378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 132073. September 27, 2006.

REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ERNESTO D.
GARILAO, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPT.
OF AGRARIAN REFORM and EDUARDO ADRIANO,
PABLITO ADRIANO, IGNACIO VILLENA, DOMINGO
SAYOTO, DOMINADOR MANTILLAS, PABLITO
MANTILLAS, GRACIANO MAGLIAN, LEOPOLDO
CALITIS, PRIMO GALANG, RENE GALANG,
FRANCISCO HAYAG, MARCOS MENDOZA, NOE
CABALLERO, ROLANDO PADAR, FRANCISCO
SANTARIN, PEDRO PASTOR, JR., ROLANDO PASTOR,
MELCHOR MENDOZA, MARIANO CAPILI, CONRADO
FERRER, and MARGARITO MENDOZA, respondents.
*
G.R. No. 132361. September 27, 2006.

EDUARDO ADRIANO, PABLITO ADRIANO, IGNACIO

VILLENA, DOMINGO SAYOTO, DOMINADOR
MANTILLAS, PABLITO MAN

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

379

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 379

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
TILLAS, GRACIANO MAGLIAN, LEOPOLDO CALITIS,
PRIMO GALANG, RENE GALANG, FRANCISCO
HAYAG, MARCOS MENDOZA, NOE CABALLERO,
ROLANDO PADAR, FRANCISCO SANTARIN, PEDRO
PASTOR, SR., ROLANDO PASTOR, MELCHOR
MENDOZA, MARCIANO CAPILI,
**
CONRADO FERRER,
and MARGARITO MENDOZA, petitioners, vs. HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, in his capacity as
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents.

Agrarian Reform; Land Conversion; Lands not devoted to

agricultural activity are outside the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, and these include lands previously
converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) by government
agencies other than the Department of Agrarian Reform.—In
Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, 225 SCRA 278
(1993), this Court resolved the issue of whether lands already
classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and its precursor agencies, i.e., National Housing
Authority and Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, prior
to 15 June 1988, are covered by Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. We
answered in the negative, thus: We now determine whether such
lands are covered by the CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides
that the CARL shall “cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement
and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural
lands.” As to what constitutes “agricultural land,” it is referred to
as “land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and
not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land.” The deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission confirm this limitation. “Agricultural lands” are only
those lands which are “arable and suitable agricultural lands” and
“do not include commercial, industrial and residential land.” x x x
x Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the
coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to
non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by
government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised
Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined

_______________

** The following did not sign the Verification/Certification, to wit: Domingo

Sayoto, Pablito Mantillas, Francisco Hayag, Marcos Mendoza, Noe Caballero,
Rolando Padar, Pedro Pastor, Sr., and Conrado Ferrer.

380

380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

“agricultural land” thus—x x x Agricultural lands refers to those

devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not
classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and
not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its
preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for
residential, commercial or industrial use.

Same; Same; The reclassification of lands to non-agricultural

cannot be applied to defeat vested rights of tenant-farmers under
Presidential Decree No. 27.—Natalia should be cautiously applied
in light of Administrative Order 04, Series of 2003, which outlines
the rules on the Exemption on Lands from CARP Coverage under
Section (3) of Republic Act No. 6657, and Department of Justice
(DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. It reads: I. Prefatory
Statement Republic Act (RA) 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL), Section 3, Paragraph (c) defines
“agricultural land” as referring to “land devoted to agricultural
activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land.” Department of Justice
Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, (or “DOJ Opinion 44-1990” for
brevity) and the case of Natalia Realty versus Department of
Agrarian Reform (12 August 2993, 225 SCRA 278) opines that
with respect to the conversion of agricultural land covered by RA
6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve such conversion may be
exercised from the date of its effectivity, on 15 June 1988. Thus,
all lands that are already classified as commercial, industrial or
residential before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion
clearance. However, the reclassification of lands to non-
agricultural uses shall not operate to divest tenant[]farmers of
their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27,
which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988. (Emphasis
supplied.) As emphasized, the reclassification of lands to non-
agricultural cannot be applied to defeat vested rights of tenant-
farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27.

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

     Diosdado P. Peralta for petitioner.
     Antonio K. Tupaz for respondent C. Ferrer.
381

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 381

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

          Dominguez, Delani, Dominguez, Orsos & Fortuno for

respondent E. Adriano, et al.

RESOLUTION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

Before this Court is a consolidation of two separate

Petitions for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner
Remman Enterprises, Inc. (REMMAN) in G.R. No. 132073,
and petitioners Eduardo Adriano, et al., 1
in G.R. No.
132361. Both Petitions
2
assail the Decision dated 30 April
1997 and Resolution dated 8 January 1998 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42004.
 REMMAN is a private domestic corporation engaged in
the business of developing subdivisions. On 17 August
1995, REMMAN filed with the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the3
Socialized Housing One-Stop Processing Center (SHOPC),
an application for exemption from the coverage of the

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Antonio M. Martinez with Associate

Justices Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros and Romeo A. Brawner, concurring;
Rollo (G.R. No. 132073), pp. 54-61.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner (vice J. Antonio
Martinez, who was appointed to the Supreme Court) with Associate
Justices Ricardo P. Galvez and Marina L. Buzon, concurring; id., at p. 82.
3 CREATING SOCIALIZED HOUSING ONE-STOP PROCESSING
CENTERS TO FACILITATE THE PROCESSING AND ISSUANCE OF
PERMITS, CLEARANCES, CERTIFICATIONS AND LICENSES
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
SOCIALIZED HOUSING PROJECTS, AND DIRECTING ALL
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES CONCERNED TO SUPPORT THE
OPERATIONS OF THE SAID CENTERS (27 June 1994); SHOPCs were
created pursuant to Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban
Development and Housing Act of 1992, Section 1 and Section 3, thereof,
provides, thus: Sec. 1. Creation of Socialized Housing One-Stop Processing
Centers.—The creation of Socialized Housing One-Stop Processing Centers
(SHOPCs) is hereby directed in all the administrative regions of the
country to be manned by representatives from the following agencies:
xxxx

382

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) over 17

parcels of land with a total land area of 46.9180
4
hectares
located at Bo. San Jose, Dasmariñas, Cavite.

_______________
c. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR);
xxxx
Sec. 3. Agency Responsibilities.—The SHOPC Desks shall have the following
responsibilities:
3. DAR Desk

a. Determine and fix the amount of disturbance compensation based on the

formula jointly set by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant to Sec. 7 (1) of RA No. 6389, and
ensure that the affected tenant-farmers/farmworkers are duly
compensated;
b. Evaluate applications for land conversion/exemption from CARP coverage
that may be referred or recommended by the HLURB Desk, and in
meritorious cases, issue conversion/exemption certificates therefor; and
c. Perform such other responsibilities as may be required. (Italics supplied.)

4 Records, Vol. II, p. 329; The subject parcels of land are more
particularly described, to wit:

Name of Registered Owner Title No. Area (in has.)

Marietta Saulog Vergara T-231847 3.0000
Maura Saulog Aguinaldo T-231848 3.0000
Virginia A. Saulog T-231849 3.0000
Teodoro A. Saulog T-231850 3.0000
Ruben A. Saulog T-231851 3.0000
Lilia Saulog Venturina T-231852 3.0000
Melquiades A. Saulog T-231853 3.0000
Luciana A. Saulog T-231854 3.0000
Nieves Arguelles Saulog T-240093 1.5124
               -do- T-240094 1.5124
               -do- T-240095 1.5124
               -do- T-240096 1.5124
               -do- T-240097 1.5124
               -do- T-240098 1.5124
               -do- T-240099 1.5124

383

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 383

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
As culled from the records, the subject parcels of land were
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-7707, in the
names of Nieves Arguelles vda. de Saulog and Ignacio,
Luciano, Virginia, Teodoro, Melquiades, Maura, Ruben,
and Lilia, all surnamed Saulog (Saulog family). The Saulog
family acquired the same by inheritance from Eliseo
Saulog, deceased spouse of Nieves. On 7 February 1995,
the Saulog family and REMMAN executed a Deed of Sale
over the subject parcels of land.
In support of its application, REMMAN proffered, inter
alia: (1) a certification by 5the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HSRC) dated 16 February 1995,
to the effect that the subject parcels of land are within the
residential zone; (2) a certification by the National
Irrigation Administration (NIA) dated 21 December 1995
signifying that the subject parcels of land are not irrigated
or irrigable within the areas programmed for irrigation
development under the NIA Irrigation Development
Program; and (3) a certification from the Office of the
Municipal Engineering of the Municipality of Dasmariñas,
Cavite, dated 8 February 1998, attesting that the subject
parcels of land are within the residential zone.
On 5 June 1996, 6the DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao
rendered an Order denying the application for lack of
merit.
The DAR Secretary ruled that REMMAN has no
personality to file the action as the Deed of Sale between
the Saulog family and REMMAN was neither notarized nor
registered with the Register of Deeds; hence, the same is
not binding against third parties, and the Saulog family
must still be deemed the owners of the subject premises. In
denying REMMAN’s application for exemption, the DAR
Secretary further relied on a certification dated 3
November 1995, issued by the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Office of Dasmariñas,

_______________

               -do- T-240100 2.3322

               -do- T-240101 9.9990

5 Executive Order No. 90 (1986) renamed the HSRC as the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and was designated as the
regulatory body for housing and land development under the Housing and
Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC).
6 Rollo (G.R. No. 132073), pp. 223-227.

384

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Cavite, avowing to the effect that the subject properties are

covered by Operation Land Transfer under Presidential
Decree No. 27, and that there are twenty-four (24) farmer-
beneficiaries occupying a total of 46.5935 hectares of the
subject lots. In the same order, the DAR Secretary found
the subject parcels of land to be irrigated; therefore, non-
negotiable for conversion.
Moreover, in the Order of 5 June 1996, the DAR
Secretary took note of DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92,
filed by the Saulog family for annulment and cancellation
of the emancipation patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et
al., herein petitioners in G.R. No. 132361. The controverted
emancipation patents in DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 008792
cover the subject parcels of land which are sought to be
exempted by REMMAN from coverage of the CARP.
DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92 was remanded by the
DARAB Central Office 7
to the Adjudicator of Cavite for
further proceedings.
The dispositive portion of the Order of 5 June 1996,
reads, thus:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, and after having found that

the instant application lacks merit, Order is hereby issued
denying the same and placing the herein properties involving
seventeen (17) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 46.9180
hectares located 8 at Brgy. San Jose, Dasmariñas, Cavite under
CARP coverage.”

_______________

7 The pertinent portion of the Order of 5 June 1996 narrates the

antecedents of DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92, to wit:
xxxx
Records reveal that the herein properties are likewise the subject of DARAB Case
No. IV-Ca. 0087-92 for annulment of the Resolution of DAR Regional Director for
Region IV, Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents or CLOAs, which
was resolved in favor of cancellation. However, in a Resolution by the DARAB
Central Office on the same case dated May 18, 1995, it was ruled that the
“decision decreeing the cancellation of the questioned EPs is not enforceable
against the recipients as they were not impleaded.” Hence, the case was remanded
to the Adjudicator of Cavite for further proceedings. Rollo (G.R. No. 132073), pp.
224-225.

8 Id., at p. 226.

385

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 385

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

REMMAN filed a Motion for Reconsideration thereon.

On 4 September 1996, the DAR Secretary Ernesto D.
Garilao issued an Order, modifying the Order of 5 June
1996. The DAR Secretary held that when Presidential
Decree No. 27 took effect, the subject parcels of land were
owned in common by the Saulog family. The same law
applies to lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a
system of share-crop or lease tenancy. The issue as to the
type of crops planted in the subject parcels of land and the
tenancy relationship not having been controverted, the
DAR Secretary applied the rules on retention limits as
specified in Presidential
9
Decree No. 27 and Letter of
Instruction No. 474. Ruling on the retention limits, 10
the
DAR Secretary reached the following conclusion, viz.:

Name of Tenanted Other PD 27 Area

Co-owner R/C lands Agri. Cover- Retained of
owned Lands age Tenanted
R/C Lands
Nieves 15.31915 10.48575 15.31915 0.0 has.
has. has. has.
Ignacio 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
 Name of Tenanted Other PD 27 Area
Co-owner R/C lands Agri. Cover- Retained of
owned Lands age Tenanted
R/C Lands
Luciano 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
Virginia 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
Teodoro 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
Melquiades 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
Maura 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
Ruben 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
Lilia 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.
Marietta 1.39265 0.95325 0.0 has. 1.39265 has.
has. has.

_______________

9 Letter of Instruction No. 474 to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform,

dated 21 October 1976, places under the Land Transfer Program of the
government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn
lands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who
own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate
areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban
purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves
and their families.
10 Rollo (G.R. No. 132073), pp. 272-273.

386

386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Further, it was held that the farmer-tenants occupying the
retained area of the children of Nieves Vda. de Saulog shall
remain therein, subject to the option of the farmers to
accept disturbance compensation, in which case, they can
vacate the retained lands. The remaining lands were
declared to be outside of the coverage of the Comprehensive
11
Agrarian Reform Law by virtue of Section 3(c) of Republic
Act No. 6657, subject to the payment of disturbance
compensation to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. In the same
vein, the DAR Secretary ruled that Presidential Decree No.
27 has not been expressly repealed by Republic Act No.
6657; hence, the tenantfarmers’ vested rights should still
be respected. Thus, the municipal reclassification of the
subject parcels of land cannot remove the vested rights of
the tenant-farmers granted to them by statute. Finally, on
the issue of lack of standing on the part of REMMAN to file
the application for exemption, the DAR Secretary, instead
of strictly applying the procedural rules, relaxed the same.
The DAR Secretary disposed, thus:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, after having gone through all

arguments, this Order is hereby issued:

1. Confirming the coverage of the 15.31915 hectare tenanted

rice and corn share of Nieves Vda. de Saulog under
Operation Land Transfer;
2. Granting the retention of the other heirs of 1.39265
hectares of tenanted rice and corn, each, subject to the
filing by the applicant of the proper petition in the proper
forum [or a total of 12.53385 hectares];
3. Requiring the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer to cause
the preparation of Contracts of Agricultural Leaseholds
between the owners of the lands and the farmer-tenants of
the retained areas;

_______________

11 SEC. 3. Definitions.—For the purpose of this Act, unless the context

indicates otherwise:

xxxx
(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined
in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land.

387

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 387

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

4. Excluding from the coverage of Agrarian Reform

the 19.065 hectare land planted to mango by virtue
of Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657, subject to the
payment of disturbance compensation; and
5. Instructing the Regional Director of Region IV and
the Provincial Agrarian Reform12Officer to cause the
proper execution of this Order.”

Thereafter, REMMAN challenged the Orders of the DAR

Secretary by filing a Petition for Review with the Court of
Appeals.
In its Decision dated 30 April 1997, the Court of Appeals
declined to rule purely on the technical matters. Thus, the
question as to REMMAN’s personality to file the
proceeding a quo was dispensed with. It affirmed the
finding of the DAR Secretary on the grant of partial
exemption to the extent of the 19.065 hectares planted with
mango trees
13
from the coverage of the CARP, as enunciated
in par. 4 of the dispositive portion of the Order of the DAR
Secretary dated 4 September 1996; it differed, however, as
to the grant of disturbance compensation. The appellate
court rationalized that the tenantfarmers are deemed
owners of the land they are tilling under Presidential 14
Decree No. 27, and subsequently, Executive Order No. 228
declared them full owners thereof. Hence, their ownership
as vested can no longer be disturbed by the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, and as such, the provisions of the
aforesaid law which allow for exemptions from its coverage
cannot apply to lands already declared under Operation
Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27.

_______________

12 Rollo (G.R. No. 132073), pp. 276-277.

 13 Par. 4 of the fallo of the Order of 4 September 1996, states, to wit:

(4) Excluding from the coverage of Agrarian Reform the 19.065 hectare land
planted to mango by virtue of Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657, subject to the payment
of disturbance compensation.

14 DECLARING FULL LAND OWNERSHIP TO QUALIFIED

FARMER-BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY P.D. NO. 27; DETERMINING
THE VALUE OF REMAINING UNVALUED RICE AND CORN LANDS
SUBJECT OF P.D. NO. 27; AND PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF
PAYMENT BY THE FARMER-BENEFICIARY AND MODE OF
COMPENSATION TO THE LANDOWNER; Enacted on 17 July 1987.

388

388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

On the issue of whether the subject lands are irrigated or

irrigable, the Court of Appeals held that the question loses
its significance because the rule on the non-negotiability of
irrigated lands applies only to conversion proceedings but
not to exclusion proceedings, as in the case at bar. The
Court of Appeals decreed:

“WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Secretary is hereby

AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION only with respect to No. 4 of
the dispositive portion, deleting therefrom the payment of
disturbance compensation, such that should read thiswise:
4. Excluding from the coverage of Agrarian Reform the 19.065
hectare land15planted with mango by virtue of Sections 3 (c) and 11
of RA 6657.”

REMMAN filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration. In

like manner, Eduardo Adriano, et al., filed a Motion for
Reconsideration thereon. On 8 January 1998, the Court of
Appeals denied the Motions.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, REMMAN instituted the
instant Petition, docketed as G.R. No. 132073, setting forth
numerous assignments of error, which we hereafter
synthesize for purposes of clarity. Similarly, Eduardo
Adriano, et al., filed a Petition
16
for Review on Certiorari,
docketed as G.R. No. 132361.
 REMMAN, petitioner in G.R. No. 132073, alleges that
the Court of Appeals failed to rule on the decisive factual
and legal issues properly interposed therewith. Simply
stated, REMMAN posits that the Court of Appeals failed to
rule on the factual issues anent the reclassification of the
subject lands into residential land; the location of the
subject lands in an urbanized area; and on the validity of
the emancipa-

_______________

15 Rollo (G.R. No. 132073), p. 61.

16 Rollo (G.R. No. 132361), p. 325; In our Resolution dated 26 July
1999, the Court resolved to deny the Petition in G.R. No. 132361 for the
failure of counsel of Eduardo Adriano, et al., Atty. Antonio K. Tupaz to
comply with our Resolution dated 27 January 1999, requiring him to file
the reply to respondent’s comment within the period allotted therein. On
22 September 1999, we reconsidered the denial, and reinstated the
Petition for further proceeding. G.R. No. 132073 and G.R. No. 132361
were consolidated per our Resolution dated 10 November 2003.

389

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 389

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

tion patents issued to therein private respondents,

Eduardo Adriano, et al. It claims that the subject lands
were effectively converted into residential lands by virtue
of their being re-zoned as such by the Sangguniang Bayan
of Dasmariñas, Cavite, and approved by the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now the
Housing and Land Use17 Regulatory Board. Relying on
Republic Act No. 7279, it theorizes that the lands in
question are already urban land, especially in light of the
fact that Dasmariñas, Cavite, has a population density of
some 2,000 persons per square kilometer. Moreover, it
avers that the Court of Appeals failed to address the crucial
issue of whether Eduardo Adriano, et al., qualified as
farmer-beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27.
REMMAN similarly assigns as error the conclusion of the
Court of Appeals that Eduardo Adriano, et al., are full
owners of the subject premises by virtue of Executive Order
No. 228 and Presidential Decree No. 27, reiterating the
arguments that it had raised before the appellate court.
Furthermore, REMMAN argues that the subject parcels
of land are “strip lands” which are reserved for uses other
than agricultural under the provisions of Presidential
Decree No. 399; hence, the DAR Secretary was without
reason to deny the exemption applied for. REMMAN
contests the validity of the emancipation patents issued to
Eduardo Adriano, et al., on the ground that there was a
failure to comply with the provisions of Presidential Decree
No. 27 in that there was neither payment of amortizations
as required by the law nor was there payment of realty
taxes thereon by the tenant-farmers. According to
REMMAN, the emancipation patents were issued without
payment of just compensation to the Saulog family who are
the previous owners of the parcels of land in question.
For their part, Eduardo Adriano, et al., petitioners in
G.R. No. 132361, asseverate that they have been denied
due process because they were not made parties to
REMMAN’s application for exemption from the coverage of
the CARP; hence, they cannot be deemed affected thereby.
They assail REMMAN’s failure to notify or apprise them of
the application for exemption in light of the fact that they
are

_______________

17 URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ACT.

390

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

the actual tenants of the subject lands which they have

cultivated for more than thirty (30) years. Moreover, they
contend that the Court of Appeals failed to heed their
prayer for ocular inspection of the subject properties, such
that, a full adjudication on the facts be rightly determined.
In fine, it is prayed that the case be remanded to the court
of origin for further proceedings and to grant them an
opportunity to refute the evidence presented by REMMAN
before the DAR.
At the crux of the instant controversy is whether the
subject parcels of land are exempted from the coverage of
the CARP.
Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise referred to as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), was enacted
as a piece of social legislation pursuant to the policy of the
State to pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. It became effective on 15 June 1988. Section 4
thereof, specifies the lands covered by the CARP, thus:

“SECTION 4. Scope.—The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as
provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
including other lands of the public domain suitable for
agriculture.
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain

devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of
forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be
undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress,
taking into account ecological, developmental and equity
considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific
limits of the public domain;
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific
limits as determined by Congress in the preceding
paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can
be raised thereon.

The exemption and exclusions of Republic Act No. 6657 are

contained in Section 10 thereof, viz.:
391
 VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 391
Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.—Lands actually,

directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks,
wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration, fish sanctuaries and
breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense,
school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations
operated by public or private schools for educational purposes,
seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church
sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic
centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and
cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the
inmates, government and private research and quarantine
centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over,
except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage
of this Act.

In the main, REMMAN hinges its application for

exemption on the ground that the subject lands had ceased
to be agricultural lands by virtue of the zoning
classification by the Sangguniang Bayan of Dasmariñas,
Cavite, and approved by the HSRC, specifying them as
residential. 18
In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture,
this Court resolved the issue of whether lands already
classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and its precursor agencies, i.e., National Housing
Authority and Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission, prior to 15 June 1988, are covered by
Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. We
answered in the negative, thus:

“We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL.
Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall “cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all
public and private agricultural lands.” As to what constitutes
“agricultural land,” it is referred to as “land devoted to
agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.” The
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission confirm this
limitation. “Agricultural lands” are only those lands which are
“arable and suitable agricultural lands” and “do not include
commercial, industrial and residential land.”
xxxx

_______________

18 G.R. No. 103302, 12 August 1993, 225 SCRA 278, 282-284.

392

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the

coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to
non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by
government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised
Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined
“agricultural land” thus—

x x x Agricultural lands refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as

defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning
ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988
for residential, commercial or industrial use.

Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June

1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. x x x.”

However, Natalia should be cautiously applied in light of

Administrative Order 04, Series of 2003, which outlines the
rules on the Exemption on Lands from CARP Coverage
under Section (3) of Republic Act No. 6657, and
Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of
1990. It reads:

I. Prefatory Statement
Republic Act (RA) 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL), Section 3, Paragraph (c) defines “agricultural land”
as referring to “land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.”
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, (or “DOJ
Opinion 441990” for brevity) and the case of Natalia Realty versus
Department of Agrarian Reform (12 August 2993, 225 SCRA 278)
opines that with respect to the conversion of agricultural land
covered by RA 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve such
conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity, on 15
June 1988. Thus, all lands that are already classified as
commercial, industrial or residential before 15 June 1988 no
longer need any conversion clearance.
However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses
shall not operate to divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over
lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which have been
vested prior to 15 June 1988. (Emphasis supplied.)

393

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 393

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

As emphasized, the reclassification of lands to non-

agricultural cannot be applied to defeat vested rights of
tenant-farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27.
Indeed, in the recent case of 19
Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation v. Amante, where the Court was
confronted with the issue of whether the contentious
property therein is agricultural in nature on the ground
that the same had been classified as “park” since 1979
under the Zoning Ordinance of Cabuyao, as approved by
the HLURB, the Court said:

“The Court recognizes the power of a local government to

reclassify and convert lands through local ordinance, especially if
said ordinance is approved by the HLURB. Municipal Ordinance
No. 110-54 dated November 3, 1979, enacted by the Municipality
of Cabuyao, divided the municipality into residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural and institutional districts, and districts
and parks for open spaces. It did not convert, however, existing
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 ordinance
did not provide for the retroactivity of its classification. In Co vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, it was held that an ordinance
converting agricultural lands into residential or light industrial
should be given prospective application only, and should not
change the nature of existing agricultural lands in the area or the
legal relationships existing over such land. x x x.
A reading of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, series
of 1981, does not disclose any 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 only for residential or
light industrial purposes, it is not provided therein that it shall
have retroactive effect so as to discontinue all rights previously
acquired over lands located within the zone which are neither
residential nor light industrial in nature. This simply means that,
if we apply the general rule, as we must, the ordinance should be
given prospective operation only. The further implication is that it
should not change the nature of existing agricultural lands in the
area or the legal relationships existing over such lands.”
(Emphasis supplied.)

_______________

19 G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838, 16 March 2005, 453 SCRA 432,
459460.

394

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

In the case at bar, it appears on record that petitioners in

G.R. No. 132361, Eduardo Adriano,20et al., were issued their
21
respective emancipation patents on various dates.
However, as was noted by the DAR Secretary in his
Order of 5 June 1996, there is a pending action
involving the subject parcels of land, docketed as
DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92. The same action
similarly involves the annulment of the Certificates
of Land Transfer (CLT) and the emancipation
patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al., thus:

[T]he subject parcels of land are also the subject matter of

DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92, which is one for
“annulment of the Resolution of DAR Regional Director
for Region IV, Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation
Patents or CLOAs, which was resolved in favor of
cancellation. However, in a Resolution by the DARAB
Central Office on the same case dated May 18, 1995, it was
ruled that the decision decreeing the cancellation of the
questioned EPs is not enforceable against the recipients as
they were not impleaded. Hence, the case was remanded
22
to
the Adjudicator of Cavite for further proceedings.

Moreover, REMMAN, in its Petition before this Court,

presents the antecedents of DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-
92. Culled therefrom, it appears that on 6 February 1993,
the Saulog family filed with the Office of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), an action against
DAR Regional Director Wilfredo B. Leaño, Region IV
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Cavite, Serapio T.
Magpayo, and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, Leticia
R. Crucido of Dasmariñas, Cavite, which case became
DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 008792. The CLT and the
emancipation patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al., are
the subject matters therein. On 26 April 1993, the

_______________

20 Rollo (G.R. No. 132361), pp. 136-199. See also Rollo (G.R. No.
132073), pp. 138-205.
21 On the face of the emancipation patents, it can be gleaned that they
were issued on the following dates, viz.: 16 March 1989, 20 December
1989, and 21 December 1989.
22 Rollo (G.R. No. 132073), pp. 224-225.

395

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 395

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
PARAD
23
rendered a decision against Eduardo Adriano, et
al. How-

_______________

23 The dispositive portion thereof, reads:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the entire land in question consisting of the mango land and
riceland formerly under TCT No. T-7707, now TCT Nos. T240093 to TCT
No. T-24101 inclusive and TCT Nos. T-231847 to TCT Nos. T-23154
inclusive as exempted from coverage of P.D. No. 27 and the CARP,
considering that the mango land is not subject of coverage by P.D. 27 and
considering further, that the entire land have been legally reclassified and
converted into non-agricultural uses on 1981 before the CARP Law took
effect on June 15, 1988. Undue haste in the coverage of said land under
P.D. 27, without CLTs, based on a wrong title, without hearing, amount to
denial of due process. Transfer of titles (EPs) without paying the
landowner, is also in violation of law. In fine, the Resolution Exh. “D,” of
the defendant-Regional Director Wilfredo B. Leano, and the Emancipation
Patent (E.P.s) issued to the farmers under Exh. “3” to “26” are rendered
ineffective, and the cancellation thereof, is in order.
2. Declaring as binding the reclassification and conversion of said land upon
the present farmers named in said 25 EPs whose tenancy relationship are
(sic) hereby terminated[,] reckoned with at the time of approval of the
conversion on 1981, and accordingly, ordering plaintiffs as landowners to
pay said farmers the disturbance compensation and other benefits in
accordance with law.
3. Allowing plaintiffs to exercise their rights of retention of the land in
question pursuant to the CARP Law under the conditions therein
prescribed.
4. Allowing plaintiffs to construct a perimeter fence on the portion of land
planted to mango trees subject to the restrictions provided by law, and to
segregate same from the riceland portion being not within the area covered
by the E.Ps of the farmers and not covered by P.D. 27 nor the CARP.

Pursuant to Rule XII, Sec. 2, this decision shall be immediately executory

regardless of appeal that may be taken insofar as the mango land is concerned, not
the Riceland portion where the farmers-holders of E.P.s are afforeded (sic) their
rights to be heard. The mango land, if tenanted, the tenants are entitled to
disturbance compensation reck
 396

396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

ever, on appeal to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB),

DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92 was remanded to the
PARAD for further proceedings on the ground that the
tenant-farmers, Eduardo Adriano, et al., were not
impleaded in the case. The record also shows that Eduardo
Adriano, et al. filed with the PARAD a Petition, docketed as
DARAB Case No. CA-0154-93, seeking to annul the 26
April 1993 decision of the PARAD. The current status of
DARAB Case No. CA0154-93 does not appear on the
records.
At any rate, DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92, involves,
inter alia, the validity of the emancipation patents issued
to tenant-farmers, Eduardo Adriano, et al., who are the
petitioners in G.R. No. 132361, and the private respondents
in G.R. No. 132073. Inasmuch as the consolidated
petitions before us raise the question of the
exemption of the subject parcels of land from CARP,
which parcels of land are similarly covered by
existing emancipation patents, it behooves this
Court to hold in abeyance the judgment on the
propriety of the exemption sought by REMMAN,
until after the issue as to the validity of the
emancipation patents (which precisely cover most of
the subject parcels of land) has been conclusively
and finally determined.
To our mind, a complete resolution of the application for
exemption of the subject parcels of land from coverage of
the CARP entails a finding of whether the emancipation
patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al., are null and void,
or valid and subsisting.
The issues are inextricably linked. We cannot decide on
the question of exemption without causing a preemption on
the question of the validity of the aforesaid emancipation
patents. To ensure that our judgment on REMMAN’s
application for exemption is complete, the parties, and
especially, the tenant-farmers, Eduardo Adriano, et al.,
must be afforded due opportunity to ventilate their
defenses in support of the emancipation patents issued in
their names in the proceedings before the DARAB, in
particular, DARAB Case No. IV-Ca. 0087-92. This is
especially significant in light of the principles and

_______________

oned with at the time of approval of the conversion on 1981. See Rollo (G.R. No.
132073), pp. 212-213.

397

VOL. 503, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 397

Remman Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

policies behind the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

Indeed, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6657, pronounces in
no uncertain terms that the welfare of the landless farmers
and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to
promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound
rural development and industrialization, and the
establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size
farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture.
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, we hold in abeyance
the Resolution of the consolidated Petitions in G.R. No.
132073 and G.R. No. 132361 until after a final
determination as to the validity of the emancipation
patents issued to Eduardo Adriano, et al. in DARAB Case
No. IV-Ca. 0087-92. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson), Ynares-Santiago,

AustriaMartinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Resolution of petitions in G.R. No. 132073 and G.R. No.

132361 held in abeyance.

Notes.—“Land Use” refers to the manner of utilization

of land, including its allocation, development and
management, while “Land Use Conversion” refers to the
act or process of changing the current use of a piece of
 agricultural land into some other use as approved by the
DAR. (Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA
106 [1999])
An ordinance converting agricultural lands into
residential or light industrial should be given prospective
application only, and should not change the nature of
existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal
relationships existing over such lands. (Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation vs. Amante, 453 SCRA 432
[2005])

——o0o——

398

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.