4 ONG V. IMPERIAL July 15, 2015, G.R. No. 197127

1. ONG V. IMPERIAL July 15, 2015, G.R. No.
197127
PONENTE: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

NATURE: NOTICE OF COVERAGE
DOCTRINE: We have unequivocally held that "to be exempt from CARP, all that is needed is one
valid reclassification of the land from agricultural to non- agricultural by a duly authorized government
agency before June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect.
FACTS
 Petitioners Noel L. Ong, Omar Anthony L. Ong, and Norman L. Ong

(petitioners) are registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of
Four Hundred Five Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Five (405,645)
square meters described under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
T-1 7045 located in Barangay Dogongan, Daet, Camarines Norte
(subject property).
Notice of Coverage
 The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Daet issued a
Notice of Coverage to petitioners on August 14, 1994.
Protest against the notice of coverage
 Petitioners wrote a letter3 dated April 26, 1995 "vehemently

protesting/objecting" to the coverage of the subject property under
compulsory acquisition under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL), for the following reasons:
 1) The entire area of 40.5645 [hectares] had been used as grazing

area for cattle and carabao long before the passage of R.A. 6657,
and is therefore, excluded from the coverage of CARL;
 2) After deducting the retention area of the individual landowners, the
excess area of each is only 8.5215 has.;
 3) Considering that there are several bills pending in Congress to

increase the retention area of landowners, to cover lands below 20
hectares will result only in confusion and needless paperwork should
the retention area be increased in answer to the clamor of majority of
landowners.
ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF COVERAGE
 MARO Jinny Glorioso sent a letter-reply4 on May 31, 1995, stating

that the petitioners had confirmed that the entire 40.5645 hectares
was actually being used for coconut production, so petitioners had
failed to comply with the requirement that the property must be
actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock, poultry, and
swine-raising purposes. MARO Glorioso also wrote that the subject
property was covered by CARL because the retention area for
landowners is five hectares, and the excess area in this case is
8.5214 hectares; thus, it is covered.
 On September 23, 1996, MARO Glorioso issued a Notice of

Acquisition over the subject property
Petitioner’s Argument
 Petitioners then filed an application for exemption clearance with the

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Office V on October
16, 1996, claiming that subject property had already been reclassified
as residential built-up area pursuant to the Town Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of Daet dated September 21, 1978 and Zoning Ordinance
No. 04, series of 1980.
DENIAL OF EXEMPTION
 Based on their findings, the DAR RCLUPPI V investigating team
recommended the denial of petitioners’ application for exemption.
DAR Region V Director Dalugdug in his 2nd Indorsement to the DAR
Secretary dated September 30, 1997, wrote:
 This Office, after a careful evaluation of the records of the application,

concurs with the findings and recommendations of the RCLUPPI V
[Investigation] team for the denial of the application on the ground
that the subject property has been [placed] under compulsory
coverage and a Notice of Acquisition was already issued by the
MARO of Daet, Camarines Norte. Moreover, the
contention/justification of the Deputized Zoning Administrator when
he was requested to explain why the properties are in the green
[colorcoded] in the land use map as stated in his July 7, 1997 letter
cannot be given credence by this Office. This is due to the fact that
we believe that the built-up area for residential areas provided in the
right hand portion of the map (from 258 to 556 has.) or another 258
has. between 1978 and 1982) has long been exhausted. If one will
take note, the present residential area of Daet is well beyond the 556
has. limit set for 1982. The Ong property, [therefore], can no longer
find any room in the built-up area under the 1978 land use plan.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S [ OP ] GRANTED THE EXEMPTION

APPLICATION
 The Office of the President rendered its Decision16 on September 5,

2005 signed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita. The Office of
the President declared that the main issue was whether or not the
subject property had been reclassified as residential so as to exempt
it from Comprehensive Agrarian Report Program (CARP) coverage.
The Office of the President found that "[a] closer scrutiny of the facts
will reveal that the DAR Secretary concurred with the findings of the
DAR Regional Director, who in turn relied on his own belief that the
land is agricultural and not otherwise." The Office of the President
reversed and set aside the questioned DAR Orders and approved
petitioners’ application for clearance, "exempting from CARP
coverage the 40.5 hectares property with TCT No. T-17045, situated
in Barangay Dogongan, Daet, Camarines Norte."
OP’S RATIO – The land was reclassified as non-agricultural prior June

1998 hence exempted from coverage
 Under the foregoing circumstances, the denial of the exemption on
the ground that the MARO has already issued a NOTICE OF
ACQUISITION in 1994 is flawed. The area having already been
reclassified as residential prior to June 1988 (as established by the
DAR RCLUPPI V), it cannot be the subject of a Notice of Acquisition
which covers only agricultural lands. Perforce, the Notice of
Acquisition over the subject property is void ab initio.
CA REVERSED OP’S DECISION

 While WE agree with the Office of the President that lands which
have been reclassified as residential prior to June 15, 1988 [cannot]
be the subject of compulsory acquisition by the DAR for its agrarian
reform program, WE are not inclined to sustain its ruling approving
the application for clearance of respondents exempting from CARP
coverage the subject landholding because of respondents’ failure to
comply with the requirements for such exemption.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT - that there land was classified as non-

agricultural prior June 1998
 The Certification issued by the Board expressly mentioned that the
"property x x x, Lot 835-B located at Brgy. Tangub, Bacolod City,
covered by TCT T-79622, x x x was identified for residential use
under the 1976 Framework Plan of the City of Bacolod prepared
pursuant to the Program of the then Ministry of Local Government
and approved by the City Council in its Resolution No. 5153-A, Series
of 1976." It also certified that the "area where the aforecited property
is located was likewise identified for residential use under the Town
Planning, Housing Zoning Program of the National Coordinating
Council of the then Ministry of Human Settlements as approved under
the City Council Resolution No. 5792, Series of 1977. x x x."
(Citations omitted.)
NO PRIOR HLURB APPROVAL IS NEEDED TO GRANT THE
EXEMPTION
 Petitioners submit that there is nothing in the above provisions of law
that requires the exercise of the power to reclassify an agricultural
land to be approved by the HLURB. Petitioners claim that such power
to reclassify is exclusively within the authority of the local government
unit concerned. Petitioners allege that given the reclassification of the
subject property to residential pursuant to Ordinance No. 04, series of
1980, based on the 1978 approved Town Plan, the same can no
longer be reverted to agricultural. Petitioners conclude that since the
subject property was reclassified from agricultural to residential long
before June 15, 1988, it is therefore exempt from the coverage of the
CARL
Respondent’s Argument
 Respondents claim that HLURB approval is required for
reclassification of land through local ordinance, contrary to
petitioners’ contention.
ISSUE: WHETHER Petitioner’s LAND IS EXEMPTED FROM DAR

COVERAGE
RULING: YES , the land was reclassified sa residential prior June 1998
RATIO
 [P]ursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local Government Code,
municipal and/or city councils are empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or
regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission." It was also emphasized
therein that "[t]he power of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from
agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject to the
approval of the [DAR]
HSRC APPROVAL IS SUFFICIENT

 As to the appropriateness of an HSRC approval, the Court in Heirs of
Deleste ruled on the validity of a local government’s reclassification of
land that was subsequently approved not by the HLURB, but by its
predecessor, the HSRC. The Court held that the HSRC approval is
enough, and it is a valid reclassification, as explained in the following
quoted portion of the decision:
 Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which

was enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject
property into a commercial/residential area. DARAB, however,
believes that the approval of HLURB is necessary in order for the
reclassification to be valid.
 Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential

land by virtue of Resolution No. 29-A dated July 9, 1972, it is no
longer agricultural land by the time the CARL took effect on
June 15, 1988 and is, therefore, exempt from the CARP.
CA’s findings were wrong

 The Court of Appeals found it material that the HLURB certified that the
"Town Plan and Zoning Ordinance of Daet, Camarines Norte was approved
by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, then Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission on September 21, 1978"39 while the Deputized
Zoning Administrator authorized that as per Zoning Ordinance No. 4, series
of 1980, subject property was within the residential built-up area. The
Court of Appeals insisted that petitioners should have submitted the HLURB
certification for Zoning Ordinance No. 4.

4 ONG V. IMPERIAL July 15, 2015, G.R. No. 197127

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 ONG V. IMPERIAL July 15, 2015, G.R. No. 197127

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 ONG V. IMPERIAL July 15, 2015, G.R. No. 197127

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. ONG V. IMPERIAL July 15, 2015, G.R. No.

PONENTE: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

 Petitioners Noel L. Ong, Omar Anthony L. Ong, and Norman L. Ong

Protest against the notice of coverage

 Petitioners wrote a letter3 dated April 26, 1995 "vehemently

 1) The entire area of 40.5645 [hectares] had been used as grazing

 3) Considering that there are several bills pending in Congress to

ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF COVERAGE

 MARO Jinny Glorioso sent a letter-reply4 on May 31, 1995, stating

 On September 23, 1996, MARO Glorioso issued a Notice of

 Petitioners then filed an application for exemption clearance with the

 This Office, after a careful evaluation of the records of the application,

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT’S [ OP ] GRANTED THE EXEMPTION

 The Office of the President rendered its Decision16 on September 5,

OP’S RATIO – The land was reclassified as non-agricultural prior June

CA REVERSED OP’S DECISION

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT - that there land was classified as non-

ISSUE: WHETHER Petitioner’s LAND IS EXEMPTED FROM DAR

HSRC APPROVAL IS SUFFICIENT

 Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which

 Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential

CA’s findings were wrong

You might also like