The Supreme Court affirmed that reclassification of agricultural lands by local governments does not automatically remove these lands from the coverage of agrarian reform laws. Landowners must still obtain conversion approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to change the use of such lands to non-agricultural purposes, especially if the reclassification occurred after the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) took effect on June 15, 1988. This decision underscores the DAR’s authority in regulating land use to balance agricultural preservation with industrial and commercial development.

From Farms to Factories: Can Local Zoning Bypass Agrarian Reform?

The case arose when landowners in Balamban, Cebu, sought to develop their reclassified agricultural lands into an industrial park. Despite securing local permits, the DAR intervened, asserting its authority over land conversion. The landowners argued that the local government’s reclassification effectively removed the lands from agrarian reform coverage, thus negating the need for DAR approval. This challenge brought to the forefront the conflict between local zoning powers and the national agrarian reform program.

At the heart of the controversy was whether a local government’s reclassification of land automatically allows a landowner to change its use, or if approval from the DAR is still required. Petitioners contended that reclassification by the local government pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Local Government Code (LGC) takes such lands out of the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR. They further argued that the DAR’s power to approve or disapprove conversions applies only to lands already under CARL coverage and distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries. This stance implied a limited scope for DAR’s authority, suggesting that if the land wasn’t under CARL, DAR’s confirmation wasn’t necessary.

However, the Supreme Court sided with the DAR, emphasizing that after the enactment of Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), all agricultural lands, even if reclassified, must undergo a conversion process under the DAR’s jurisdiction. The court clarified that only agricultural lands already reclassified before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657 are exempted from this conversion requirement. This ruling ensures that the objectives of agrarian reform are not easily circumvented by local reclassifications.

“The Department shall be responsible for implementing Comprehensive Agrarian Reform and for such purpose it is authorized to (J) approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural land into non-agricultural uses.”

The Supreme Court cited Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, to reinforce the necessity of DAR clearance for any reclassification of private land to residential, commercial, or industrial property, aligning with the agency’s duty to enforce R.A. No. 6657. Further underscoring the point, the court referenced Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, which draws a distinct line between reclassification and conversion, affirming that mere reclassification does not automatically permit a landowner to change land use without DAR approval.

To clarify its authority, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994, explicitly stating its mandate to approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. This order reinforces the principle that all private agricultural lands, regardless of tenure, and those reclassified by Local Government Units (LGUs) after June 15, 1988, are covered by these rules. The court in Advincula-Velasquez v. Court of Appeals further affirmed this stance. It stated that the DAR’s authority was intact from June 15, 1988.

Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out that the Local Government Code itself stipulates that its provisions should not be interpreted as repealing or modifying Rep. Act No. 6657 in any manner. Therefore, the vesting of jurisdiction over land conversion with the DAR means that complaints for injunction against the DAR’s actions are properly dismissed under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Furthermore, Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 6657 explicitly prohibits lower courts from issuing injunctions or restraining orders against the DAR, DENR, and DOJ in their implementation of the agrarian reform program.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the reclassification of agricultural land by a local government unit (LGU) automatically removes it from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), thus negating the need for approval from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for land conversion.
What is the difference between land reclassification and conversion?	Reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands will be used for non-agricultural purposes in a land use plan. Conversion, on the other hand, is the act of changing the current use of agricultural land to some other use, as approved by the DAR.
When did the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) take effect?	The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), or Republic Act No. 6657, took effect on June 15, 1988.
Does the Local Government Code supersede the DAR’s authority over land conversion?	No, the Local Government Code explicitly states that its provisions should not be construed as repealing or modifying the provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
What is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?	The doctrine of primary jurisdiction prevents courts from resolving issues over which an administrative body has initial jurisdiction. In this case, since the DAR has authority over land conversion, the court cannot interfere with that authority.
Can lower courts issue injunctions against the DAR?	No, Section 68 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) prohibits lower courts from issuing injunctions or restraining orders against the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in its implementation of the agrarian reform program.
What is DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994?	DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994, consolidates and revises rules and procedures governing the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, reinforcing the DAR’s authority to approve or disapprove conversion applications.
If agricultural land was reclassified before June 15, 1988, does it still need DAR approval for conversion?	No. According to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, lands already classified as non-agricultural before June 15, 1988, do not need any conversion clearance from the DAR.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the respective roles of local governments and the DAR in land use regulation. While local governments have the power to reclassify agricultural lands, this power is not absolute and does not override the DAR’s mandate to oversee the conversion of such lands to non-agricultural uses, particularly when the reclassification occurred after June 15, 1988. This ensures that national agrarian reform goals are upheld while also allowing for industrial and commercial development in a regulated and sustainable manner.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: JOSE LUIS ROS, ET AL. VS. DAR, G.R. NO. 132477, August 31, 2005