July 9, 2003

DAR OPINION NO. 11-03

Lilanie O. Magdamo
Deputy Executive Director, MDFO
and LOGOFIND Project Director
Department of Finance
Roxas Boulevard Corner Vito Cruz Street
Manila

Dear Director Magdamo:

This refers to your letter dated 19 May 2003, requesting for opinion on whether or not the City Government of Bayawan is exempted from applying for conversion of an expropriated land in the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173 and DAR Opinion No. 60, series of 1998 dated 19 May 1998.   HEDSCc

The facts as stated in your letter (with attachments) reveal that the local government of Bayawan City has acquired through expropriation fifty (50) hectares of agricultural land located in Banga, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental covered by TCT No. T-16492; that it intends to convert one (1) hectare of said landholding into a slaughterhouse (abattoir) complex as stated in the Order of the RTC Judge of Negros Oriental, Branch 41 dated 25 July 2000; that the City Government of Bayawan has invoked that land conversion is no longer required as the subproject site is an expropriated land; and that to further strengthen their claim, a certification from the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) has been secured stipulating that the land is exempted from securing a Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) clearance pursuant to Supreme Court Ruling in the case of the Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals.

Your query posits the following questions:

1.         Whether or not agricultural lands acquired by LGUs through expropriation is exempt from the requirement of conversion; and

2.         Whether or not the ruling in Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals is applicable to the situation.

Agricultural lands expropriated by Local Government Units (LGU's) pursuant to the power of eminent domain need not be subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use. In Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled:

"Resolution No. 129, series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, Local Government Code, . . . Section of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government that must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

xxx                      xxx                      xxx

To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use."

Worthy to note, however, is the provision of DAR Opinion No. 7, series of 2003 (copy attached), hereunder pertinently quoted:

"Finally, the rights and interests of CLOA or EP awardees and other farmworkers who may be displaced/affected, if any, should in all cases be protected/safeguarded pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations. Moreover they should still be entitled as ARBs/awardees in other landholdings, if qualified."

Given the above, the one-hectare portion may be converted into a slaughterhouse (abattoir) complex without need of a DAR conversion clearance subject to the aforesaid rights and interests of CLOA or EP awardees and other farmworkers who may be displaced/affected, if any, pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations.   cCAIaD

This opinion is rendered on the basis of the facts presented. However, if upon investigation it will be disclosed that the facts are different, then this opinion shall be considered null and void.

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

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) RICARDO S. ARLANZA
Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and Legal Affairs Office