Page 1 of 13

Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. JUAN B. AMANTE, MIGUEL YULO, C-J YULO & SONS, INC., STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT
FRANCISCO L. ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, ANDREA P. AYENDE, LETICIA P. BALAT, CORPORATION, JOSE LAMBATIN, LAUREANO LAUREL, GALICANO MAILOM,
FILOMENA B. BATINO, ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME A. BURGOS, FLORENCIA JR., REYNALDO OPENA, AGAPITO PRECILLA, DANILO SUMADSAD, ALFREDO
CANUBAS, LORETO A. CANUBAS, MAXIMO A. CANUBAS, REYNALDO SUMADSAD, JUAN CANTAL, INIGO MENDOZA, ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ,
CARINGAL, QUIRINO C. CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO A. CRUZAT, SENADOR RODRIGUEZ, VICTOR MOLINAR, DANILO CANLOBO, RESTING
GREGORIO F. CRUZAT, RUFINO C. CRUZAT, SERGIO CRUZAT, SEVERINO F. CARAAN, IGNACIO VERGARA, HANDO MERCADO, FAUSTINO MAILOM,
CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE SAGUN, SEVERINO DE SAGUN, FELICISIMO A. CONRADO BARRIENTOS, RENATO VISAYA, DANTE BATHAN, SERAPIO
GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. GONZALES, GREGORIO A. GONZALES, NATIVIDAD, HONESTO TENORIO, NESTOR MERCADO, BIENVENIDO OLFATO,
LEODEGARIO N. GONZALES, PASCUAL P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A. RENE LIRAZAN, RUDY CANLOBO, BASIOLIO MULINGTAPANG, ITO GONZALES,
GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. JUANGCO, GERVACIO A. JUANGCO, LOURDES U. RENATO RINO, TINOY MABAGA, PACIO PADILLA, JOHNNY REAMILLO,
LUNA, ANSELMO M. MANDANAS, CRISANTO MANDANAS, EMILIO M. ROLANDO CARINGAL, IGNOY VILLAMAYOR, ROMEO TANTENGCO, LODRING
MANDANAS, GREGORIO A. MANDANAS, MARIO G. MANDANAS, TEODORO CARAAN, FREDO MERCADO, TOMMY MENDOZA, RAFAEL ONTE, REY MANAIG,
MANDANAS, CONSTANCIO B. MARQUEZ, EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, ARMANDO P. DICK GASPAR, ANTONIO MALLARI, ALFREDO ANIEL, BARIT, ALBERTO
MATIENZO, DANIEL D. MATIENZO, MAXIMINO MATIENZO, PACENCIA P. MANGUE, AGATON LUCIDO, ONYONG CANTAL, BAYANI LACSON, ISKO
MATIENZO, DOROTEA L. PANGANIBAN, JUANITO T. PEREZ, MARIANITO T. CABILION, MANGUIAT, IGME OPINA, VILARETE, PEDRO BENEDICTO, HECTOR
PEREZ, SEVERO M. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PASQUIZA, BIENVENIDO F. PETATE, BICO, RUFO SANCHEZ, LARRY DE LEON, BARIVAR SAMSON and ROMEO
IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE, PABLO A. PLATON, PRECILLO V. NAVARRO, respondents.
PLATON, AQUILINO B. SUBOL, CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T.
VILLA, MARIO C. VILLA, NATIVIDAD B. VILLA, JACINTA S. ALVARADO, AMENDEDDECISION
RODOLFO ANGELES, DOMINGO A. CANUBAS, EDGARDO L. CASALME, QUIRINO
DE LEON, LEONILO M. ENRIQUEZ, CLAUDIA P. GONZALES, FELISA R. LANGUE, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
QUINTILLANO LANGUE, REYNALDO LANGUE, ROMEO S. LANGUE, MARIANITO
T. PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PASQUIZA, AQUILINO B. SUBOL, BONIFACIO VILLA, By virtue of the En Banc Resolution issued on January 13, 2004, the Court authorized the
ROGELIO AYENDE, ANTONIO B. FERNANDEZ, ZACARIAS HERRERA, REYNARIO Special First Division to suspend the Rules so as to allow it to consider and resolve the second
U. LAZO, AGAPITO MATIENZO, DIONISIO F. PETATE, LITO G. REYES, JOSE M. Motion for Reconsideration of respondents, [1] after the motion was heard on oral arguments on
SUBOL, CELESTINO G. TOPI NO, ROSA C. AMANTE, SOTERA CASALME, August 13, 2003. On July 9, 2004,[2] the Court resolved to submit for resolution the second
REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE SECRETARY OF Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 112526 together with G.R. No. 118338 in view of the
AGRARIAN REFORM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION Resolution of the Court dated January 15, 2001 issued in G.R. No. 118838,[3]consolidating the
BOARD, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA, latter case with G.R. No. 112526, the issues therein being interrelated. [4] Hence, the herein
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL Amended Decision.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV and REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM
OFFICER FOR REGION IV., respondents. The factual background of the two cases is as follows:
The Canlubang Estate in Laguna is a vast landholding previously titled in the name of the
late Speaker and Chief Justice Jose Yulo, Sr. Within this estate are two parcels of land
(hereinafter referred to as the subject property) covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891
[G.R. No. 118838. March 16, 2005] measuring 254.766 hectares and part of Barangay Casile, subsequently titled in the name of
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (SRRDC), the majority stockholder of which is C.J.
Yulo and Sons, Inc.

JUAN B. AMANTE, IGNACIO PETATE, DOMINGO CANUBAS, FLORENCIO CANUBAS, The subject property was involved in civil suits and administrative proceedings that led to
CRESENCIO AMANTE, QUIRINO CASALME, LEODEGARIO GONZALES, DOMINGO the filing of G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838, thus:
VILLA, JAIME BURGOS, NICOMEDES PETATE, MAXIMINO MATIENZO, MAXIMO
CANUBAS, ELINO CRUZAT, RUFINO CRUZAT, FELICISIMO GONZALES,
QUINTILLANO LANGUE, TEODORO MANDANAS, SERGIO CRUZAT, AGAPITO Injunction Case  Filed by Amante, et al.
MATIENZO and SEVERINO DE SAGUM, petitioners, vs. LUIS YULO, JESUS
 Page 2 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

On December 6, 1985, Amante, et al., who are the private respondents in G.R. No. WHEREFORE, the judgment herein appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with the modification
112526 and petitioners in G.R. No. 118838, instituted an action for injunction with damages in that the defendants-appellees are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiffs-
the Regional Trial Court of Laguna (Branch 24) against Luis Yulo, SRRDC, and several SRRDC appellants nominal damages in the amount of P5,000.00 per plaintiff. No pronouncement as to
security personnel, docketed as Civil Case No. B-2333. Amante, et al. alleged that: they are costs.
residents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna, which covers an area of around 300 hectares;
in 1910, their ancestors started occupying the area, built their houses and planted fruit-bearing SO ORDERED.[11]
trees thereon, and since then, have been peacefully occupying the land; some time in June 3,
1985, SRRDCs security people illegally entered Bgy. Casile and fenced the area; SRRDCs men Nominal damages were awarded by the CA because it found that SRRDC violated Amante,
also entered the barangay on November 4, 1985, cut down the trees, burned their huts, and et al.s rights as possessors of the subject property. [12]
barred the lone jeepney from entering the Canlubang Sugar Estate; as a result of these acts,
Amante, et al. were deprived of possession and cultivation of their lands. Thus, they claimed Amante, et al. filed a motion for reconsideration thereof, pointing out the DARABs decision
damages, sought the issuance of permanent injunction and proposed that a right of way be placing the property under compulsory acquisition, and the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
declared.[5] 27234, affirming the same.[13] The CA, however, denied the motion, with the modification that
only SRRDC and the defendants-security guards should be held jointly and severally liable for
In their Answer, the defendants denied the allegations and disclaimed any control and the nominal damages awarded. It also made the clarification that the decision should not
supervision over its security personnel. Defendant SRRDC also alleged that as the real owner of preempt any judgment or prejudice the right of any party in the agrarian reform case pending
the property, it was the one that suffered damages due to the encroachment on the property. [6] before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 112526).[14]
A writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court on August 17, 1987, [7] but this Thus, Amante, et al. filed on March 2, 1995, herein petition, docketed as G.R. No.
was subsequently dissolved by the Court of Appeals (CA) on April 22, 1988 in its decision in CA- 118838 on the following grounds:
G.R. SP No. 13908.[8]
After trial on the merits, the trial court, on January 20, 1992, rendered a decision ordering 4.1. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE CASE CONTRARY TO LAW OR APPLICABLE
Amante, et al. to vacate the property, the dispositive portion of which reads: SUPREME COURT DECISIONS BECAUSE:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants 4.1.1 FIRST, PETITIONERS MAY NOT BE LAWFULLY EVICTED FROM THEIR
and against the plaintiffs hereby dismissing the complaint and amended complaint. LANDHOLDINGS CONSIDERING THAT:

The plaintiffs are hereby ordered to vacate the parcels of land belonging to the defendants Luis -- (A) PETITIONERS ARE ALREADY THE REGISTERED OWNERS UNDER THE TORRENS
Yulo and Sta. Rosa Realty. They are likewise enjoined from entering the subject parcels of land. SYSTEM OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION SINCE FEBRUARY 26, 1992 BY VIRTUE OF
RA 6657 OR THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW;
Although attorneys fees and expenses of litigation are recoverable in case of a clearly
unfounded civil action against the plaintiff (Enervida vs. De la Torre, 55 SCRA 339), this Court -- (B) THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS AFFIRMED THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
resolves not to award attorneys fees etc. in favor of the defendants because the plaintiffs appear LAGUNAS DISMISSAL OF THE EJECTMENT CASES FILED BY RESPONDENT SRRDC
to have acted in good faith in filing the present civil action (Salao vs. Salao, 70 SCRA 65) and AGAINST PETITIONERS; AND
that it would not be just and equitable to award the same in the case at bar. (Liwanag vs. Court
of Appeals, 121 SCRA 354) Accordingly, the other reliefs prayed for by the defendants are -- (C) ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT
hereby dismissed. YET THE REGISTERED OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION, RESPONDENTS
MAY NOT RAISE THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP IN THIS CASE FOR INJUNCTION WITH
SO ORDERED.[9] DAMAGES, THE SAME TO BE VENTILATED IN A SEPARATE ACTION, NOT IN THIS CASE
BROUGHT TO PREVENT RESPONDENTS FROM COMMITTING FURTHER ACTS OF
Amante, et al. appealed the aforesaid decision to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. DISPOSSESSION [BACAR V. DEL ROSARIO ET AL., 171 SCRA 451 (1989)].
38182.
4.1.2 SECOND, PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO MORAL, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND
On June 28, 1994, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court in the ATTORNEYS FEES, INSTEAD OF MERE NOMINAL DAMAGES, CONSIDERING THAT THE
injunction case. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision [10] reads as follows:
 Page 3 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

COURT OF APPEALS FOUND RESPONDENTS TO HAVE UNLAWFULLY AND ILLEGALLY On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman answered the
DISTURBED PETITIONERS PEACEFUL AND CONTINUOUS POSSESSION. [15] protest and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% but only 5-10% and that the
land is suitable and economically viable for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the
Certification of the Department of Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna.
Ejectment Cases  Filed by SRRDC
On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre made a summary investigation report and
forwarded the Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI) to the Provincial Agrarian
Between October 1986 and August 1987, after the injunction case was filed by Amante, et Reform Officer (hereafter, PARO).
al., SRRDC filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao, Laguna, several complaints
for forcible entry with preliminary injunction and damages against Amante, et al., docketed On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda forwarded his endorsement of the compulsory
as Civil Cases Nos. 250, 258, 260, 262 and 266. SRRDC alleged that some time in July 1987, acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
they learned that Amante, et al., without their authority and through stealth and strategy, were
clearing, cultivating and planting on the subject property; and that despite requests from On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo C. Visperas of the Bureau of Land Acquisition
SRRDCs counsel, Amante, et al. refused to vacate the property, prompting them to file the and Development, DAR forwarded two (2) Compulsory Acquisition Claim Folders covering the
ejectment cases.[16] Amante, et al. denied that SRRDC are the absolute owners of the property, landholding of SRRDC, covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891 to the President, Land Bank
stating that they have been in peaceful possession thereof, through their predecessors-in- of the Philippines for further review and evaluation.
interest, since 1910.[17]
On May 24, 1991, the MTC-Cabuyao rendered its decision in favor of SRRDC. Amante, et On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two
al. were ordered to surrender possession and vacate the subject property. The decision was (2) notices of acquisition to petitioner, stating that petitioners landholdings covered by
appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna (Assisting Court). TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891, containing an area of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares,
valued at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, respectively, had been placed under the
On February 18, 1992, the RTC dismissed the ejectment cases on the ground that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
subject property is an agricultural land being tilled by Amante, et al., hence it is the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which has jurisdiction over the dispute. [18] The RTCs dismissal of the
On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two letters separately addressed to Secretary
complaints was brought to the CA via a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 33382.
[19] Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, sent its formal
 In turn, the CA dismissed the petition per its Decision dated January 17, 1995 on the ground
protest, protesting not only the amount of compensation offered by DAR for the property but also
that SRRDC failed to show any prior physical possession of the subject property that would have
the two (2) notices of acquisition.
justified the filing of the ejectment cases. [20] Also, the CA did not sustain the RTCs finding that the
subject properties are agricultural lands and Amante, et al. are tenant/farmers thereof, as the
evidence on record does not support such finding. The parties did not file any motion for On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB for summary
reconsideration from the Court of Appeals dismissal, hence, it became final and executory. [21] proceedings to determine just compensation under R.A. No. 6657, Section 16.

On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2) claim folders previously referred for review and
evaluation to the Director of BLAD mentioning its inability to value the SRRDC landholding due
Administrative Proceedings to some deficiencies.

While the injunction and ejectment cases were still in process, it appears that in August, On March 28, 1990, Executive Director Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote the Land Bank
1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage to SRRDC, President Deogracias Vistan to forward the two (2) claim folders involving the property of
informing petitioners that the property covered by TCT Nos. T-81949, T-84891 and T-92014 is SRRDC to the DARAB for it to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just
scheduled for compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program compensation for the land.
(CARP).[22] SRRDC filed its Protest and Objection with the MARO on the grounds that the area
was not appropriate for agricultural purposes, as it was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its
above, and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as property under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP coverage because they had
beneficiaries.[23] Thereafter, as narrated in the Decision of the Court dated October 12, 2001 been classified as watershed area and were the subject of a pending petition for land
in G.R. No. 112526, the following proceedings ensued: conversion.
 Page 4 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of BLAD turned over the two (2) claim folders To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might distribute the lands to the farmer beneficiaries,
(CACFs) to the Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board for proper administrative on April 30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition with DARAB to disqualify private respondents as
valuation. Acting on the CACFs, on September 10, 1990, the Board promulgated a resolution beneficiaries. However, DARAB refused to address the issue of beneficiaries. [24]
asking the office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to first resolve two (2) issues
before it proceeds with the summary land valuation proceedings. ...

The issues that need to be threshed out were as follows: (1) whether the subject parcels of land On December 19, 1991, the DARAB promulgated a decision, affirming the dismissal of the
fall within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition Program of the CARP; and (2) whether the protest of SRRDC against the compulsory coverage of the property covered by TCT Nos. 81949
petition for land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted. and 84891. The decretal portion of the decision reads:

On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary, DAR, through the Undersecretary for WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Board hereby orders:
Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and the Regional Director of
Region IV, submitted a report answering the two issues raised. According to them, firstly, 1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against the compulsory coverage of the
by virtue of the issuance of the notice of coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of landholdings of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (Transfer Certificates of
acquisition on December 12, 1989, the property is covered under compulsory acquisition. Title Nos. 81949 and 84891 with an area of 254.766 hectares) in Barangay Casile,
Secondly, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also supports the DAR Municipality of Cabuyao, Province of Laguna under the Comprehensive Agrarian
position on the coverage of the said property. During the consideration of the case by the Reform Program is hereby affirmed;
Board, there was no pending petition for land conversion specifically concerning the
parcels of land in question. 2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation the amount of Seven Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Nine
On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of hearing to all the parties interested, setting the Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos and Sixty-Four centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its
hearing for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels of land on March 6, 1991. landholdings covered by the two (2) Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned above.
However, on February 22, 1991, Atty. Ma. Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for SRRDC, Should there be a rejection of the payment tendered, to open, if none has yet been
wrote the Board requesting for its assistance in the reconstruction of the records of the case made, a trust account for said amount in the name of Sta. Rosa Realty
because the records could not be found as her co-counsel, Atty. Ricardo Blancaflor, who Development Corporation;
originally handled the case for SRRDC and had possession of all the records of the case was on
3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to cancel with dispatch Transfer
indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The Board granted counsels request and moved the
Certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 and new one be issued in the name of the
hearing on April 4, 1991.
Republic of the Philippines, free from liens and encumbrances;

On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to resolve 4. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources either through its Provincial
SRRDCs petition for exemption from CARP coverage before any administrative valuation Office in Laguna or the Regional Office, Region IV, to conduct a final segregation
of their landholding could be had by the Board. survey on the lands covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949
so the same can be transferred by the Register of Deeds to the name of the
On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the case was held and subsequently, different Republic of the Philippines;
dates of hearing were set without objection from counsel of SRRDC. During the April 15, 1991 5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through its Municipal and
hearing, the subdivision plan of subject property at Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna was submitted and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to take immediate possession on the said
marked as Exhibit 5 for SRRDC. At the hearing on April 23, 1991, the Land Bank asked for a landholding after Title shall have been transferred to the name of the Republic of
period of one month to value the land in dispute. the Philippines, and distribute the same to the immediate issuance of Emancipation
Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform
At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from Deputy Zoning Administrator Generoso B. Office of Cabuyao, Laguna.[25]
Opina was presented. The certification issued on September 8, 1989, stated that the parcels of
land subject of the case were classified as Industrial Park per Sangguniang Bayan Resolution On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued a memorandum directing the
No. 45-89 dated March 29, 1989. Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to open a trust account in favor of SRRDC,
for P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the SRRDC property.
 Page 5 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

The titles in the name of SRRDC were cancelled and corresponding TCTs were ii. Section 22 of RA 6657 insofar as it expands the coverage of the CARP to
issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines on February 11, 1992, [26] after which landless residents is unconstitutional.
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) were issued in the name of the farmers-
beneficiaries on February 26, 1992.[27] IV
In the meantime, SRRDC had filed with the CA a petition for review of the DARABs
decision, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 27234. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE DARAB HAS
On November 5, 1993, the CA affirmed the decision of DARAB, to wit: JURISDICTION TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE SRRDC PROPERTIES ARE
SUBJECT TO CARP COVERAGE.[29]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB decision dated December 19, 1991 is
AFFIRMED, without prejudice to petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation On October 12, 2001, the Court rendered its Decision in G.R. No. 112526 only, setting
ventilating its case with the Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just compensation. [28] aside the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234 and ordering the remand of the case to
the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination of the nature of the land. The dispositive portion
Hence, SRRDC filed on November 24, 1993, herein petition, docketed as G.R. No. of the Decision reads as follows:
112526 on the following grounds:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
I
SP No. 27234.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT
In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT THE SRRDC PROPERTIES,
of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its coverage by the
DESPITE THE UNDISPUTED FACT OF THEIR NON-AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION
Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
PRIOR TO RA 6657, ARE COVERED BY THE CARP CONTRARY TO THE NATALIA REALTY
DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed farmer beneficiaries
shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order issued on December 15, 1993,
i. The SRRDC properties have been zoned and approved as PARK since 1979.
which shall remain in effect until final decision on the case.
ii. The SRRDC properties form part of a watershed area.
No costs.
II
SO ORDERED.[30]
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT
It is the opinion of the Court in G.R. No. 112526, that the property is part of a watershed,
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN DISREGARDING ECOLOGICAL
and that during the hearing at the DARAB, there was proof that the land may be excluded from
CONSIDERATIONS AS MANDATED BY LAW.
the coverage of the CARP because of its high slopes. [31] Thus, the Court concluded that a
remand of the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation of the issue of coverage is appropriate in
III order to resolve the true nature of the subject property. [32]

THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT In their Memorandum, Amante, et al. argues that there exist compelling reasons to grant the
TO LACK OR EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION IN AFFIRMING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE second motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision of the Court, to wit:
SRRDC PROPERTIES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY
DECLARED AS SQUATTERS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES 2.1 Only QUESTIONS OF LAW are admittedly and undeniably at issue; yet the Honorable Court
PURSUANT TO THE CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE reviewed the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals and the DARAB although the case does
COURT. not fall into any of the well-recognized exceptions to conduct a factual review. Worse, the 12
October 2001 Decision assumed facts not proven before any administrative, quasi-judicial or
i. The acquisition of the SRRDC properties cannot be valid for future beneficiaries. judicial bodies;
 Page 6 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

2.2 The DARAB and the Court of Appeals already found the land to be CARPable; yet the As noted earlier, the DARAB made its finding regarding the nature of the property in
Honorable Court remanded the case to DARAB to re-evaluate if the land is CARPable; question, i.e., the parcels of land are agricultural and may be the subject of compulsory
acquisition for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries, thus:
2.3 The Decision did not express clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based;
Ocular inspections conducted by the Board show that the subject landholdings have been under
2.4 The Decision renewed the Temporary Restraining Order issued on 15 December 1993, the possession and tillage of the DAR identified potential beneficiaries which they inherited from
issuance of which is barred by Sec. 55 of R.A. 6657; and their forebears (workers of the Yulo Estate). They are bonafide residents and registered voters
(DARAB Exhibits C and J) of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. There is a barangay road
leading toward the barangay school and sites and the settlement has a barangay hall, church,
2.5 This Honorable Court denied private respondents Motion for Reconsideration although
elementary school buildings (DARAB Exhibit Q), Comelec precincts (DARAB Exhibits J-1 and J-
issues raised therein were never passed upon in the 12 October 2001 Decision or elsewhere. [33]
2), and other structures extant in progressive communities. The barangay progressive
development agencies, like the DECS, DA, COMELEC, DAR and Support Services of Land
The DAR and the DARAB, through the Office of the Solicitor General, did not interpose any Bank, DPWH, DTI and the Cooperative Development Authority have extended support services
objection to the second motion for reconsideration. It also maintained that if SRRDCs claim that to the community (DARAB Exhibits I, K to K-3, L, M, N, O, P to P-6). More importantly, subject
the property is watershed is true, then it is the DENR that should exercise control and landholdings are suitable for agriculture. Their topography is flat to undulating 3-15%
supervision in the disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the slope. (Testimony of Rosalina Jumaquio, Agricultural Engineer, DAR, TSN, June 21, 1991,
property.[34] DARAB Exhibits F and H). Though some portions are over 18% slope, nevertheless,
SRRDC meanwhile insists that there are no compelling reasons to give due course to the clearly visible thereat are fruit-bearing trees, like coconut, coffee, and pineapple
second motion for reconsideration.[35] plantations, etc. (see Petitioners Exhibits A to YYY and DARAB Exhibits A to S, Records).
In other words, they are already productive and fully developed.
At the outset, the Court notes that petitioner designated its petition in G.R. No. 112526 as
one for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA. In the same breath, it likewise averred that ...
it was also being filed as a special civil action for certiorari as public respondents committed
grave abuse of discretion.[36] Petitioner should not have been allowed, in the first place, to pursue
As the landholdings of SRRDC subject of the instant proceedings are already developed
such remedies simultaneously as these are mutually exclusive. [37]
not only as a community but also as an agricultural farm capable of sustaining daily
It is SRRDCs claim that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that the existence and growth, We find no infirmity in placing said parcels of land under
subject property is agricultural in nature. In support of its contention, it argued, among others, compulsory coverage. They do not belong to the exempt class of lands. The claim that the
that the subject property had already been classified as park since 1979 under the Zoning landholding of SRRDC is a watershed; hence, belonging to the exempt class of lands is
Ordinance of Cabuyao, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB); literally throwing punches at the moon because the DENR certified that the only declared
that it forms part of a watershed; and that the CA disregarded ecological considerations. watershed in Laguna Province and San Pablo City is the Caliraya-Lumot Rivers
[38]
 SRRDC also claimed that Amante, et al. are not qualified beneficiaries. [39] (Petitioners Exhibit A). A sensu contrario, the landholdings subject herein are not.
[41]
 (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, these issues are factual in nature, which the Court, as a rule, should not have
considered in this case. However, there are recognized exceptions, e.g., when the factual
The evidence on record supports these findings, to wit:
inferences of the appellate court are manifestly mistaken; the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts 1. Certification dated January 16, 1989 by the OIC Provincial Environment and Natural
that, if properly considered, would justify a different legal conclusion. [40] The present cases fall Resources Office of Laguna that the only declared watershed in the Laguna
under the above exceptions. province and San Pablo City is the Caliraya-Lumot Rivers No. 1570 dated
September 1, 1976;[42]
Thus, in order to finally set these cases to rest, the Court shall resolve the substantive
matters raised, which in effect comes down to the issue of the validity of the acquisition of the 2. Map prepared by Agricultural Engineer Rosalina H. Jumaquio showing that: a) the
subject property by the Government under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, or the Comprehensive topography of the property covered by TCT No. T-84891 topography is flat to
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL). undulating with a 5 to 10% slope; (b) it is suitable to agricultural crops; and (c) the
land is presently planted with diversified crops;[43]
 Page 7 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

3. Certification dated August 28, 1989 by APT Felicito Buban of the Department of land. Section 3 (b) meanwhile defines agricultural activity as the cultivation of the soil, planting of
Agriculture of Laguna that, per his ocular inspection, the subject property is an crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such
agricultural area, and that the inhabitants main occupation is farming; [44] products, and other farm activities, and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such
farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical.
4. Pictures taken by MARO Belen La Torre of Cabuyao, Laguna, showing that the
property is cultivated and inhabited by the farmer-beneficiaries; [45] Before Barangay Casile was classified into a municipal park by the local government of
Cabuyao, Laguna in November 1979, it was part of a vast property popularly known as the
SRRDC however, insists that the property has already been classified as a municipal park Canlubang Sugar Estate. SRRDC claimed that in May 1979, the late Miguel Yulo allowed the
and beyond the scope of CARP. To prove this, SRRDC submitted the following: employees of the Yulo group of companies to cultivate a maximum area of one hectare each
1. Certification dated March 1, 1991 by the Municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna that the subject to the condition that they should not plant crops being grown by the Canlubang Sugar
entire barangay of Casile is delineated as Municipal Park; [46] Estate, like coconuts and coffee, to avoid confusion as to ownership of crops. [53] The
consolidation and subdivision plan surveyed for SRRDC on March 10-15, 1984 [54] also show that
2. Certification dated March 11, 1991 by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board the subject property is sugar land. Evidently, the subject property is already agricultural at the
that the parcels of land located in Barangay Casile are within the Municipal Park, time the municipality of Cabuyao enacted the zoning ordinance, and such ordinance should not
based on the municipalitys approved General Land Use Plan ratified by the affect the nature of the land. More so since the municipality of Cabuyao did not even take
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board as per Resolution No. 38-2 dated June any step to utilize the property as a park.
25, 1980;[47]
SRRDC cites the case of Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. DAR,[55] wherein it was ruled that lands not
3. Photocopies of pictures taken by Mr. Ernesto Garcia, Officer-in-Charge of the devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral or forest by the DENR and its
Special Project Section of CJ Yulo and Sons, Inc., of portions of Barangay Casile; [48] predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by
the HLURB and its preceding competent authorities prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 6657 on
The Court recognizes the power of a local government to reclassify and convert lands
June 15, 1988, are outside the coverage of the CARP. Said ruling, however, finds no application
through local ordinance, especially if said ordinance is approved by the HLURB. [49] Municipal
in the present case. As previously stated, Municipal Ordinance No. 110-54 of the Municipality of
Ordinance No. 110-54 dated November 3, 1979, enacted by the Municipality of Cabuyao,
Cabuyao did not provide for any retroactive application nor did it convert existing agricultural
divided the municipality into residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and institutional
lands into residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional. Consequently, the subject property
districts, and districts and parks for open spaces. [50] It did not convert, however, existing
remains agricultural in nature and therefore within the coverage of the CARP.
agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional. While it classified
Barangay Casile into a municipal park, as shown in its permitted uses of land map, the Only on March 9, 2004, SRRDC filed with the Court a Manifestation pointing out DAR Order
ordinance did not provide for the retroactivity of its classification. In Co vs. Intermediate No. (E)4-03-507-309 dated February 17, 2004, exempting from CARP coverage two parcels of
Appellate Court,[51] it was held that an ordinance converting agricultural lands into residential or land owned by SRRDC and covered by TCT Nos. T-85573 and T-92014. [56] The DAR found that
light industrial should be given prospective application only, and should not change the nature of these properties have been re-classified into Municipal Parks by the Municipal Ordinance of
existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships existing over such lands. Thus, it Cabuyao, Laguna, and are part of the Kabangaan-Casile watershed, as certified by the DENR. [57]
was stated:
The Court notes however that the said DAR Order has absolutely no bearing on these
cases. The herein subject property is covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 34891, totally different,
A reading of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, series of 1981, does not disclose any
although adjacent, from the property referred to in said DAR Order.
provision converting existing agricultural lands in the covered area into residential or light
industrial. While it declared that after the passage of the measure, the subject area shall be used SRRDC also contends that the property has an 18% slope and over and therefore exempt
only for residential or light industrial purposes, it is not provided therein that it shall have from acquisition and distribution under Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657. What SRRDC opted to
retroactive effect so as to discontinue all rights previously acquired over lands located within the ignore is that Section 10, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 13 dated August 30,
zone which are neither residential nor light industrial in nature. This simply means that, if we 1990, also provides that those with 18% slope and over but already developed for
apply the general rule, as we must, the ordinance should be given prospective operation agricultural purposes as of June 15, 1988, may be allocated to qualified occupants.
only. The further implication is that it should not change the nature of existing agricultural [58]
 Hence, even assuming that the property has an 18% slope and above, since it is already
lands in the area or the legal relationships existing over such lands  [52] (Emphasis supplied) developed for agricultural purposes, then it cannot be exempt from acquisition and distribution.
Moreover, the topography maps prepared by Agricultural Engineer Rosalina H. Jumaquio show
Under Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, agricultural land is defined as land devoted to that the property to be acquired has a 5-10% flat to undulating scope; [59] that it is suitable to
agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial agricultural crops;[60] and it is in fact already planted with diversified crops. [61]
 Page 8 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

Also, the Certification dated July 1, 1991 by Geodetic Engineer Conrado R. Rigor that the Moreover, DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990 (Rules and Procedure
top portion of Barangay Casile has a 0 to 18% slope while the side of the hill has a 19 to 75% Governing Exemption of Lands from CARP Coverage under Section 10, R.A. No. 6657)
slope,[62] was presented by SRRDC only during the proceedings before the CA which had no provides:
probative value in a petition for review proceedings. The Court notes that SRRDC had been
given ample time and opportunity by the DARAB to prove the grounds for its protest and I. LEGAL MANDATE
objection but miserably failed to take advantage of such time and opportunity [63] in the DARAB
proceedings. The general policy under CARP is to cover as much lands suitable for agriculture as possible.
However, Section 10, RA 6657 excludes and exempts certain types of lands from the coverage
SRRDC also contends that the property is part of a watershed, citing as evidence, the of CARP, to wit:
Certification dated June 26, 1991 by the Laguna Lake Development Authority that Barangay
Casile is part of the watershed area of the Laguna Lake Basin, [64] and the Final Report for A. Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks,
Watershed Area Assessment Study for the Canlubang Estate dated July 1991 undertaken by the wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
Engineering & Development Corporation of the Philippines. [65] It must be noted, however, that watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including
these pieces of evidence were likewise brought to record only when petitioner filed its petition for experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational
review with the CA. The DARAB never had the opportunity to assess these pieces of evidence. purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites
The DARAB stated: and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant
thereof, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms
Noting the absence of evidence which, in the nature of things, should have been submitted by actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine
landowner SRRDC and to avoid any claim of deprivation of its right to prove its claim to just centers; and
compensation (Uy v. Genato, 57 SCRA 123). We practically directed its counsel in not only one
instance, during the series of hearings conducted, to do so. We even granted continuances to ...
give it enough time to prepare and be ready with the proof and documents. To Our dismay, none II. POLICIES
was submitted and this constrained Us to take the failure/refusal of SRRDC to present evidence
as a waiver or, at least, an implied acceptance of the valuation made by the DAR. [66]
In the application of the aforecited provision of law, the following guidelines shall be observed:
The same goes with the CA, which did not have the discretion to consider evidence in a
petition for certiorari or petition for review on certiorari outside than that submitted before the A. For an area in I.A to be exempted from CARP coverage, it must be actually, directly
DARAB. The CA noted petitioners failure to present evidence in behalf of its arguments, thus: and exclusively used and found to be necessary for the purpose so stated.

. . . It must be recalled that petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty itself had asked the DARAB in a petition ...
dated March 18, 1991 to allow it to adduce evidence in support of its position that the subject
parcels of land are not covered by the CARP beginning on the scheduled hearing dated April 4, C. Lands which have been classified or proclaimed, and/or actually directly and exclusively used
1991. And DARAB obliged as in fact the petitioner commenced to introduce evidence. If and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, fish sanctuaries and breeding
petitioner failed to complete the presentation of evidence to support its claim of exemption from grounds, and watersheds and mangroves shall be exempted from the coverage of CARP until
CARP coverage, it has only itself to blame for which DARAB cannot be accused of not being Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have
impartial.[67] determined by law, the specific limits of public domain, as provided for under Sec. 4(a) of RA
6657, and a reclassification of the said areas or portions thereof as alienable and disposable has
Consequently, there is no need to order the remand of the case to the DARAB for re- been approved. (Emphasis supplied)
evaluation and determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved. It runs contrary to
orderly administration of justice and would give petitioner undue opportunity to present evidence In order to be exempt from coverage, the land must have been classified or
in support of its stance, an opportunity it already had during the DARAB proceedings, and which proclaimed  and actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for watershed
opportunity it regrettably failed to take advantage of. purposes.[68] In this case, at the time the DAR issued the Notices of Coverage up to the time the
DARAB rendered its decision on the dispute, the subject property is yet to be officially classified
More significantly however, it is the DAR Secretary that originally declared the or proclaimed as a watershed and has in fact long been used for agricultural purposes. SRRDC
subject property as falling under the coverage of the CARP. relies on the case of Central Mindanao University (CMU) vs. DARAB,[69] wherein the Court ruled
 Page 9 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

that CMU is in the best position to determine what property is found necessary for its use. beneficiaries is a matter involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, a
SRRDC claims that it is in the best position to determine whether its properties are necessary for matter which is exclusively vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, through its authorized
development as park and watershed area.[70] offices. Section 15 reads:
But SRRDCs reliance on the CMU case is flawed. In the CMU case, the subject property
from the very beginning was not alienable and disposable because Proclamation No. 476 issued SECTION 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. The DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian
by the late President Carlos P. Garcia already reserved the property for the use of the school. Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees,
Besides, the subject property in the CMU case was actually, directly and exclusively used and tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential
found to be necessary for educational purposes. beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:

In the present case, the property is agricultural and was not actually and exclusively used (a) names and members of their immediate farm household;
for watershed purposes. As records show, the subject property was first utilized for the purposes (b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the length of tenurial
of the Canlubang Sugar Estate. [71] Later, petitioner claimed that the occupants were allowed to relationship;
cultivate the area so long as they do not plant crops being grown by the Canlubang Sugar Estate (c) location and area of the land they work;
in order to avoid confusion as to ownership thereof. [72] Thus, based on its own assertions, it (d) crops planted; and
appears that it had benefited from the fruits of the land as agricultural land. Now, in a complete (e) their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.
turnaround, it is claiming that the property is part of a watershed.
Furthermore, in a belated attempt to prove that the subject property is part of a watershed A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in
that must be environmentally protected, SRRDC submitted before the Court a Final Report dated the barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to
February 1994 undertaken by the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB) of inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.
the DENR entitled, Environmental Assessment of the Casile and Kabanga-an River Watersheds.
[73]
 The study, according to SRRDC, was made pursuant to a handwritten instruction issued by Meanwhile, Administrative Order No. 10 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Registration
then President Fidel V. Ramos. The study noted that, the continuing threat of widespread of Beneficiaries), Series of 1989, provides:
deforestation and unwise land use practices have resulted in the deteriorating condition of the
watersheds.[74] But the Court also notes the Memorandum for the President dated September SUBJECT: I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
1993 by then DENR Secretary Angel C. Alcala that, after a field inspection conducted by the
DENRs Regional Executive Director and the Provincial and Community Natural Resource Pursuant to Section 15, Chapter IV, of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, the
Officers, it was found that: DAR, in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), as organized
... pursuant to RA 6657, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are
qualified beneficiaries of the CARP. This Administrative Order provides the Implementing Rules
2. Many bankal trees were found growing in the watershed/CARP areas, including and Procedures for the said registration.
some which have been coppiced, and that water conduits for domestic and
industrial uses were found installed at the watershed area claimed by the Yulos. ...
Records further show that in the 1970s, a Private Land Timber Permit was issued to
Canlubang Sugar Estate thru its marketing arm, the Sta. Rosa Realty Devpt. Corp.
B. Specific
3. Resident farmers denied that they have been cutting bankal trees and volunteered
the information that one of the Estates security guards was dismissed for cutting 1. Identify the actual and potential farmer-beneficiaries of the CARP.
and transporting bankal trees. The trees cut by the dismissed security guard were
found stacked adjacent to the Canlubang Security Agencys headquarters. [75] In Lercana vs. Jalandoni,[76] the Court categorically stated that:
Evidently, SRRDC had a hand in the degradation of the area, and now wants to put the
entire blame on the farmer-beneficiaries. It is reasonable to conclude that SRRDC is merely the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the
using ecological considerations to avert any disposition of the property adverse to it. administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of
the Department of Agrarian Reform, and beyond the jurisdiction of the DARAB. [77]
SRRDC also objects to the identification of Amante, et al. as beneficiaries of the subject
property. Suffice it to say that under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6657, the identification of
 Page 10 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

The farmer-beneficiaries have already been identified in this case. Also, the DAR Secretary law, has the authority to determine the beneficiaries of the CARP. This Court will not entertain
has already issued Notices of Coverage and Notices of Acquisition pertaining to the subject questions on the invalidity of a statute where that issue was not specifically raised, insisted upon,
property. It behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of and adequately argued[84] in the DAR.
the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency,
[78]
 which in these cases the Court finds none. Likewise, the constitutional question raised by SRRDC is not the very lis mota in the present
case. Basic is the rule that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, and to
SRRDC questions the constitutionality of Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, which reads in part: justify its nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not
one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative. [85] The controversy at hand is principally
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as anchored on the coverage of the subject property under the CARP, an issue that can be
much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, determined without delving into the constitutionality of Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657. While the
landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority. identification of Amante, et al. as farmer-beneficiaries is a corollary matter, yet, the same may be
resolved by the DAR.
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; SRRDC questions the DARABs jurisdiction to entertain the question of whether the subject
(b) regular farmworkers; property is subject to CARP coverage.
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers; According to SRRDC, such authority is vested with the DAR Secretary who has the
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; exclusive prerogative to resolve matters involving the administrative implementation of the CARP
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and and agrarian laws and regulations.[86]
(g) others directly working on the land.
There is no question that the power to determine whether a property is subject to CARP
coverage lies with the DAR Secretary. Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that:
...
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary
SRRDC argues that Section 22 sweepingly declares landless residents as beneficiaries of jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original
the CARP (to mean also squatters), in violation of Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution, jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
which aims to benefit only the landless farmers and regular farmworkers. [79] under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
The Court cannot entertain such constitutional challenge. The requirements before a litigant Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
can challenge the constitutionality of a law are well-delineated, viz.:
...
(1) The existence of an actual and appropriate case;
(2) A personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; The DARs jurisdiction under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 is two-fold. The first is essentially
executive and pertains to the enforcement and administration of the laws, carrying them into
(3) The exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and practical operation and enforcing their due observance, while the second is judicial and involves
the determination of rights and obligations of the parties. [87]
(4) The constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[80] (Emphasis supplied)
Pursuant to its judicial mandate of achieving a just, expeditious and inexpensive
Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question
determination of every action or proceeding before it, [88] the DAR adopted the DARAB Revised
should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below, [81] in this case, the
Rules, Rule II (Jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board) of which provides:
DAR Secretary. It must be pointed out that all controversies on the implementation of the CARP
fall under the jurisdiction of the DAR, even though they raise questions that are also legal or
constitutional in nature.[82] The earliest opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise it in SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication
the pleadings before a competent court that can resolve the same, such that, if it is not raised in Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all
the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and, if not considered at the trial, it cannot be agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of
considered on appeal.[83] Records show that SRRDC raised such constitutional challenge only the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order
before this Court despite the fact that it had the opportunity to do so before the DAR Secretary. Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389,
The DARAB correctly refused to deal on this issue as it is the DAR Secretary who, under the Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.
 Page 11 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to the following: (a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), including protests or oppositions
a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the cultivation and use of thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage;
agricultural land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and other
agrarian laws; (b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries;

b) Cases involving the valuation of land, and determination and payment of just compensation, (c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments, and
similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land Bank; (d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary
Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including
c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of orders or decisions of DAR officials other the issuance, recall or cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land
than the Secretary, lease contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments under the Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of Deeds;
administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP;
(e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner; . . . (Emphasis supplied)
d) Cases arising from, or connected with membership or representation in compact farms,
farmers cooperatives and other registered farmers associations or organizations, related to land Thus, the power to determine whether a property is agricultural and subject to CARP
covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws; coverage together with the identification, qualification or disqualification of farmer-beneficiaries
lies with the DAR Secretary.[90]
e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws; Significantly, the DAR had already determined that the properties are subject to
expropriation under the CARP and has distributed the same to the farmer-beneficiaries.
f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate of Land Initially, the LBP forwarded the two Compulsory Acquisition Claim Folders (CACF) covering
Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative correction the subject properties to the DARAB for summary proceedings for the sole purpose of
thereof; determining just compensation. SRRDC then sent a letter to the LBP claiming that the subject
properties were exempt from CARP coverage and subject of a pending petition for land
g) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the Secretary of conversion. As a consequence, the DARAB asked the DAR Secretary to first resolve the issues
the DAR. raised by SRRDC before it can proceed with the land valuation proceedings. In response, the
DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations and the Regional Director of Region IV,
Provided, however, that matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of submitted its report stating that: (1) the property is subject to compulsory acquisition by virtue of
the CARP and other agrarian laws and regulations, shall be the exclusive prerogative of the Notice of Coverage issued on August 11, 1989, and Notice of Acquisition issued on
and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR. (Emphasis supplied) December 12, 1989, and that it was subject to CARP coverage per Section IV D of DAR
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990; and (2) there was no pending petition for land
conversion involving the subject property. When SRRDC petitioned the DARAB to resolve the
On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 06-00, [89] which provides for the Rules of issue of exemption from coverage, it was only then that the DARAB took cognizance of said
Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, govern the administrative function of issue.[91]
the DAR. Under said Rules of Procedure, the DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over
classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the CARP, including protests As the DARAB succinctly pointed out, it was SRRDC that initiated and invoked the DARABs
or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage. Section 2 of the said Rules specifically jurisdiction to pass upon the question of CARP coverage. As stated by the DARAB:
provides, inter alia, that:
4.5.2.2. The ISSUE ON CARP COVERAGE was initiated and incorporated in said proceeding, at
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern cases falling within the exclusive the instance of petitioner itself, by filing a petition dated March 18, 1991, Prayed therein were
jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall include the following: that DARAB:
 Page 12 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

1. Take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over the question of CARP coverage of the was not even alleged, either before DARAB or the Honorable Court of Appeals, the numerous
subject parcels of land; petitions/incidents filed notwithstanding. Be it that as it may, the records of the case show that
initially DARAB refused to take cognizance thereof and, in fact, forwarded the issue of CARP
2. Defer or hold in abeyance the proceedings for administrative valuation of the subject coverage to the office of the DAR Secretary. It was only when it was returned to DARAB by said
properties pending determination of the question of CARP coverage; office that proceedings thereon commenced pursuant to Section 1(g) of Rule II of the DARAB
Revised Rules of Procedure.
3. Allow respondent SRRDC to adduce evidence in support of its position that the subject
parcels of land are not covered by the CARP beginning on the scheduled hearing date of April 4, 4.5.6.2. Petitioner is now estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of DARAB. First, it
1991 (p.3; emphasis and underscoring supplied). expressly acknowledged the same, in fact invoked it, when it filed its petition (Annex 4);
and, second, during the scheduled hearings, SRRDC, through its counsel, actively
participated, one of its counsel (sic) even testifying. It may not now be allowed to impugn
Upon persistent request of petitioner SRRDC, it was accommodated by DARAB and a counsel of
the jurisdiction of public respondent [92](Emphasis supplied)
SRRDC even took the witness stand. Its lawyers were always in attendance during the
scheduled hearings until it was time for SRRDC to present its own evidence.
In CA-G.R. SP No. 27234, the CA likewise found that it was SRRDC that called upon the
DARAB to determine the issue and it, in fact, actively participated in the proceedings before it.
4.5.2.3. But, as earlier stated, despite the open session proddings by DARAB for SRRDC to [93]
 It was SRRDCs own act of summoning the DARABs authority that cured whatever
submit evidence and the rescheduling for, allegedly, they are still collating the evidence, nay, the
jurisdictional defect it now raises. It is elementary that the active participation of a party in a case
request that it be allowed to adduce evidence, none was adduced and this constrained public
pending against him before a court or a quasi-judicial body, is tantamount to a recognition of that
respondent to declare SRRDC as having waived its right to present evidence. And, after the
courts or bodys jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar
remaining parties were heard, the hearing was formally terminated.
said party from later on impugning the courts or bodys jurisdiction. [94]
... Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by SRRDC only before the CA. It was never
presented or discussed before the DARAB for obvious reasons, i.e., it was SRRDC itself that
4.5.3. Needless to state, the jurisdictional objection (CARP coverage), now being raised invoked the latters jurisdiction. As a rule, when a party adopts a certain theory, and the case is
herein was not one of the original matters in issue. Principally, DARAB was called upon tried and decided upon that theory in the court below, he will not be permitted to change his
under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6657 to resolve a land valuation case. But SRRDC theory on appeal.[95] Points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of
itself insisted that DARAB should take cognizance thereof in the same land valuation the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these
proceeding. And, SRRDC, through its lawyers, actively participated in the hearings cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. [96] To permit SRRDC to change its theory on
conducted. appeal would not only be unfair to Amante, et al. but would also be offensive to the basic scales
of fair play, justice and due process.[97]
4.5.4. It was only when an adverse decision was rendered by DARAB that the Finally, the Court notes that then DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued a Memorandum
jurisdictional issue was raised in the petition for review it filed with the Honorable Court on July 11, 1991, ordering the opening of a trust account in favor of SRRDC. In Land Bank of the
of Appeals. It was also only then that petitioner presented proof/evidence. Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, this Court struck down as void DAR Administrative Circular No.
9, Series of 1990, providing for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in
... bonds contemplated in Section 16 (e) of R.A. No. 6657. As a result, the DAR issued
Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1996, converting trust accounts in the name of landowners
4.5.6. Public respondents (DAR/DARAB) are not unmindful of the rule that matter of jurisdiction into deposit accounts.[98] Thus, the trust account opened by the LBP per instructions of DAR
may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. But for two serious considerations, the Secretary Benjamin T. Leong should be converted to a deposit account, to be retroactive in
applicability thereof in the case at bar should not be allowed. application in order to rectify the error committed by the DAR in opening a trust account and to
grant the landowners the benefits concomitant to payment in cash or LBP bonds prior to the
ruling of the Court in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals. The account shall earn a
4.5.6.1. The fact [part (municipal/industrial) and/or watershed] upon which the jurisdictional issue
12% interest per annum from the time the LBP opened a trust account up to the time said
interchangeably hinges were not established during the hearing of the case. No proof was
account was actually converted into cash and LBP bonds deposit accounts.
adduced. That the matter of CARP coverage is strictly administrative implementation of CARP
and, therefore, beyond the competence of DARAB, belonging, as it does, to the DAR Secretary,
 Page 13 of 13
Agra – Sta Rosa Dev. Corp v CA

Given the foregoing conclusions, the petition filed in G.R. No. 118838, which primarily rests issued to the farmer-beneficiaries. They should, however, be required to undertake the
on G.R. No. 112526, should be granted. necessary reforestation and other watershed management/rehabilitation measures in the area.
The judgments of the trial court in the injunction case (Civil Case No. B-2333) and the CA
in CA-G.R. SP No. 38182 were premised on SRRDCs transfer certificates of title over the In view of the foregoing, we recommend that a watershed management plan for the area
subject property. The trial court and the CA cannot be faulted for denying the writ of injunction espousing the community-based approach be drawn-up jointly by the DAR and DENR. . . . [103]
prayed for by Amante, et al. since at the time the trial court rendered its decision in the injunction
case on January 20, 1992, SRRDC was still the holder of the titles covering the subject property. If SRRDC sincerely wants to preserve the property for ecological considerations, it can be
The titles in its name were cancelled and corresponding TCTs were issued in the name of the done regardless of who owns it. After all, we are all stewards of this earth, and it rests on all of
Republic of the Philippines on February 11, 1992, and CLOAs were issued to the farmer- us to tend to it.
beneficiaries on February 26, 1992. When Amante, et al., in their motion for reconsideration filed WHEREFORE, the Second Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Courts Decision
in CA-G.R. SP No. 38182, brought to the CAs attention the issuance of the CLOAs, the CA, per dated October 12, 2001 in G.R. No. 112526 is SET ASIDE and the Decision of the Court of
Resolution dated January 19, 1995, reiterated its ruling that whether or not the subject property Appeals dated November 5, 1993 in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION,
is covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) is the subject matter of in that the Land Bank of the Philippines is ordered to convert the trust account in the name of
a separate case, and we cannot interfere with the same at the present time. The CA further Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation to a deposit account, subject to a 12% interest per
stated that (O)ur present decision is, therefore, not intended to preempt any judgment or annum from the time the LBP opened a trust account up to the time said account was actually
prejudice the right of any party in the said case. [99] It must be noted that at that juncture, the converted into cash and LBP bonds deposit accounts. The temporary restraining order issued by
DARAB Decision and the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234, finding the subject property the Court on December 15, 1993, is LIFTED.
covered by the CARP Law, is yet to be finally resolved by this Court in G.R. No. 112526 and in
fact, a temporary restraining order was issued by the Court on December 15, 1993, enjoining the The petition filed by Amante, et al. in G.R. No. 118838 is GRANTED in that Sta. Rosa
DARAB from enforcing the effects of the CLOAs. Amante, et al. was likewise restrained from Realty Development Corporation is hereby ENJOINED from disturbing the peaceful possession
further clearing the subject property. [100] Hence, the decision of the trial court and the CA denying of the farmer-beneficiaries with CLOAs. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 28,
the writ of injunction was warranted. 1994 in CA-G.R. CV No. 38182 is AFFIRMED insofar as the award of nominal damages is
concerned.
Nevertheless, considering that the subject property is agricultural and may be acquired for
distribution to farmer-beneficiaries identified by the DAR under the CARP, the transfer The Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Department of Agrarian
certificates of title issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and the CLOAs issued by Reform, in coordination with the farmer-beneficiaries identified by the DAR, are URGED to
the DAR in the names of Amante, et al., [101] are valid titles and therefore must be upheld. By formulate a community-based watershed plan for the management and rehabilitation of
virtue thereof, Amante, et al. who have been issued CLOAs are now the owners of the Barangay Casile.
subject property. Consequently, the decisions of the trial court in the injunction case and the
CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 38182 must now be set aside, insofar as it orders Amante, et al. to vacate SO ORDERED.
and/or enjoins them from entering the subject property. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Corona,  and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
The Court, however, agrees with the CA that Amante, et al. is not entitled to actual, moral
and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees. SRRDCs right of possession over the
subject property was predicated on its claim of ownership, and it cannot be sanctioned in
exercising its rights or protecting its interests thereon. As was ruled by the CA, Amante, et al. is
merely entitled to nominal damages as a result of SRRDCs acts. [102]
All is not lost in this case. In its Memorandum dated September 29, 1993, to the DAR
Secretary, the DENR manifested that:

. . . the farmers themselves could be tapped to undertake watershed management and