TWELFTH DIVISION
[CA-G.R. SP No. 33438. March 27, 1995.]
ALMEDA, INC., petitioner, vs. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
ADEFUIN-DE LA CRUZ., J p:
This is a "Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction" instituted by Almeda, Inc. against the Secretary of Agrarian Reform involving Orders of the latter placing parcels of land of the petitioner under the coverage of RA 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
The following Orders are the subject of this petition:
1. Order dated December 2, 1992, placing the landholdings of Almeda, Inc. situated at Mamburao and Abra de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro with an aggregate area of about 1.546.0411 hectares under the coverage of the CARL.
2. Order dated October 4, 1993, dismissing the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of December 2, 1992 filed by Almeda, Inc.
3. Order dated February 14, 1994, denying the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration considered by the DAR Secretary as the Second Motion for Reconsideration and the Order of October 4, 1993 was revived and instituted in full.
As gathered from the record, the factual background of case, is as follows:
Petition Almeda, Inc. is the owner of several parcels of land situated in Mamburao and Abra de Ilog, Occidental Mindoro with an aggregate area of 1.546.0411 hectares covered by TCT Nos. T-4577, T-4578, T-4579, T-8571, T-10966, T-11038, T-11693, and T-13826 of the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro.
On October 29, 1990, petitioner through its president. Ponciano Almeda, filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Director of Region IV a letter (Annex T) protesting the acquisition by the DAR of the said parcels of land on the following grounds: a) the basic requirement of due process was never observed considering that no notices of acquisition and land valuation were sent to them: b) there was a deliberate effort and even a conspiracy to create an atmosphere of lawlessness and anarchy in the area; c) the lands are pasture/grazing lands, thus, they are not subject to immediate acquisition.
Acting on the above letter-protest, the DAR Secretary, in its question Order of December 2, 1992. (Annex A) made the following findings:
"An investigation and ocular inspection was conducted by the Regional Office Committee composed of Atty. Victor B. Baquilat, Ismaelito C. Martinez, Jr. and Ellie E. Argente, CARPO and MARO, respectively. In its findings and recommendation dated August 18, 1992, it was revealed that the subject parcels of land located at Balansay, Mamburao covered by TCT No. 4577 (lots 3, 4, 5) and Tangkalan, Mamburao covered by TCT Nos. T-4578 and T-4579 are not devoted to pasture land, the large portions of the same being devoted to rice planting as evidenced by rice paddies: that the parcels of land located at Cabacao, Abra de Ilog, covered by TCT Nos. T-13826, T-11693, T-11036, and T-10966 show that some portions thereof were previously devoted to cattle raising, as evidenced by the dilapidated ranch facilities, but sometime in the latter part of 1987 or early part of 1988, the areas were planted to rice; and sometime in 1987. Mr. Ponciano Almeda, as evidenced by his Affidavit dated April 21, 1992, transferred the cows in Batangas as shown by a Shipping Permit and large Cattle Clearance." (rollo p. 16)
And resolved the letter protest, the dispositive portion of which is quoted hereunder:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find the letter-protest of Almeda, Inc. devoid of merit. Its landholdings situated at Mamburao and Abra de Ilog. Occidental Mindoro with an aggregate area of about 1.546.0411 hectares are hereby placed under the coverage of the CARL. (Rollo, pp. 17-18)
On December 28, 1992, Almeda, Inc. filed its Motion for Reconsideration dated December 17, 1992 (Annex B) of the said Order of December 2, 1992. The same was dismissed by the DAR Secretary on its October 4, 1993 Order (Annex G), the decretal portion of the Order of said date is quoted hereunder:
"WHEREFORE, an Order is issued in the following tenor:
a. Dismissing the Motion for Reconsideration as it failed to establish that the subject property falls within the doctrine laid down in the Luz Farms case;
b. Directing the DAR Regional, Regional and Municipal Offices to proceed with the processing of the CACF with respect to areas with actual qualified farmer-beneficiaries;
c. Requesting the assistance of the Philippine National Police and the local government in the implementing of this Order.
d. Considering this matter closed as far as this office is concerned.
SO ORDERED." (Rollo, pp. 37-38)
On July 30, 1993, the DAR Secretary submitted with the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) for 58 farmers-beneficiaries of the Almeda Estate at Cabacao, Abra de Ilog for registration (Annex E; Exhibit "A"). The Landbank also issued a Certification on July 21, 1993 as to the reservation of P10,138,385.78 representing compensation for TCT Nos. T-11038, T-13826, T-11693, and T-10966 under Acquisition Claim Nos. CA-92-0107, 111, 0108, and 112 (Annex D; Exhibit "B").
On October 8, 1993, the petitioner filed a "Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration and Annulment of Order" of December 2, 1992. (Annex F) which was appreciated by the Secretary as a Second Motion for Reconsideration.
On October 13, 1993, the DAR Secretary issued an order (annex U) giving the petitioner 10 days from receipt thereof, to submit its Memorandum in support of its Second Motion for Reconsideration.
On October 27, 1993, petitioner filed its Memorandum dated October 22, 1993 (Annex H) alleging among others that: it continued to raise and breed cattle in commercial quantities even after the effectivity of the CARL in June 15, 1988; as an aftermath of the ambush of the petitioner's security guards, all the cattle of Almeda, Inc. were gradually transferred to Batangas and the ranch was abandoned; the security guards were unable to prevent the squatters from forcibly entering and converting portions of the properties occupied by then into ricelands as if they were abandoned lands.
Accion reinvindicatoria cases were filed with the RTC of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro docketed as Civil Cases Nos. R-493 and R-494. Defendants in these cases are the same farmer-beneficiaries of the CARL involving petitioner's land in Mamburao and Abra de Ilog. Civil cases No. R-493 involving the Mamburao lots was decided on October 1991 in favor of the petitioner which has become final and executory, while Civil Case No. R-494 involving the Abra de Ilog properties is still pending in court.
On February 14, 1994, the DAR Secretary issued its Order (Annex I) denying the Second Motion for Reconsideration., decretal portion of which is quoted hereunder:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Second Motion for Reconsideration is denied for lack of merit and the Order of October 4, 1993 is hereby revived and instituted in full." (Rollo, pp. 46-47)
Hence this petition.
The principal issues submitted by the petitioner are:
I. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO ESTABLISH THE CONVERSION OF PASTURE LANDS TO OTHER AGRICULTURAL USES;
II. WHETHER SQUATTERS WHO FORCIBLY ENTERED WITHOUT THE CONSENT AND AGAINST THE WILL OF THE LANDOWNER MAY CONVERT SOME PORTIONS OF THE PASTURE LANDS IN QUESTION INTO LANDS PLANTED TO RICE AND OTHER CROPS TO BRING SAID LANDS UNDER THE COVERAGE OF RA 6657;
III. WHETHER THE LANDS IN QUESTION ARE NOT COVERED AND EXEMPT FROM THE COVERAGE OF RA 6657.
The submissions of the petitioner in this case boil down to one principal issue, which is whether the lands in question fall under the coverage of RA 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
We find the petition not impressed with merit.
Issue I and III being inter-related shall be discussed jointly. Petitioner claims that —
"It is established and the DAR admits that up to a certain point in time prior to 1988 the lands in question were pasture lands utilized by the owner as cattle ranches.
The burden of proof therefore is on the occupants, and on the DAR to show that the pasture lands were legally converted to other uses which will make them subject to acquisition under RA 6657.
The occupants did not submit evidence that the other owner converted the lands in question to any other use nor has abandoned the same.
The petitioner upon the other hand submitted evidence that the lands were devoted to cattle raising and cattle from the ranch were shipped even after the approval of RA 6657. (Annex "F" & "Q")" (Petition, p. 8)
Section 4 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law provides for the scope of coverage to the said law, viz:
"Section 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 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.
xxx xxx xxx
(d) All Private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon." (Emphasis supplied)
It is evident from the law that all lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture are within the coverage of the CARL. In the instant case, before the DAR Secretary reached its final determination of the issue in the letter protest, the DAR Regional Office Committee scheduled an ocular inspection of the properties involved. This ocular inspection was conducted by the CARP Coverage Committee on January 27-28 1992. The Memorandum Investigation report dated August 18, 1992 (Rollo, p. 142) contains findings to the effect that the properties in question are devoted to agriculture as shown by the rice paddies, although in some areas in Abra de Ilog there are traces of cattle raising as evidenced by dilapidated ranch facilities (Rollo, pp. 142-144). The respondent secretary took into consideration the said Memorandum Investigation Report of the CARP Coverage Committee (Rollo, p. 16) which was submitted by the said committee after the ocular inspection. In the Memorandum Investigation Report, the committee detailed:
"On the scheduled date of hearing on February 11, 1991 at the DAR Provincial Office, San Jose Occidental Mindoro, the counsel for Almeda Inc., Atty. Telesforo S. Code sent letter resetting the hearing due to conflict of hearing schedules of other cases being handled by said counsel. The hearing was reset to March 7, 1991 at the DAR Regional Office, Legal Division, Pasig Metro Manila, however, the counsel for Almeda Inc. failed to appear. The counsel for Almeda Inc. was again informed that an ocular inspection will be conducted on March 18, 1991 but Atty. Telesforo S. Cedo through telephone informed the Chairman of the Protest on CARP Coverage Committee that he is still compiling the necessary document to be submitted.
Considering that the counsel for Almeda, Inc. has been postponing the hearing and/or schedule of ocular inspection, a notice through telegram dated January 20, 1992 was sent to Mr. Ponciano L. Almeda informing the letter to send his lawyer or representative in the ocular inspection to be conducted on the subject parcels of land on January 27, and 28, 1992.
On the scheduled date of ocular inspection, the Committee first conducted in the morning the ocular inspection of the subject parcels of land located at Balansay, Mamburao, covered by TCT-4577 consisting of three (3) lots (Lot 3, 4, and 5). The first lot (Lot 3) is accessible to vehicles. The area is panted to rice as evidenced by the rice paddies and palay crops planted thereon. This is also clearly shown in the pictures taken by the Committee which are hereto attached as Annexes "A" to "A-2". Some portions are hilly and planted to trees but not above 18% slope. In this area, there are no traces of cattle raising. From Lot 3, the Committee proceed to Lots 4 and 5, which are not accessible to land transportation, hence the Committee together with other persons hiked for two (2) hours. Lots 4 and 5 are also planted to rice as shown by the rice paddies and evidenced by the hereto attached pictures as Annexes "B" to "B-8". There are portions which are hilly but not above 18% slope. In these areas, there are no traces of cattle raising.
After conducting the ocular inspection at Balangay, Mamburao, the Committee in the afternoon proceeded to Tangkalan, Mamburao which are covered by TCT Nos. T-4578 and T-4579. A representative of Almeda, Inc., Major Sofronio Alvarico went with the Committee but stayed behind in the highway for security reasons as to the area was the sight (sic) of some encounters between the military and the NPA. The two (2) parcels of land which are adjacent are not accessible to vehicles since it is separated by a river and the committee crossed the river and hiked for three (3) hours to go around the area. It is clearly shown that large portion of the area are planted to rice as evidenced by the rice paddies and the hereto attached pictures as annex "C" to "C-2". Some portions are planted to coconut trees. There are portions which are hilly but not above 18% slope. In these two areas, there are no traces of cattle raising.
In the late afternoon, the Committee immediately proceeded to Cabacao, Abra de Ilog which is easily accessible to vehicles as the subject parcels of land located along the highway. The subject parcels of land located at Cabacao, Abra de Ilog are covered by TCT Nos. T-13826, T-11693, T-11038 and T-10966. The Committee went around the area and it is clearly shown that large portions of the subject parcels of land are planted to rice as evidenced by the hereto attached pictures as Annexes "D" to "D-20". In another portion of the subject parcels of lands exist a ranch warehouse, corral and other ranch facilities which are already dilapidated". (Rollo, pp. 142-143)
The findings of the committee that in the later part of January 1992 large portions of the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-4577, T-4578, T-4579, T-13826, T-11693, T-11038 and T-10966 were planted to rice as evidenced by the rice paddies and palay crops existing thereon and that there were no traces of cattle raising, except, perhaps the dilapidated ranch facilities found in a portion of the parcels of land in Cabacao, Abra de Ilog, finds support in the affidavit dated April 21, 1992 of Ponciano Almeda when he stated:
"3. . . .When the squatters entered the property my more than 500 heads of cattle were reduced around 250 heads or a lost of more than 250 heads of cattle which I transferred to my lot in Barangay Buribur, Mamburao Occidental Mindoro;
xxx xxx xxx
6. Following the ambuscade of its employees, squatters invaded the ranches. The squatters destroyed the barbed wire fence of the ranch, rustled and butchered cattles, destroyed the ranch warehouse, corral and other ranch facilities. To forestall total loss in 1989 Almeda, Inc. gathered its remaining cattles numbering about 500 heads and transferred them from the ranch to Batangas and left a few at the back of my house at Panompon, Mamburao, Occ. Mindoro." (emphasis; Rollo, pp. 160-161)
Whether the remaining 250 heads of cattle or the 500 heads of cattle as claimed by Potenciano Almeda were transferred to his lot in Barangay Buribur or to Batangas, or at the back of his house at Panompon, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, the fact remains that at the time of the ocular inspection there were no more cattle at Cabacao, Abra de Ilog, one of the landholdings subject matter of this case. The committee recommendation report was supported by photographs of the petitioner's land (Rollo, pp. 142-143).
The DAR Secretary, after examination of the evidence submitted to him, correctly ruled —
"After an exhaustive examination of the evidence thus far presented, two things stand out indubitably; that prior to 1988, portions of the property have indeed been utilized as a ranch by the owner, Almeda, Inc., and at the time of the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and even up to the present time, the area is no longer utilized by the owner as a cattle ranch and that the area is presently planted to rice, mongo, banana and other agricultural crops.
In the same motion, the protestant makes a bare allegation that the cattle have been shipped to Batangas in 1989. We are unimpressed by this allegation, since all the shipping permits so far presented are dated 1987, at the latest, leading us to conclude that effectively, the cattle ranch operations have ceased at the time of the effectively of the CARL." (Rollo, p. 36; Annex "G")
Considering that the properties are presently devoted to agriculture, they very well fall under the coverage of the CARL.
Furthermore, Section 10 of the CARL enumerates the exemptions and exclusions from the CARL, thus:
"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act"
Nowhere in the law quoted above provides that lots previously devoted to cattle raising are among others exempted or excluded from the coverage of the CARL.
The case of Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (192 SCRA 51), which was cited by the herein petitioner, is not applicable in this case. Luz Farms as may be gleaned from the ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business at the time of the effectivity of the CARL and thereafter, while in the instant case, the properties of the petitioner at Mamburao are agricultural lands, and those at Abra de Ilog a portion of the landholding was found with a ranch warehouse, corral and other ranch facilities which are dilapidated, as evidenced by the investigation report of the CARP Coverage Committee wherein the results of the ocular inspection were also reported (p. 144, Rollo), and Case Report dated June 28, 1991 submitted by MARO Gilbert Pimentel (Annex "L"; Rollo, p. 50)
Further, Mr. Pimentel reported that long before the controversy the portions of the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-13826, T-11693, T-11038, and T-10966 at Cabacao, Abra de Ilog were prime agricultural lands. That the farmers have been in actual possession and religiously paying the rental of the land every cropping season to authorized collectors of Mr. Almeda. Portion of said properties was already subjected to Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27. Due to armed conflicts, the tenants were displaced from the lands and later on Almeda, Inc. gradually transferred its cattle to Batangas and abandoned the place. (annex "L"; Rollo, p. 50)
The report of Mr. Pimentel finds support in the findings of the CARP Coverage Committee as to the existence of rice paddies, ranch warehouse, corral and other ranch facilities which are already dilapidated.
With regard to the Mamburao properties, the petitioner failed to prove to this Court that these were pasture land before and after the effectivity of the CARL. We are more convinced by the findings in the investigation report submitted by the CARP Coverage Committee that "the large portions of the land are planted to rice as evidenced by the rice paddies . . . Some portions are planted to coconuts trees. There are portions which are hilly but not above 18% slope. In this . . . areas, there are no traces of cattle raising" (Rollo, p. 143)
Therefore, except for the existence of a ranch warehouse, corral and other ranch facilities which are dilapidated in a portion of the landholdings in Abra de Ilog, which shows that cattle raising has long been abandoned, the rest of the properties in question located in Mamburao and Abra de Ilog were agricultural lands at the time of the effectivity of the CARL and remain as such up to the present which make them fall within the coverage of the CARL.
We now come to the issue raised by the petitioner: as "whether the squatters may convert the use of the land they possessed without the consent or against the will of the owner to other uses which will bring them within the coverage of the CARP".
The CARL does not contain any provision which proscribes the conversion of non-agricultural lands to agricultural lands. The only conversion that the CARL tackles is the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural ones, which in fact a prohibited act without the prior certifications from different government agencies. (SEC. 73, CARL; administrative Order No. 1 Series of 1990). What is significant is the use of the land at the time of the effectivity of the CARL. Actually after the lands were identified by the DAR to be within the coverage of the CARL, these lands will be put immediately under compulsory acquisition and distribution (Administrative Order No. 2 Series of 1989, implementing Section 7 of the CARL). This Court believes that it is not necessary to identify who made the conversion from non-agricultural to agricultural use in determining whether the lands fall within the ambit of the CARL, but as long as they are agricultural lands at the time of the effectivity of the CARL, then these parcels of land very well fall within the coverage of the CARL.
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA 6657), being a social legislation, is designed to promote economic and social stability and must be interposed liberally to give full force and effect to its clear intent, which is, distribution of land to the landless farmers and farmworkers.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction id hereby DENIED. Costs against the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This decision was reached in consultation among the undersigned members of the Division in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Elbinias and Tayao-Jaguros, JJ., concur.