SC favors sugar workers in Batangas Carp case

The Supreme Court (SC) has thumbed down a claim by real estate developer Roxas and Co. Inc. (RCI) to have two of its Batangas properties exempted from the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (Carp).

In a 30-page decision, penned by the Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the high court instead ruled in favor of the petition filed by the members of the Katipunan ng Mga Magbubukid sa Hacienda Roxas, Inc. (Kamahari) and Damayan ng Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Roxas-National Federation of Sugar Workers (DAMBA-NFSW) for the inclusion in CARP of two sugar lands — Hacienda Banilad and Hacienda Caylaway — and portions of Hacienda Palico, all located in Nasugbu, Batangas.

The farmers’ group sought to reverse and set aside the resolution issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) which declared that Presidential Proclamation 1520, issued in 1975, had reclassified the lands in the municipalities of Nasugbu in Batangas and Maragondon and Ternate towns in Cavite into non-agricultural use.

RCI sought the exemption of its haciendas from the implementation of CARP on the,assumption that the issuance of PP 1520, which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourism zone, reclassified the lands into non-agricultural uses even prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (Carl) on June 1988.

The court, however, ruled that PP 1520 merely recognized the “potential tourism value” of certain areas within the area declared as tourism zones and did not immediately reclassify them as non-agricultural.

“It bears emphasis that a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use since there is still that process of conversion before one is permitted to use it for other purposes,” the high court held.

The high court noted that PP 1520’s clauses identified only “certain areas” in Nasugbu, Ternate and Maragondon as haing “potential value” and mandated the Philippine Tourism Authority to conduct “necessary studies” and the segregation of “specific geographic areas” to achieve its purpose.

“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,” the high court pointed out. “If all the lands in those tourism zones were to be wholly converted to non-agricultural use, there would have been no need for the PP to direct the PTA to identify what those ‘specific geographic areas’ are,” it added.

The SC also stressed that there were similarly worded proclamations declaring the whole of Ilocos Norte and Bataan provinces, Camiguin island, Puerto Prinsesa, Siquijor, Panglao Islands, parts of Cebu City and municipalities of Argao and Dalaguete as tourism zones.

Although these were declared as tourism zones, the court explained that agrarian reform program “was and still — is implemented in the said provinces since there are lands that do not have any tourism potential and are more appropriate for agricultural utilization.”

Thus, it said, the Certificates of Land Ownership (CLOAs) issued on Oct. 15, 1993 to the farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas should be respected.

The SC also denied RCI’s application before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to exempt several parcels of land in Hacienda Palico from Carp coverage.

RCI contended that six parcels of land which are the subject of DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 and nine parcels of land which are the subject of DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-008-98, all in Hacienda Palico, have been reclassified to non-agricultural uses through Nasugbu Municipal Ordinance No. 4.

The SC, however, said RCI’s application to exempt the six parcels of land from CARP coverage could not be granted due to discrepancies in the documents. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune