Sta.
Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA
G.R. No. 112526. October 12, 2001
PARDO, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the registered owner of two parcels of land
with a total area of 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which
provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community. Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its
rights over the property, thereby destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents
filed a civil case with the Regional Trial Court seeking an easement of a right of way to and from
Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private
respondents. After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian
Reform for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. The landholding of
SRRDC was placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner objected to the compulsory acquisition of
the property contending that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged
in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not
entitled to any land as beneficiaries. The DARAB ruled against the petitioner. On appeal the CA affirmed
the decision of DARAB.
Issue:
Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the entire property
formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657
SC ruling:
Watershed is one of those enumerated by CARP to be exempt from its coverage. We cannot ignore the
fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed
purposes. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and
the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds
is an intergenerational responsibility that needs to be answered now.
Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides:
"Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface water or overlying any ground water
may be declared by the Department of Natural resources as a protected area. Rules and Regulations
may be promulgated by such Department to prohibit or control such activities by the owners or occupants
thereof within the protected area which may damage or cause the deterioration of the surface water or
ground water or interfere with the investigation, use, control, protection, management or administration of
such waters."
Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary
or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds."
Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why was the Casile property titled in the
name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of the titling, the Department of Agriculture and
Natural Resources had not the declared the property as watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay
Casile were declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979,
as certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang
Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution 26 voiding the zoning classification of the land at
Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land was now classified as agricultural
land.
The authority of the municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning classification is
an exercise of its police power, not the power of eminent domain. "A zoning ordinance is
defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes, defines
and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and future
projection of needs."
Other doctrines:
JUST COMPENSATION, HOW MADE. — In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that "The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an
accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is
contemplated either”.
PROPERTY WITH SLOPES OF 18% OR MORE, EXEMPTED FROM ITS COVERAGE. — Another factor
that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing, petitioner presented proof that the
Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R.A.
No. 6657, Section 10, provides that ". . . watersheds . . . and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope
and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act."
