RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

ROMANCATHOLICG.R.No.139285
ARCHBISHOPOFCACERES,
Petitioner,Present:
QUISUMBING,J.,Chairperson,
versusCARPIO,
CARPIOMORALES,
TINGA,and
VELASCO,JR.,JJ.
SECRETARYOFAGRARIAN
REFORMandDARREGIONALPromulgated:
DIRECTOR(RegionV),
Respondents.December21,2007
xx

DECISION

VELASCO,JR.,J.:

TheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw(CARL)hastrulynoblegoals,andthese
noble goals should not be stymied by the creation of exemptions or exceptions not
contemplatedbythelaw.

TheCase

InthisPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45,petitionerRomanCatholic
[1]
Archbishop of Caceres (Archbishop) questions the February 4, 1999 Decision of the
CourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.48282,whichupheldtheDecember8,1997
andJune10,1998OrdersoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR).

TheFacts

Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur, with a total
areaof268.5668hectares.Ofthatland,249.0236hectaresareplantedwithriceandcorn,
whiletheremaining19.5432hectaresareplantedwithcoconuttrees.

In 1985,Archbishop filed with the MunicipalAgrarian Reform District Office No. 19,
NagaCity,CamarinesSurseveralpetitionsforexemptionofcertainpropertieslocatedin
various towns of Camarines Sur from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT)
[2]
underPresidentialDecreeNo.(PD)27. TwoofthesepetitionsweredeniedinanOrder
datedNovember6,1986,issuedbytheRegionalDirectorofDAR,RegionV,JuanitoL.
[3]
Lorena.

ArchbishopappealedfromtheorderoftheRegionalDirector,andsoughtexemptionfrom
OLTcoverageofalllandsplantedwithriceandcornwhichwereregisteredinthenameof
the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Caceres. In his appeal, Archbishop cited the
followinggrounds:

a)Thatsaidpropertiesareallcoveredbyconditionaldonationssubjecttotheprohibitions
of the donors to SELL, EXCHANGE, LEASE, TRANSFER, ENCUMBER OR
MORTGAGEtheproperties
b)Thattheyareusedforcharitableandreligiouspurposes
c)Thattheparisheslocatedindepressedareasbadlyneedthemforthefurtheranceoftheir
missionwork,propagationofthefaith,maintenanceandsupportoftheirchapels,
churches and educational religious institutions like the Holy Rosary Major and
MinorSeminariesforthepromotionofthepriesthoodvocation
d) For the preservation of good relationship between church and state thru non
infringementoftherighttoexercisereligiousprofessionandworship
e) For the maintenance of the Cathedral and Peafrancia Shrine, which now include the
BasilicaMinoreHousingourvenerableimageofOurLadyofPeafranciaandthe
venerableportraitofDivineRostro
f) That the petitioner (church) is amenable to continue the leasehold system with the
[4]
presentcultivatorsortenants.

This appeal was denied by then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao in an Order

[5]
dated December 8, 1997. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied in an
[6]
OrderdatedJune10,1998.

The matter was then raised to the CA via Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Archbishoparguedthatevenifthelandsinquestionareregisteredinhisname,heholds
the lands in trust for the benefit of his followers as cestui que trust.Archbishop further
argued that the deeds of donation by which the lands were transferred to him imposed
numerous fiduciary obligations, such that he cannot sell, exchange, lease, transfer,
encumber,ormortgagethesubjectlands.Bythisreasoning,Archbishopconcludedthathe
isnotthelandownercontemplatedbyPD27andRepublicActNo.(RA)6657,theCARL
of 1988. He then prayed that the assailed orders of the DAR be reversed, or in the
alternative,thattheallegedbeneficiariesofthetrustbeeachallowedtoexerciserightsof
[7]
retentionoverthelandholdings.

[8]
The petition was dismissed by the CA in its February 4, 1999 Decision.
Archbishop filed a motion for reconsideration, but was denied in the June 18, 1999 CA
[9]
Resolution.

Archbishopnowbringsthematterbeforeusthroughthispetition.

TheIssues

Archbishop raises issues he had raised previously, which, he contends, the CA failed to
properlyaddress.HeclaimsthattheCAerredinholdingthatheisonlyentitledtoassert
one right of retention as the subject properties are registered in his name. He further
claims that an express trust had been created wherein he only held naked title to the
subject properties on behalf of the beneficiaries. He argues that it is not the landowner

contemplatedbythelaw,butmerelyatrustee,andassuchisentitledtoasmanyrightsof
retention on behalf of the beneficiaries of each particular property. He then raises the
questionoftheapplicabilityoftherulinginTheRomanCatholicApostolicAdministrator
ofDavao,Inc.v.TheLandRegistrationCommissionandtheRegisterofDeedsofDavao
[10]
City,
which,hecites,ruledthatpropertiesheldbytheChurchareheldbyitasamere
administrator for the benefit of the members of that particular religion. As Archbishop
claimstobemerelyanadministratorofthesubjectproperties,hearguesthatthesesubject
propertiesshouldhavebeenexemptfromtheOLT.

TheCourtsRuling

Thepetitionhasnomerit.

Archbishopsarguments,whilenovel,mustfailinthefaceofthelawandthedictatesof
the1987Constitution.

Thelawssimplyspeakofthelandownerwithoutqualificationastounderwhattitlethe
landisheldorwhatrightstothelandthelandownermayexercise.Thereisnodistinction
made whether the landowner holds naked title only or can exercise all the rights of
ownership.Archbishopwouldhaveusreaddeeperintothelaw,tocreateexceptionsthat
arenotstatedinPD27andRA6657,andtodosowouldbetofrustratetherevolutionary
intentofthelaw,whichistheredistributionofagriculturallandforthebenefitoflandless
farmersandfarmworkers.
Archbishopwasfoundtobetheregisteredownerofthelandsinquestion,anddoesnot
contestthatfact.Forthepurposesofthelaw,thismakeshimthelandowner,withoutthe
necessityofgoingbeyondtheregisteredtitles.Hecannotdemandadeeperexaminationof
the registered titles and demand further that the intent of the original owners be
ascertainedandfollowed.Toadopthisreasoningwouldcreatemeansofsidesteppingthe
law,whereinthemereactofdonationplaceslandsbeyondthereachofagrarianreform.

Therecanbenoclaimofmorethanonerightofretentionperlandowner.NeitherPD27
norRA6657hasaprovisionforalandownertoexercisemorethanonerightofretention.

Thelawissimpleandclearastotheretentionlimitsperlandowner.PD27states,Inall
cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such
landowneriscultivatingsuchareaorwillnowcultivateitwhileRA6657states:

SEC.6.RetentionLimits.ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinthisAct,nopersonmayownor
retain, directly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary
accordingtofactorsgoverningaviablefamilysizedfarm,suchascommodityproduced,
terrain,infrastructure,andsoilfertilityasdeterminedbythePresidentialAgrarianReform
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the
landowner,subjecttothefollowingqualifications:(1)thatheisatleastfifteen(15)years
ofageand(2)thatheisactuallytillingthelandordirectlymanagingthefarm:Provided,
ThatlandownerswhoselandshavebeencoveredbyPresidentialDecreeNo.27shallbe
allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder Provided,further, That
original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
homestead at the time of the approval of thisAct shall retain the same areas as long as
theycontinuetocultivatesaidhomestead.

Nothing in either law supports Archbishops claim to more than one right of
retention on behalf of each cestui que trust. The provisions of PD 27 and RA 6657 are
plain and require no further interpretationthere is only one right of retention per
landowner,andnomultiplerightsofretentioncanbeheldbyasingleparty.Furthermore,
theschemeproposedbyArchbishopwouldcreateasmanyrightsofretentionasthereare
beneficiaries, which could in effect protect the entire available land area from agrarian
reform. Under Archbishops reasoning, there is not even a definite landowner to claim
separaterightsofretention,andnospecificnumberofrightsofretentiontobeclaimedby
thelandowners.Thereissimplynobasisinthelaworjurisprudenceforhisargumentthat
itisthebeneficialownershipthatshouldbeusedtodeterminewhichpartywouldhavethe
rightofretention.

Archbishop makes much of the conditional donation, that he does not have the
powertosell,exchange,lease,transfer,encumberormortgagethetransferredproperties.
Heclaimsthattheseconditionsdonotmakehimthelandownerascontemplatedbythe
law.ThismatterhasalreadybeenansweredinHospiciodeSanJosedeBarili,CebuCity
(Hospicio) v. Department of Agrarian Reform.

[11]
In that case, wherein Act No. 3239

prohibitedthesaleunderanyconsiderationoflandsdonatedtotheHospicio,acharitable

organization, the Court found that the lands of the Hospicio were not exempt from the
coverageofagrarianreform.Incharacterizingthesaleoflandunderagrarianreform,we
stated:

Generally, sale arises out of contractual obligation. Thus, it must meet the first
essentialrequisiteofeverycontractthatisthepresenceofconsent.Consentimpliesanact
ofvolitioninenteringintotheagreement.Theabsenceorvitiationofconsentrendersthe
saleeithervoidorvoidable.
In this case, the deprivation of the Hospicios property did not arise as a
consequence of the Hospicios consent to the transfer. There was no meeting of minds
between the Hospicio, on one hand, and the DAR or the tenants, on the other, on the
propertiesandthecausewhicharetoconstitutethecontractthatistoserveultimatelyas
the basis for the transfer of ownership of the subject lands. Instead, the obligation to
[12]
transferarisesbycompulsionoflaw,particularlyP.D.No.27.

Wediscussedfurther:

Thetwinprocessofexpropriationunderagrarianreformandthepaymentofjust
compensation is akin to a forced sale, which has been aptly described in common law
jurisdictions as sale made under the process of the court and in the mode prescribed by
law,andwhichisnotthevoluntaryactoftheowner,suchastosatisfyadebt,whetherofa
mortgage, judgment, tax lien, etc. The term has not been precisely defined in this
jurisdiction,butreferencetothephraseitselfismadeinArticles223,242,237and243of
theCivilCode,whichuniformlyexemptthefamilyhomefromexecution,forcedsale,or
attachment.YetaforcedsaleisclearlydifferentfromthesalesdescribedunderBookVof
the Civil Code which are conventional sales, as it does not arise from the consensual
agreement of the vendor and vendee, but by compulsion of law. Still, since law is
recognizedasoneofthesourcesofobligation,therecanbenodisputeontheefficacyofa
[13]
forcedsale,solongasitisauthorizedbylaw.

Archbishops claim that he does not have jus disponendi over the subject properties is
unavailing. The very nature of the compulsory sale under PD 27 and RA 6657 defeats
such a claim. Other less scrupulous parties may even attempt creating trusts to prevent
theirlandsfromcomingunderagrarianreform,andsaythatthetrusteehasnopowerto
dispose of the properties. The disposition under PD 27 and RA 6657 is of a different
character than what is contemplated by jus disponendi, wherein under these laws,
voluntarinessisnotanissue,andthedispositionisnecessaryforthelawstobeeffective.

UnderPD27andRA6657,Archbishopcannotclaimthattheallegedconditionsof
thedonationswouldhaveprimacyovertheapplicationofthelaw.Thisforcedsaleisnot
even a violation of the conditions of the donation, since it is by application of law and
beyondArchbishopscontrol.Theapplicationofthelawcannotandshouldnotbedefeated

bytheconditionslaiddownbythedonorsoftheland.Ifsuchwereallowed,itwouldbea
simplematterforotherlandownerstoplacetheirlandswithoutlimitundertheprotection
ofreligiousorganizationsorcreatetrustsbythemereactofdonation,renderingagrarian
reformbutapipedream.
Archbishopscontentionthatheismerelyanadministratorofthedonatedpropertieswill
notservetoremovetheselandsfromthecoverageofagrarianreform.UnderPD27,the
coverage is lands devoted to rice and corn. Section 4 of RA 6657 states, The
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as
providedinProclamationNo.131andExecutiveOrderNo.229,includingotherlandsof
thepublicdomainsuitableforagriculture.ThelandsinArchbishopsnameareagricultural
landsthatfallwithinthescopeofthelaw,anddonotfallundertheexemptions.

TheexemptionsunderRA6657formanexclusivelist,asfollows:
SEC.10.ExemptionsandExclusions.
(a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestation, fishsanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangrovesshallbe
exemptfromthecoverageofthisAct.
(b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds
shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and
fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land OwnershipAward (CLOA)
issuedundertheAgrarianReformProgram.
IncaseswherethefishpondsorprawnfarmshavebeensubjectedtotheComprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms deferment or
notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the actual regular
workersortenantsmustconsenttotheexemptionwithinone(1)yearfromtheeffectivity
ofthisAct.Whentheworkersortenantsdonotagreetothisexemption,thefishpondsor
prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the workerbeneficiaries or tenants who
shallformcooperativeorassociationtomanagethesame.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to the
ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw,theconsentofthefarmworkersshallnolongerbe
necessaryhowever,theprovisionofSection32Ahereofonincentivesshallapply.
(c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national
defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by
publicorprivateschoolsforeducationalpurposes,seedsandseedlingsresearchandpilot
productioncenter,churchsitesandconventsappurtenantthereto,mosquesitesandIslamic
centersappurtenantthereto,communalburialgroundsandcemeteries,penalcoloniesand
penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and
quarantinecentersandalllandswitheighteenpercent(18%)slopeandover,exceptthose
alreadydeveloped,shallbeexemptfromthecoverageofthisAct.(AsamendedbyR.A.

7881)

Archbishopwouldclaimexemptionfromthecoverageofagrarianreformbystatingthat
heisamereadministrator,buthispositiondoesnotappearunderthelistofexemptions
underRA6657.Hisclaimedstatusasadministratordoesnotcreateanotherclassoflands
exempt from the coverage of PD 27 or RA 6657, and The Roman Catholic Apostolic
[14]
Administrator of Davao, Inc.
does not create another definition for the term
landowner.

WeexplainedinHospicio:

Itisaxiomaticthatwhereageneralruleisestablishedbyastatutewithexceptions,
the Court will not curtail nor add to the latter by implication, and it is a rule that an
expressexceptionexcludesallothers.Wecannotsimplyimputeintoastatuteanexception
whichtheCongressdidnotincorporate.Moreovergeneralwelfarelegislationsuchasland
reform laws is to be construed in favor of the promotion of social justice to ensure the
wellbeing and economic security of the people. Since a broad construction of the
provision listing the properties exempted under the CARL would tend to denigrate the
[15]
aimsofagrarianreform,astrictapplicationoftheseexceptionsisinorder.

ArchbishopcannotclaimexemptioninbehalfofthemillionsofFilipinofaithful,as
thelandsareclearlynotexemptunderthelaw.Heshouldnotfearthathisfollowersare
simplybeingdeprivedofland,asunderbothPD27andRA6657,heisentitledtojust
compensation,whichhemaythenuseforthebenefitofhisfollowers.Hissituationisno
different from other landowners affected by agrarian reformthey are somewhat deprived
oftheirland,butitisallforagreatergood.

As Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of

[16]
Agrarian Reform
recognized the revolutionary character of the expropriation under
the agrarian reform law, we follow such lofty ideal for the resolution of this case. This
grand purpose under the CARL must not be hindered by the simple expedient of
appendingconditionstoadonationofland,orbydonatinglandtoachurch.Thisisnotto
cast aspersions on religious organizations, but it is not fitting for them to be used as
vehiclesforkeepinglandoutofthehandsofthelandless.Thelawisindubitablyinline
withthecharitableidealsofreligiousorganizationstoensurethatthelandtheyownfalls
intothehandsofablecaretakersandowners.Asareligiousleader,Archbishopcantake

solaceinthefactthathislandsaregoingtobeawardedtothosewhoneedandcanutilize
themtothefullest.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition, and AFFIRM the February 4, 1999

DecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.48282.

SOORDERED.

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice

Chairperson

ANTONIOT.CARPIOCONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting
ChairpersonsAttestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
CourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeOswaldoD.AgcaoiliandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesCoronaIbaySomera
andTeodoroP.Regino.
[2]
DecreeingtheEmancipationofTenantsfromtheBondageoftheSoil,TransferringtoThemtheOwnershipoftheLand
TheyTillandProvidingtheInstrumentsandMechanismTherefor(1972).
[3]
Rollo,p.87.
[4]
Id.at9596
[5]
Id.at87101.
[6]
Id.at102105.
[7]
Id.at38.
[8]
Id.at3742.
[9]
Id.at44.
[10]
102Phil596(1957).
[11]
G.R.No.140847,September23,2005,470SCRA609.
[12]
Id.at616.
[13]
Id.at618.
[14]
Supranote10.
[15]
Supranote11,at622.
[16]
G.R.No.78742,July14,1989,175SCRA343.