DAR vs DECS

FACTS:

• In controversy are 2 lots consisting of an aggregate area of 189.2462 hectares located at Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros Occidental.
• These lands were donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS. Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the name of respondent DECS
• DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation
• Eugenio Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers of the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with MARO
• MARO sent a “Notice of Coverage” to respondent DECS, stating that the subject lands are now covered by CARP
• DAR Regional Director approved MARO’s recommendation
• DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which affirmed the Order of the Regional Director.
• DECS’ contention: Respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground that all the income derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs and renovations of schools in the nearby locality.
• DAR’s contention: Petitioner DAR, on the other hand, argued that the lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP coverage because the same are not actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation.  Further, to be exempt from the coverage, it is the land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes.

ISSUE:   Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of CARP

HELD:  

• No.
• The general policy under CARL is to cover as much lands suitable for agriculture as possible. Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 sets out the coverage of CARP.  It states that the program shall “cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands xxx including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.”
• The records of the case show that the subject properties were formerly private agricultural lands owned by the late Esteban Jalandoni, and were donated to respondent DECS.  From that time until they were leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation, the lands continued to be agricultural primarily planted to sugarcane, albeit part of the public domain being owned by an agency of the government.[12] Moreover, there is no legislative or presidential act, before and after the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, classifying the said lands as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.  Indubitably, the subject lands fall under the classification of lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture.
• Clearly, a reading of par c, Sec 10 of CARL shows that, in order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the land must be “actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;” and 2) the purpose is “for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes.”
• The importance of the phrase “actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary” cannot be understated, as what respondent DECS would want us to do by not taking the words in their literal and technical definitions. The words of the law are clear and unambiguous.  Thus, the “plain meaning rule” or verba legis in statutory construction is applicable in this case.  Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.