CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY vs.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION

BOARD
G.R. No. 100091 [October 22, 1992]

FACTS:

Central Mindanao University (CMU) is an agricultural institution which owns 3,000 hectares
of land. In 1984, it adopted a livelihood program under which its faculty and employees (group of five
members each group) leased its land resources to enable each group to cultivate four to five hectares
of land for lowland rice projects. Later, the faculty and employees filed before the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) a complaint to declare them as tenants under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988. Acting on the said complaint, DAR found that the faculty and employees were
not tenants and cannot therefore qualify as agrarian reform beneficiaries. But DAR segregated 400
hectares of suitable, compact and contiguous portion of the CMU land and subjected it to agrarian
reform coverage for distribution to qualified beneficiaries, on the ground that it was not directly,
actually, and exclusively used for a school site.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform was correct in segregating the 400
hectares of Central Mindanao University.

HELD:

No. The DARAB found that the complainants are not share tenants or lease holders of the
CMU, yet it ordered the "segregation of a suitable compact and contiguous area of Four Hundred
hectares, more or less", from the CMU land reservation, and directed the DAR Regional Director to
implement its order of segregation. Having found that the complainants in this agrarian dispute for
Declaration of Tenancy Status are not entitled to claim as beneficiaries of the CARP because they are
not share tenants or leaseholders, its order for the segregation of 400 hectares of the CMU land was
without legal authority.

Also, the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB is not covered by the CARP because:

1. It is not alienable and disposable land of the public domain;

2. The CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific limits as determined by Congress;

3. It is private land registered and titled in the name of its lawful owner, the CMU;

4. It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A. 6657 because the lands are actually,
directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for school site and campus, including
experimental farm stations for educational purposes, and for establishing seed and seedling research
and pilot production centers.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM vs. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS
G.R. No. 158228 [March 23, 2004]

FACTS:

Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to
respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of Education). Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the
name of respondent DECS.

Respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10 agricultural crop
years, commencing from 1984-1994. The contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10
agricultural crop years or until 2005. On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and several others, claiming to
be permanent and regular farm workers of the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante.

After investigation, MARO sent a "Notice of Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that the
subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a conference with the
farmer beneficiaries. The recommendation for coverage was approved by DAR Regional Director

Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which affirmed the
Order of the Regional Director. Respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals, which set aside the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Hence, the instant petition
for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject properties are included in the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).

HELD:

Yes. While respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground that all the
income derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually, directly
and exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs and renovations of schools in
the nearby locality, the court is inclined with the petitioner’s argument that the lands subject hereof
are not exempt from the CARP coverage because the same are not actually, directly and exclusively
used as school sites or campuses, as they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further,
to be exempt from the coverage, it is the land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be
actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.

Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are exempted from the
coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption specifying those “lands actually, directly
and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, …,
shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.”

Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be exempt from the coverage: 1)
the land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;" and 2) the
purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes."