Sta.-rosa-realty-development-corporation-v-ca.docx

Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA G.R. No. 112526. October 12, 2001

Facts: Petitioner Sta Rosa Reality Corporation was the registered owner of two parcel of land with a total of area of 254-6 hecatres. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community. Petitioner alleged that the respondents usurped its rights over the property, thereby destroying ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed a civil case with the Regional Trial Court seeking an easement of a right of way to and from Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private respondents. After the filing of the ejectment cases , respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian Reform for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. The landholding of SRRDC was placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner objected to the compulsory acquisition of the property contending that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as beneficiaries. The DARAB ruled against the petitioner On appeal the CA affirmed the decision of DARAB. Issue: Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the entire property formed part of a watershed prior to the enactment of RA No. 6657 Held: Watershed is one of those enumerated by carp to be exempt from its coverage. We cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed purposes. The protection of watersheds ensure an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an intergenerational responsibility that needs to be answered now. Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing, petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section 10, provides: Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot

production centers, church sites and convents appurtenent thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act.