Scribd
Upload
165 views2 pages

Department of Agrarian Reform Vs Department of Education, Culture and Sports

This case involves two parcels of land totaling 189 hectares that were donated to the Department of Education in 1921 but have since been leased to a private corporation for agricultural purposes. Local farmers filed a petition to include the lands in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. The Department of Education sought exemption, arguing that the lease income was used for education. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the lands were not exempt from agrarian reform as they were not actually and exclusively used as school sites, but rather leased privately for business purposes. To be exempt, the lands themselves must be directly used for educational activities like campuses rather than generating income through other uses.

Uploaded by

Jm Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
165 views2 pages

Department of Agrarian Reform Vs Department of Education, Culture and Sports

This case involves two parcels of land totaling 189 hectares that were donated to the Department of Education in 1921 but have since been leased to a private corporation for agricultural purposes. Local farmers filed a petition to include the lands in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. The Department of Education sought exemption, arguing that the lease income was used for education. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the lands were not exempt from agrarian reform as they were not actually and exclusively used as school sites, but rather leased privately for business purposes. To be exempt, the lands themselves must be directly used for educational activities like campuses rather than generating income through other uses.

Uploaded by

Jm Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CASE TITLE Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of Education, G.R. NO. G.R. No.

158228
Culture and Sports

PONENTE Ynares-Santiago, J.: DATE March 24, 2004

DOCTRINE In order for land for educational purposes to be exempt from the coverage of the CARP, (1) the
land must be “actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary,” and (2) the
purpose is “for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public
or private schools for educational purposes.”

FACTS In controversy are Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D consisting of an aggregate area of 189.2462
hectares located at Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros
Occidental, respectively.

On October 21, 1921, these lands were donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS
(formerly Bureau of Education). On July 15, 1985, respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo
Agricultural Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from crop year 1984-1985 to
crop year 1993-1994. The contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural
crop years, commencing from crop year 1995-1996 to crop year 2004-2005.

On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm
workers of the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
coverage with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante.

After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a “Notice of Coverage” to respondent DECS,
stating that the subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a
conference with the farmer beneficiaries. Then, MARO Piñosa submitted his report to OIC-PARO
Stephen M. Leonidas, who recommended to the DAR Regional Director the approval of the
coverage of the landholdings. On August 7, 1998, DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres
approved the recommendation.

Respondent DECS: Sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground that all the income
derived from its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually, directly and
exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs and renovations of schools in the
nearby locality.

Petitioner DAR: Argued that the lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP coverage
because the same are not actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as
they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to be exempt from the coverage,
it is the land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be actually/directly and

1
exclusively used for educational purposes.

ISSUE/S

Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).

RULING/S

No. Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are exempted from the
coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption. Clearly, a reading of the paragraph
shows that, in order to be exempt from the coverage:
1) the land must be “actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;” and

2) the purpose is “for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by
public or private schools for educational purposes.”

The lands in this case were not actually and exclusively utilized as school sites and campuses, as
they were leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation, not for educational purposes but for the
furtherance of its business. Also, as conceded by respondent DECS, it was the income from the
contract of lease and not the subject lands that was directly used for the repairs and renovations
of the schools in the locality.

You might also like