G.R. No. 132477 August 31, 2005 docketed as Civil Case No. T-590.

In an
5 

order dated 12 August 1996, the RTC, ruling

6 

JOSE LUIS ROS, ANDONI F. ABOITIZ, that it is the DAR which has jurisdiction,
XAVIER ABOITIZ, ROBERTO E. ABOITIZ, dismissed the Complaint for lack of
ENRIQUE ABOITIZ, MATTHIAS G. jurisdiction. It justified the dismissal in this
7 

MENDEZONA, CEBU INDUSTRIAL PARK wise:

DEVELOPERS, INC. and FBM ABOITIZ
MARINE, INC., Petitioners, A perusal of Section 20 of the Local
vs. Government Code expressly provides that the
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Municipalities through an Ordinance by the
HON. ERNESTO GARILAO, in his capacity Sanggunian may authorize the reclassification
as DAR Secretary, and DIR. JOSE of the agricultural land within their area into
LLAMES, in his capacity as Director of non-agricultural. Paragraph (e) of the
DAR-Regional 7, Respondent. aforesaid Section, provides further: that
nothing in this Section shall be construed as
DECISION repealing or modifying in any manner the
provision of Republic Act 6657. In an opinion
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: of the Secretary of Justice, quoted: With
respect of (sic) conversion of agricultural land
to non-agricultural uses the authority of the
Petitioners are the owners/developers of
DAR to approve the same may be exercise
several parcels of land located in Arpili,
(sic) only from the date of the effectivity of the
Balamban, Cebu. By virtue of Municipal
Agrarian Reform Law on June 15, 1988. It
Ordinance No. 101 passed by the Municipal
appears that the petitioners had applied for
Council of Balamban, Cebu, these lands were
conversion on June 13, 1995 and therefore
reclassified as industrial lands. On 03 April
1 

the petitioner (sic) are estopped from

1995, the Provincial Board of Cebu approved
questioning the authority and jurisdiction of
Balamban’s land use plan and adopted en
the Department of Agrarian Reform. The
toto Balamban’s Municipal Ordinance No. 101
application having been filed after June 15,
with the passage of Resolution No. 836-95
1988, the reclassification by the Municipal
and Provincial Ordinance No. 95-8,
Council of Balamban was just a step in the
respectively. As part of their preparation for
2 

conversion of the aforestated lands according

the development of the subject lands as an
to its purpose. Executive Order No. 129-A,
industrial park, petitioners secured all the
Section 5, "The Department shall be
necessary permits and appropriate
responsible for implementing Comprehensive
government certifications.3

Agrarian Reform and for such purpose it is

authorized to (J) approve or disapprove the
Despite these permits and certifications, conversion, restructuring or readjustment of
petitioner Matthias Mendezona received a agricultural land into non-agricultural uses."
letter from Mr. Jose Llames, Director of the Said Executive Order amended Section 36 of
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Republic Act No. 3644 which clearly
Regional Office for Region 7, informing him mandates that the DAR Secretary (sic)
that the DAR was disallowing the conversion approve or disapprove conversion are not
of the subject lands for industrial use and impliedly repealed. In fact, under Section 75
directed him to cease and desist from further of Republic Act 6657 the above laws and
developments on the land to avoid the other laws not inconsistent of (sic) this act
incurrence of civil and criminal liabilities.
4
shall have suppletory effect. Further, Section
68 of Republic Act 6657 provides: No
Petitioners were thus constrained to file with injunction, restraining order, prohibition or
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City mandamus shall be issued by the lower court
a Complaint dated 29 July 1996 for Injunction against the Department of Agrarian Reform,
with Application for Temporary Restraining DENR and Department of Justice in their
Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, implementation of the program. With this
provision, it is therefore clear (sic) when there its authority under Section 20(a) of Republic
is conflict of laws determining whether the Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code
Department of Agrarian Reform has been of 1991 (the "LGC") has the effect of taking
exclusively empowered by law to approve such lands out of the coverage of the CARL
land conversion after June 15, 1988 and (sic) and beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR;
the final ruling falls only with the Supreme
Court or Office of the President. (b) Whether or not the Complaint for Injunction
may be dismissed under the doctrine of
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the primary jurisdiction;
Application for Restraining Order is hereby
ordered DENIED and the main case is (c) Whether or not the Complaint for Injunction
DISMISSED, this Court having no jurisdiction is an appropriate remedy against the order of
over the same. 8
the DAR enjoining development works on the
subject lands;
In an order dated 18 September 1996, the trial
court denied the motion for reconsideration (d) Whether or not the Regional Trial Court of
filed by the petitioners. Petitioners filed before
9 
Toledo City had authority to issue a writ of
this Court a Petition for Review injunction against the DAR.
on Certiorari with application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary In sum, petitioners are of the view that local
Injunction. In a resolution dated 11
10  11 
governments have the power to reclassify
November 1996, this Court referred the portions of their agricultural lands, subject to
petition to the Court of Appeals. Petitioners 12 
the conditions set forth in Section 20 of the
22 23 

moved for a reconsideration of the said Local Government Code. According to them, if
resolution but the same was denied in a the agricultural land sought to be reclassified
resolution dated 27 January 1997. 13
by the local government is one which has
already been brought under the coverage of
At the Court of Appeals, the public the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
respondents were ordered to file their 14 
(CARL) and/or which has been distributed to
Comments on the petition. Two sets of agrarian reform beneficiaries, then such
comments from the public respondents, one reclassification must be confirmed by the DAR
from the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to its authority under Section 6522 of
Provincial Office and another from the Office
15 
the CARL, in order for the reclassification to
of the Solicitor General, were submitted, to
16 
become effective. If, however, the land sought
which petitioners filed their Consolidated to be reclassified is not covered by the CARL
Reply. 17
and not distributed to agrarian reform
beneficiaries, then no confirmation from the
On 02 December 1997, the Court of Appeals DAR is necessary in order for the
rendered a decision affirming the Order of
18 
reclassification to become effective as such
Dismissal issued by the RTC. A motion for 19 
case would not fall within the DAR’s
reconsideration filed by the petitioners was conversion authority. Stated otherwise,
denied in a resolution dated 30 January Section 65 of the CARL does not, in all cases,
1998. 20
grant the DAR absolute, sweeping and all-
encompassing power to approve or
Hence, this petition. disapprove reclassifications or conversions of
all agricultural lands. Said section only grants
The following issues are raised by the
21  the DAR exclusive authority to approve or
petitioners for resolution: disapprove conversions of agricultural lands
which have already been brought under the
coverage of the CARL and which have
(a) Whether or not the reclassification of the
already been distributed to farmer
subject lands to industrial use by the
beneficiaries.
Municipality of Balamban, Cebu pursuant to
The petition lacks merit. as residential, industrial, commercial, as
embodied in the land use plan, subject to the
After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, requirements and procedure for land use
otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian conversion. Accordingly, a mere
Reform Program, agricultural lands, though reclassification of agricultural land does not
reclassified, have to go through the process of automatically allow a landowner to change its
conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in use and thus cause the ejectment of the
the DAR. However, agricultural lands already tenants. He has to undergo the process of
reclassified before the effectivity of Rep. Act conversion before he is permitted to use the
No. 6657 are exempted from conversion. agricultural land for other purposes.

Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series Rep. Act No. 6657 took effect on 15 June
of 1990, provides: 1988. Municipal Ordinance No. 101 of
Balamban, Cebu, which reclassified the
". . . True, the DAR’s express power over land subject lands, was passed on 25 March 1992,
use conversion is limited to cases in which and Provincial Ordinance No. 95-8 of the
agricultural lands already awarded have, after Provincial Board of Cebu, which adopted
five years, ceased to be economically feasible Municipal Ordinance No. 101, was passed on
and sound for agricultural purposes, or the 03 April 1995, long after Rep. Act No. 6657
locality has become urbanized and the land has taken effect. Section 4 of Rep. Act No.
will have a greater economic value for 6657 provides:
residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
But to suggest that these are the only SEC. 4. Scope. – The Comprehensive
instances when the DAR can require Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover,
conversion clearances would open a loophole regardless of tenurial arrangement and
in R.A. No. 6657, which every landowner may commodity produced, all public and private
use to evade compliance with the agrarian agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation
reform program. Hence, it should logically No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
follow from the said department’s express including other lands of the public domain
duty and function to execute and enforce the suitable for agriculture.
said statute that any reclassification of a
private land as a residential, commercial or ...
industrial property should first be cleared by
the DAR." (d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for
agriculture regardless of the agricultural
The requirement that agricultural lands must products raised or that can be raised thereon.
go through the process of conversion despite
having undergone reclassification was To further clarify any doubt on its authority,
underscored in the case of Alarcon v. Court of the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 12
Appeals, where it was held that
24 
dated October 1994 which reads:
reclassification of land does not suffice:
Administrative Order No. 12
In the case at bar, there is no final order of
conversion. The subject landholding was Series of 1994
merely reclassified. Conversion is different
from reclassification. Conversion is the act of
SUBJECT: CONSOLIDATED AND REVISED
changing the current use of a piece of
RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING
agricultural land into some other use as
CONVERSION OF ARICULTURAL LANDS
approved by the Department of Agrarian
TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES
Reform. Reclassification, on the other hand, is
the act of specifying how agricultural lands
shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
The guiding principles on land use conversion plans and accompanying ordinances passed
is to preserve prime agricultural lands. On the upon and approved by the local government
other hand, conversion of agricultural lands, units concerned, together with the National
when coinciding with the objectives of the Land Use Policy, pursuant to R.A. No. 6657
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law to and E.O. No. 129-A."
promote social justice, industrialization, and
the optimum use of land as a national III. DEFINITION OF TERMS
resource for public welfare, shall be pursued
in a speedy and judicious manner. A. Agricultural land refers to land devoted to
agricultural activity and not classified as
To rationalize these principles, and by virtue mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, as amended, industrial land (Section 3[c], R.A. No. 6657).
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, P.D. No.
946, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 129-A and B. Conversion is the act of changing the
R.A. No. 6657, the Department of Agrarian current use of a piece of agricultural land into
Reform (DAR) has issued several policy some other use.
guidelines to regulate land use conversion.
This Administrative Order consolidates and
C. Reclassification of agricultural lands is the
revises all existing implementing guidelines
act of specifying how agricultural lands shall
issued by the DAR, taking into consideration,
be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as
other Presidential issuances and national
residential, industrial, commercial, as
policies related to land use conversion.
embodied in the land use plan. It also includes
the reversion of non-agricultural lands to
II. LEGAL MANDATE agricultural use.

A. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) ...

is mandated to "approve or disapprove
applications for conversion, restructuring or
V. COVERAGE
readjustment of agricultural lands into non-
agricultural uses," pursuant to Section 4(i) of
Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987. These rules shall cover all private agricultural
lands as defined herein regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced. It
B. Section 5(i) of E.O. No. 129-A, Series of
shall also include agricultural lands
1987, vests in the DAR, exclusive authority to
reclassified by LGUs into non-agricultural
approve or disapprove applications for
uses, after June 15, 1988, pursuant to
conversion of agricultural lands for residential,
Memorandum Circular (M.C.) No. 54, Series
commercial, industrial, and other land uses.
of 1993 of the Office of the President and
those proposed to be used for livestock,
C. Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise poultry and swine raising as provided in DAR
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993.
Reform Law of 1988, likewise empowers the
DAR to authorize under certain conditions, the
In the case of Advincula-Velasquez v. Court
reclassification or conversion of agricultural
of Appeals, we held:
25 

lands.
Our ruling in the Natalia case was reiterated
D. Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54,
in National Housing Authority v. Allarde (318
Series of 1993 of the Office of the President,
SCRA 22 [1999]).
provides that "action on applications for land
use conversion on individual landholdings
shall remain as the responsibility of the DAR, The Court of Appeals’ reliance on DOJ
which shall utilize as its primary reference, Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, is in order. In
documents on the comprehensive land use
the said opinion, the Secretary of Justice Local Government Code. The Code explicitly
declared, viz: provides that "nothing in this section shall be
26 

construed as repealing or modifying in any

Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate manner the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657."
the view that with respect to conversions of
agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657 to It being settled that jurisdiction over
non-agricultural uses, the authority of DAR to conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the
approve such conversions may be exercised complaint for injunction was correctly
from the date of the law’s effectivity on June dismissed by the trial and appellate courts
15, 1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This
interpretation of R.A. No. 6657 in the light of Court, in Bautista v. Mag-isa Vda. De
DAR’s mandate and extensive coverage of Villena, found occasion to reiterate the
27 

the agrarian reform program. doctrine of primary jurisdiction –

Following the DOJ opinion, the DAR issued The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes
Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, the courts from resolving a controversy over
stating that lands already classified as non- which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with
agricultural before the enactment of Rep. Act an administrative body of special competence.
No. 6657 no longer needed any conversion For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is
clearance: vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR); more specifically, in the Department of
I. Prefatory Statement Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB).
In order to streamline the issuance of
exemption clearances, based on DOJ Opinion Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1)
No. 44, the following guidelines are being quasi-judicial powers to determine and
issued for the guidance of the DAR and the adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2)
public in general. jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except
II. Legal Basis those falling under the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Environment and
Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657 states that agricultural
Natural Resources. This law divested the
lands refers to the land devoted to agricultural
regional trial courts of their general jurisdiction
activity as defined in this act and not classified
to try agrarian reform matters.
as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land.
Under Republic Act 6657, the DAR retains
jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters.
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series
The pertinent provision reads:
of 1990 has ruled that, with respect to the
conversion of agricultural lands covered by
RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the "Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the
authority of DAR to approve such conversion DAR. – The DAR is hereby vested with the
may be exercised from the date of its primary jurisdiction to determine and
effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall
that are already classified as commercial, have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
industrial, or residential before 15 June 1988 matters involving the implementation of
no longer need any conversion clearance. agrarian reform, except those falling under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of
The authority of the DAR to approve
Environment and Natural Resources.
conversions of agricultural lands covered by
Rep. Act No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses
has not been pierced by the passage of the
"It shall not be bound by technical rules of
procedure and evidence but shall proceed to
hear and decide all cases, disputes or
controversies in a most expeditious manner,
employing all reasonable means to ascertain
the facts of every case in accordance with
justice and equity and the merits of the case.
Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule
of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious
and inexpensive determination of every action
or proceeding before it. . . ."

Finally, the third and fourth issues which may

be summed up into whether or not an
injunction is the appropriate remedy against
the order of the DAR enjoining petitioners in
developing the subject land, we rule in the
negative. Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 6657
provides:

SEC. 68. Immunity of Government Agencies

from Undue Interference. – No injunction,
restraining order, prohibition or mandamus
shall be issued by the lower courts against the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the
Department of Agriculture (DA), the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the
program.

Wherefore, premises considered, the instant

petition is Denied for lack of merit. The
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 42666 dated 02 December 1997
affirming the order dated 12 August 1996 of
the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City,
Branch 29, in Civil Case No. T-590 is
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.