DAR vs Sarangani

G.R. No. 165547, January 24, 2007

Petitioner: DAR
Respondents: Sarangani Agricultural Co Inc, ACIL Corporation, Nicasio Alcantara and
Tomas Alcantara
Ponente: Azcuna
Facts: The Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel, Sarangani passed Resolution No. 97-08
adopting a 10 year comprehensive development plan of the municipality and its land use.
On January 30, 1998, pursuant to Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, and
to accelerate the development and urbanization of Alabel, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Alabel passed Resolution No. 98-03 reclassifying lots that were located within the built-up
areas, based on the 1995-2005 Land Use Plan of the municipality, from agricultural to nonagricultural uses.
Later, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani approved Resolution No. 98-018
or the Resolution Adopting the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive Development Plan
(MCDP 1995-2205) and the Land Use Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the
Municipality of Alabel, Sarangani Per Resolution No. 97-08 and Municipal Ordinance No. 9708, S. of 1997 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel. A portion of the area involving
376.5424 hectares, however, was covered by the CARP commercial farms deferment
scheme.
The Zoning Certification issued by the office of the Municipal Planning and
Development Council (MPDC) showed that respondents properties located at Barangay
Maribulan, Alabel were among those reclassified from agricultural and pasture land to
residential, commercial institutional, light industrial and open space in the 1995-2005
land use plan of Alabel.
The respondent then field an application for land use conversion of certain parcels
of land.
Meanwhile, members of the Sarangani Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association, Inc. (SARBAI) sent a letter-petition to the DAR Secretary oppposing the
application for land use conversion filed by SACI. SARBAI alleged that its members were
merely forced to sign the waiver of rights, considering that the commercial farm
deferment period ended on June 15, 1998. Later, the PLUTC agreed to recommend the
disapproval of a portion of a property which was still viable for agriculture. The conversion
was deferred subject to the submission of certain requirements.
Later, the DAR Secretary denied SACIs application for land use conversion.
On November 9, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied SACIs
application for land use conversion. SACI appealed to the Office of the President. The
Office of the President dismissed the appeal and affirmed in toto the challenged DAR
Orders. Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied, so they filed with the Court
of Appeals a petition for review raising substantially the same issues.
The CA granted the petition and ordred DAR to issue a conversion order. As to the
deferred portion, DAR was directed to expedite the processing and evaluation of
petitioners application.
Issue:
of land

WON a notice of coverage is an indispensable requirement for the acquisition

Held:
No, Under the circumstances, a notice of coverage is not an indispensable
requirement before DAR can acquire the subject lots or commercial farms, which are
covered by a deferment period under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or
R.A. No 6657 upon its effectivity on June 15, 1998

Issue:
WON the DAR should use the comprehensive land use plans and ordinance of
the local sanggunian as primary reference
Held: Yes, Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991, empowers the local government units to reclassify agricultural lands.
Memorandum Circular No. 54 Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of R.A. No.
7160 Otherwise Known as the Local Government Code of 1991 Authorizing Cities and
Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural Lands Into Non-Agricultural Uses issued by
President Ramos on June 8, 1993 specified the scope and limitations on the power of the
cities and municipalities to reclassify agricultural lands into other uses. It provided that all
ordinances authorizing reclassification of agricultural lands shall be subject to the review
and approval of the province in the case of component cities or municipalities, or by the
HLURB for highly urbanized or independent component cities in accordance with Executive
Order No. 72, Series of 1993.
Hence, with regard to agricultural lands that have been reclassified for nonagricultural uses by the local government unit concerned, the CA is correct in declaring
that DAR should refer to the comprehensive land use plans and the ordinances of the
Sanggunian in assessing land use conversion applications, thus:
Construing Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code and the subsequent administrative
issuances implementing the same, we are of the opinion that while the DAR retains the
responsibility for approving or disapproving applications for land use conversion filed by
individual landowners on their landholdings, the exercise of such authority should be
confined to compliance with the requirements and limitations under existing laws and
regulations, such as the allowable percentage of agricultural [area] to be reclassified,
ensuring sufficient food production, areas non-negotiable for conversion and those falling
under environmentally critical areas or highly restricted for conversion under the NIPAS
law. Definitely, the DARs power in such cases may not be exercised in such a manner as
to defeat the very purpose of the LGU concerned in reclassifying certain areas to achieve
social and economic benefits in pursuit of its mandate towards the general welfare.
Precisely, therefore, the DAR is required to use the comprehensive land use plans and
accompanying ordinances of the local Sanggunian as primary references in evaluating
applications for land use conversion filed by individual landowners. In this case, petitioners
have already complied with the standard requirements laid down under the applicable
rules and regulations of the DAR....
The conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses shall be strictly
regulated and may be allowed only when the conditions prescribed under R.A. No. 6657
are present. In this regard, the Court agrees with the ratiocination of the CA that DARs
scope of authority in assessing land use conversion applications is limited to examining
whether the requirements prescribed by law and existing rules and regulations have been
complied with. This holds true in the present case where, because of the creation of the
Province of Sarangani and in view of its thrust to urbanize, particularly its provincial capital
which is the Municipality of Alabel, the local government has reclassified certain portions
of its land area from agricultural to non-agricultural. Thus, to reiterate, in accordance with
E.O. No. 72, Series of 1993, and subject to the limitations prescribed by law, DAR should
utilize the comprehensive land use plans in evaluating the land use conversion application
of respondents whose lands have already been reclassified by the local government for
non-agricultural uses.
This is not to say, however, that every property of respondents which is included in
the comprehensive land use plan of the Municipality of Alabel shall be automatically
granted non-coverage. As mentioned earlier, said application is subject to the limitations
and conditions prescribed by law. One such limitation that is present here is that a portion
of respondents property of 376.5424 hectares, a portion totaling 154.622 [or 154.1622]
hectares which are planted to bananas and coconuts, are covered by CARLs ten-year

deferment scheme, which has expired on June 15, 1998. By law, these lands are subject to
redistribution to CARP beneficiaries upon the lapse of the ten-year period, counted from
the date of the effectivity of the CARL or R.A. No. 6657 on June 15, 1988, which was way
before the creation of the Province of Sarangani and the eventual reclassification of the
agricultural lands into non-agricultural in the Municipality of Alabel where respondents
properties are located.
In short, the creation of the new Province of Sarangani, and the reclassification that
was effected by the Municipality of Alabel did not operate to supersede the applicable
provisions of R.A. No. 6657.
Moreover, Section 20 of the LGC of 1991 on the reclassification of lands explicitly
states that [n]othing in this section shall be construed as repealing, amending or
modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, where the law speaks in
clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation. There is only room for
application.

League of Cities v. Comelec

Action:
These are consolidated petitions for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order filed by the League of Cities of the
Philippines, City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treas assailing the constitutionality
of the subject Cityhood Laws and enjoining the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and
respondent municipalities from conducting plebiscites pursuant to the Cityhood Laws.
Fact:
During the 11th Congress, Congress enacted into law 33 bills converting 33 municipalities
into cities. However, Congress did not act on bills converting 24 other municipalities into
cities.
During the 12th Congress, Congress enacted into law Republic Act No. 9009 (RA 9009),
which took effect on 30 June 2001. RA 9009 amended Section 450 of the Local
Government Code by increasing the annual income requirement for conversion of a
municipality into a city from P20 million to P100 million. The rationale for the amendment
was to restrain, in the words of Senator Aquilino Pimentel, the mad rush of municipalities
to convert into cities solely to secure a larger share in the Internal Revenue Allotment
despite the fact that they are incapable of fiscal independence.
After the effectivity of RA 9009, the House of Representatives of the 12th Congress
adopted Joint Resolution No. 29, which sought to exempt from the P100 million income
requirement in RA 9009 the 24 municipalities whose cityhood bills were not approved in
the 11th Congress. However, the 12th Congress ended without the Senate approving Joint
Resolution No. 29.
During the 13th Congress, the House of Representatives re-adopted Joint Resolution No. 29
as Joint Resolution No. 1 and forwarded it to the Senate for approval. However, the Senate
again failed to approve the Joint Resolution. Following the advice of Senator Aquilino
Pimentel, 16 municipalities filed, through their respective sponsors, individual cityhood
bills. The 16 cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting all the 16
municipalities from the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009.
On 22 December 2006, the House of Representatives approved the cityhood bills. The
Senate also approved the cityhood bills in February 2007, except that of Naga, Cebu which
was passed on 7 June 2007. The cityhood bills lapsed into law (Cityhood Laws) on various
dates from March to July 2007 without the Presidents signature.
The Cityhood Laws direct the COMELEC to hold plebiscites to determine whether the
voters in each respondent municipality approve of the conversion of their municipality into
a city.
Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cityhood Laws unconstitutional for
violation of Section 10, Article X of the Constitution, as well as for violation of the equal
protection clause. Petitioners also lament that the wholesale conversion of municipalities

into cities will reduce the share of existing cities in the Internal Revenue Allotment
because more cities will share the same amount of internal revenue set aside for all cities
under Section 285 of the Local Government Code.
Issue:
The petitions raise the following fundamental issues:
1. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution; and
2. Whether the Cityhood Laws violate the equal protection clause.
Held:
We grant the petitions.
The Cityhood Laws violate Sections 6 and 10, Article X of the Constitution, and are thus
unconstitutional.
First, applying the P100 million income requirement in RA 9009 to the present case is a
prospective, not a retroactive application, because RA 9009 took effect in 2001 while the
cityhood bills became law more than five years later.
Second, the Constitution requires that Congress shall prescribe all the criteria for the
creation of a city in the Local Government Code and not in any other law, including the
Cityhood Laws.
Third, the Cityhood Laws violate Section 6, Article X of the Constitution because they
prevent a fair and just distribution of the national taxes to local government units.
Fourth, the criteria prescribed in Section 450 of the Local Government Code, as amended
by RA 9009, for converting a municipality into a city are clear, plain and unambiguous,
needing no resort to any statutory construction.
Fifth, the intent of members of the 11th Congress to exempt certain municipalities from
the coverage of RA 9009 remained an intent and was never written into Section 450 of the
Local Government Code.
Sixth, the deliberations of the 11th or 12th Congress on unapproved bills or resolutions are
not extrinsic aids in interpreting a law passed in the 13th Congress.
Seventh, even if the exemption in the Cityhood Laws were written in Section 450 of the
Local Government Code, the exemption would still be unconstitutional for violation of the
equal protection clause.