[O.P. Case No. 96-C-6424. November 7, 1997.]
IN RE: LAND USE CONVERSION APPLICATION FOR AGRO-INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, OF 144 HECTARES OF LAND AT SAN VICENTE, SUMILAO, BUKIDNON.
NQSR MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND BUKIDNON AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, applicants, RODOLFO BUCLASAN, PATERNO TUMINHAY, SR., ET AL., intervenors.
R E S O L U T I O N
"In ancient mythology, Antaeus was a terrible giant who blocked and challenged Hercules for his life on his way to Mycenae after performing his eleventh labor. The two wrestled mightily and Hercules flung his adversary to the ground thinking him dead, but Antaeus rose even stronger to resume their struggle. This happened several times to Hercules' increasing amazement. Finally, as they continued grappling, it dawned on Hercules that Antaeus was the son of Gaea and could never die as long as any part of his body was touching his Mother Earth. Thus forewarned, Hercules then held Antaeus up in the air, beyond the reach of the sustaining soil, and crushed him to death.
Mother Earth. The sustaining soil. The giver of life, without whose invigorating touch even the powerful Antaeus weakened and died.
The cases before us are not as fanciful as the foregoing tale. But they also tell of the elemental forces of life and death, of men and women who, like Antaeus, need the sustaining strength of the precious earth to stay alive.
'Land for the Landless' is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is more than a slogan. Through the brooding centuries, it has become a battlecry dramatizing the increasingly urgent demand of the dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as their place in the sun.
Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social justice to 'insure the well-being and economic security of all the people,' especially the less privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal, adding specifically that 'the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits. Significantly, there was also the specific injunction to 'formulate and implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil.'
The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these sentiments, it also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere provisions for the uplift of the common people. These include a call in the following words for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program:
SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing."
Earlier, in fact, RA 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line with the above-stated principles. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by PD 27, which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners.
The people power revolution of 1986 did not change and indeed even energized the thrust for agrarian reform. Thus, on July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued EO 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and EO 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation.
Subsequently, with its formal organization, the revived Congress of the Philippines took over legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations, including extensive public hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The result, after almost a year of spirited debate, was the enactment of RA 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino signed on June 10, 1988. The law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provision." (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)
Before us is a second Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), seeking a reversal of the decision of this Office dated March 29, 1996. Said decision set aside the order of the DAR dated November 14, 1994 which denied the application of Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC) for the conversion of 144 hectares of land located in Barangay San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, from agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional purposes.
The chain of events leading to the present controversy began on January 3, 1990 when the Department of Agrarian Reform served a Notice of Coverage on NQSRMDC's 144-hectare property which was at that time on lease as a pineapple plantation to Del Monte Philippines Inc. (DMPI), formerly Philippine Packing Corporation, until April 1994. This was followed by a Notice of Acquisition on October 25, 1991 and a Notice of Land Valuation for P2.38 million on January 16, 1992.
Reacting thereto, on March 31, 1992, NQSRMDC sought from and was granted by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction which effectively suspended the compulsory acquisition of the property, at least until the termination of its lease to Del Monte in April 1994.
On May 21, 1992, the DAR Regional Director directed Land Bank to open a trust account for P2.38M in the name of NQSRMDC. This was done on June 1, 1992. NQSRMDC objected to these moves and filed an Omnibus Motion to enforce the PARAD Order of March 31, 1992 and to declare as null and void DAR's summary proceeding on the valuation of NQSRMDC's property. On October 12, 1992, PARAD ordered the DAR Regional Director and Land Bank to comply with his Order of March 31, 1992 suspending the compulsory acquisition of the property and "to desist from pursuing any activity or activities covering petitioner's property." PARAD reasoned that under Sec. 8 of RA 6657, the subject property could not be the subject of compulsory acquisition until after the expiration of its lease to DMPI. It also nullified the summary proceedings on the valuation of NQSRMDC's land. Land Bank was ordered to return the claim folder to DAR.
On January 7, 1993, the Bukidnon Provincial Development Council (PDC) passed three resolutions which (a) adopted the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Area Project (to be located in the NQSRMDC property) as one of the priority projects in Bukidnon; (b) adopted the proposed industrial zones for the Province of Bukidnon and (c) zonified certain areas along the Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon Industrial Grid wherein the subject property is situated.
On January 21, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao passed a resolution supporting the establishment of the Development Academy of Mindanao and the Agro-industrial Park, two projects proposed to be established on the property. On March 24, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao, after conducting public hearings as required by the Local Government Code (RA 7160), enacted a resolution converting the entire 144-hectare property from agricultural to industrial/institutional. On October 12, 1993, the Provincial Development Council of Bukidnon approved the proposed project of NQSRMDC.
On December 11, 1993, the Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development Association (BAIDA), thru Mr. Gaudencio Beduya, filed with the Secretary of Agrarian Reform an application for conversion of the subject landholdings from agricultural to agro-industrial.
From 1993 to 1994, NQSRMDC's conversion plans received either favorable indorsements or "no-objection" statements from several local agencies or NGOs like the Provincial Development Council, Sangguniang Bayan, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, Department of Agriculture, etc.
On February 1, 1994, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bukidnon approved the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao's resolution dated March 24, 1993 which converted the entire landholding from agricultural to industrial/institutional.
On October 20, 1994, however, DAR Undersecretary Jose Medina, Jr., Chairman of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council's (PARC) Land Use Technical Committee, informed Beduya of file denial of BAIDA's application because the area was agriculturally productive and irrigated, and therefore fell within the non-negotiability provision on conversion under Administrative Order No. 20, s. 1992. On November 14, 1994, Agrarian Reform Secretary Ernesto Garilao issued an Order denying the application for conversion of NQSRMDC/BAIDA.
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by NQSRMDC/BAIDA on January 9 1995 but this was denied "with finality" by Secretary Garilao on June 7, 1995.
On October 13, 1995, CLOA No. 00240227 was registered as Transfer Certificate of Title No. AT-3536 in the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon.
Wishing to exhaust his administrative remedies, Bukidnon Governor Carlos Fortich appealed to the Office of the President. On March 29, 1996, OP, through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, promulgated a decision reversing the DAR, thereby allowing the conversion of the NQSRMDC property from agricultural to industrial/institutional. DAR filed a Motion for Reconsideration but this was dismissed by Secretary Torres on June 23, 1997 for having been filed beyond the reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. He further declared that his March 29, 1996, decision had become final and executory.
On July 11, 1997, DAR filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which is the incident addressed by this Resolution.
In view of the favorable OP decision it secured and the filing of the second Motion for Reconsideration by DAR, NQSRMDC filed suit on April 10, 1997 in Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bukidnon against the DAR and the MAPALAD farmers. It sought the cancellation of the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) issued to the farmer-beneficiaries and payment for damages. The said RTC issued an Order granting Quisumbing's application for injunction and enjoining defendants DAR and the MAPALAD farmers from entering and occupying the subject land. MAPALAD farmers subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals questioning the above Order of the RTC and a Motion to Set Aside Hearing (in the said RTC) while the Certiorari case is pending in the Court of Appeals. The latter Motion is set for hearing on December 5, 1997 in Branch 9 of RTC Bukidnon.
On October 9, 1997, seventeen (17) farmers affected by the March 29, 1996 OP decision began their hunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon City. On October 10, 1997, 113 persons claiming to be the farmer-beneficiaries of the NQSRMDC property filed a motion for intervention (styled as Memorandum in Intervention) in O.P. Case No. 96-C-6424. On October 20, 1997, President Fidel V Ramos held a dialogue with the striking farmers and promised to find a fair and just solution to the impasse within the framework of the law. He created an eight-man Fact Finding Task Force (FFTF) chaired by Agriculture Secretary Salvador Escudero to look into the controversy and recommend possible solutions to the problem.
On October 29, 1997, the FFTF submitted its report to the President. The report stated, among other things, that: (a) the land is generally flat to slightly rolling; (b) the soil of the land is productive and suitable for agriculture; (c) Del Monte Philippines, Inc. leased it as a pineapple plantation for ten (10) years until April 1994; (d) the area has an existing water supply with an active irrigation canal passing thru the land; (e) one hundred (100) hectares are suitable for agriculture while the remaining forty-four (44) hectares adjacent to the highway potentially possess a much greater commercial value if converted to industrial/institutional purposes; (f) the Philippine National Police (PNP) mission team requested by the FFTF to verify the status or qualifications of the 137 MAPALAD farmer-beneficiaries reported that the said farmers are neither tenants nor occupants of the subject land; (g) this notwithstanding, the PNP report stated that most, if not all, of the MAPALAD farmers are qualified to become beneficiaries of the subject land pursuant to Sec. 22, Chapter VII of RA 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988; (h) the same PNP report also indicated that seven (7) farmers already have properties ranging from .13 to 6.0 hectares. This information, however, remained unconfirmed due to lack of time to obtain an official certification from the Provincial Assessor's Office.
For its part, the March 29, 1996 decision in O.P. Case No. 96-C-6424 reversed the DAR Order and permitted the conversion of the land use of the property from agricultural to industrial/institutional on the following grounds: (a) it shall benefit the people of Bukidnon more if the subject land will be used for agro-industrial purposes compared to awarding the same to the farmers; (b) the irrigation facility in the area merely passes thru the property (as a right of way) to provide water to the ricelands located on the lower portion thereof; the land itself, subject of the instant petition, is not irrigated, as the same was, for several years, planted with pineapple by DMPI; (c) on March 31, 1992, the PARAD had already restrained the DAR from implementing the CARP on the subject property; (d) NQSRMDC had already made substantial contributions to the land reform program (300 hectares of their land in Nueva Ecija and 400 hectares of their land in Bukidnon had already been subjected to land reform, with the latter still unpaid for); (e) the DAR had no basis to claim that there was a lack of clear and tangible compensation package for the beneficiaries, since the land is not tenanted; and (f) the Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) authorizes the local government units (LGUs) to reclassify lands.
The DAR, on the other hand, took the position that: (a) the entire property was clearly agricultural and therefore covered by CARP; (b) the land, being irrigated or, at least, within an irrigable area may not be converted to other land uses; (c) the coverage of the property under CARP, although begun in January, 1990, could not be completed because at that time the land was still on lease to DMPI, a multinational company; (d) the substantial steps required by Sec. 8 of RA 6557 had already been taken and the Notice of Coverage was never nullified; (e) the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao had no legal authority to reclassify the NQSRMDC property from agricultural to industrial/institutional and (f) NQSRMDC's benevolence in having already given up 700 hectares to CARP, although laudable, cannot justify this violation of the CARP law.
In resolving the instant second Motion for Reconsideration filed by DAR, we are confronted by certain very substantial and critical issues:
1. Was the failure of the DAR to file its first Motion for Reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period fatal to its cause?
2. Is the NQSRMDC estate agricultural or not?
3. If it is agricultural, was it ever effectively placed under the operation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA 6657)?
4. And if the land had in fact been placed under CARP, did the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao have the legal authority to reclassify it into industrial/institutional?
5. If the land, as claimed by NQSRMDC, did not have either tenants or occupants, is it still possible for some or all of the MAPALAD farmers to become legitimate farmer-beneficiaries therein?
6. Did the recommendation of the FFTF to segregate 100 hectares from the remaining 44 hectares have reasonable basis to support it?
On the first issue of whether DAR's cause became forever lost upon its failure to file its first Motion for Reconsideration on time, we hold that:
"The application of the rules on procedure should be made liberal to give way to substantial justice. In a long line of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the High Tribunal has reiterated that the rules on procedure should be interpreted liberally, not literally. The Supreme Court has often passed upon controversies pitting procedural technicalities against the demands of substantial justice, invariably ruling in favor of the latter.
In the language of the Court, 'Because there is no vested right in technicalities, in meritorious cases, a liberal, not literal, interpretation of the rules becomes imperative and technicalities should not be resorted to in derogation of the intent and purpose of the rules which is the proper and just determination of a litigation. Litigations should, as much as possible, decide on their merits and not on technicality. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon, and the rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, for they are adopted to help serve, and not override, substantial justice, and thereby defeat their very aims. As has been the constant rulings of this Court, every party-litigant should be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just disposition of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities." (A-One Feeds vs. CA, 100 SCRA 590).
On the second issue of whether the NQSRMDC property is agricultural or not, we hold that it is. And we have the authority of A.O. 20, s. 1992 to say so. Section 1 of said Order, entitled Interim Guidelines on Agricultural Land Use Conversion, pertinently reads as follows:
"Section 1. All agricultural lands classified hereunder shall not be subject to and are non-negotiable for conversion:
(a) All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the Department of Agriculture and National Irrigation Administration; and
(b) All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments at the time of the application for land use conversion."
The FFTF, thru the DA, dispatched a survey team to the said land to determine its characteristics. The DA reported that the land is generally flat and slightly rolling. The soil of the land is productive and suitable for agriculture. It used to be planted with pineapple and has an existing water supply, an active irrigation canal passing through the land. This being so, the NQSRMDC property is clearly agricultural land falling squarely within the ambit of Section 1 of AO No. 20 s. 1992. Hence, it is not subject to and is non-negotiable for conversion.
On the third issue of whether the NQSRMDC estate was ever effectively placed under the operation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA 6657), we rule in the affirmative. A Notice of Coverage was served on the property as early as January 3, 1990. This was followed by a Notice of Acquisition on October 25, 1991. We find no merit in NQSRMDC's argument that the PARAD's Order dated March 31, 1992 effectively prevented the CARP coverage of the subject property because it was clear from the terms thereof that the intent was merely to temporarily freeze all actions thereon until after the expiration of the lease agreement with DMPI in April 1994.
Memorandum Circular (MC) 54 s. 1993 finds very specific application here:
"Sec. 1(d). In addition, the following types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by the said reclassification:xxx xxx xxx
(2) Agricultural lands already issued a Notice of Coverage or Voluntarily Offered for coverage under CARP."
On the fourth issue of whether local government units (LGUs) have the power to reclassify/convert agricultural lands to industrial/institutional uses, we hold that such power to reclassify/convert, drawn from Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), is not absolute and is subject to the powers of the DAR granted by RA 6657. The approval of the zoning ordinance by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao did not ipso facto convert the property from agricultural to non-agricultural. In fact, Sec. 20(e) of RA 7160 categorically states that "nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing, amending, or modifying in any manner the provisions of RA 6657." The only reasonable interpretation which will harmonize these provisions is that the reclassification of land covered by CARP by a zoning ordinance enacted by an LGU is still subject to the power of the DAR to approve conversions. It is our opinion that the fact that NQSRMDC decided to file an application for conversion with the Secretary of Agrarian Reform on December 11, 1993, despite the zoning ordinance in its favor, was a clear admission that Sumilao's zoning ordinance was still not enough to change the actual use of the land.
We cannot close our eyes to the possibility that NQSRMDC's application for land use conversion was a ploy to escape the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. When the DAR issued a Notice of Coverage on the property on January 3, 1990, NQSRMDC distinctly heard the tolling of the bell. It knew that it was only a matter of time before RA 6657 would be applied to it. Indeed, it was only its lease agreement with the DMPI which was holding back the coverage of the entire landholding under CARP. NQSRMDC sensed that its days were numbered and DAR was only waiting for the expiration of the lease in April 1994. In the meantime, NQSRMDC tried to resort to what it probably thought was its protective legal remedy and that was to apply for land use conversion in December of 1993, four (4) months, before the expiration of the lease.
Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides that:
"SECTION 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. The following are prohibited:"xxx xxx xxx
(c) The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them."
On the fifth issue of whether it is possible for the MAPALAD farmers to become legitimate farmer-beneficiaries of the said property notwithstanding the fact that there were neither tenants nor occupants therein, we answer in the affirmative. Sec. 22, Chapter VII of RA 6657, categorically states:
"Qualified Beneficiaries. The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land."
Time and again the courts have ruled that the absence of tenants or occupants in land which is covered by CARP is no excuse to remove said land from the coverage of land reform. Landless farmers in the vicinity or adjoining areas can be given land under CARP in the order of priority laid down by the law.
On the sixth issue of whether the segregation of the entire property into two parcels of approximately 100 hectares and 44 hectares respectively, had reasonable basis to support it, we hold that it did. As reported by the FFTF:
"Substantial justice may be given to all concerned if the prospective farmer-beneficiaries would be allowed to till that portion of the land that is clearly agricultural while that portion which will be more suited to industrial and other uses be retained for conversion as this part of the land would offer great opportunities for employment and bring about development in the area. This formula to subserve substantial justice to all concerned also coincides with application of the facts and the law in the instant case. As was determined by the DA, the portion of the land of some 100 hectares is suitable for agriculture and has an irrigation facility, thus covered by Presidential AO No. 20 and Presidential MC No. 54. This portion of the land may not be converted to other uses. However, with respect to the 44-hectare portion of the land which is adjacent to the highway, DA has determined that while the same may also be used for agricultural purposes, said portion will be more suitable for industrial/institutional purposes and thus, may be converted to agro-industrial or institutional purposes.
Based on the determination of the DA that the portion of about 100 hectares of the property is suitable for agriculture and is traversed by an irrigation canal, the said portion is non-negotiable for conversion based on Presidential A.O. No. 20 Series of 1992 and Presidential M.C. No. 54 Series of 1993 in relation to the Local Government Code and the CARL. However, that part of the land with an area of approximately 44 hectares adjacent to the highway may be converted to industrial and other uses because it would offer great opportunities for employment and bring about development in the area."
The segregation of the entire property into two is legally justifiable under the provisions of AO 20 s. 1992 and MC 54 s. 1993 in relation to Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). With respect to the approximately 100 hectares proposed to be declared as agricultural and non-negotiable for conversion, Sec. 1 of AO 20 s. 1992 supports this recommendation. The provision has already been quoted on page 9 of this Resolution.
Section 1 (d) of MC 54 s. 1993, on the other hand, lends firm support to the declaration of the 100-hectare portion as non-negotiable for conversion. It states:
"xxx xxx xxx
(d) In addition the following types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by the said reclassification:
(1) Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries subject to Section 65 of RA 6657;
(2) Agricultural lands already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP;
(3) Agricultural lands identified under AO 20, s. of 1992, as non-negotiable for conversation as follows:
(i) All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production;
(ii) All irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by DA and National Irrigation Administration (NIA); and
(iii) All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments at the time of the application for land conversion or reclassification.
xxx xxx xxx
Considering that the said 100-hectare portion was found by the FFTF to be suitable for agriculture and that it has an irrigation facility, the foregoing provisions of AO 20 s. 1992 and MC 54 s. 1993 buttress DAR's position that the land is non- negotiable for conversion.
With respect to the 44-hectare portion, MC 54 s. 1993, in relation to Sec. 20 of RA 7160, is the legal basis for the conversion of the land to industrial and other uses. Sec. 1(b) of said presidential issuance provides, in part:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Agricultural lands may be reclassified 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 (DA), in accordance with the standards and guidelines prescribed for the purpose; or
(2) where the land shall .have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes as determined by the. sanggunian concerned, the city/municipality concerned should notify the DA, HLRB, DTI, DOT and other concerned agencies on the proposed reclassification of agricultural lands furnishing them copies of the report of the local development council including the draft ordinance on the matter for their comments, proposals and recommendations within seven (7) days upon receipt.
xxx xxx xxx
Considering that the 44-hectare portion adjacent to the highway was found by the FFTF to be more suited for industrial uses, the same may come under the foregoing section of MC 54 s. 1993 in relation to Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160). We note that Sec. 20 of the Code (insofar as it authorizes LGUs to reclassify agricultural lands) as well as the nature and location of this strip of property justify the conversion of the remaining 44 hectares, considering that the same falls within the general rule that local governments may reclassify agricultural lands found to have substantially greater economic value for industrial uses, subject to the requirements set forth in MC 54 s. 1993.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Office of the President, through Executive Secretary Ruben Torres, dated March 29, 1996, is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
1. NQSRMDC's application for conversion is APPROVED only with respect to the approximately forty-four (44) hectare portion of the land adjacent to the highway, as recommended by the Department of Agriculture.
(2) The remaining approximately one hundred (100) hectares traversed by an irrigation canal and found to be suitable for agriculture shall be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries in accordance with RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law with a right of way to said portion from the highway provided in the portion fronting the highway. For this purpose, the DAR and other concerned government agencies are directed to immediately conduct the segregation survey of the area, valuation of the property and generation of titles in the name of the identified farmer-beneficiaries.
(3) The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby directed to carefully and meticulously determine who among the claimants are qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
(4) The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby further directed to expedite payment of just compensation to NQSRMDC for the portion of the land to be covered by the CARP, including other lands previously surrendered by NQSRMDC for CARP coverage.
(5) The Philippine National Police is hereby directed to render full assistance to the Department of Agrarian Reform in the implementation of this Order.
We take note of the Memorandum in Intervention filed by 113 farmers on October 10, 1997 without ruling on the propriety or merits thereof since it is unnecessary to pass upon it at this time.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines.
By authority of the President:
(SGD.) RENATO C. CORONA
Deputy Executive Secretary
Copy furnished by registered mail with return card:
1. Secretary Ernesto Garilao
Department of Agrarian Reform
2nd Floor, DAR Main Bldg.
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Metro Manila
(2) Secretary Salvador Escudero
Department of Agriculture
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Metro Manila
(3) Secretary Renato Cayetano
Ground Floor, New Executive Bldg.
Malacañang, Manila
(4) Governor Carlos Fortich
Provincial Capitol
Province of Bukidnon
(5) The Honorable Mayor
Sumilao, Bukidnon
(6) Atty. Anastacio T. Muntuerto, Jr.
Rm. 205, Sime Darby Bldg.
M.J. Cuenco Ave., cor. Legaspi St.
Cebu City
(7) Mr. Gaudencio Beduya
NQSR Management And Development Corp.
Norkis Trading Complex
Mandaue City 6014 Cebu
(8) The Regional Director
DAR Regional Office No. X
Cagayan de Oro City
(9) The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
Casisang, Malaybalay, Bukidnon
(10) The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
DARMO, Sumilao Bukidnon
(11) The Chairman, Board of Commissioners
HLURB, Kalayaan Ave.
Quezon City
(12) The Director-General
Philippine National Police Camp
Crame, Quezon City