July 3, 1997
DAR OPINION NO. 74-97
Atty. Jose V . Mejia
1577 Iriga St.
Makati City
Dear Atty. Mejia:
This has reference to your letter then addressed to Hector D. Soliman, Undersecretary for Legal Affairs Office seeking opinion on whether a property declared to he within the so called "lahar danger zone" is exempt from CARP coverage.
As gleaned from your letter together with the enclosure therein attached, the subject property is covered by TCT No. 148388-R registered in the name of Mr. Medel P. Payumo; that it has an aggregate area of one hundred (100) hectares, more or less, situated in Porac, Pampanga; that as early as 1988 said landholding had been voluntarily offered for sale (VOS) to the Department of Agrarian Reform by Mr. Medel P. Payumo, but unfortunately, with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, said property was among those declared to be within the "lahar danger zone"; that as a result of this development Miss Lolita C. Cruz, Department Manager of Land Bank of the Philippines in Region III wrote PARO Renato B. Alano with the information that LBP was returning the Voluntary Offer to Sell Claim Folders (VOSCF) of Mr. Payumo due to the reason already stated; and that with no hope of being compensated under CARL, Mr. Payumo is now contemplating to utilize and develop said properties instead of letting the same remain idle.
It is beyond cavil that only lands suitable for agriculture are covered under CARP. Specifically, Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly provides that: "the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produce, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture". This expressed and categorical declaration inescapably concludes that lands originally agricultural but ceased to be such afterwards are likewise exempt from the coverage, albeit not included in the enumeration in Section 10 of RA No. 6657. Briefly, the enumeration therein is not exclusive so as to confine its application solely to instances therein stated. This interpretation is in consonance with the rule on statutory construction that: "the spirit and intendment thereof must prevail over its letter, especially where adherence to the latter would result in absurdity and injustice". Thus, cases which do not come within the strict letter of the statute, if within the spirit thereof, will nonetheless fall within its scope.
By parity of reasoning, therefore, lands which had lost their agricultural character by reason of force majeure are perforce taken out of the purview of CARP coverage. To rule otherwise will be to defeat the very purpose for which the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) has been conceived and envisioned since the subject landholdings are no longer agriculturally productive and viable. Accordingly, exemption is necessarily and eventually the only practical and prudent recourse to take.
We hope to have clarified the matter with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning
Copy furnished:
Ms. Lolita C. Cruz
Department Manager
Land Bank of the Philippines
Region III
San Fernando, Pampanga