March 20, 1997

DAR OPINION NO. 27-97

Atty. Carlos A. Raneses

3/F CREBA CENTER

Don Alejandro Roces Ave. cor.

         South "A" Street

Quezon City

Dear Atty. Raneses:

This has reference to your letter seeking opinion on the following subject matter:

1)        Whether the Tourism Development Areas (TDA) which have been delineated and identified through geographic areas by the Department of Tourism (DOT) within the sites declared as Tourist Zone pursuant to Proclamation Nos. 1520 (1975) and 1801 (S. 1978) which were enacted prior to the effectivity of CARL on 15 June 1988 are within or outside the coverage of CARP;

2)        Whether the DAR, under its authority to implement the CARP under R.A. 6657 has the mandate of law to intervene in the development of TDA's which are within the sites declared as Tourist Zones pursuant to Proclamation Nos. 1520 (1975) and 1801 (S. 1978) considering the fact that these laws already existing at the time of the enactment of CARL also have granted the DOT the mandate to exercise administration and control over Tourist Zones.

You state that there are conflicting impressions and conceptions as to the CARP coverage of the TDAs resulting in the disruption of the development of these areas for tourism purposes, which is one of the three (3) major areas for priority development of the National Leadership under the Philippines 2000 Program and as envisioned in Executive Order No. 124, Series of 1993; as tourism development, being in the frontline in the generation of foreign business portfolios and as a major factor for national economic development, CREBA believes that the perennial problem on land access over the TDAs must now be seriously addressed by the government bureaucracy before the private sector loses its initiative and enthusiasm to respond to the call of the National Leadership to participate in the development of the TDAs; it is by reason of the above-cited setbacks and with the end-view of creating a conducive business climate for tourism investment and development, you would like to request for clear statement of declaration on the said matters.

Anent your queries we are in conformity with your stand that Proclamation No. 1520 and 1801 Series of 1975 and 1978, respectively, declaring certain areas as Tourist Zones, have the force and effect of law. However, effective 15 June 1988, Republic Act No. 6657 placed all agricultural lands, public and private, regardless of tenurial arrangements and commodity produced, under the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). As a consequences Section 1 of E.O. 448 which amends E.O. 407 provides: "All lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of Presidential Proclamations for specific public uses by the government, its agencies and its instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations suitable for agriculture and no longer actually directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved, as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established, shall be segregated from the reservation and transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP )."

For said TDAs to be outside the coverage of CARP, said landholding must be actually, directly and exclusively used or still necessary for the specific purpose for which said proclamation was issued. When said areas are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purpose for which said proclamation was issued, and such is suitable for agriculture as determined by DAR, in coordination with the proper government agencies concerned, said areas will be placed under the coverage of CARP. It goes without saying however, that if in the process of determining whether the subject property is still necessary for the specific purpose for which said proclamation was issued conflict arises between the DAR and the agency in whose favor the reservation was established, the latter's opinion shall prevail. To avoid such situation, we therefore would like to suggest that you consider the possibility of land use conversion or exemption on the grounds allowed under R.A. 6657.

Thank you for communicating with us and we hope to have enlightened you on the matter.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning