EN BANC

G.R. No. 208788 - QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT, represented by

HONORABLE HERBERT M. BAUTISTA, in his capacity as CITY
MAYOR OF QUEZON CITY, and TOMASITO L. CRUZ, in his
capacity as the CITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
AND ZONING OFFICIAL OF QUEZON CITY, Petitioners, v.
MANILA SEEDLING BANK FOUNDATION, INC., represented by its
President and Chairman, LUCITO M. BERTOL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 228284 - MANILA SEEDLING BANK FOUNDATION, INC.,

represented by its President and Chairman, LEONARDO D.
LIGERALDE, Petitioner, v. QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT,
represented by HON. HERBERT M. BAUTISTA, in his capadty as
CITY MAYOR OF QUEZON CITY, GEN. ELMO SAN DIEGO, in his
capacity as Head, Department of Public Order and Safety (DPOS),
ROGER CUARESMA, and CAMERAN, M.J., and other members of
the DPOS, Respondents.

Promulgated:

x------------------------------------- ~ l . i : ; , ---x

CONCURRING OPINION

GESMUNDO, C.J.:

I concur in the ponencia. I write nonetheless to delve deeper on the

interplay between a presidential proclamation and a local zoning
ordinance. Notably, this case involves, on the one hand, Presidential
Proclamation No. 1670, s. 1977 (Proclamation No. 1670) that granted
usufructuary rights to Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. (MSBFI) and,
on the other, Zoning Ordinance No. SP-918, s. of 2000, amended in 2013
(Zoning Ordinance), which reclassified the property previously occupied by
MSBFI as falling within a metropolitan commercial and institutional zone.

•The ponencia declares ultra vires certain provisions of the Zoning

Ordinance insofar as they infringe on the usufructuary rights of MSBFI
granted under Proclamation No. 1670. Pertinently, it holds:

We agree with the RTC that the Zoning Ordinance, by

reclassifying the usufruct area into a use that is different from what was
originally intended, and ultimately depriving the [MSBFI] of its

• i
Concurring Opinion 2 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

usufructuary rights, is considered ultra vires as it is beyond the

competence of the local legislative body to amend a national law, i.e.,
Proclamation No. 1670.

Here, Proclamation No. 1670 granted the [MSBFI] the authority to

exercise its usufructuary rights over the subject property, which was
confirmed by the Court to be valid until 2027. However, the Zoning
Ordinance, in the guise of "regulating'' the use of the subject property,
effectively deprived the [MSBFI] of its usufructuary rights guaranteed by
Proclamation No. 1670. Essentially, the Zoning Ordinance restricted the
[MSBFI] from using the subject property by reclassifying and changing its
nature. This is evident [from] the City's refusal to renew the [MSBFI's]
. Certificate of Non-Conformance, and accordingly, its business permit. The
intention to render obsolete the [MSBFI's] rights over the subject property
is also made manifest by the relocation and phase out feature in the
Zoning Ordinance for non-conforming properties. Indeed, the Zoning
Ordinance is in conflict with Proclamation No. 1670 since it limited and
altogether restricted the [MSBFI's] usufructuary rights guaranteed
thereunder. 1 (Emphasis supplied)

I agree that portions of the Zoning Ordinance should be rendered ultra

vires insofar as they directly contravene MSBFI's usufructuary rights. To
underscore, Proclamation No. 1670 prevails over the local zoning ordinance
as regards how the property should be used. It bears stressing that
Proclamation No. 1670 reserved the subject property for a specific public
purpose-to counter environmental degradation •and deforestation through
the establishment of a tree seedling facility. This specific public purpose has
not been withheld, modified, or amended by law or proclamation. Thus,
while the Zoning Ordinance was validly enacted, it is my view that the
implementation of the reclassification against MSBFI's use of the subject
property contravenes the· presidential proclamation. Given this context, it
thus seems proper to not implement the Zoning Ordinance on the subject
property until the expiration of the usufruct in 2027. I expound below.

President's power to reserve

public land vis-a-vis the local
government's power to enact
the Zoning Ordinance

To contextualize, the present case does not simply involve private

property rights. For one, the subject property in the present case is a seven-
hectare government land owned by the National Housing Authority .2 For

Ponencia, pp. 29-30.

2
See National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, 495 Phil. 693 (2005) [Per J. Carpio, First
Division].
Concurring Opinion 3 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

another, the contending factors are a local ordinance and a presidential

proclamation - both were issued in the exercise of police power and provide
contradicting declarations on how the subject public land should be used.
The presidential proclamation mandates the use of the subject property in
MSBFI' s operation to counter environmental degradation, while the local
ordinance's strict implementation requires using the property for industrial
and commercial purposes.

This case requires· the Court to examine the correct delineation

between the power of local government units to regulate the use of lands
within their respective territories, and the power of the President to reserve a
portion of such land for! a specific public use or purpose. Alternatively .
stated, the question before the Court is whether a local government unit
may, through a zoning ordinance, validly withdraw, change, or alter the
use or purpose for which, a State property has been reserved, expressly or
impliedly, by a presidential proclamation. I humbly answer in the negative.

An examination of the sources and interrelation of the President's

power to reserve lands of the public domain and the local government's
power to pass zoning ordinances is an essential starting point of analysis.
Thereafter, the Court can proceed to ascertain how these two governmental
powers should be harmonized.

President's power to reserve

lands via a proclamation for
specific public purposes until
declared otherwise

The President has the statutorily-delegated3 power to reserve public

land for a public purpose. Section 64( d) of the Administrative Code of 1917,
which was applicable at the time when Proclamation No. 1670 was issued,
states:

Section 64. Particular powers and duties of (Governor-General)

President of the Philippines. - In addition to his general supervisory
authority, the (Governor-General) President of the Philippines shall have
such specific powers and duties as are expressly conferred or imposed on
him by law and also, in particular, the powers and duties set forth in this
chapter.

Among such special powers and duties shall be:

The statutorily-delegate power is emphasized to distinguish it from the President's inherent rule-
making power in the performance of its constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
(See CORTES, IRENE RlAN, THE PHILIPPINE PRESIDENCY: A STUDY OF EXECUTIVE POWER 82 [1966]).
Concurring Opinion 4 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

(d) To reserve from settlement or public sale and for specific

public uses any of the public domain of the (Philippine Islands)
Philippines the use of which is not otherwise directed by law,
the same thereafter remaining subject to the specific public
uses indicated in the executive order by which such reservation
is made, until otherwise provided by taw or executive order. 4
. (Emphasis supplied)

Three points must be highlighted from this provision: (1) an executive

order appears to be the prescribed form to reserve a public land; (2) the
reservation of public land must be for a specific public use; and (3) the
property shall remain subject to the specific public use "until otherwise
provided by law or executive order."

On the first point, although Section 64 of the Administrative Code of

1917 specifies an executive order as the form in which the presidential
issuance reserving a property should be made, Section 63 of same law states
that a proclamation has the same force as an executive order. Hence, it the
use of an executive proclamation for such purpose is permissible. Notably,
Section 63 of the same law states:

Section 63. Executive orders and executive proclamations. -

Administrative acts and commands of the (Governor-General) President of
the Philippines touching the organization or mode of operation of the
Government or rearranging or readjusting any of the districts, divisions,
parts, or ports of the (Philippine Islands) Philippines and all acts and
commands governing the general performance of duties by public
employees or disposing of issues of general concern shall be made
effective in executive orders.

Executive orders fixing the dates when specific laws, resolutions,

or orders are to have or cease effect and any information concerning
matters of public moment determined by law, resolution, or executive
orders, may be promulgated in an executive proclamation, with all the
•force ofan executive order. 5 (Emphasis supplied)

In fact, the counterpart provision in the Administrative Code of 1987

on the President's power to reserve land for public use, no longer specifies
the form to be used in the presidential pronouncement, to wit:

4
ADM. CODE ( 1917), Title II, Chapter 4, Article II, sec. 64(d).
5
ADM . CODE (1917), Title II, Chapter 4, Article I, sec. 63.
Concurring Opinion 5 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

Section 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private

Domain of the Government. - (1) The President shall have the power to
reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any
of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise
directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the
specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or
proclamation. 6 (Emphasis supplied)

In her book entitled The Philippine Presidency: A Study of Executive

Power, Justice Irene Cortes remarked on the non-binding nature of a
statute's prescribed form for presidential issuances thus:

What binding effect would a statutory provision regulating the form and
procedure for presidential acts have? It would seem that insofar as the
rules and regulations issued by the president in the performance of
:functions vested in him by the constitution are concerned, the legislature
cannot in any way interfere by prescribing the form and procedure he
should take. But if the legislature delegates rule-making :functions to the
president the conditions under which the rules should issue, such as public
hearings to be conducted and publications to be made, may be prescribed
in the statute. Still as far as the courts are concerned[,] the substance
rather than the form prevails in cases where the sufficiency of the
president's manner of rule-making is made an issue. 7 (Emphasis supplied)

Hence, the President has the power .to reserve a property for public •
use whether such declaration is in the form of an executive order or a
proclamation. The form or instrument by which the President reserves public
land has no bearing on the validity or legal effect of the presidential action, 8
notwithstanding the fact that the Administrative Code of 1917 specifies the
use of an executive order in the reservation of public land.

Pertinently, the land subject of this case had been reserved for specific
public purposes in at least three presidential proclamations. The subject
property appears to have been part of the land previously reserved by
President Ramon Magsaysay in Proclamation No. 42, s. 19549 to become the
Quezon Memorial Park. 10 A portion of that land was later reserved by
6
See ADM. CODE (1987), Book III, Title I, Chapter 4, sec. 14(1). Notably, the Administrative Code of
1987 also acknowledges the equal force ofan executive order and proclamation as follows:
Section 4. Proclamations. -Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition
ofpublic moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation
is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an executive
order. (Emphasis supplied). (See ADM. CODE (1987), Book III, Title I, Chapter 2, Article II, sec. 4).
7
See CORTES, IRENE RIAN, THE PHILIPPINE PRESIDENCY: A STUDY OF EXECUTIVE POWER 84 (1966).
8
Id. at 83.
9 Proclamation No. 42 (1954). Revoking Proclamations Nos. 422 and 431, Both Series of 1953, and
Reserving the Parcels of Land Embraced Therein Situated in Quezon City for National Park Purposes
to be Known as Quezon Memorial Park.
10
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 826 (1952), An Act Creating the Commission on Parks and Wildlife,
defining its Powers, Functions, and Duties.
Concurring Opinion 6 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. in Proclamation No. 481, s. 1968 11 to

become the National Government Center Site (NGC Site). Nine years later,.
Proclamation No. 1670 12 was issued excluding the seven-hectare portion of
that land from the NGC Site and reserving it, instead, for the MSBFI' s "use
in its operation and projects." This most recent proclamation reads, thus:

EXCLUDING FROM THE OPERATION OF PROCLAMATION NO.

481, DATED OCTOBER 24, 1968, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CENTER SITE, SITUATED AT
DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY, CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND
EMBRACED THEREIN, AND RESERVING THE SAME FOR THE
PURPOSES OF THE MANILA SEEDLING BANK FOUNDATION

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of

the Philippines, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
Philippines, do hereby exclude from the operation of Proclamation No.
481, dated October 24, 1968, which established the National Government
Center Site, certain parcels of land embraced therein and reserving the
same for the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc., for use in its
operation and projects, subject to private rights if any there be, and to
future survey, under the administration of the Foundation.

This parcel of land, which shall embrace 7 hectares, shall be determined

by the future survey based on the technical descriptions found in
Proclamation No. 481, and most particularly on the original survey of the
area, dated July 1910 to June 1911, and on the subdivision survey, dated
April 19-25, 1968. 13 (Emphasis supplied)

Based on the foregoing, the use of presidential proclamations as the

form to reserve public lands is allowed.

On the second point, the reservation of a public land must be for a

specific public purpose. In the present case, the subject property has been
specifically reserved for the tree seedling facility in order to counter
environmental degradation and deforestation.

Presidential Decree No. 1197, s. of 1977, 14 specifically recognizes

MSBFI as "a non-profit, non-stock organization, [which]· was organized
11 Proclamation No. 481 (1968), Excluding from the Operation of Proclamation No. 42, Dated July 5,
1954, Which Established the Quezon Memorial Park, Situated at Diliman, Quezon City, Certain
Parcels of the Land Embraced Therein and Reserving the Same for National Government Center Site
Purposes.
12
Proclamation No. 1670 (1977), Excluding from the Operation of Proclamation No. 481, Dated October
24, 1968, Which Established the National Government Center Site, Situated at Diliman, Quezon City,
Certain Parcels of Land Embraced Therein, and Reserving the Same for the Purposes of the Manila
Seedling Bank Foundation.
13
Proclamation No. 1670 (1977). .
14
Presidential Decree No. 1197 (1977), Exempting the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. From
Payment of Taxes and Customs Duties and Other Imposts.
Concurring Opinion 7 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

primarily to engage in the production of tree seedlings to supply the needs of

the various government offices and agencies in all kinds of activities relating
to tree planting[.]" 15 Consistent with this purpose, MSBFI, since its.creation
in 1977, established an Environmental Center which serves as a plant
nursery for the government's reforestation projects, and leases a portion of
the subject property for garden centers, pet shops, and cut flower centers. It
also offers various services such as tree pruning, tree balling and relocation,
disease treatment, tree farming, greenhouse construction and maintenance,
and plant clinics. In addition, it provides seminars and workshops on
reforestation, environmental preservation, waste disposal management,
composting and others.

From the foregoing, it can be clearly inferred that the subject property
was not simply entrusted by the national government to MSBFI for the
latter's discretionary use. It was reserved specifically for the production of
seedlings, among others, towards the end of protecting and preserving the
environment.

While the precise reason for reserving the land does not explicitly
appear on the face of Proclamation No. 1670, such purpose was announced
and is readily discemable from the speech of President Ferdinand Marcos,
Sr. during the inauguration of MSBFI. Relevantly, he signed Proclamation
. No. 1670 while he was delivering his speech during such inauguration.
Essentially, the purpose was to enable the MSBFI to counter environmental
degradation and deforestation through the tree seedling facility. He said thus:

[I]f the environment and the land have been degraded by man and the
machine, now we turn around and convert the land and the machine into
the means by which to restore and recover the environment and the land.

[T]he encroachment -, gradual but relentless - of the wasters of our

forests, the degradation, the erosion, the denudation is now very obvious
and palpable even to the most complacent among our people.

The causes are many.· Some point to the kaingeros, some to the loggers.
Whichever it is, it is now necessary that we confront the causes and
overcome whatever causes the wasting of our land.

15
Presidential Decree No. 1197 (1977), Whereas clause.
Concurring Opinion 8 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

[T]he physical environment of that past is fast receding. And unless we do

something about it, we will never be able to transmit even the shadow of
that past to our children and their children.

Thus, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this gallant and noble

effort at the restoration of our environment. For this is principally a
restoration work.

The other matter is this particular facility. This does not belong to the
Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. yet. Can you give me that decree
which transfers it to the Foundation? Let me sign it in your presence. I
hereby transfer this land of about seven hectares, subject to survey and
boundary segregation, and exclude it from the operation of Proclamation
No. 418, dated October 24, 1968, which established the national
government center site. You see, this is a part of the national government
center site in Diliman, Quezon City. Where is the mayor of Quezon City?
We will have to take this away from your jurisdiction now, and hereby
reserve the same for the purposes set in the charter of the Foundation. In
your presence, I sign this decree.

We speak of saving the country as if it were a war. And I want to inform

you that it is a war. It is a war against the environmental degradation that
threatens to engulf the Philippines if we were to allow the loss of 100,000
hectares every year. We will lose our forests in no time at all. Wben we
lose our forests, we lose our agricultural land. Wben we lose our
agricultural land, we lose our source of living. We will have to import
everything that we eat.. And we will end up with the deserts which many
of the countries have as a result of past prodigality. Before we reach such
a state, we now must go into this program. 16 (Emphasis supplied)

MSBFI was incorporated earlier that month or on September 5, 1977,

based on the records of the Securities and Exchange Commission. 17 On
September 7 of that year, Proclamation No. 1197, s. 1977 18 was issued
exempting MSBFI from the payment of all taxes, customs duties, and other
imposts. Relevantly, that issuance described MSBFI as "a non-profit, non-
stock organization," which "was organized primarily to engage in the
production of tree seedlings to supply the needs of the various government
offices and agencies in f111 kinds of activities relating to tree planting."

16
Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralin Marcos, Sr., 10th President of the Republic of the Philippines, speech
delivered at the inauguration of the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. September 19, 1977,
available at <https://www.officialgazette.gov. ph/1977/09/l 9/remarks-of-president-marcos-at-the-
inauguration-of-the-manila-seedling-bank-foundation-inc/>. •
17
Internal Note: see search results in https://secexpress.ph for Manila Seedling Bank Foundation Inc.
with SEC Registration Number: 0000075473.
18
Exempting the Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc. From Payment of Taxes and Customs Duties
and Other Imposts, signed on September 7, 1977, availablej at
<https;//www.officialgazette.go~.ph/1977/09/07/presidential-deccee-no-1197-s-1977/>. ~
Concurring Opinion 9 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

Within that same month, or on September 19, 1977, MSBFI was inaugurated
and Proclamation No. 1670 was· signed. It is therefore apparent that the
subject property was reserved by President Marcos, Sr. for a specific public
purpose.

The third point answers this question: until when must such specific
public purpose be followed? The Administrative Code of 1917 expressly
states that the land shall remain subject to the specific purpose for which it
was reserved "until otherwise provided by law or executive order." 19 In
other words, the only means by which •such specific public purpose is
withdrawn, changed, or modified is through the passage of a statute, or the
issuance of a subsequent executive order or presidential proclamation.

In the present case, the purpose for which the subject property has
been reserved by Proclamation No. 1670 has not been changed or withdrawn
by law, executive order, or by a subsequent presidential proclamation.
Records show that the Quezon City (QC) Government failed to refer to any
law, executive order, or presidential proclamation changing or withdrawing
the specific public purpose for which the subject property has been reserved.

While the President can reserve public land for a specific public use,
local governments, through their zoning ordinances, can also regulate the
use of land within their respective territorial jurisdictions .

. Zoning power of the local

government

Zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation

which logically arranges, prescribes, defines, and apportions a given
political subdivision into specific land uses as present and future projection
of needs.20 Zoning classification is. an exercise of police power by a local
govemment.21 Section 20 of the Local Government Code (LGC) states that
the power to enact zoning ordinance for comprehensive land use must be "in
conformity with existing laws." Section 44 7 thereof echoes that such zoning

19
ADM. CODE ( 1917), Title II, Chapter 4, Article II, sec. 64(d). It states that:
(d) To reserve from settlement or public sale and for specific public uses any of the public domain
9f the (Philippine Islands) Philippines the use of which is not otherwise directed by law, the same
thereafter remaining subject to the specific public uses indicated in the executive order by which such
reservation is made, until otherwise provided by law or executive order. (Emphasis supplied)
20
Buklod Nang Magbubukid Sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E. M Ramos and Sons, Inc., 661 Phil. 34, 67
(2011) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division]; Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr., 568 Phil. 658,
704 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division]. See also Sta.. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 457, 476 (2001) [Per J. Pardo, First Division], citing Presidential Decree
No. 449, sec. 4(b) or the Cockfighting Law of 1974.
21
See Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr., id.

ft
Concurring Opinion G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

ordinances are "subject to existing laws, rules and regulations." The relevant
provisions of Sections 20 and 447 of the LGC, respectively, state:

Section 20. Reclassification of Lands.

(c) The local government. units shall, in conformity with existing

laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans
enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and
dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided, That the
requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial
expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such
plans.

Section 447. Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation. - (a)

The sangguniang bayan, as the legislative body of the municipality, shall
enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the
general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitants pursuant to Section
. 16 of this Code and in the proper exercise of the corporate powers of the
municipality as provided for under Section 22 of this Code, and shall:

(2) Generate and maximize the use of resources and revenues for
the development plans, program objectives and priorities of the
municipality as provided for under Section 18 of this Code with particular
attention to agro-industrial development and countryside growth and
progress, and relative thereto, shall:

(ix) Enact integrated zoning ordinances in consonance

with the approved comprehensive land use plan,
subject to existing laws, rules and regulations;
establish fire limits or zones, particularly in populous
centers; and regulate the construction, repair or
modification of buildings within said fire limits or
zones in accordance with the provisions of the Fire
Code[.] 22 (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the local government's zoning power must conform to, and
not be inconsistent with, the restrictions imposed by the national
government.

22
L,OCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (1991), secs. 20 and 447, Republic Act No. 7160.
Concurring Opinion • 11 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

To my mind, the rel trictions on the local governments' zoning power

include the President's express reservation of a public land for a specific use.
The presidential proclamation to this effect falls within the category of
"existing laws, rules and regulations" that limits the local governments'
power to regulate the use of land.

Besides, the natim1al interest contemplated to be served by the

President's reservation o a public land should not be curtailed by zoning
ordinances which promote primarily local interests. Otherwise, overarching
policies of the national government would not be implemented without the
concurrence of local governments. In the present case, for example, if the
QC Government were to be allowed to commercialize the subject property,
which has been specifically reserved to aid the national government's efforts
to fight environmental degradation - then local interests would consequently
obstruct the effo1is to address a pressing national interest which affects
communities beyond the l~cality.

For these reasons, I am of the view that local government units,

through the passage of zoning ordinances, cannot conveniently alter the
specific public purpose for which a land has been reserved by the President.

During the delibera~ions on this case, it was posited that the Zoning
Ordinance simply limited or restricted MSBFI' s use of the subject property.
That being so, MSBFI need only to conduct its operations on the subject
property, in accordance with the restrictions provided by or appurtenant to
the classifications of the subject property as institutional and metropolitan
commercial zones. Hence, the focal regulation was argued to have validly
imposed a restriction on MSBFI' s usufructuary right.

I humbly disagree.

As discussed above, MSBFI's projects and operations are

circumscribed by the purpose of its creation as stated in Presidential Decree
No. 1197, to wit: "to engage in the production of seedlings to supply the
needs of the various government offices and agencies in all kinds of
activities relating to tree jplanting[.]" 23 Since its creation in 1977, MSBFI
operated its facilities within the subject property to fulfill this objective.
Clearly, MSBFI's use of lthe subject property has been consistent with its
primary purpose, and ultimately with the purpose for having usufructuary
rights under Proclamation No. 1670.

23
Presidential Decree No . 1197 (1977), Whereas clause.
Concurring Opinion 12 G.R. Nos. 208788 and 228284

Since the subject nroperty has been used for the above-mentioned
purpose even prior tht enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, the
reclassification of the auea where the subject property is located into
institutional and metropcllitan commercial zones, coupled with the QC
Government's refusal to I issue a certificate of non-conformance permit
effectively prevented MS1f FI from using the subject property pursuant to its
contemplated use under irroclamation No. 1670. Due to this, the MSBFI
could not fully perform its operation as a tree seedling facility or plant
nursery because it is incpnsistent with the metropolitan commercial and
institutional classification zone imposed by the Zoning Ordinance.

Lest it be misunderltood, the QC Government is not prohibited from

issuing the Zoning Ordindnce. Section 20 of the LGC states that the zoning
ordinances containing thb comprehensive land use plans shall be "the
primary and dominant ba!es for the future use of land resources." Hence,
the local government mJy classify the land as an industrial zone as a
forward-looking measure. What is objectionable in the present case is the
strict implementation of the Zoning Ordinance on the subject property
during the subsistence of the reservation of the land for a public purpose.
Notably, the usufruct granfed in MSBFI's favor started in 1977 and will end
in 2027. 24 Instead of issuing a certificate of non-conformance, the QC
Government opted not to Iallow MSBFI to legally operate even though its
operation was pursuant to the presidential proclamation.

All told, the ponet cia correctly affirms the trial court's ruling to
declare ultra vires some provisions of the Zoning Ordinance insofar as they
infringe on the usufructuauy rights ofMSBFI under Proclamation No. 1670.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DENY the Petition in G.R. No. 208788

and to DISMISS the Petitl°n in G.R. No. 228284.

24
See National Housing Authoritx v. Court of Appeals, 495 Phil. 693, 704-705 (2005) [Per J. Carpio,
First Division]; see also Nationb! Housing Authority v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc., 787
Phil. 531, 533-534 (2016) [Per C.J. Sereno, First Division] .