Guiding Principle in Conversion of Agricultural Land

On 15 June 2011, the Supreme Court promulgated a Decision in Ayala Land, Inc. v. Castillo¹G.R. No. 178110, June 15, 2011, 667 PHIL 274-350. upholding the Conversion Order issued by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform on 31 October 1997. The land in this case is in Silang, Cavite.

The farmers who were parties in this case filed a Motion for Reconsideration to the said decision arguing that conversion is not a legal mode to exempt the property from the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

The Court denied the motion because the guiding principle²Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002, Section 1. in conversion governs only prime agricultural lands.³Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002, Section 4 provides:
SECTION 4. Areas Non-Negotiable for Conversion — An application involving areas non-negotiable for conversion shall not be given due course even when some portions thereof are eligible for conversion. The following areas shall not be subject to conversion:
4.1. Lands within protected areas designated under the NIPAS, including mossy and virgin forests, riverbanks, and swamp forests or marshlands, as determined by the DENR;
4.2. All irrigated lands, as delineated by the DA and/or the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), where water is available to support rice and other crop production, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the government;
4.3. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments, as delineated by the DA and/or NIA; and
4.4. All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities.

In the present case, the subject land could not even be classified as agricultural land.

First, the subject land was already reclassified from agricultural to other uses as early as 7 May 1996.

Second, various government agencies found that:

• The property is about 10 kilometers from the Provincial Road;
• The land sits on a mountainside overlooking Santa Rosa technopark;
• The topography of the landholding is hilly and has an average slope of over 18%. It is undeveloped and mostly covered with a wild growth of vines, bushes, and secondary growth of forest trees;
• The dominant use of the surrounding area is its industrial/forest growth as the landholding is sitting on a mountain slope overlooking the Sta. Rosa Technopark; and
• The area is not irrigated and no irrigation system was noted in the area.

Finally, the Department of Agrarian Reform had long investigated and ruled that the property was not suitable for agricultural use, as it had remained undeveloped with no source of irrigation.

The Court thus concluded that the subject land was not prime agricultural land as contemplated under the law. The Department of Agrarian Reform properly issued the assailed Conversion Order.

Further reading:

• Ayala Land, Inc. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 178110 (Resolution), January 12, 2016.