TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that for land to be exempt from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), its reclassification from agricultural to residential, commercial, or industrial use must have been officially approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or its predecessors before June 15, 1988, the date CARP took effect. The Marcelo family’s land in Nueva Ecija remains under CARP because they failed to prove valid reclassification before this critical date. This means farmers identified as beneficiaries can proceed with land ownership acquisition under agrarian reform, as the Court prioritized CARP coverage over the landowners’ claim of prior land conversion. Landowners seeking CARP exemption bear the burden of proof and must present clear, official documentation of pre-1988 reclassification.

Seeds of Change or Concrete Plans? Proving Land Use Before Agrarian Reform

Can land intended for residential development decades ago be shielded from agrarian reform today? This is the central question in the case of Marcelo vs. Samahang Magsasaka ng Barangay San Mariano. Petitioners, the Marcelo family, sought to exempt their Nueva Ecija land from CARP coverage, arguing it was already classified as residential before June 15, 1988. They presented certifications, resolutions, and licenses to sell, aiming to prove their land’s non-agricultural status predating the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law’s (CARL) effectivity. The respondent, Samahang Magsasaka, representing farmer beneficiaries, contended that the reclassification was not valid or predated CARP, thus the land should be distributed under agrarian reform. The legal battle hinged on whether the Marcelos could sufficiently demonstrate that their land had been officially and validly reclassified for non-agricultural purposes before the CARP law took hold.

The Supreme Court emphasized that CARP coverage is the general rule, and exemption is the exception. Therefore, the burden of proof lies squarely with the applicant seeking exemption. The Court reiterated the two critical conditions for CARP exemption based on land reclassification: first, the land must be classified as residential, commercial, or industrial in town plans and zoning ordinances; and second, these plans and ordinances must be approved by the HLURB (or its predecessors) before June 15, 1988. This legal framework is derived from Republic Act No. 6657, Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Orders, and established jurisprudence like Natalia Realty v. Department of Agrarian Reform, which affirmed that lands validly converted to non-agricultural uses before CARP are exempt.

Examining the evidence presented by the Marcelos, the Court found it wanting. Crucially, the Certificate of Registration and License to Sell from the National Housing Authority (NHA) pertained to different properties, not the land under CARP coverage. While the Marcelos argued these were distinct sets of lots, they failed to provide a subdivision plan linking the NHA documents to the subject land. This discrepancy significantly weakened their claim. Further, Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2006-004, which purportedly ratified the residential classification, was issued in 2006 – long after the 1988 cut-off. The Court clarified that a valid exemption requires reclassification prior to CARP’s effectivity, not subsequent ratification. Moreover, this resolution was deemed property-specific and not a comprehensive zoning ordinance approved by HLURB before 1988.

The HLURB certifications submitted by the Marcelos also failed to meet the stringent pre-1988 requirement. These certifications merely confirmed the NHA registration and license to sell, which, as established, related to different properties. The Court underscored that what is required is HLURB approval of a town plan and zoning ordinance classifying the land, and this approval must predate June 15, 1988. The certifications provided by the Marcelos did not demonstrate this crucial pre-CARP approval. Even the DARAB decision cited by the Office of the President (OP), which initially favored the Marcelos, was deemed insufficient. The DARAB’s finding of residential classification relied on tax declarations and the misplaced NHA documents, neither of which conclusively proves pre-1988 HLURB-approved reclassification.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals and reinstated the DAR Secretary’s order denying the exemption. The Court concluded that the Marcelos did not sufficiently prove that their land was officially reclassified as residential by an authorized government agency and approved by HLURB (or its predecessors) before June 15, 1988. Failing to meet this burden of proof, the land remained classified as agricultural and thus subject to CARP coverage. This ruling reinforces the principle that CARP exemptions based on land reclassification are strictly construed and require concrete, official evidence of pre-1988 approvals. Landowners must provide definitive documentation of valid reclassification predating CARP to successfully claim exemption; otherwise, agrarian reform will prevail.

FAQs

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: Marcelo vs. Samahang Magsasaka, G.R. No. 205618, September 16, 2019