I. Introduction: 1987 Constitution 9.
Ruling of the DAR Regional Office: OIC-Regional Director in Pampanga granted
G.R. No. 200454 – October 22, 2014
Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corp vs Dela Cruz
BERSAMIN, J.
Holy Trinity purchased property from Santiago, which were classified as agricultural lands.
Holy Trinity wanted to develop the property as residential lands and so, the Sanggunian
Bayan ng Malolos (Municipal government where the land was located) issued a resolution
reclassifying the lots from agricultural to residential. The Court held that this was an invalid
reclassification, because it was merely done through a resolution, whereas the Local
Government Code requires an ordinance to reclassify lands.
DOCTRINE
An ordinance is required in order to reclassify agricultural lands, and such may only be
passed after the conduct of public hearings. A resolution will not suffice as it is a mere
declaration of the sentiment or opinion of the lawmaking body on a specific matter that is
temporary in nature. It is different from an ordinance in that the latter is a law by itself and
possesses a general and permanent character.
FACTS
1. A parcel of land (the “Dakila” property) in barangay Dacila, Bulacan is registered to
Freddie Santiago.
2. Susana Surio and others used to be tenants of the Dakila property.
a. The tenants freely and voluntarily relinquished their tenancy rights in favor of
Santiago through their respective sinumpaang pahayag, in exchange for
financial assistance and individual homelots to be titled and distributed in
their names.
3. Holy Trinity purchased a portion of the Dakila property from Santiago. Santiago
caused the transfer of the title to Holy Trinity and he subdivided the Dakila property
into 6 lots.
4. Holy Trinity then developed the property by dumping filling materials on the topsoil,
erected a perimeter fence and steel gate and later on established its field office on the
property.
5. The Sanggunian Bayan ng Malolos passed a Municipal Resolution No. 16-98
reclassifying four of the six subdivided lots belonging to the Holy Trinity into
residential lots.
a. The Municipal Planning and Development Office (MPDO) of Bulacan issued
the Certificate of Eligibility for Conversion, Preliminary Approval and
Locational Clearance in favor of Holy Trinity for its residential subdivision
project on the Dakila property.
6. Holy Trinity purchased another from Santiago another parcel of land in Bulacan
(“Sumapang Matanda” Property).
7. Later, Silvino Manalad and the alleged heirs of Felix Surio wrote to Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer (PARO) of Bulacan to request an investigation of the sale of the Dakila
property.
a. It was followed by the letter request of the Chairman of Sumapang Matanda
Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) to place the Dakila property
within the coverage of Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to PD 27.
8. DAR Provincial Office of Bulacan filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) of Bulacan to annul the sale of the Dakila property.
the letter request of BARC Chairman.
a. He claimed that the sale of the Dakila property was a prohibited transaction
under PD 27, Sec. 6 of RA 6657 and DAR Admin. Order no. 1, Series of
1989;
b. that Holy Trinity was disqualified from acquiring land under RA 6657
because it is a corporation.
10. Ruling of the DAR Secretary: Holy Trinity appealed to Dar Sec. claiming the request
for coverage under PD 27 and the filing of the petition for annulment of sale in DARAB
constituted forum shopping.
a. The appeal was denied. The DAR Secretary held that forum shopping was
not committed because the cause of action in the letter request and the
action for cancellation of the deed of sale before DARAB were distinct and
separate.
b. DAR Sec. ruled that Dakila property was not exempt from the coverage of
PD 27 and Ra 6657 because Municipal Resolution No. 16-98 did not change
or reclassify but merely re-zoned the Dakila property.
11. Ruling of the Office of the President: OP reversed the ruling of the DAR Sec.
a. Found that the Dakila Property had ceased to be suitable for agriculture and
had been reclassified as residential land pursuant to Mun. Reso. No. 16-98.
b. It shows that the City Assessor of Malolos and the Provincial Assessor of
Bulacan have considered these lands as residential for taxation purposes.
12. CA: CA reversed that set aside the decision of the OP.
a. It declared that prior to the effectively of RA6657 and even after the passage
of Mun. Reso 16-98, the Dakila property was an agricultural land, that there
was no valid reclassification because Sec. 20 of Ra 7160 and Memo Cir. 54
required an ordinance, not resolution and the findings of DAR should be
respected.
13. Hence this petition.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. WoN the Dakila property was validly reclassified from agricultural lands to residential
lands. NO.
a. Under RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), local governments are
vested with the property to reclassify lands:
i. Section 20. Reclassification of Lands. – (a) A city or municipality
may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after
conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the
reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of
the utilization or disposition in the following case: (1) when the land
ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural
purposes as determined by DAR or (2) where the land shall have
substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or
industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned.
b. Thus, an ordinance is needed to reclassify agricultural lands and such may
only be passed after the conduct of public hearings.
c. IN this case, the Sanggunian Bayan ng Malolos only issued a resolution,
which is different from an ordinance:
1
 i. A resolution is a mere declaration of the sentiment or opinion of
the lawmaking body on a specific matter that is temporary in
nature.
ii. It is different from an ordinance in that the latter is a law by itself
and possesses a general and permanent character.
d. There was also no showing of the requisite public hearing.
e. Thus in the absence of the valid and complete reclassification, the Dakila
property remained under the category of an agricultural land.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari;
REVERSES AND SET ASIDE the decision of the CA; REINSTATES the assailed decision
of the OP; DIRECTS the cancellation of Emancipation patents to the respondent for being
NULL AND VOID AND ORDERS the respondents to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.”

OTHER NOTES
1. Despite the invalid re-classification, the Dakila property was not subject to the
coverage of RA 6657.
a. For a land to be under the coverage of RA 6657, it must either be
primarily devoted to or be suitable for agriculture.
i. “Agricultural land” is one that is devoted to agricultural
activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.
ii. “Agricultural activity” includes the cultivation of the soil;
including the harvesting of such farm products and other farm
activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction
with such farming operations done by persons whether
juridical or natural.
b. These two requisites are needed before the land can be placed under
the coverage of RA 6657 (1) land must be devoted to agricultural
activity and (2) land must not be classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land.
c. The Dakila property is not devoted to any agricultural activity, especially
considering that the land was not conducive to farming by reason of
elevation and insufficient irrigation.
2. It also does not fall under PD 27.
a. For a land to be covered under PD 27, it must be devoted to rice and
corns. There must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy
obtaining therein. If either the requisite is absent, the land must be
excluded
b. There was also no showing the Dakila property was devoted for rice or
corn cultivation. Thus Dakila property should be excluded from the OLT

DIGESTER: Xave Libardo