TL;DR

The Supreme Court denied motions for reconsideration in the Roxas & Co. case, affirming its prior decision on land conversion and agrarian reform. The Court clarified that Roxas & Co.’s pending application with the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA) is irrelevant to the CARP exemption issue. It reiterated that DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7 (Series of 2004) is an interpretative rule, not requiring publication. The ruling confirms the need for disturbance compensation to affected farmer-beneficiaries before CARP exemptions are fully granted, ensuring their rights are protected during land conversion processes. This decision reinforces the Department of Agrarian Reform’s authority and ensures compliance with agrarian reform laws while balancing the interests of landowners and farmer-beneficiaries.

From Farms to Tourism: Who Gets Notified When Land Use Changes?

This case revolves around Roxas & Co.’s attempts to exempt its landholdings from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), primarily to develop tourism projects. The central legal question is whether these lands qualify for exemption under existing laws and whether proper procedures were followed in seeking these exemptions, especially concerning the rights of farmer-beneficiaries. At the heart of the dispute are several motions for reconsideration challenging the Supreme Court’s earlier decision, which tackled issues such as the validity of land reclassification, the need for publication of DAR memoranda, and the rights of affected farmers.

Roxas & Co. argued that certain parcels of land should be exempt from CARP due to a Court of Appeals decision and Section IV (B) (10) of DAR Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1994. They also asserted that their liability to pay disturbance compensation should be limited to agricultural lessees, not all farmer-beneficiaries. Furthermore, they contended that additional certifications proved that certain properties were CARP-exempt, and the Roxas landholdings should be declared exempt due to the enactment of the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). This argument hinged on the premise that the land’s potential for tourism development should override its inclusion in the agrarian reform program.

On the other hand, DAMBA-NFSW and KAMAHARI argued that the Court erred in exempting nine lots based on the Nasugbu Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982. They claimed that Roxas & Co. failed to provide sufficient proof that the zoning ordinance specifically reclassified the lots to non-agricultural use. They also contended that Roxas & Co. failed to submit the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of Nasugbu, Batangas, proving the reclassification before the enactment of R.A. 6657. Central to their argument was the claim that the farmer-beneficiaries were not afforded procedural due process during the exemption proceedings.

The Court denied Roxas & Co.’s motion to hold in abeyance the resolution of its earlier motion, emphasizing that the pending application with TIEZA was immaterial to the CARP exemption issue. The Court reiterated that DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7 (Series of 2004) did not require publication because it was merely an administrative interpretation.

Interpretative rule x x x x is promulgated by the administrative agency to interpret, clarify or explain statutory regulations under which the administrative body operates. The purpose or objective of an interpretative rule is merely to construe the statute being administered. It purports to do no more than interpret the statute. Simply, the rules tries to say what the statute means. Generally, it refers to no single person or party in particular but concerns all those belonging to the same class which may be covered by the said interpretative rule. It need not be published and neither is a hearing required since it is issued by the administrative body as an incident of its power to enforce the law and is intended merely to clarify statutory provisions for proper observance by the people.

The Court also clarified that the DAR’s directive to pay disturbance compensation to farmer-beneficiaries before the cancellation of their CLOAs was in line with DAR Administrative Order No. 6 (Series of 1994). This ensured that the rights of affected individuals were protected during the land conversion process. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, such as providing disturbance compensation, to balance the interests of landowners and farmer-beneficiaries effectively.

Ultimately, the Court affirmed the DAR Secretary’s decision on factual controversies, giving it utmost respect and finality. It reiterated that the application for CARP-exemption is non-adversarial, thus not requiring notification to occupants of the landholding. The Court cited the ruling in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the failure to comply with due process in acquisition proceedings does not nullify CLOAs already issued to farmer-beneficiaries. This decision highlights the complexities of agrarian reform and the need for a balanced approach that respects both property rights and the rights of farmer-beneficiaries.

FAQs

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s resolution underscores the importance of adhering to procedural guidelines and protecting the rights of farmer-beneficiaries in agrarian reform cases. The decision clarifies the circumstances under which land can be exempted from CARP and reinforces the need for a balanced approach that respects both property rights and the rights of affected communities.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Roxas & Company, Inc. vs. Damba-NFSW, G.R. No. 149548, December 14, 2010