LUTCHEL A. TANJAY

COVERAGE; CONDITIONAL DONATION OF PROPERTIES UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF AN ARCHBISHOP WILL NOT SERVE TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM COVERAGE OF CARL

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform and DAR Regional Director (Region V)G.R. No. 139285 (December 21, 2007)Facts:

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668 hectares. Of that land, 249.0236 hectares are planted with rice and corn, while the remaining 19.5432 hectares are planted with coconut trees.

Archbishop filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform District Office petitions for exemption from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under Presidential Decree No. 27. Two of these petitions were denied.

Archbishop appealed and sought exemption from OLT coverage of all lands planted with rice and corn which were registered in the name of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Caceres.

This appeal was denied by then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied.

The matter was then raised to the CA via Petition for Review on Certiorari. The petition was dismissed by the CA. Archbishop filed a motion for

reconsideration, but was also denied.

Issue:

Whether or not as administrator of the Roman Catholic properties, these subject properties should have been exempt from the OLT?

Held:

The laws simply speak of the "landowner" without qualification as to under what title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the landowner holds "naked title" only or can exercise all the rights of ownership. To do so would be to frustrate the revolutionary intent of the law, which is the redistribution of agricultural land for the benefit of landless farmers and farmworkers.

The provisions of PD 27 and RA 6657 are plain and require no further interpretation — there is only one right of retention per landowner, and no multiple rights of retention can be held by a single party.

Archbishop makes much of the conditional donation, that he does not have the power to sell, exchange, lease, transfer, encumber or mortgage the transferred properties. He claims that these conditions do not make him the landowner as contemplated by the law. This matter has already been answered in Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, Cebu City (Hospicio) v. Department of Agrarian Reform. In that case, wherein Act No. 3239 prohibited

the sale under any consideration of lands donated to the Hospicio, a charitable organization, the Court found that the lands of the Hospicio were not exempt from the coverage of agrarian reform.

Archbishop's 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 their lands from coming under agrarian reform, and say that the trustee has no power to 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, voluntariness is not an issue, and the disposition is necessary for the laws to be effective.

Under PD 27 and RA 6657, Archbishop cannot claim that the alleged conditions of the donations would have primacy over the application of the law. This forced sale is not even a violation of the conditions of the donation, since it is by application of law and beyond Archbishop's control. The application of the law cannot and should not be defeated by the conditions laid down by the donors of the land. If such were allowed, it would be a simple matter for other landowners to place their lands without limit under the protection of religious organizations or create trusts by the mere act of donation, rendering agrarian reform but a pipe dream.

Archbishop's contention that he is merely an administrator of the donated properties will not serve to remove these lands from the coverage of agrarian reform. The lands in Archbishop's name are agricultural lands that fall within the scope of the law, and do not fall under the exemptions.

Archbishop would claim exemption from the coverage of agrarian reform by stating that he is a mere administrator, but his position does not appear under the list of exemptions under RA 6657. His claimed status as administrator does not create another class of lands exempt from the coverage of PD 27 or RA 6657, and The Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao, Inc. does not create another definition for the term "landowner."

Petition Denied.