June 26, 1997

DAR OPINION NO. 68-97

Mr. Sergio L. Hilado, Jr.

AVP — Land Acquisition and Administration

PHINMA Property Holding Corporation

PHINMA Building, 166 Salcedo St.

Legaspi Village, Makati City

Dear Mr. Hilado:

This has reference to your letter seeking confirmation on the following queries posed therein, to wit:

a)         That the properties owned by Phinma Property Holding Corporation situated at Brgy. Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City and San Juan, Cainta, Rizal are free from claims from any tenant.

b)        That said properties can be converted into non-agricultural use or exempted from CARP because the dominant use of the area surrounding the said properties is no longer agricultural and the land use plan of the city/municipality as duly approved by the HLURB has zoned the properties as no longer agricultural.

Anent your first query, the issue as to whether the subject properties are exempt from any legal claim of tenants is one of factual consideration which cannot be resolved by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) through rendition of a mere legal opinion; it requires clear and convincing proof apart from allegations to substantiate the same. Strictly speaking, mere allegations are not proof and have no probative value unless fully substantiated by the party alleging the same. Thus, proper proofs, investigations or ocular inspections are still necessary to prove said allegation of non-tenancy.

Anent your second query, the answer may be in the affirmative or in the negative depending on whether the legal requirements for conversion or exemption are substantially complied with. Concomitantly, it bears stressing that an application for land use conversion is a personal undertaking which can be filed only at the instance of the following: 1) owners of private agricultural lands or other persons duly authorized by the landowner; 2) farmer-beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program after the lapse of five (5) years from award, reckoned from the date of registration of their landholdings and who have fully paid their obligations and are qualified under DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994, or persons duly authorized by them; and 3) government agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Suffice it to state therefore that it does not necessarily follow that confirmation on since the dominant use of the surrounding area are no longer agricultural as averred (subject to proper proof thereof), the same shall automatically inure to the benefit of the adjoining owners. Briefly, each of the applicant for land use conversion is regarded as distinct from the other as far as their application is concerned.

Furthermore, neither can the landowner or persons duly authorized by him anchor their justification on the ground that the land use plan of the city/municipality as duly approved by the HLURB has zoned the properties as no longer agricultural because it is still necessary to determine whether the reclassification into non-agricultural use was made before or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) on 15 June 1988. If the reclassification was made before said date, conversion clearance is no longer necessary, otherwise, the landowner should still apply for conversion. In any event, however, one should nonetheless still file an application for conversion or exemption as the case may be.

We hope to have clarified the matters with you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning