Legal library › Case digests › Civil Law
Case digest · Lands converted before June 15, 1988; CARP coverage
Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform
A 1979 proclamation set aside land in Antipolo as a townsite for housing, and a subdivision was approved on it. In 1990, after the CARP law had taken effect, the DAR placed the subdivision’s undeveloped portions under agrarian reform.
Facts
The land
Natalia Realty, Inc. owned three contiguous parcels in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, with a total area of about 125 hectares.
April 18, 1979
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares in Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite, to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis. Natalia’s properties were inside the reservation.
1982–1986
Private landowners were allowed to develop low-cost housing subdivisions within the reservation. The developer, Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC), obtained preliminary approval and locational clearances from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, permits for the three phases of the project (1982, 1983 and 1986) and development permits. The properties became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
June 15, 1988
R.A. No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), took effect.
November 22, 1990
The DAR, through its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the subdivision, roughly 90 hectares. Natalia and EDIC protested, but the DAR officials did not act on their letters.
1991 onward
Members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA) asked the DAR Regional Adjudicator to stop the development of the areas they cultivated, and the Adjudicator issued a writ of preliminary injunction. Natalia and EDIC filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General argued that there was no valid conversion because no application for conversion was ever filed with the DAR.
Issue
Were the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision, approved for residential use before June 15, 1988, covered by the CARL?
Ruling
No. The Court granted the petition and set aside the Notice of Coverage.
The permits showed that Natalia and EDIC complied with all the requirements of law, and there was no need for them to secure a clearance or prior approval from the DAR. Proclamation No. 1637 created the townsite reservation to provide housing for Metro Manila, so it “in effect converted for residential use what were erstwhile agricultural lands provided all requisites were met,” and the requisites were met. The CARL covers only agricultural land, which Sec. 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 defines as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. The lots ceased to be agricultural upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation, and the slow pace of development did not change their character as residential lands outside the CARL. The Court also rejected the claim that administrative remedies had not been exhausted, since SAMBA’s case involved possession while the petition questioned CARL coverage. The DAR officials gravely abused their discretion in issuing a Notice of Coverage over lands over which they no longer had jurisdiction.
“Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.”
Doctrine
Lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the CARL, and these include “lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR.” Land validly converted to residential use before R.A. No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988, here through a presidential townsite proclamation and approvals by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, needed no DAR approval, and the DAR is bound by that conversion.
Compare: after June 15, 1988
In CREBA vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010, the Court held that later reclassifications still need conversion: “Any reclassification, therefore, of agricultural lands to residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses either by the LGUs or by way of Presidential Proclamations enacted on or after 15 June 1988 must undergo the process of conversion, despite having undergone reclassification, before agricultural lands may be used for other purposes.”
Bar tip
Check the date first. Land already converted to residential use before June 15, 1988, as through a presidential townsite proclamation and approved subdivision permits, is outside the CARL, and slow development does not make it agricultural again.
Hear it explained
Land Titles Jurisprudence Ep. 3, at 2:55
Follow Forlawssake
Get the next case explainer when it’s out.
New videos and episodes come out on YouTube, Spotify and TikTok. Follow there, and the app tells you when the next one is posted. It’s free.
This digest is general legal information for education, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for reading the decision. Quoted passages are taken word for word from the full text.