DOJ 44 CASE TEMPLATE
I. INTRODUCTION
This template serves as a guide in resolving exemption cases which fall under DOJ Opinion No. 44, specifically exemptions based on reclassification to industrial, residential and commercial zones. DOJ Opinion no. 44 states that "the authority of the DAR to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses applies only to conversions made on or after June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 6657."
II. CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS
Section 2, A.O. No. 4, Series of 2003:
[ ] Certified copy of the Official Receipt (O.R.) of filing fee.
[ ] Certified copy of the O.R. for inspection fee.
[ ] Sworn Application for CARP Exemption or Exclusion, duly accomplished, and subscribed and sworn to before a notary public or any person authorized to administer oaths:
[ ] Special Power of Attorney (SPA) if the applicant is not the registered owner nor one of the co-owners of the property;
[ ] Notarized secretary's certificate of a corporate or cooperative board resolution authorizing the applicant's representative to file the Sworn Application for CARP Exemption if the applicant is a corporation or cooperative or some other juridical entity;
[ ] Latest notarized General Information Sheet (GIS) if the applicant is a corporation or cooperative or some other juridical entity.
[ ] Certified True Copy (or the original copy) of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of the subject land, certified by the Register of Deeds not earlier than thirty (30) days prior to the application filing date.
In case of untitled land:
[ ] Certification from the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) that the landholding has been classified as alienable and disposable, and
[ ] Certification from the DENR CENRO (for administrative confirmation of imperfect title) that the titling process/proceeding has commenced and there are no adverse claimants or the Clerk of Court (for judicial confirmation of imperfect title) that there is a pending case filed in the court,
[ ] Certified Copy of Tax Declaration.
[ ] Certification from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Officer on the actual zoning or classification of the subject land in the approved comprehensive land use plan, citing the municipal or city zoning ordinance number, resolution number, and date of its approval by the HLURB or its corresponding board resolution number.
[ ] Certification of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) that the area is not irrigated nor scheduled for irrigation rehabilitation nor irrigable with firm funding commitment.
[ ] Certification of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) attesting compliance with the public notice requirement and its corresponding report as to status of CARP coverage on subject land, presence of farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants farm workers, actual tillers, or occupants.
[ ] Photographs, size 5R (five [5] inches by seven [7] inches), using color film, and taken on the landholding under sunlight. The applicant shall attach the pictures to a paper background and the photographer who took said pictures shall sign on said paper background to certify the authenticity of the pictures. On each background paper shall be written a short description of each picture. The pictures shall consist of:
[ ] Four (4) photographs taken from the center of the landholding: one (1) facing north, one (1) facing east, one (1) facing south, and one (1) facing west;
[ ] One (1) photograph per corner, taken from each corner of the landholding's borders;
[ ] Two (2) photographs each for all distinct man-made structures existing on the land, taken from opposite angles;
[ ] Two (2) photographs each of the front view of the billboard(s) required in Section 11 hereof;
[ ] Sufficient number of photographs of the most conspicuous landmarks from the nearest barangay center and leading to and from the ingress and egress routes at the subject landholding, for the purpose of assisting the ocular inspection team in locating the site.
[ ] Proof of receipt of payment of disturbance compensation or a valid agreement to pay or waive payment of disturbance compensation.
[ ] Affidavit/Undertaking in a single document of the applicant stating:
[ ] The number and names of the farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants, farmworkers, actual tillers, and/or occupants in the landholding; if there are no such persons, a statement attesting to such fact;
[ ] That the applicant has erected the required number of billboards and undertakes not to remove, deface or destroy said billboard, and that he shall repair or replace the same when damaged, until after the approving authority disposes of the application with finality;
[ ] That he has not committed any act of forum shopping as defined in the rules governing Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases; and
[ ] That when there is a dispute on the fixing of disturbance compensation pending before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) or Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) or DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), the applicant shall abide with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority on the fixing of disturbance compensation.
[ ] Lot plan.
[ ] Vicinity or directional map.
PROOF FOR CLASSIFICATION:
[ ] Certifications issued by HLURB on the actual zoning or classification of the subject land in the approved comprehensive land use plan, citing the municipal or city zoning ordinance number, resolution number, and date of its approval by the HLURB or its corresponding board resolution number.
[ ] For lands classified as mineral: certification issued by the DENR Mines and Geosciences Bureau or the proper DENR office attesting that the subject land is classified as mineral and covered by a mining permit issued by said Bureau or proper Local Government Unit in case of small scale mines.
[ ] For lands classified as forest or timber land, certification issued by the DENR Forestry Sector or the proper DENR office attesting that the subject land is classified within the forest zone.
In case of lands reclassified for purposes of Tourism, this template applies by analogy though this is not covered by DOJ Opinion No. 44:
Requisites for exemption:
[ ] Presidential Decree/Law
[ ] Certification from the Philippine Tourism Authority
[ ] Covered by Zoning Ordinance
III. JURISDICTION
• The landowner may file a Manifestation for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage before the PARO. Within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from his/her/its/their receipt of the Notice of Coverage.
• The Application/Petition for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage may be filed together with the above-mentioned Manifestation.
Reference for this Section: DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 2011, Sections 27-28.
Approving Authorities:
• Regional Director upon recommendation of Regional Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (RCLUPPI), if Land has an area of less than or equal to five (5) hectares, or a fraction above five (5) hectares.
• The Secretary upon recommendation of Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation 2 (CLUPPI-2), if the land has area larger than five (5) hectares.
The Secretary acting upon the recommendation of CLUPPI-2, when the applicant owns (or represents the owner of) two (2) or more parcels of land within the same barangay or within two (2) or more barangays that are adjacent to each other and the sum of the areas of said parcels of land exceeds five (5) hectares.
Note: DAR has jurisdiction even if land is reclassified prior to June 15, 1988 because there might still be tenants, or subsequent reclassification to agricultural or conversion of irrigated and irrigable land as pronounced in DOJ Opinion No. 43 series of 2011. Exemption under DOJ 44 is not automatic.
Reference for this Section: DAR A.O. No. 4, Series of 2003 Art. V, Sections 5.1-5.4
IV. STANDING
Who may file an Application for Exclusion
1. Any landowner or his duly authorized representative
2. Heir/s of deceased landowner, as successors-in-interest
a. If estate is settled, present Deed of Settlement/Partition, or decree of partition issued by the court;
b. If estate is not yet settled, present death certificate and SPA which authorizes him/her to represent all the heirs.
Who may file an opposition to the Application for Exclusion
Any person may file a written protest against the application within thirty (30) days from posting of the requisite billboard(s) or within fifteen (15) days from the conduct of ocular inspection whichever is later. (Item IX, 9.1 of DAR A.O. 4, Series of 2003)
V. TIMELINESS
1. Within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from his/her/its/their receipt of the NOC, the landowner may file a Manifestation for Exclusion from CARP coverage before the PARO.
• The failure to file the said Manifestation within the 30-day reglementary period shall be construed as a waiver on the part of the landowner of the right to file a petition for exemption from CARP coverage. All manifestations made after this period shall no longer be given due course. Instead, a letter will be sent to the applicant explaining that they have filed out of time pursuant to A.O. 7 series of 2011 and their application for exemption is returned to them.
2. The Application/Petition for Exclusion from CARP coverage may be filed together with the above-mentioned Manifestation. If it is not filed jointly, the landowner can file it, together with the documents required by the rules on exemption or exclusion, within sixty (60) days from receipt of the NOC.
• Non-submission thereof within this reglementary period shall be construed as a waiver or abandonment of his/her/its right to file said Petition for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage with respect to the landholding covered.
• For landholdings under VOS, the LO is deemed to have waived his/her/its right to file such a Petition for Exemption or Exclusion from CARP coverage upon DAR's acceptance of his/her/its offer.
Reference for this Section: DAR A.O. 07, Series of 2011
3. If there are CLOAs/EPs registered over the land, consider the indefeasibility principle. Deny if the application was filed more than 1 year from registration.
VI. DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE ACTION
ELEMENTS OF A DOJ 44 CASE:
1. The land involved was reclassified for non-agricultural use.
2. The reclassification was done prior to 15 June 1988.
Note, however:
Landholdings within zones classified as non-agricultural before 15 June 1988 but subsequently reclassified as agricultural by the LGU concerned are covered by CARP. Any exemption order issued therein shall be reviewed by the RD to determine whether the subject landholding is still agricultural in land use, and if found to be such, said exemption order shall be immediately revoked. A Notice of Coverage shall thereupon be issued to the landowner. (A.O. No. 7, Series of 2011)
Find out if the application was accompanied by the required supporting documents in the checklist above.
• If the documents are complete, proceed with the decision of the case.
• If the documents are incomplete, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI must return the application to the applicant and require him to submit the lacking documents.
• If the incomplete application was inadvertently accepted, the RCLUPPI/CLUPPI may issue an interlocutory order, within a specific period, requiring the applicant to complete the documentary requirements. If the order was not complied with, DISMISS.
Contentious Issues with Suggested Answers
1. What if the land was reclassified prior to 15 June 1988 but the actual use is still for agricultural purposes? (If it is still an irrigated land?)
• Exempt if there is valid reclassification prior to 15 June 1988. Basis is not on actual use but on the reclassification (Legal Basis: DOJ 44)
2. What if there are tenants occupying the land or Notice of Coverage was already issued when the exemption application was filed?
• If the land is tenanted, the tenants have the right to be paid disturbance compensation.
• If Notice of Coverage has already been issued, the application will serve as an opposition/protest.
3. What if the land is covered under OLT of P.D. No. 27?
• The prefatory statement in A.O. 4-2003 provides that, "the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands covered by P.D. No 27, which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988."
• Also, Anderson Co. vs. IAC (G.R. No. L-65928, June 21, 1988) provides that the ordinance should be given prospective operation only.
• Exemption should not be granted.
4. What if the land was reclassified for non-agricultural use prior to 15 June 1988, but then subsequently reclassified for agricultural use after 15 June 1988?
• Reverted to agricultural classification. Take note of the time when the Order of Reversion was issued and the exemption clearance. A.O. 7 series of 2011 allows the PARO to issue NOC over the land.
5. Can the reversion annul the exemption clearance?
• If there are already improvements on the land to the effect that it can no longer be used for agricultural purposes, NO.
• If the land has never been touched or used for purposed other than agricultural, YES.
6. What if the basis for reclassification is only a resolution (instead of the original question referring to an ordinance) which is in turn a general Land Use Plan without specifying the metes and bounds for such reclassification?
• DENY. There must be an Ordinance and not merely a Resolution.
7. What if the basis for reclassification was a defective ordinance?
• Note that DAR does not have jurisdiction to determine the validity of an ordinance. In such a case where the oppositor goes to court in an effort to determine the validity of the ordinance, what will the DAR do in the meantime?
o Refer to the HLURB Certification. The HLURB Certification is controlling.
8. Are irrigated and irrigable lands which are reclassified before June 15, 1988 as non-agricultural exempted from the conversion rules?
No. According to DOJ Opinion 43 series of 2011, pursuant to R.A. 9700 all irrigated and irrigable lands without distinction are prohibited from conversion.
9. What if city approves before June 15, 1988 but HLURB certification states only after June 15, 1988?
• DENY. The two requirements must be complied with before June 15, 1988.
Denying the Application for Exemption Clearance
Grounds for Protest/Denial
1. The subject landholding is classified as within the agricultural zone based on the Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the LGU approved by the HLURB prior to 15 June 1988. A protest based on this ground shall not be given due course unless the oppositor invoking said ground submits the necessary certification from the HLURB Regional Office or the proper government agency.
2. The subject property has been covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under P.D. No. 27
Reference for this Section:
DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 2011
DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 1995
VII. APPEALS
A. When to appeal (Section 27)
• Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the adverse decision pursuant to Section 51 of R.A. No. 6657.
B. Where to appeal (Section 28)
• Appeals from the decision of the Regional Director shall be made by filing in the same regional office which issued the adverse decision, a notice of appeal with proof of payment of the requisite appeal fee. Official cashiers of any DAR office may receive payment of the requisite appeal fee. Non-perfection of the appeal within the reglementary period merits dismissal of the appeal.
C. Grounds (Section 25)
• No appeal shall be given due course unless the decision of the Regional Director is final, disposing of the case on the merits, and only on the following grounds:
i. Serious errors in the findings of fact or conclusion of law which may cause grave and irreparable damage or injury to the appellant; or
ii. Coercion, fraud, or clear graft and corruption in the issuance of a decision.
Reference for this Section: Rule IV of DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003
VIII. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES, LAWS, RULES, AND POLICIES
1. LAWS
a. Section 3 (C) of R.A. No. 6657, "Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."
b. Section 4, of R.A. No. 6657, "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, 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."
More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All inalienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon."
2. RULES
a. DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 2011, Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition and Distribution of Private Agricultural Lands under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as Amended (Effective 15 October 2011)
b. DAR A.O. No. 4, Series of 2003. Rules on Exemption of Lands from CARP Coverage under Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 6657 and Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. (Effective 9 February 2003)
c. DAR A.O. No. 6, Series of 1994. Guidelines for the Issuance of Exemption Clearances Based on Section 3 (c) of R.A. 6657 and the Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 (Effective 23 June 1994)
d. DOJ Opinion No. 44 Series of 1990 "The authority of the DAR to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses applies only to conversions made on or after June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 6657."
e. DOJ Opinion No. 43 Series of 2011.
IX. JURISPRUDENCE
A. HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011
i. The local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands — when HLURB approval is not necessary in order for the reclassification to be valid:
It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, this Court held that pursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 2264, amending the Local Government Code, municipal and/or city councils are empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission." It was also emphasized therein that "[t]he power of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject to the approval of the [DAR]."
xxx xxx xxx
Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential/commercial land with the enactment of City Ordinance No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an "agricultural land" within the ambit of RA 6657. As this Court held in Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc., "To be exempt from CARP, all that is needed is one valid reclassification of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural by a duly authorized government agency before June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect."
ii. An ordinance converting agricultural lands into residential or light industrial should be given prospective application only, and should not change the nature of existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships existing over such land:
However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest tenant/farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988.
As emphasized, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural cannot be applied to defeat vested rights of tenant-farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27.
xxx xxx xxx
The Court recognizes the power of a local government to reclassify and convert lands through local ordinance, especially if said ordinance is approved by the HLURB. Municipal Ordinance No. 110-54 dated November 3, 1979, enacted by the Municipality of Cabuyao, divided the municipality into residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and institutional districts, and districts and parks for open spaces. It did not convert, however, existing agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional. While it classified Barangay Casile into a municipal park, as shown in its permitted uses of land map, the ordinance did not provide for the retroactivity of its classification. In Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, it was held that an ordinance converting agricultural lands into residential or light industrial should be given prospective application only, and should not change the nature of existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships existing over such land.
i. Reclassification of lands alone does not suffice — conversion and reclassification differ from each other:
Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for land use conversion. In view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes.
It is clear from the aforesaid distinction between reclassification and conversion that agricultural lands though reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses must still undergo the process of conversion before they can be used for the purpose to which they are intended.
Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact that DAR's conversion authority can only be exercised after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. The said date served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification or rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer require any DAR conversion clearance or authority. Thereafter, reclassification of agricultural lands is already subject to DAR's conversion authority. Reclassification alone will not suffice to use the agricultural lands for other purposes. Conversion is needed to change the current use of reclassified agricultural lands.
ii. Reservation of public agricultural lands by Presidential Proclamations for public use or purpose no longer required to undergo conversion process:
It is different, however, when through Presidential Proclamations public agricultural lands have been reserved in whole or in part for public use or purpose, i.e., public school, etc., because in such a case, conversion is no longer necessary. As held in Republic v. Estonilo, only a positive act of the President is needed to segregate or reserve a piece of land of the public domain for a public purpose. As such, reservation of public agricultural lands for public use or purpose in effect converted the same to such use without undergoing any conversion process and that they must be actually, directly and exclusively used for such public purpose for which they have been reserved, otherwise, they will be segregated from the reservations and transferred to the DAR for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the CARP. More so, public agricultural lands already reserved for public use or purpose no longer form part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Hence, they are outside the coverage of the CARP and it logically follows that they are also beyond the conversion authority of the DAR.
C. JOSE, JULIO and FEDERICO, All Surnamed JUNIO vs. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, G.R. No. 147146, July 29, 2005
Tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land:
"There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. Furthermore, the tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 6 lists other documents, aside from tax declarations, that must be submitted when applying for exemption from CARP. In Halili v. Court of Appeals, we sustained the trial court when it ruled that the classification made by the Land Regulatory Board of the land in question outweighed the classification stated in the tax declaration."
Consequently, even if the subject landholding has been declared as agricultural for taxation purposes, once a local government has reclassified it as residential, that determination must prevail for zoning purposes.
Other Jurisprudence
Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 6657 states that the CARL covers "regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public, and, private and agricultural lands" and as the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, "agricultural lands" covered by agrarian reform refers only to those which are "arable and suitable lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands." The land subject of the controversy has been set aside for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation by Proclamation No. 1637 prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 and in effect converted these lands into residential use. Since the Natalia lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, DAR is bound by such conversion, and thus it was an error to include these within the coverage of CARL. (Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. DAR, 225 SCRA 278)
After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR. However, agricultural lands already reclassified before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657 are exempted from conversion. (Ros vs. DAR, 468 SCRA 471)
The requirement that agricultural lands must go through the process of conversion despite having undergone reclassification was underscored in the case of Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 152085, 08 July 2003) where it was held that reclassification of land does not suffice:
"In the case at bar, there is no final order of conversion. The subject landholding was merely reclassified. Conversion is different from reclassification. Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Reclassification, on the other hand, is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land use conversion. Accordingly, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment of the tenants. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes."
Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in coordination with the Philippine Tourism Authority, has to determine precisely which areas are for tourism development and excluded from the Operation Land Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. And suffice it to state here that the Court has repeatedly ruled that lands already classified as non-agricultural before the enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988 do not need any conversion clearance. (DAR v. Franco, G.R. No. 147479, September 26, 2005, 471 SCRA 74)
"The power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law lies with the Department of Agrarian Reform, not with this Court."
The DAR, an administrative body of special competence, denied, by Order of October 22, 2001, the application for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it finding that PP 1520 did not automatically reclassify all the lands in the affected municipalities from their original uses. It appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time, identified the "specific geographic areas" for tourism development and had no pending tourism development projects in the areas. Further, report from the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI) indicated that the areas were planted with sugar cane and other crops.
A proclamation that merely recognizes the potential tourism value of certain areas within the general area declared as tourist zone clearly does not allocate, reserve, or intend the entirety of the land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said proclamation direct that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be used for purposes other than agricultural." (Roxas Co., Inc. vs. CA, 607 SCRA 34)
X. STRUCTURE OF THE DECISION
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
• The opening paragraph should discuss the nature of the case. The reader then knows specifically what the RD is being asked to decide. State how the matter is before the RD. Identify the parties and the nature of the proceedings.
Example:
"This is a case involving the application for exclusion from the coverage of CARP of the landholding with TCT _____________________ located at ______________________ with an area _________________ on the basis the subject lands have already been reclassified by the _____________________ as _____________ as of ________________."
B. FACTS
• Those facts necessary to a disposition of the matter under consideration should be set forth. Facts should be stated logically and concisely. A decision need not and should not set forth all the facts that may be involved in the case. Only a narrative statement of the controlling facts should be made. Controlling facts are facts which, when added together, enable the judge to come to some factual conclusion that affects the outcome of the case. The writer has to be selective; the RD must know which facts are material to his readers and their understanding of the decision. There must be no misstatement of facts. An improper factual recitation can result in irreversible miscarriage of justice.
Example:
"Mr. ___________________, the applicant, is the registered owner of the subject landholding. He filed this application before the _________________ on __________ claiming that his lands are excluded from the CARP coverage since it has already been reclassified as _______________ on ______________. The applicant submitted the following documents to support his claim, i.e., _____________________."
C. ISSUE/S
• Once these preliminary matters have been covered, the writer must identify the specific legal or factual issues to be discussed. State the issues simple enough that even a non-lawyer, can read and understand. Discuss each issue individually.
Example:
"Whether or not the subject landholdings are excluded from CARP coverage."
D. LAW, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE
• Next, systematically analyze the law, rules and jurisprudence (if there's any), as it pertain to the facts of the case leading to the conclusions.
Example:
"Under R.A. 6657, ________________. This is clarified by the DOJ Opinion No. 44 Series of 1990 which states _________________________. DAR issued A.O. ______________ to implement the said provisions and rules. The Supreme Court decided in the case of ________________ (G.R. ___________) that ___________________________."
E. DECISION
• Having covered each issue, the RD should summarize the dispositions by bringing together the conclusions into a decision.
Example:
"From the records of the case, it is shown that the applicant was able to comply with all the documentary proofs to support his claim for exclusion. The subject landholding meets the requirement provided by the laws, i.e., it has already been reclassified as ________________ as of ______________. Thus, it can no longer be covered by CARP."
XI. SAMPLE APPLICATION OF THE TEMPLATE BASED ON AN ACTUAL CASE
ANALYN G. SANGALANG, ET. AL., Applicants.
xxx xxx xxx
ORDER
NATURE OF THE CASE
For resolution is an application for exemption from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), pursuant to Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2003, in relation to Sec. 3c of RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. The application involves four (4) parcels of land located in Barangay Sta. Arcadia, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, with an aggregate area of 2.3894 hectares and covered by TCT Nos. T-134305, T-134304, and T-127327.
FACTS
In support of the application, the following documents were submitted:
1. Sworn Application for Exemption Clearance;
2. Official Receipt showing proof of payment of filing and exemption;
3. Certified copies of Titles;
4. Certification from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), stating that the applied landholdings are zoned/classified as agroindustrial prior to the effectivity of CARL per approved CLUP/ZO of Cabanatuan City, ratified through HLURB Resolution No. NCC Plan, dated 24 September 1980;
5. Certifications issued by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), stating that the applied landholdings are unirrigated/unplanted since 1995, not considered in the programmed area and no firm funding commitment;
6. Photographs of the billboard and properties;
7. Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Certification stating that the Notice of Application for Exemption from CARP coverage of the above-described properties has been posted in a conspicuous place and that said properties do not fall within the ambit of CARP and PD 27;
8. Vicinity map and Lot Plan of the subject properties;
9. Certified copies of Tax Declarations; and
10. Special Power of Attorney in favor of Catherine Yusuico.
ISSUE
Whether the applicant is entitled to exemption from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, pursuant to Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2003, in relation to Sec. 3c of RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990.
LAW, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE
This case is to be resolved only upon the determination of relevant facts, as required under the applicable laws and regulations.
DECISION:
The Regional Center for Land Use Policy, Planning, and Implementation (RCLUPPI) Field Investigation Team conducted an ocular inspection of the subject properties on 13 May 2009 and noted that the said parcels of land are, indeed, adjacent to built-up residential and commercial areas. Thus, during the deliberation conducted on 18 May 2009, members of the RCLUPPI Committee recommended the approval of the instant application.
WHEREFORE, the application for exemption from coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2003, in relation to Sec. 3c of RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, involving four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 2.3894 hectares, all located in Barangay Sta. Arcadia, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, and covered by Title Nos. T-134305, T-134304, and T-127237, is hereby GRANTED.
The Department of Agrarian Reform reserves the right to cancel or withdraw this Order for misrepresentation of facts integral to its issuance and for violation of the rules and regulations appertaining thereto.
SO ORDERED.
City of San Fernando, Pampanga, 22 May 2009.
TEOFILO Q. INOCENCIO
OIC-Regional Director
Cc:
Parties or their counsel
MARO
PARO