Scribd
Upload
90 views1 page

Ros Versus Department of Agrarian Reform

The petitioners owned land that was reclassified by a municipal ordinance in 1992 as industrial land. However, in 1995 the Department of Agrarian Reform informed the petitioners that it was disallowing the conversion due to the land falling under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The issue was whether the municipal reclassification removed the land from DAR jurisdiction. The court ruled that the reclassification occurred after CARL took effect in 1988, so the land underwent the conversion process under DAR jurisdiction, and denied the petition.

Uploaded by

LawardCaps
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
90 views1 page

Ros Versus Department of Agrarian Reform

The petitioners owned land that was reclassified by a municipal ordinance in 1992 as industrial land. However, in 1995 the Department of Agrarian Reform informed the petitioners that it was disallowing the conversion due to the land falling under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The issue was whether the municipal reclassification removed the land from DAR jurisdiction. The court ruled that the reclassification occurred after CARL took effect in 1988, so the land underwent the conversion process under DAR jurisdiction, and denied the petition.

Uploaded by

LawardCaps
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ROS versus DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Facts

 Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land. On 25 March 1992,


by virtue of Municipal Ordinance, these lands were reclassified as industrial lands. On
03 April 1995 the Provincial Board approved the land use plan and adopted the
Municipal Ordinance.

 Petitioner received a letter from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),


informing him that the DAR was disallowing the conversion of the subject lands for
industrial use.

Issue

 Whether or not the reclassification of the subject lands to industrial use by the
Municipality pursuant to its authority under the Local Government Code of 1991 (the
"LGC") has the effect of taking such lands out of the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR.

Ruling

 No.

 After the passage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), agricultural


lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction
over which is vested in the DAR. However, agricultural lands already reclassified
before the effectivity of CARL are exempted from conversion. 

 CARL took effect on 15 June 1988. Municipal Ordinance, which reclassified the
subject lands, was passed on 25 March 1992, and Provincial Ordinance, which
adopted Municipal Ordinance, was passed on 03 April 1995, long after CARL has
taken effect.

 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. 

You might also like