipalityofJalaJala,whichwas
approvedbytheHousingandLandUseRegulatoryBoard
(HLURB)onDecember2,1981.Italsopresentedcertifications
fromtheHLURBandtheMunicipalPlanningandDevelopment
CoordinatorofJalaJalathatthesubjectpropertiesfallwithinthe
ResidentialandForestConservationzonesofthemunicipality.
ExtantontherecordisacolorcodedlandusemapofJalaJala,
showingthatthepetitioner'slandfallsmostlywithintheResidential
andForestConservationzones.Thisnotwithstanding,the
respondentSecretaryofAgrarianReformdeniedthepetitioner's

applicationonthegroundthatthetownplanofthemunicipality,
particularlyTable44thereof,showsthatBarangayPuntais
intendedtoremainandtobecomeaprogressiveagricultural
communityinviewoftheabundanceoffertileagriculturalareasin
thebarangay,andthatthereisadiscrepancybetweentheland
usemapwhichidentifiesahugeforestconservationzoneandthe
landuseplanwhichhasnoareaclassifiedasforestconservation.
However,acloserlookatthedevelopmentplanforthemunicipality
ofJalaJalashowsthatTable44doesnotrepresentthepresent
classificationoflandinthatmunicipality,buttheproposedlanduse
tobeachieved.Theexistinglanduseasof1980isshownbyTable
33,whereinBarangayPuntaisshowntohaveaforestareaof35
hectaresandopengrassland(whichwasformerlyforestedarea)of
56hectares.Thelandusemapisconsistentwiththis."16

Moreover,thecommissioner'sreportontheactualconditionoftheproperties
confirmsthefactthatthepropertiesarenotwhollyagricultural.Inessence,the
reportofthecommissionshowedthatthelandofprivaterespondentconsistsofa
mountainousareawithanaverage28degreeslopecontaining66.5hectaresa
level,unirrigatedareaof34hectaresofwhich5to6hectaresareplantedtopalay
andaresidentialareaof8hectares.17Thefindingthat66.5hectaresofthe
112.0577hectaresoflandofprivaterespondenthaveanaverageslopeof28
degreesprovidesanothercogentreasontoexempttheseportionsofthe
propertiesfromtheCARL.Section10oftheCARLisclearonthispointwhenit
providesthat"alllandswitheighteenpercent(18%)slopeandover,exceptthose
alreadydevelopedshallbeexemptfromthecoverageofthisAct."
PetitionerDARandtheOSGcontestthefindingoftheCourtofAppealsthatthe
subjectparcelsoflandhaveamountainousslopeonthegroundthatthis
conclusionwasallegedlyarrivedatinamannernotinaccordwithestablished
surveyingprocedures.18TheyalsobewailtheconsiderationgivenbytheCourtof
Appealstothe"slope"issuesincethismatterwasallegedlyneverraisedbefore
theDARandtheCourtofAppeals.19PetitionerDARandtheOSGthusclaimthat
lacheshadalreadysetin.20
Aspointedoutearlier,thecruxofthecontroversyiswhetherthesubjectparcels
oflandinissueareexemptfromthecoverageoftheCARL.Thedeterminationof
theclassificationandphysicalconditionofthelandsisthereforematerialinthe
dispositionofthiscase,forwhichpurposetheCourtofAppealsconstitutedthe
commissiontoinspectandsurveysaidproperties.PetitionerDARdidnotobjectto
thecreationofateamofcommissioners21whenitverywellknewthatthesurvey
andocularinspectionwouldeventuallyinvolvethedeterminationoftheslopeof
thesubjectparcelsofland.Itistheprotestationofpetitionerthatcomesata
belatedhour.Theteamofcommissionersappointedbyrespondentcourtwas
composedpersonswhoweremutuallyacceptabletotheparties.22Thus,inthe
absenceofanyirregularityinthesurveyandinspectionofthesubjectproperties,

andnoneisalleged,thereportofthecommissionersdeservesfullfaithandcredit
andwefindnoreversibleerrorinthereliancebytheappellatecourtuponsaid
report.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDENIED.ThechallengedDecisionis
AFFIRMED.
AECc TS

SOORDERED.
Melo,Vitug,PanganibanandPurisima,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1.

PerAssociateJusticeHectorL.HofileaandconcurredinbyAssociate
JusticesJainalD.RasulandHilarionL.Aquino(FormerFourteenth
Division).

2.

"A.

Anylandownerorhisdulyauthorizedrepresentativewhose

landsarecoveredbyDOJOpinionNo.44,s.1990,anddesirestohavean
exemptionclearancefromDAR,shouldfiletheapplicationwiththe
RegionalOfficeoftheDARwherethelandislocated.
B.

Theapplicationshouldbedulysignedbythelandownerorhis

representative,andshouldbeaccompaniedbythefollowingdocuments:

1.

DulynotarizedSpecialPowerofAttorney,iftheapplicantisnot

thelandownerhimself

2.

Certifiedtruecopiesofthetitleswhichisthesubjectofthe

application

3.

Currenttaxdeclaration(s)coveringtheproperty

4.

LocationMaporVicinityMap

5.

CertificationfromtheDeputizedZoningAdministratorthatthe

landhasbeenreclassifiedtoresidential,industrialorcommercialuseprior
toJune15,1998

6.

CertificationfromtheHLURBthatthepertinentzoning

ordinancehasbeenapprovedbytheBoardpriortoJune15,1988

7.

CertificationfromtheNationalIrrigationAdministrationthatthe

landisnotcoveredbyAdministrativeOrderNo.20s.1992,i.e.,thatthe
areaisnotirrigated,notscheduledforirrigationrehabilitationnorirrigable
withfirmfundingcommitment

8.

Proofofpaymentofdisturbancecompensation,iftheareais

presentlybeingoccupiedbyfarmers,orwaiver/undertakingbythe
occupantsthattheywillvacatetheareawheneverrequired."
3.

Rollo,p.36.

4.

Ibid.,p.12.

5.

3(c).

6.

Rollo,p.13.

7.

Ibid.,pp.180181.

8.

Seenote2.

9.

287SCRA465(1998).

10.

Ibid.,p.471.

11.

Rollo,p.35.

12.

Ibid.,p.181.

13.

Ibid.

14.

Ibid.,pp.181182.

15.

Ibid.,p.182.

16.

Ibid.,p.33.

17.

Ibid.p.35.

18.

Ibid.,p.182.

19.

Ibid.

20.

Ibid.

21.

Records,p.124.

22.

TheteamofcommissionerswasoriginallycomposedofAtty.
DiosdadoSaavedra,arepresentativeoftheCourtofAppeals,Geodetic
EngineerNicandroA.MartinezandGeodeticEngineerBraulioDarum.
EngineerDarumwithdrewascommissioneratthelastminute,henceAtty.
SaavedraandEngineerDarumcomposedtheteamofcommissionerswho
surveyedthepropertiesinissuetogetherwithMr.CarloClaudio,a
professionalphotographerwhotooktheaerialandgroundpicturesofsaid
properties.