Farmer-Beneficiaries belonging to the Samahang Magbubukid ng Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal vs. Heirs of Juliana Maronilla

Lands reclassified as residential, commercial, or industrial in town plans and zoning ordinances approved by the HLURB and its precursor agencies prior to June 15, 1988 are outside the coverage of the agrarian laws, but lands secondarily reclassified by LGUs as "forest conservation zones" are not forest lands exempt from CARP coverage under Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, since only forest lands primarily classified by the DENR are exempt. Agro-industrial lands are within the ambit of the definition of agricultural land under Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, and are thus covered by the CARP unless shown to be not arable or devoted to exempt activities.

Juliana Maronilla was the registered owner of a 723.9428-hectare tract of land in Brgy. Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal and Brgy. Casinsin, Pakil, Laguna, covered by TCT Nos. 164410 to 164420 (inclusive) and 164430 to 164432 (inclusive). Portions of the lands were placed under the government's Operation Land Transfer program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, and certificates of land transfer were issued in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries. The lands were subsequently covered by emancipation patents and certificates of land ownership award issued between October 24, 1988 and October 27, 1995, which partially cancelled Juliana's titles. The respondents' application for exemption was premised on DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, claiming the lands had been classified as mineral, forest, residential, institutional, commercial, or agro-industrial as early as July 11, 1981 in the Land Use Plan of the Municipality of Jalajala, approved through Zoning Ordinance No. 17 on December 2, 1981 by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.

Juliana Maronilla was the registered owner of a 723.9428-hectare tract of land situated in Brgy. Bagumbong, Jalajala, Rizal and Brgy. Casinsin, Pakil, Laguna, covered by TCT Nos. 164410 to 164420 (inclusive) and 164430 to 164432 (inclusive). Following the implementation of Presidential Decree No. 27, portions of the lands covered by TCT Nos. 164416 to 164420 (inclusive), 164430, and 164432 were placed under the government's Operation Land Transfer program, and certificates of land transfer were issued in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries. On January 14, 1986, the President issued a memorandum directing the issuance of emancipation patents to farmer-beneficiaries of the OLT program, and EPs over the subject lands were issued by the DAR and registered with the Register of Deeds of Rizal between October 24, 1988 and February 22, 1994, partially cancelling Juliana's titles.

On March 13, 1989, Juliana voluntarily offered the subject lands for sale to the DAR pursuant to the CARP. The DAR acquired the remaining portions undistributed under PD 27 and issued certificates of land ownership award in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries, with the corresponding titles issued between December 15, 1993 and October 27, 1995, partially cancelling Juliana's titles. Juliana passed away in March 1996, and on November 26, 1996, her heirs filed an application for retention of a 60-hectare portion of the subject lands, which was granted on December 12, 1997. Petitioners sought recall of the order but were denied on August 15, 2008, with the retention area reduced to 52 hectares; their appeal to the Office of the President was still pending when the instant petition was filed.

Meanwhile, respondents filed an Application for Exemption Clearance from CARP Coverage of a 476.5006-hectare portion of the subject lands on the basis of DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994. They claimed the lands had been classified as mineral, forest, residential, institutional, commercial, or agro-industrial as early as July 11, 1981 in the Land Use Plan of the Municipality of Jalajala, and in accordance with Zoning Ordinance No. 17, approved on December 2, 1981 by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. In support of the application, respondents submitted an HLURB Certification dated May 24, 1996, stating the zoning classification of each parcel, and a Certification dated June 17, 1996 from the National Irrigation Administration that the lands covered by TCT Nos. 164410 to 164413 (inclusive) were not irrigated by any national irrigation system, not covered by communal irrigation systems, and not part of any NIA irrigation project.

The DAR Center for Land Use, Policy, Planning and Implementation conducted an ocular inspection of the area, accompanied by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer and representatives of the parties, noting the actual conditions of each parcel, including forest conservation areas, ricelands, agro-industrial areas, and residential portions. Petitioners intervened, averring that the zoning ordinance did not actually divest the subject lands of their original classification as agricultural, both in actual use and nature, and that assuming the zoning had the effect of reclassifying the lands, it would not affect coverage under the OLT program since the lands had been devoted to rice and corn since October 21, 1972.

The Exemption Committee recommended the exemption of a 447.4025-hectare portion from CARP coverage on the basis of HSRC Resolution No. 36, Series of 1981, and recommended the cancellation of EPs over lands covered by TCT Nos. 164410, 164414, and 164415, as these were classified as Forest/Forest Conservation, fully covered by forest trees with no traces of agricultural activities, and within the slopes of the mountain. However, it recommended denial of the exemption for a 29.0981-hectare portion of the lands covered by TCT Nos. 164417, (164430) M-10897, and (164432) M-13551 that were found to be ricelands already covered by EPs. The DAR Secretary adopted the recommendation in DARCO Order No. EX-0808-372, Series of 2008, granting exemption of the 447.4025-hectare portion conditioned on payment of disturbance compensation to affected tenants within sixty days, and denying exemption for the remaining 29.0981 hectares.

• Lack of Propriety Right: Petitioners argued that respondents had no right to apply for CARP exemption because Juliana had no more propriety right to the subject lands after voluntarily offering the same for sale to the DAR for CARP purposes.

• Lack of DAR Secretary Jurisdiction: Petitioners argued that the DAR Secretary had no jurisdiction to nullify their EP and CLOA titles, as the pertinent DARAB Rules of Procedure in force at the time of the filing of the exemption case provide that registered EPs and CLOAs may only be corrected or cancelled by order of the Provincial or Regional Adjudicator of the DARAB.

• Agricultural Classification of Lands: Petitioners averred that the zoning ordinance did not actually divest the subject lands of their original classification as agricultural, both in actual use and their nature, and that assuming the zoning had the effect of reclassifying the lands to non-agricultural, it would not affect coverage under the OLT program since the lands had been devoted to rice and corn since October 21, 1972.

• Exemption Based on Prior Reclassification: Respondents claimed that the lands had been classified as mineral, forest, residential, institutional, commercial, or agro-industrial as early as July 11, 1981 in the Land Use Plan of the Municipality of Jalajala, and in accordance with Zoning Ordinance No. 17, approved on December 2, 1981 by the HSRC, and as such, could not be considered agricultural lands within the contemplation of RA 6657 or PD 27.

• Supporting Certifications: Respondents submitted an HLURB Certification dated May 24, 1996, stating the zoning classification of each parcel per the approved LUP of Jalajala, and a Certification dated June 17, 1996 from the NIA that the lands covered by TCT Nos. 164410 to 164413 (inclusive) were not irrigated by any national irrigation system, not covered by communal irrigation systems, and not part of any NIA irrigation project.

• Jurisdiction over Exemption Applications: Whether the DAR Secretary has jurisdiction to take cognizance of respondents' application for CARP exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990.

• Jurisdiction over Cancellation of Titles: Whether the DAR Secretary has jurisdiction to nullify petitioners' EP and CLOA titles covering the exempt portions.

• Exclusion from CARP Coverage: Whether the CA erred in excluding the subject portions from CARP coverage on the basis of their reclassification as forest conservation zones, agro-industrial, residential, and institutional per the HSRC-approved LUP of Jalajala.

• Jurisdiction over Exemption Applications: Yes. The DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over applications for exemption clearance pursuant to DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994, as issues of exclusion or exemption partake the nature of Agrarian Law Implementation cases within the competence and jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.

• Jurisdiction over Cancellation of Titles: Yes, but with qualification. The DAR Secretary has jurisdiction over the exemption application, but a separate case must still be filed before the DAR for the purpose of cancelling the EP and CLOA titles of the affected tenants, since agrarian reform beneficiaries are indispensable parties in petitions for cancellation.

• Exclusion from CARP Coverage: Partially. Only the portions reclassified as residential or institutional per the HSRC-approved LUP of Jalajala are properly excluded from CARP coverage. Portions reclassified as forest conservation zones and agro-industrial were erroneously excluded, subject to the possibility of exemption under Section 10(a) of RA 6657 for the forest conservation zones.

• Jurisdiction over Exemption Applications: Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The determination of the land's classification as agricultural or non-agricultural and whether the land falls under agrarian reform exemption must be preliminarily threshed out before the DAR, particularly the DAR Secretary, pursuant to DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994. Issues of exclusion or exemption partake the nature of Agrarian Law Implementation cases which are well within the competence and jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994 vests in the DAR Secretary the authority to grant or deny the issuance of exemption clearances on the basis of Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, and DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. Section 3(c) of RA 6657 defines agricultural land as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 provides that all lands already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance from the DAR to be exempt from CARP coverage, but an exemption clearance is still necessary to confirm or declare their exempt status.

• Jurisdiction over Cancellation of Titles: The fact that respondents sought the cancellation of petitioners' EPs and CLOAs does not necessarily mean that the application for CARP exemption falls under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. For the DARAB Adjudicator to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in whose favor the EPs and CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. An agrarian dispute, as defined by Section 3(d) of RA 6657, refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over lands devoted to agriculture. In this case, the consequent cancellation of the affected tenants' EP and CLOA titles does not arise from a controversy relating to any tenurial arrangement but from the fact that the lands involved are not covered by the CARP in the first place, rendering the issuance of said titles unwarranted. However, a separate case should still be filed by respondents before the DAR for the purpose of cancelling the EP and CLOA titles of the affected tenants, since agrarian reform beneficiaries are indispensable parties in petitions for cancellation. The DAR Secretary's resolution was limited to the determination of whether the subject portions are excluded from the coverage of the agrarian laws.

• Exclusion from CARP Coverage: PD 27 covers private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, while RA 6657 covers all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and EO 229. Lands not devoted to agricultural activity, including lands previously converted/reclassified to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 by government agencies other than the DAR, are outside the coverage of the agrarian laws, subject to the qualification that such conversion/reclassification shall not operate to divest FBs of their rights over lands covered by PD 27 that have vested prior to June 15, 1988. DAR AO No. 1, Series of 1990 clarified the definition of agricultural land as those devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral or forest by the DENR and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the HLURB and its preceding competent authorities prior to June 15, 1988 for residential, commercial, or industrial use. The forest land referred to in Section 3(c) of RA 6657 is to be understood as referring to forest land declared to be such by the DENR, i.e., primary classification as forest, and not its secondary classification by the LGUs. Consequently, reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into "forest conservation zones," which is in the nature of a secondary classification, does not have the effect of converting such lands into forest lands as to be exempt from CARP coverage. However, the Court cannot discount the possibility that the said lands classified as forest conservation zones may fall within the exemptions and exclusions provided under Section 10(a) of RA 6657 if they are actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, forest reserves, reforestation, or watersheds. With respect to the lands secondarily reclassified as agro-industrial, the DAR Secretary erred in excluding them from CARP coverage pursuant to Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended. DOJ Opinion No. 67, Series of 2006 provides that agro-industrial lands are within the ambit or coverage of the definition of agricultural land under Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, considering that they are neither included in the enumeration of exclusion provided in the said definition nor mentioned under Section 10 of the same law to be exempt from CARP coverage, and the legislative intent to include agro-industrial land within the coverage of the agrarian reform program was specifically documented in the records of the Philippine Senate. Only the exclusion of the portions reclassified as residential or institutional per the HSRC-approved LUP of Jalajala should be upheld since lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 by government agencies other than the DAR are outside CARP coverage. The reclassification of the subject lands in 1981 came prior to the issuance and registration of EPs and CLOAs in favor of the FBs between October 24, 1988 and October 27, 1995, and way before the issuance of the January 14, 1986 memorandum of the President directing the issuance of EPs. Since the rights and responsibilities of beneficiaries shall only commence from their receipt of duly registered EPs or CLOAs, no vested rights had accrued in favor of the concerned FBs prior to the reclassification of the subject lands. Before the application for exemption may be completely granted, payment of disturbance compensation to any affected tenants of the properly excluded portions must first be made, since once a leasehold relationship is established, the agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure and acquires the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The usufructuary rights of the affected FBs over their awarded lands shall not be diminished pending the cancellation of their EP and CLOA titles in the proper proceedings. The fact that Juliana had previously voluntarily offered to sell the subject lands to the DAR is inconsequential and is not a bar to the exemption case, since the basis for the exemption is not the withdrawal of the VOS but the reclassification of the lands prior to June 15, 1988. Juliana's previous VOS was ineffective because the subject lands cannot be the subject of the same, they being clearly beyond CARP coverage.

• Primary vs. Secondary Classification of Lands — The classification of land as agricultural constitutes a primary classification under Section 3, Article XII of the Constitution, which classifies lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. The authority to reclassify agricultural lands into residential, commercial, or industrial is lodged in LGUs, which constitutes a secondary classification. Reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into "forest conservation zones," being in the nature of a secondary classification, does not have the effect of converting such lands into forest lands as to be exempt from CARP coverage under Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended.

• Definition of Agricultural Land under Section 3(c) of RA 6657 — Agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. DAR AO No. 1, Series of 1990 clarified that to be not considered agricultural land, the land must not have been classified: (a) as mineral or forest by the DENR and its predecessor agencies; and (b) for residential, commercial, or industrial use in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the HLURB and its preceding competent authorities prior to June 15, 1988.

• Agro-Industrial Lands within CARP Coverage — Agro-industrial lands are within the ambit or coverage of the definition of agricultural land under Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended, considering that they are neither included in the enumeration of exclusion provided in the said definition nor mentioned under Section 10 of the same law to be exempt from CARP coverage. Unless the agro-industrial land is shown to be not arable, or is devoted to exempt activities such as commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising, fishpond and prawn farming, cattle-raising, or other activities which do not involve the growing of crops and accordingly reclassified therefor, the said land shall be within the coverage of the CARP.

• Vesting of Rights of Farmer-Beneficiaries — The rights and responsibilities of beneficiaries shall only commence from their receipt of duly registered EPs or CLOAs. While tenant farmers of rice and corn lands are "deemed owners" as of October 21, 1972 following the provisions of PD 27, this policy should not be interpreted as automatically vesting in them absolute ownership over their respective tillage; the tenant-farmers must still first comply with the requisite preconditions, i.e., payment of just compensation and perfection of title before acquisition of full ownership.

• Disturbance Compensation — Once a leasehold relationship is established, the agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure and acquires the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished, and he/she is validly dispossessed thereof for cause, among others, the reclassification of the land into residential, commercial, industrial, or some other urban purposes is upheld in a final and executory Court judgment, thereby entitling him to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years.

• "The forest land referred to in Section 3 (c) of RA 6657, as amended is to be understood as referring to forest land declared to be such by the DENR, i.e., primary classification as forest, and not its secondary classification by the LGUs. Consequently, reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into 'forest conservation zones,' which is in the nature of a secondary classification, does not have the effect of converting such lands into forest lands as to be exempt from CARP coverage." — This passage articulates the core distinction between primary and secondary classification of lands, which is the ratio decidendi for the Court's ruling that forest conservation zone reclassifications by LGUs do not exempt lands from CARP coverage.

• "DOJ Opinion No. 67, Series of 2006 dated September 25, 2006 provides that agro-industrial lands are within the ambit or coverage of the definition of agricultural land under Section 3 (c) of RA 6657, as amended, considering that: (a) they are neither included in the enumeration of exclusion provided in the said definition nor mentioned under Section 10 of the same law to be exempt from CARP coverage; and (b) the legislative intent to include agro-industrial land within the coverage of the agrarian reform program was specifically documented in the records of the Philippine Senate." — This passage establishes the controlling rule that agro-industrial lands are covered by the CARP, which is the basis for the Court's reversal of the DAR Secretary's exemption of agro-industrial lands.

• "The fact that respondents sought the cancellation of petitioners' EPs and CLOAs does not necessarily mean that the application for CARP exemption falls under the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Verily, for the DARAB Adjudicator to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in whose favor the EPs and CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary, which is not extant here." — This passage defines the jurisdictional boundary between the DAR Secretary and the DARAB, holding that the absence of an agrarian dispute situates the controversy within the DAR Secretary's competence.

• "The basis for the exemption is not the withdrawal of the voluntary offer for sale (VOS) but the reclassification of the lands prior to June 15, 1988. This being the case, Juliana's previous VOS was ineffective because the subject lands cannot be the subject of the same, they being clearly beyond CARP coverage." — This passage resolves the petitioners' argument that the VOS barred the exemption application, clarifying that prior reclassification, not the VOS, is the controlling factor.

• DAR vs. CA, 718 Phil. 232 (2013) — Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that the determination of the land's classification as agricultural or non-agricultural and whether the land falls under agrarian reform exemption must be preliminarily threshed out before the DAR, and that courts cannot simply brush aside the DAR Secretary's pronouncements regarding the status of the land in dispute.

• Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. DAR, G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993, 225 SCRA 278 — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that lands already classified for residential, commercial, or industrial use in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the HLURB and its precursor agencies prior to June 15, 1988 are outside the coverage of the CARP.

• Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. vs. CA, 473 Phil. 64 (2004) — Cited as authority clarifying that agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable or suitable lands that do not include commercial, industrial, and residential lands, and that unless the agro-industrial land is shown to be not arable or devoted to exempt activities, it shall be within the coverage of the CARP.

• Heirs of Lima vs. Afable, 702 Phil. 146 (2013) — Cited as authority for the proposition that an exemption clearance does not mean that the DAR Secretary is exempting the land from CARL coverage; it simply means that the CARL itself has, from the start, excluded the land from CARL coverage, and the DAR Secretary is only affirming such fact.

• Sutton vs. Lim, 700 Phil. 67 (2012) — Cited as authority for the proposition that for the DARAB Adjudicator to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants, and that the controversy between the parties herein is not agrarian in nature but merely involves the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program.

• Davao New Town Development Corporation vs. Spouses Saliga, 723 Phil. 353 (2013) — Cited as authority clarifying that while tenant farmers of rice and corn lands are "deemed owners" as of October 21, 1972 following the provisions of PD 27, this policy should not be interpreted as automatically vesting in them absolute ownership over their respective tillage; the tenant-farmers must still first comply with the requisite preconditions.

• Luz Farms vs. Secretary of the DAR, 270 Phil. 151 (1990) — Cited as authority for the proposition that agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable or suitable lands that do not include commercial, industrial, and residential lands, and that commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising are exempt activities.

• Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. DAMBA-NFSW, 622 Phil. 37 (2009) — Cited as authority for the proposition that payment of disturbance compensation to affected tenants must first be made before the application for exemption may be completely granted.

• Rom vs. Roxas & Company, Inc., 672 Phil. 342 (2011) — Cited as authority for the proposition that a previous VOS was ineffective because the subject lands cannot be the subject of the same, they being clearly beyond CARP coverage.

• Section 3(c), Republic Act No. 6657 — Defines agricultural land as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. This is the statutory basis for determining whether lands are exempt from CARP coverage.

• Section 3(d), Republic Act No. 6657 — Defines agrarian dispute as any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over lands devoted to agriculture. This provision was applied to determine that no agrarian dispute existed in this case, thus situating jurisdiction with the DAR Secretary rather than the DARAB.

• Section 10(a), Republic Act No. 6657 — Provides that lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves shall be exempt from CARP coverage. This provision was applied to determine whether the forest conservation zone lands may nonetheless be exempt from CARP coverage.

• Section 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — Classifies lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks, and provides that agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. This provision establishes the distinction between primary and secondary classification of lands.

• Section 6, Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act) — Vests in the President, upon recommendation of the DENR, the power to classify lands of the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber, and mineral lands. This provision was cited to establish the authority over primary classification of lands.

• Section 3, Republic Act No. 2264 (Local Autonomy Act of 1959) — Empowers municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations. This provision was cited to establish the authority of LGUs to reclassify agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses.

• Section 20(a), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Authorizes a city or municipality to reclassify agricultural lands through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian. This provision was cited to establish the authority of LGUs over secondary classification of lands.

• Section 7, Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended by RA 6389 — Provides that an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory. This provision was applied to determine the entitlement of affected tenants to disturbance compensation.

• Section 36, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of RA 6389 — Provides that an agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years when the landholding is declared suited for residential, commercial, industrial, or some other urban purposes. This provision was applied to require payment of disturbance compensation before the exemption may be completely granted.

• DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 — Provides the guidelines for the issuance of exemption clearances based on Section 3(c) of RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. This administrative issuance vests in the DAR Secretary the authority to grant or deny the issuance of exemption clearances.

• DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990 — Clarifies the definition of agricultural land as those devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral or forest by the DENR and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the HLURB and its preceding competent authorities prior to June 15, 1988 for residential, commercial, or industrial use.

• DAR Administrative Order No. 13-90 — Provides the rules and procedures governing exemption of lands from CARP coverage under Section 10 of RA 6657, as amended, including the guidelines for determining whether lands are actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, forest reserves, reforestation, or watersheds.

• DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 — Provides that all lands that have already been classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before June 15, 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance from the DAR in order to be exempt from CARP coverage, but an exemption clearance is still necessary to confirm or declare their exempt status.

• DOJ Opinion No. 67, Series of 2006 — Provides that agro-industrial lands are within the ambit or coverage of the definition of agricultural land under Section 3(c) of RA 6657, as amended.

Carpio (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concurred.