LAUREANO V. HERMOSO, as represented by his Attorney-in-Fact FLORIDA L.

UMANDAP,
Petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF ANTONIO FRANCIA and PETRA FRANCIA, NAMELY:
BENJAMIN P. FRANCIA, CECILIA FRANCIA, AMOS P. FRANCIA, JR., FRANCISCO F. VILLARICA,
DANILO F. VILLARICA, RODRIGO F. VILLARICA, MELCHOR F. VILLARICA, JESUS F. VILLARICA,
BENILDA F. VILLARICA and ERNESTO F. VILLARICA, Respondents.

DECISION

NACHURA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the
Decision1 dated October 15, 2004 and the Resolution2 dated January 19, 2005 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 77546.

The case involves parcels of land located at Malhacan, Meycauyan, Bulacan, identified as Lot No.
3257 owned by Petra Francia and Lot 3415 owned by Antonio Francia. The lots comprises an area of
2.5 and 1.5850 hectares, respectively, and forms part of a larger parcel of land with an area of
32.1324 hectares co-owned by Amos, Jr., Benjamin, Cecilia, Petra, Antonio and Rufo, all surnamed
Francia.3

Since 1978, petitioner and Miguel Banag (Banag) have been occupying and cultivating Lot Nos. 3257
and 3415 as tenants thereof. They filed a petition for coverage of the said lots under Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 27.4 On July 4, 1995, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued an order
granting the petition, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing facts and jurisprudence considered, Order is hereby issued:

1. PLACING the subject two (2) parcels of land being tenanted by petitioners Laureano Hermoso and
Miguel Banag situated at Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, owned by Amos Francia, et al. under the
coverage of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27; and

2. DIRECTING the DAR personnel concerned to process the issuance of emancipation patents in
favor of said Laureano Hermoso and Miguel Banag after a parcellary mapping have been undertaken
by the Bureau of Lands over the subject landholdings.

SO ORDERED.5

Respondents filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and reinvestigation. On December 9, 1995,
the DAR affirmed with modification the earlier order, and disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, all premises considered, ORDER is hereby issued AFFIRMING the first dispositive
portion of the Order, dated July 4, 1995, issued in the instant case, but MODIFYING the second
dispositive portion of the same now to read, as follows:

1. PLACING the subject two (2) parcels of land being tenanted by petitioners Laureano Hermoso and
Miguel Banag situated at Malhacan, Meycauayan, Bulacan, owned by Amos Francia, et al. under the
coverage of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27; and

2. DIRECTING the DAR personnel concerned to hold in abeyance the processing of the emancipation
patent of Miguel Banag until the issue of tenancy relationship in DARAB Cases Nos. 424-Bul’92 and
425-Bul’92 is finally resolved and disposed.

No further motion of any and/or the same nature shall be entertained.

SO ORDERED.6

In a separate development, petitioner and Banag filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) consolidated Cases Nos. 424-BUL-92 and 425-BUL-92. The cases
delved on whether both petitioner and Banag are tenants of respondents in the subject landholding.
On June 3, 1996, the DARAB rendered a Decision7 upholding the tenancy relationship of petitioner
and Banag with the respondents. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was
denied. A petition for review on certiorari was filed before the CA. However, the petition was denied
on technical grounds in a Resolution8 dated October 9, 1996. A motion for reconsideration was filed,
but the same was likewise denied in a Resolution9 dated December 27, 1996. The case was
eventually elevated to this Court in G.R. No. 127668. On March 12, 1997, the Court denied the
petition for lack of verification,10 and subsequently, also denied the motion for reconsideration in a
Resolution11 dated July 14, 1997.

Earlier, on January 20, 1997, Banag filed before the DAR, an urgent ex-parte motion for the issuance
of an emancipation patent. On March 13, 1997, the DAR granted the motion.12 On March 21, 1997,
respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. They claimed that the lands involved have been
approved for conversion to urban purposes in an Order13 dated June 5, 1973 issued by the DAR
Secretary. The conversion order stated that the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under Presidential
Decree (P.D.) No. 27 does not cover the subject parcels of land.14 On March 10, 1998, the DAR
issued an Order15 affirming the March 13, 1997 order granting the motion for issuance of
emancipation patent in favor of Banag. On March 30, 1998, respondents filed a notice of appeal and
correspondingly filed their appeal memorandum.16 On April 21, 2003, the Office of the President
through the Deputy Executive Secretary rendered a Decision17 denying respondents’ appeal. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the questioned
Order dated 10 March 1998 of the DAR Secretary AFFIRMED in toto.

Parties are required to INFORM this Office, within five (5) days from notice, of the dates of their
receipt of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.18

Respondents then filed with the CA a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. They
maintained that P.D. No. 27 does not cover the subject parcels of land pursuant to the June 5, 1973
Order of the DAR Secretary reclassifying the lands and declaring the same as suited for residential,
commercial, industrial or other urban purposes. Furthermore, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) reclassified the lands as early as October 14, 1978.

On October 15, 2004, the CA rendered the assailed Decision,19 the fallo of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed decision of the
Office of the President is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new decision is hereby rendered
dismissing the Petition for Coverage under P.D. No. 27 filed by respondents [now herein petitioner].

SO ORDERED.20

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. On January 19, 2005, the CA rendered the assailed
Resolution21 denying the motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition.

The sole issue in this petition is whether Lot Nos. 3257 and 3415 are covered by P.D. No. 27.

Petitioner avers that the final and executory decision of this Court in G.R. No. 127668 affirming that he
is a tenant of the landholding in question entitles him to avail of the right granted under PD 27. In
other words, because of the finality of the decision declaring him a tenant of the landholding in
question, in effect, the subject lots are considered as agricultural lands and are thus covered by P.D.
No. 27. Parenthetically, we take judicial notice of the decision of the Court in G.R. No. 127668, in
which the tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondents was upheld. That decision is
already final and executory.
Respondents, for their part, claim that the lands were already declared suited for residential,
commercial, industrial or other urban purposes in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 3844 as early as 1973. Hence, they are no longer subject to P.D. No. 27.

We resolve to deny the petition.

Section 3, Article XII22 of the Constitution mandates that alienable lands of the public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands.

The classification of lands of the public domain is of two types, i.e., primary classification and
secondary classification. The primary classification comprises agricultural, forest or timber, mineral
lands, and national parks. These are lands specifically mentioned in Section 3, Article XII of the
Constitution. The same provision of the Constitution, however, also states that agricultural lands of the
public domain may further be classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
This further classification of agricultural lands is referred to as secondary classification.23

Under existing laws, Congress has granted authority to a number of government agencies to effect
the secondary classification of agricultural lands to residential, commercial or industrial or other urban
uses.

Thus, Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988,
which took effect on June 15, 1988, explicitly provides:

Section 65. Conversion of Lands.— After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land
ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become
urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial
purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the
affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the
land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.

On the other hand, Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of
199124 states:

SECTION 20. Reclassification of Lands. —

(a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public
hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the
manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of
Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential,
commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such
reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the
time of the passage of the ordinance:

(1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%);

(2) For component cities and first to the third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and

(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further, That agricultural lands
distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-
seven (R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law", shall not be
affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be
governed by Section 65 of said Act.

(b) The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of the National
Economic and Development Authority, authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of
the limits set in the next preceding paragraph.

(c) The local government units shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their
respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the
primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided, That the requirements for
food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the
preparation of such plans.

(d) Where the approval by a national agency is required for reclassification, such approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Failure to act on a proper and complete application for reclassification within
three (3) months from receipt of the same shall be deemed as approval thereof.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying in any manner the
provisions of R.A. No. 6657.

But even long before these two trail-blazing legislative enactments, there was already R.A. No. 3844
or the Agricultural Land Reform Code, which was approved on August 8, 1963, Section 36 of which
reads:

SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions.—Notwithstanding any agreement as to the

period or future surrender, of the land, agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and
possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a
judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:

(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will personally cultivate the
landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or
school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be
entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to
his rights under Sections twenty-five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the
agricultural lessor, is not more that five hectares, in which case instead of disturbance compensation
the lessee may be entitled to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment
proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not cultivate the land
himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the
dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have
the right to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him
because of said dispossessions;

(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the
contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force
majeure;

(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than what had
been previously agreed upon;

(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as determined under paragraph 3 of
Section twenty-nine;

(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially damaged or
destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee;

(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-
payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result
of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the obligation
to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or

(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of
Section twenty-seven.

The petitioner in the instant case claims that he is entitled to the issuance of an emancipation patent
under P.D. No. 27. The said decree promulgated by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, on October
21, 1972, is entitled, "DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF
THE SOIL TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND
PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISMS THEREFOR". However, the law specifically
applied "to tenant-farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a
system of share tenancy or lease tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not."

For the parcels of land subject of this petition to come within the coverage of P.D. No. 27, it is
necessary to determine whether the land is agricultural. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 defines
agricultural land, as follows:

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

and Section 3(b) specifies agricultural activity as:

(b) Agriculture, Agriculture Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means cultivation of the soil, planting of
crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities
and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons
whether natural or juridical.

On the basis of these definitions, the subject parcels of land cannot be considered as within the ambit
of P.D. No. 27. This considering that the subject lots were reclassified by the DAR Secretary as suited
for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes way before petitioner filed a petition for
emancipation under P.D. No. 27. The pertinent portions of the June 5, 1973 Order25 read:

Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act 3844, as amended, the said requests of the petitioners
were referred to the National Planning Commission as well as to the Agrarian Reform Team Leader,
Valenzuela, Bulacan for proper investigation.

The National Planning Commission in compliance therewith after due investigation and physical
survey of the subject areas, favorably recommended the suitability of the same to residential,
commercial, industrial or other urban purposes.

Similarly, the Agrarian Reform Team in Valenzuela, Bulacan after due investigation thereof found the
parcels of land subject hereof highly suitable for conversion into urban purposes in view of his findings
and verification of the location, facilities necessary for urban development and also, the low
agricultural income thereof (unirrigated), of the said land. The Team Leader concerned in his
recommendation submitted to this Office made mentioned (sic) that in his declaration of the suitability
of the subject properties for urban purposes, he believes that the conformity of the tenants consisting
of eleven (11) tenants are no longer needed so long as the petitioners are willing to pay the
disturbance compensation as provided for by law. The petitioners manifested to the Team Leader
concerned their willingness to pay each and every tenant the disturbance compensation according to
law. To show further their sincerity to comply with the provisions of the law on disturbance
compensation, and to show that their (petitioners) purpose of the instant request is not to evade the
provisions of Decree 27, they stated in their letter-request that they will not eject any tenants
therefrom, nor dispossessed (sic) them of their landholdings until after they are fully and justly paid
the disturbance compensation according to law.

The subject parcels of land are not included in the land transfer operation according to the team’s
report.

It maybe mentioned in this connection, that from the report of the National Planning Commission
submitted to this Office, it appears that the subject properties are strategically located in the urban
center of the town of Meycauayan wherein there are already existing developed and occupied
residential subdivisions and even low cost housing projects subsidized by funds from government
financial institution. Likewise, there are also industrial establishments in its vicinity according to the
National Planning Commission’s report.

In view of the foregoing, and considering the parcels of land subject hereof to be suited for residential,
commercial, industrial or other urban purposes as found and recommended by the National Planning
Commission and the Agrarian Reform Team concerned, and considering further that the said parcels
of land by reason of their location and the existence of developed and occupied residential
subdivisions and industrial establishments in the immediate vicinity maybe considered as one of the
possible areas to be reserved for urban development as contemplated in the Letter of Instruction No.
46 of the President, and considering finally, that the right of the agricultural tenants therein will be fully
compensated and there will be no ejectment of tenants until after full payment thereof, as manifested
by the petitioners, the instant requests of the petitioners should be, as hereby it is, given due course
and the parcels of land subject thereof are hereby declared suited for residential, commercial,
industrial or other urban purposes in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act 3844, as
amended.

It is understood however, that no agricultural tenants and/or lessees shall be ejected from or
dispossessed of their landholdings by virtue of this Order not until after they are duly and justly paid
the disturbance compensation according to law, the amount of which maybe determined and fixed by
the proper court in the absence of any mutual agreement thereto by and between the agricultural
lessees and the owner-petitioners.

SO ORDERED.26

The main contention of petitioner for the approval of the emancipation patent in his favor under P.D.
No. 27 is the fact that respondents were not able to realize the actual conversion of the land into
residential purposes. To bolster his claim, petitioner relies on Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844, viz.:

SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the

period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and
possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a
judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:

(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will personally cultivate the
landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or
school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be
entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to
his rights under Sections twenty-five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the
agricultural lessor, is not more than five hectares, in which case instead of disturbance compensation
the lessee may be entitled to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment
proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not cultivate the land
himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the
dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have
the right to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him
because of said dispossessions.

xxxx27

However, the provision of R.A. No. 3844 had already been amended by R.A. No. 6389, as early as
September 10, 1971. Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, now reads:

SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the

period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and
possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a
judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:

(1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National
Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban
purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation
equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five
preceding calendar years;

xxxx28

Under R.A. No. 6389, the condition imposed on the landowner to implement the conversion of the
agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes within a certain period was deleted. With the enactment
of the amendatory law, the condition imposed on the landowner to implement the conversion of the
agricultural land to a non-agricultural purpose within a certain period was deleted.29 The remedy left
available to the tenant is to claim disturbance compensation.

In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform30 , the Court held that lands not devoted to
agricultural activity and those that were previously converted to non-agricultural uses are outside the
coverage of the CARL, viz.:

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 lands."

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
cannot in any language be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots were intended for residential
use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan
Reservation. Even today, the areas in question continued to be developed as a low-cost housing
subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be gleaned from the fact that SAMBA members
even instituted an action to restrain petitioners from continuing with such development. The enormity
of the resources needed for developing a subdivision may have delayed its completion but this does
not detract from the fact that these lands are still residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL.
31

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision
dated October 15, 2004 and the Resolution dated January 19, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 77546 are hereby affirmed. The case is remanded to the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator of Bulacan for the proper computation of the disturbance compensation of petitioner.

SO ORDERED.