spot_img
28.1 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

SC tells DAR: Pangasinan land conversion can no longer be questioned

- Advertisement -

The Supreme Court has admonished the Department of Agrarian Reform for flip-flopping orders involving the conversion of 386.7 hectares of landholdings in Pangasinan outside the coverage of the government’s agrarian reform program.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the SC ruled that once a conversion order in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program had been issued and had attained finality, it can no longer be questioned.

 The SC granted the petition filed by CAT Realty Corporation, which challenged the 2012 and 2013 rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA).

“Once final and executory, the conversion order can no longer be questioned. It can no longer be modified or reversed. Parties cannot assail said order without running afoul of the doctrine of estoppel,” the SC said, in resolving the petition that assailed DAR’s orders issued between 2006 and 2007 on a land conversion ruling handed down by DAR in 1975.

Court records showed that Central Azucarera de Tarlac, CAT’s predecessor-in-interest, filed with DAR a petition for the conversion of 23 parcels of agricultural land with an aggregate area of 386.7 hectares, located in Bayambang, Pangasinan.

- Advertisement -

On Sept 4, 1975, DAR issued the conversion order and declared the landholdings suitable for residential, commercial, industrial, and other urban purposes.

It said the conversion was recommended, after investigation, by the Agrarian Reform Team, the Agrarian Reform District Office, and the Department of Local Government and Community Development. It also said the tenant-farmers, the occupant-tillers, and/or squatters in the subject land were amenable to the conversion.

As requirements for the conversion, the DAR ordered, among other things, those bonafide tenants should be paid disturbance compensation, should be allocated not less than 300 square meters of land which will be paid at minimum cost, and the displaced tenants, squatters, or tillers be given employment priority in any agro-industrial projects that may be set up.

 After almost 30 years from 1975 or on Dec. 15, 2004, the conversion order was challenged by the Center for Agrarian Reform Empowerment & Transformation, Inc., Alternative Community-Centered Organization for Rural Development, Benjamin C. De Vera, Jr., and Tenario Garcia. They claimed that CAT failed to develop the property.

On Aug. 2, 2006, then DAR Secretary Nasser Pangandaman revoked the 1975 conversion order as far as on areas not developed by CAT.

But more than two months later on Oct. 11, 2006, Pangandaman granted the motion of CAT and revoked his Aug. 2, 2006 order as he reinstated in full the 1975 order issued by then Secretary Conrado Estrella. It was found that CAT had paid the disturbance compensation by giving the tenants a subdivision within the property.

Almost a year later on Sept. 6, 2007, Pangandaman reversed his Oct. 11, 2006, ruling and granted the motion filed by CARET and ACCORD. On Aug. 15, 2008, CAT’s motion was denied by Pangandaman.

This prompted CAT to file a petition with the appellate court, but it was denied. It then elevated the case to the SC.

With the ruling, the high court upheld the order dated Sept. 4, 1975, considering that “the Conversion Order has long attained finality; thus, parties are now estopped from questioning the final and executory conversion order.”

The SC pointed out that CAT Realty and its predecessor-in-interest complied with the conditions stated under the conversion order; as such, there was no· sufficient ground to cause its partial revocation, and the subject property cannot be subject to agrarian reform since the same was already declared suitable for non-agricultural use before the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988.

The high tribunal observed that the subject property has long been declared suitable for residential, commercial, industrial, and other urban purposes under the Conversion Order dated Sept 4, 1975.

“The Conversion Order had already attained finality and its conditions were duly complied with. Thus, the DAR is bound by such conversion. It bears repeating that once final and executory, a conversion order can no longer be questioned,” the SC said.

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles