This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-06-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is different, however, when through Presidential Proclamations public agricultural lands have been reserved in whole or in part for public use or purpose, i.e., public school, etc., because in such a case, conversion is no longer necessary. As held in Republic v. Estonilo,[49] only a positive act of the President is needed to segregate or reserve a piece of land of the public domain for a public purpose. As such, reservation of public agricultural lands for public use or purpose in effect converted the same to such use without undergoing any conversion process and that they must be actually, directly and exclusively used for such public purpose for which they have been reserved, otherwise, they will be segregated from the reservations and transferred to the DAR for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the CARP.[50] More so, public agricultural lands already reserved for public use or purpose no longer form part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.[51] Hence, they are outside the coverage of the CARP and it logically follows that they are also beyond the conversion authority of the DAR. | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports,[29] we held that the administrative prerogative of DAR to identify and select agrarian reform beneficiaries holds sway upon the courts:In the case at bar, the BARC certified that herein farmers were potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject properties. Further, on November 23, 1994, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage placing the subject properties under CARP. Since the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency. (Emphasis ours)[30] | |||||