AGRARIAN Midterms With Recording PDF

1
*From PPT *Shaded portions: From Pointers ni Sir peasants took up arms
*From Audio Anti- Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan
*From Codal Laban sa Hapon)
*Included in Syllabus but not in both audio and powerpoint not much during this time
AGRARIAN REFORM PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC

I. History and Legal Basis  After Philippine Independence in 1964 , problems of land
PRE-SPANISH PERIOD tenure remained .
Before the Spaniards came the Filipinos lived in villages or President Manuel Roxas (1946-1948):
barangays ruled by chiefs or datus. Republic Act No. 34 -- 70-30 sharing arrangements and
Everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. regulating share-tenancy contracts. It used to be 50-50, now it
DAR did not elaborate on this one. But what I can surmise is is 70-30.
that probably no one was concerned about ownership. Gamay Republic Act No.55 – more effective safeguard against
rag tao at that time. I think the keyword there is “access”. arbitrary ejectment of tenants.
Walay limitation ba.
PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
SPANISH PERIOD President Elpidio Quirino (1948-1953)
Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23,1950 -- Replaced
When the Spaniards came the concept of encomienda (Royal the National Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement
Land Grants) was introduced. Development Corporation (LASEDECO)
- “haciendas” (wealthy chinese families)
President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957)
1st PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and
First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio established the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Aguinaldo declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to Administration (NARRA)
confiscate large estate. - but his regime was short lived. Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954)– (note)
-relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing
Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented. share-tenancy and leasehold system.
-tenant has option to elect either share tenancy or leasehold
AMERICAN PERIOD -it also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings: 16 has for private
individuals and 1,024 has for corporations. Cont. President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957)….
Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) –registration of Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – Created the
land titles under the Torrens system. That means, ownership Land Tenure Administration(LTA)
continued to be the concern starting way back from the
spanish period. Take note of this under Magsaysay, 1199, just for our consumption
Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system. although it has been superseded.
Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated
relationships between landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 Before Magsaysay, the relationship was concentrated on share tenancy
sharing) and sugar cane lands. -limited but during this time there was another system that came out, and what’s
that? LEASEHOLD. If before share tenancy was about sharing 50/50,
COMMONWEALTH PERIOD then 70/30, and now share tenancy is kelangan ikaw land owner imung
President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the “Social Justice” program. ipa eject you should follow the reasons to eject.
1935 Constitution- “The promotion of social justice to ensure
the well-being and economic security of all people should be No arbitrary ejectment  those are the concerns during Magsaysay but
the concern of the State” here comes another concern and that is LEASEHOLD and in fact under
Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy the law the tenant has the option, why the option?
ActNo.4045) -Certain controls in the landlord-tenant
relationships Because this was changed in the time of Macapagal under R.A. 3844.
Commonwealth Act. No.461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the Under Macapagal there is no more option,  no more share tenancy,
dismissal of tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy we will only adopt leasehold
Division of the Department of Justice. You will note again, the
relationship bet. Landlord and tenant has proliferated and the What’s the difference between share tenancy and leasehold? You will
government was just giving restrictions. Meaning, the landlord note in share tenancy, the concerns are sharing and ejectment.
can’t just unilaterally eject the tenants, there has to be
What are in share tenancy that is not in leasehold?
justifiable reasons.
Rural Program Administration, created March 2,1939-
If a tenant dies under share tenancy the children of the deceased cannot
purchase and lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to
succeed but under leasehold the descendants automatically become
the tenants.
tenants as well. Once a tenant, father or mother dies, a land owner
cannot say “since I cannot eject you tenant I will just sell this
JAPANESE OCCUPATION
land”. Under leasehold, the transferee or the purchaser of the land is
peasants and workers organizations grew strength.
bound by the relationship. In short, the Land owner has no escape. This
Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

2
was the option before during the time of Macapagal. With this law - Congress merely passed a Resolution, Both houses, they
R.A.3344, share tenancy was abolished and it was only leasehold. passed a resolution extending the coverage of CARP.
Macapagal was even called the father of Agrarian Reform. Question: Is that Valid?  “daw” (valid nalang…)
- If the Land of your client between 2008 and 2009 can you
• President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961) question the acquisition, Saying that there was no law
• Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. supporting to that acquisition? (naa ni sa later part, basta
• President Diosdado Macapagal(1961-1965): gipa.retroact nila ang law to include the period nga walay law
Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8,1963– Abolished shared kay nalangay ug approve.)
tenancy, institutionalized leasehold.
• President Ferdinand Marcos(1965-1986): President Joseph E. Estrada(1998-2000)“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP”
Republic Act No.6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No.
6390 of 1971 – Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and  launched the Magkabalikat Para sa Kaunlarang Agraryo or
the Agrarian Reform Special Account Fund. MAGKASAKA.
- Provides automatic conversion of share tenancy to leasehold.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2000-present):
Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26,1972 – Declared the
country under land reform program. Kung manag-iya na sila sa yuta, nganung naa pa may leasehold?
Presidential Decree No.27,October 21,1972– Restricted land - Because the constitution or the law provides merely a right, a
reform scope to tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention farmer may not opt to avail of that right. Ingon sila “a di mi
limit at 7 hectares. motoo ana inyung programa oie, Pabilin lang mi diri arlese unta
padayun lang mig tenant” but they will not be governed by share
President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992) tenancy, wala na… abolished naman to, but they will be
 Section 21 under Article II – “The State shall promote governed by leasehold operations.
comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.” - Nganu man ang government is concerned for farmers who are
 signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 lessee’s even though they don’t want to own parcels of land?
 became effective on June 15,1988 Because dili sila ganahan nga naa napuy INEQUALITY.
E.O 405, during the time of Aquino, vested in the LBP to determine land How does the government protect the interest of the farmers? Leasehold
valuation. In the acquisition, the landowner can voluntarily give up the contract. And, if you are the farmer in leasehold, you should have that
land and AGREE on the land valuation to be determined by Land Bank. If leasehold annotated at the back of the title of the land.
the landowner does not agree with the acquisition, the government will
have to do the compulsory acquisition. And then, after that, you will Land Tenure Improvement/Provision of Support Services
have the valuation of the land bank of the Phil. If the land owner does Why is there a need for improvement? And Why is there a need for
not agree with the valuation, the land owner will usually go to the Civil support?
Court. - Remember, equalization of social and economic forces. That means the
Law itself recognizes that the mere giving of this parcels of Land to the
Who has jurisdiction? Regional trial court acting as Special Agrarian farmers is not enough. They need credit assistance (para sa tanom and
Court all)
President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998): Agri-Agra Law – under the law there is a specific provision that rural
 His administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and banks must have a portfolio for credit assistance to be extended by way
more meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform of loan to farmers.
Program. Sa ato pa RESERVE daan. (wa na gi.apil sa syllabus kay motaas na daw)
Republic Act No.7881,1995 – Amended certain provisions of
RA 6657 and exempted fishponds and prawns from the Infrastructure Project/ KALAHI ARZone
coverage of CARP. - Agrarian reform Zone, once there is an area composed of
Republic Act 8532,1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – ARB’s, Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries, They are a community,
additionalPhp50 billion for CARP and extended its butangan sila og skwelahan, butangan sila multi-purpose hall,
implementation for another 10 years. that part of assistance of the state and they are called AR
- You have the additional fund and extending the zone.
implementation for another 10 years. Why was there an
extension? Agrarian Justice (2 PHASES)
- Because R.A.6657 was to be implemented for a period of 10 1. Agrarian Legal Assistance – executive (DAR will provide lawyers to
years. farmers)
- Why extended it? Well that would be an admission that the 2. Adjudication of Cases.
program has not been fully implemented. After this in 1998 it *If you are the lawyer of the Land Owner, inyung papahawa.on ang
was extended for another 10 years so it went to 2008. nagpuyo sa yuta sa inyung client. Muadto kag DAR for assistance? You
- What was the latest amendment under CARP? may not be granted. Why? Who will decide, DAR dba? Who will assist?
It was CARPER R.A.9700 passed on 2009 DAR And besides, if you are the lawyer of the Landowner, you will not be
- So what happened when CARP expired on 2008 and before tempted to get inside the system. Why? The moment you get inside the
CARPER was enacted into law? Do you know what the system, the element needed so that DAR can adjudicate the case is
congress did? RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TENANTS. Now, would you admit that

3
there is Landowner and Tenant Relationship? Dili! Kansi kaayo ang comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229,
landowner ana. Ngano man? If you admit that, there are certain providing the mechanics for its implementation.
RESTRICTIONS! And ofcourse, that is against the interest of your client
land owner. Subsequently, the revived Congress of the Philippines took over
- Asa man cla mangadto? Sa civil courts na! Mao nang legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations,
mufile sila ug forcible entry, unlawful detainer, or accion including extensive public hearings, on the improvement of the interests
of farmers. The result, after almost a year of spirited debate, was the
publiciana.
enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino signed on June
CARPER 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned
enactments, nevertheless gives them supplementary effect insofar as
they are not inconsistent with its provisions.
Importance of Land Reform and its Constitutionality*
The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of
Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary, 175 SCRA 343 his powers under martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v.
Estrella. As for the power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No.
131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, the same was authorized under Section
"Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
in the distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is
more than a slogan. Through the brooding centuries, it has become a
battle-cry dramatizing the increasingly urgent demand of the ARTICLE II
dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as their place in the sun. DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that
social justice to "insure the well-being and economic security of all the will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the
people,” especially the less privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social
affirmed this goal adding specifically that "the State shall regulate the services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an
acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private improved quality of life for all.
property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits."
Significantly, there was also the specific injunction to "formulate and
implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
tenant from the bondage of the soil." national development.
The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development
sentiments, it also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social and agrarian reform.
Justice and Human Rights, containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere
provisions for the uplift of the common people. These include a call in ARTICLE XII
the following words for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
program:
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable
SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit
who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till
of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the
or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and quality of life for all, especially the under-privileged.
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on
may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall
which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However,
respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further
provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign
competition and trade practices.
Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land
Reform Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions
Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line with the above-stated principles. of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private
This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by P.D. No. 27, enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective
which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their
provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution ownership.
among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for
landowners.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural,
forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of
On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses
declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27
to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall
and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the
decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed on be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may
July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No. 131, instituting a not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than

4
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other
homestead, or grant. services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive
development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain resources.
which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions
therefor. Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the
proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization,
employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises.
ARTICLE XIII Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored
as equity in enterprises of their choice.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
ARTICLE XVIII
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human Section 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by
cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program.
the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments. MEANING OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment Laws that seek to promote the common good, generally by protecting
to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self- and assisting the weaker members of society.
reliance.
Let’s talk about Social Justice. Why? Because what will follow are the
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM provisions of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article XIII, that talks
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program about Social Justice.
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case Just take note of the underlined words “SOCIAL JUSTICE IS THE
of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this HUMANIZATION OF THE LAWS”. Personification of the laws. Meaning,
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all the thrust of the law is TO PROTECT PERSONS. And you have
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention Equalization of Social and Economic Forces. Another important phrase:
limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, “Measures calculated to ensure economic stability”.
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall Meaning of social justice
respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide Social Justice – is neither communism nor despotism, nor
incentives for voluntary land-sharing. atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of the laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that
justice in its National and objectively secular conception may at
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the
and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' welfare of all the people, the adoption by government of measures
organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and calculated to insure economic stability of all the component
management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture elements of society, through the maintenance of proper economic
through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the
production, marketing, and other support services. community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures
legally justifiable, and extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or powers underlying the existence of all government on time-honored
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the
public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject The constitutional provisions on agrarian reform
to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of (5) Specific provision on agrarian and natural resources reform. Article
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. XIII:
Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who
agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the
provided by law. case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.
To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable
especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account

5
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the Ngano man? Under Sec. 17, one of the factors that will affect the
payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State computation of just compensation is the Assessed Value. And ang
shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further landowner nga gusto makasave, dili mudeclare sa sakto na assessed
provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. value. Ang ideclare sa tax declaration, gamay ra kaayo kay aron gamay
rag bayran nga real property tax. Without knowing, ang iyang yuta
Article XIII, Sec.4- This was already complied. The mandate that a law kuhaon diay to sa gobyerno unya ang iyang yuta, bayran ra base sa
should be passed that will undertake an agrarian reform program. How botbot niya na assessed value.
was it manifested? You have RA 6657. The law was passed in 1988,
during the time of Aquino. The Constitution itself mandates that the Sec 4 talks about retention limits. It qualifies retention limits. Reasonable
program is founded on the right of FARMERS and REGULAR FARM retention limits. That has not been questioned, so right now the limit is
WORKERS, and OTHER FARM WORKER. fixed at 5 hectares. Children of landowners will also retain, subject to
this 2 qualifications:
Rights if you are a Farmer, Regular Farm Worker? Your right is to own
the lands you till. You can either put it in (1)your name, or it can be the 1. At least 15 yrs. Old
(2)name of the cooperative on which you are a member. Okay? 2. (a)Personally Cultivating the land or, (b)Directing managing
the land
Was this complied under CARL? Not necessarily. Why? Because under
CARL, you can own an agricultural land EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT A TILLER Kasagarang anak, dili jud nay mu.uma. So anhi ni nila pasiguon sa
of the said land. Nobody questioned this in the SC. Nobody said that ikaduha. “Directly managing the land”. Naa bana? Wala! Nagpahayahay
“hey SC, why should my land be awarded to somebody who is not a tiller rana. So what is the implication here? It is prone to corruption and
of my land when the Constitution says To own the lands they till”. How abuse. Ngano man? Pwede raman “daw” sabotsaboton ang MARO. What
will the SC solve this question if this is raised in the future? Anyway, is MARO? Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. He is the representative of
that’s not the issue now. DAR in the Municipal/City Level. It is the MARO who investigates who are
the children qualified for retention, and submit a report to the PARO. So
How about OTHER FARM WORKERS? Do they have the right to own the that is the framework of this agrarian reform program.
lands they till? NO because the constitution just said that “they have the
right to receive a just share of the fruits”. Was this complied under
CARL? My opinion is it was not. Why? There are different classes of Sec. 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and
farmers. We have Regular Farmworkers, Seasonal Farmworkers, and the landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers’
catch-all Other Farmworkers. You are an “Other Farmworker” if you do organizations to participate in the planning organization, and
not fall under the 2 preceding categories. Those classes of farmers: management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture
(1)Farmworkers and (2)Other Farmworkers they qualify to own parcels through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial,
of land under the law. Is the law consistent with the Constitution? I don’t production, marketing, and other support services.
think so. Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the
Take note of this, what is the meaning of “Landless”? Does it mean disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the
technically that the person does not own any amount of land? That is public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject
usually our impression. But under CARL, you are landless as long as you to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
don’t own an agricultural land exceeding 3 hectares. Is that the purpose indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
of an agrarian reform program? I believe the purpose is really for those “The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in
who are truly landless because that is the very essence of social its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the
legislation: Equalization of Forces. If you own a parcel of land, why the manner provided by law.
need of having another parcel of land?
Take note of Sec. 6, still in the constitution. While the framework is:
Another issue is this: RETENTION LIMITS. I’ll give you an overview so Acquisition subject to payment of just compensation, the program must
that at least you will understand when we talk about agrarian reform. respect (1)prior rights, (2)homestead rights, and (3)the rights of
Agrarian Reform program is basically taking away parcels of land by the indigenous communinities. So if you are a holder of homestead patent,
state from those owners of the agricultural lands. If you own 60 your land is not covered by the agrarian reform program. But, there is a
hectares, you won’t own anymore 60 hectares. You will only be able to BUT. Here, in sec. 6, there is no qualification. It just mentioned “subject
retain a certain number of hectares. Who determines the number? to prior rights, homestead rights”. But you know what happened to the
CONGRESS. Under CARL, landowners can retain up to 5 hectares. So, if law? The law qualifies it. Qualifies it in a sense that if you are a grantee
you own 60 hectares, you will retain 5 hectares. That is agrarian reform; of a homestead patent, gitagaan kag yuta sa DENR para naa kay
that is equalization of forces. Why? Because you have landowners who ikabalay, but wala ka nagpuyo or actually till sa yuta, the law says that
own parcels of land and you have tenants who till the land but don’t own you are not qualified for the exemption. But, section 6 does not qualify.
any parcels of land. How will they become equal? The government will
take away parcels of land and give it to the land owners. Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communities; to the preferential use of the
But, that does not end there because that TAKING is what you call communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It
Expropriation of Eminent Domain. That’s why in Sec. 4, there is a shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology
provision there subject to the Payment of Just Compensation. This is not and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance,
simple because if you own vast hectares of land, you don’t have to give and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve
it away and receive a compensation nga ang mu.valuate kay ang such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds
government kay normally gagmay. Pero, base rapud na sa imong sayop.

6
of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall contract. So if you have a contract that says you are only
receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and there for a period of 10 months for example but under the law
fishing resources. you are considered to be regularly employed because you are
Sec. 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the performing work directly for the company then you are
proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, considered a regular not withstanding any contract. The same
employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. concept is true with respect to agrarian reform. That means
Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored if you are a tenant or a lessee the LO cannot just
as equity in enterprises of their choice. dispossess, remove or eject you from the land w/o
apparent reason there has to be a ground, it should be
based on the ground. And the grounds are provided by
RA 3844 law.
BENEFICIARIES - Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and management
Tenant Farmers - Assures continuity of relations
Agricultural wage-earners or farm workers - In case of death of the tenant or the lessee, the
relationship CONTINUES. It continues with the
Settlers including migrant workers immediate family. That’s why there’s protection of
the tenurial status.
Owner-cultivators of less than family-size farms
- In case lessor sells or alienates the legal possession,
LANDS COVERED BY THE CODE transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to
the obligations of lessor. - -
Tenanted Areas
- The transferee/the purchaser is subrogated
Landed Estates
but not subrogated in the positive sense of
the word. He has to assume the rights and
Old Settlements
obligations of the lessor. The transferee cannot
say that I am innocent, I don’t know, I am not
Proposed Settlements
aware that there was this relationship between
COMPOSITION OF THE CODE tenant and LO because if that is the case that that
can be an excuse then futile ang balaod.
An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share
tenancy systems in agriculture. Agricultural leasehold? (read Sec 4-38 for more info :p)
During the Time of Diosdado Macapagal and it was this law that A juridical tie between lessor and lessee
ABOLISHED SHARE TENANCY and UPHELD LEASE HOLD. Before
- Abolished shared tenancy. Now leasehold tenancy.
this was RA 1199 where the tenant is given the choice whether the
- Why is it that leasehold relationship was preferred?
tenant would love to go to share tenancy or lease hold. If you have read
a. Tenurial Security under Agrarian Land Reform –
1199 the meaning or the concept of share tenancy and lease hold are
relationship can exist even if there is death of the lessee
the same.
or lessor, sale , transfer or conveyance of agricultural
With respect to parties: Parties are the land owner and the tenant land.
although in the case of leasehold the tenant is technically called lessee. - The transferee of the agriland, the vendee is bound by the
leasehold relationship
There is a contribution of the land owner and that contribution is in the - Should it be annotated? No. Not necessary. The law provides
form of a land. The contribution of the tenant or lessee is labor. And the for that.
tenant/lessee is supposed to plant, cultivate, harvest and when there is - Leasehold relationship will remain. To protect the lessee from
production, divide the share. The same concept  share tenancy and possible ejectment or disposition of property.
leasehold. - Refers to 2 parties
- It is referred as agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee
But why is it that leasehold is preferred over share tenancy? - Lease – somebody must pay rental
- Can the lessor eject the tenant?
Why leasehold? Yes, the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the
tenant. Unless the ground for ejectment is not enumerated in
- Protects tenurial and economic status 3844, the lessee cannot be ejected.
- ECONOMIC STATUS It is the upliftment of the life of Po vs Dampal

the tenant. But what about tenurial? It has something to
do with tenure. [Im sure in your favorite subject LABOR - talks about redemption, the right of the lessee to redeem a property
LAW, you remembered security of tenure] Security of that was foreclosed by the bank. But the law even mentions about the
tenure is provided by law not withstanding any

7
right of pre-emption “if ibaligya gani sa tag-iya ang yuta dunay normal harvest. D pwede patas.an. Nganu man? Maalkansi
katungod nga e.offer ngadto sa lessee ang yuta.” ang lessee. Kung magsabot sila ug 50-50,unsaon pagka.uplift
sa economic status sa lessee?! Pwede paubsan? Pwede.
Sec. 12 on legal redemption  Farm lots foreclosed by the bank due
non-payment of a loan. Po is the highest bidder in the auction. The f. Employed a sublessee
previous owner, the mortgagor and the tenant filed a Civil Case against - Normally the grounds are last two grounds, under 3844, there
the bank for annulment of mortgage. Meanwhile the tenant filed a is an express provision that the lessee will allow a sublessee.
complaint for legal redemption with DAR. - If they are agricultural workers under RA 3844, they are under
Bill Of Rights, they are entitled to minimum wage law, among
Subject of this case is the case of legal redemption not the annulment of others.
mortgage. Because Dampal wants to redeem the land from the bank. - Agricultural lessee vs Civil lessee
But PO said you have no right of redemption because it is already To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and under Agrarian Law
beyond the period as provided under sec. 12. Sec 12 provides 180 1. Grounds to eject - AL – 3844 while CL – Civil Code
days from notice in writing. 2. Where will you file the ejectment case – agri lessee –
DAR while civil lessee – in regular courts
DARAB said no more right to redeem because it has prescribed. But - Lessee has substantial rights, you don’t have to allege , you
you have to know under sec. 12, it provides for a reckoning point, and have to support.
the reckoning point is a NOTICE IN WRITING. Who shall give the - Allegation only is not sufficient
notice? It is the vendee, supposed to be the bank that shall serve
notice on all the lessees including Private Respondent Dampal Extinguishment of relation vs dispossession
because he is affected by the sale. Not only the lessees but also a. Extinguishment – no court approval, voluntary act
including DAR. (abandonment of land without knowledge of lessor or
voluntary surrender by lessee) or an act of God
-There was no notice served. So SC said, the lack of written notice does b. Dispossession – with court order, premise of lessee
not start the running of the prescriptive period.
Sta. Anna vs Carpo, the issue is non-payment of the rentals. You will
- Contention of PO, the highest bidder  Dampal, when you filed an note there are different rulings of the DAR.
action against the bank for nullity of mortgage you were aware that
there was non-payment of the loan and the bank is to foreclose the ABBREVIATIONS USED: PARAD is the provincial adjudicator. Provincial
property. It was foreclosed that is why you are seeking the nullity of the Agrarian Reform Adjudicator – PARAD. The DARAB is the central office in
mortgage. Therefore you are considered to have a constructive Manila. So any decision of the PARAD goes to DARAB and from the
knowledge.  SC said, this contention fails because of the express DARAB being a quasi-judicial agency under the rules of Court, goes to
requirement under the law that it has to be in WRITING. CA.
One of the important provisions of the law is w/ respect to grounds to Now SC discusses first about BURDEN OF PROOF. NOTE: According to
dispossess. Take note: “dispossess” here means the SC under sec. 37 the burden of proof to show the existence of
removal/ejectment from the land. So you will note among the a cause of rejectment is upon petitioner land owner. That means
grounds that has been listed, dili pwede ma.rakrakan ang we are talking about all the grounds to dispossess. It is the LO who has
tenant ug pusil. The land owner still has to comply with this. This law the burden to prove the ground.
still applies. (on grounds for ejectment)
SC qualified that non-payment must be willful and deliberate. That
SIR: Under the current law, CARL, there is no provision on ejectment! So means di lang failure, it could be failure but if there was negligence on
which one will you consult? This law (RA 3844). There is no provision the part of the lessee to pay that may not be taken against the lessee,
under CARL regarding the rights and obligations, you have to consult this because it has to be WILLFUL and DELIBERATE non-payment.
law. That’s why this one is still very applicable with respect to leasehold.
So according to the court the lessee executed an affidavit that the LO
Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS refused to receive the respective lease rentals and for another year the
lessee wrote two notices to the LO informing him of the availability of
a. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of the lease rentals pero wa kuha.a sa LO. That means there was no
agreement willful and deliberate non-payment of the rentals due.
b. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose
than that agreed upon Sec. 37 talks about dispossess. There is a difference between
c. Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve extinguishment of the relation as against dispossession.
land - DISPOSSESSION there has to be a court order. Dili ni order
d. Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage referring to civil court on the aspect of Civil law relationship, it
e. Non-payment of rental when due is in the context of the Department of agrarian reform.
- There is an ejectment under civil law, there is also an
- One of the Important ground is this non-payment of the ejectment under agrarian reform. The jurisdiction for one is
rental when due. Going back to the relationship, LO provides different from the other.
the land, lessee labor and when there is production they are - I’m sure you’ve heard cases about LO filing cases on
supposed to divide the produce. The produce there to be given ejectment against occupants. Normally from squatters, in a
by the lessee to the lessor/LO is the rental. The rental is FIXED parcel of land. And it’s normal for lawyers to file the case
by law. The rental shall not exceed 25% of the average under the civil law concept. Not agrarian law. WHY? Its hard

8
ang agrarian and its difficult to the part of the LO. Why? Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average
If you file ejectment under agrarian law you are bound normal harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately
by whatever rights of the occupants may have on the preceding the date of leasehold after deducting amount used
parcel of land. Bound ka especially under RA 3844 that for the seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing, loading,
means you cannot eject unless your ground falls under any of hauling and processing.
those grounds and unsa may kasagaran mahitabo sa yuta?
Diba naa sa yuta mo.kalit nalang ug turok ang mga tawo bisag - NOTE: EQUIVALENT: because it is not necessary that the
wa gitanum? Wa mo kabantay ana? Murag mushroom diba? payment of the lease rental is the produce. It can be the
Tan.aw nimu nag.tulda lng, pagkahuman ni balay na, nya nipa produce, the money or can be both depending upon the
hut, nya nag.scene na jud. so you don’t file it normally at the agreement of the parties.
agrarian court. Why? Unsa man imu e.ground? and besides if - BUT, the lease rental cannot exceed 25%.
you file it there, you recognize that there is
relationship of LO and Lessee. Remember TENURIAL WHAT IS THE MEANING HERE OF AGRICULTURAL YEAR?
STATUS. Bisag mamatay na na cya di ghapon na nimu
mapahawa kay naa may nag.sunod. So what LO would do - The planting up to the harvest cycle, that constitutes
is to file it under the civil concept mao na nga nay rule agricultural year. It is not referring to the calendar year. So
70. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Of course it probably in one year, there is a cycle of 2 agricultural years
may not fall under forcible entry, WHY? One year mana from depending on the crop/crops planted.
the time of entry, normally wa man ka diha. So imu buhaton
ngadto ka sa unlawful detainer and the allegation normally Bill of Rights for Agricultural Labor
was that there was TOLERANCE. You tolerate ang ila SECTION 39.Rights for Agricultural Labor. — To enable the farm
occupation with the understanding nga hoy ug workers to enjoy the same rights and opportunities in life as industrial
pahawaon gani moh, hawa na. That is the civil law workers, they shall enjoy the following:
concept.
- Jurisdiction is different, civil law concept you file to civil court, - (1)Right to self-organization;
agrarian ejectment you file ari sa agrarian Court /PARAD. So - (2)Right to engage in concerted activities;
- (3)Right to minimum wage;
when we mention here about court order we are referring to
- (4)Right to work for not more than eight hours;
the order coming from the agrarian court and the offense is
- (5)Right to claim for damages for death or injuries
premised on the grounds under the law. sustained while at work;
- Whereas if it is an extinguishment, normally it is a voluntary - (6)Right to compensation for personal injuries,
act. Kung e. abandon, mopahawa sila sa yuta. Hinaot wala death or illness; and
pamusila kay aron mahadlok that is an extinguishment or - (7)Right against suspension or lay-off.
there is an act of God, basig gbaha.an cguro nya wala
mo.hubas ang baha. SECTION 40.Right to Self-Organization. — The farm workers shall
have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist farm
workers' organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of
Can relation be terminated by death? collective bargaining through representatives of their own
choosing: Provided, That this right shall be exercised in a manner as
will not unduly interfere with the normal farm operations. Individuals
 No, continue between lessor and members of lessee’s
employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in farm
immediate farm household to be chosen by lessor within 1 workers' organizations under their supervision but may form separate
month from death: organizations of their own.
SECTION 41.Right to Engage in Concerted Activities. — The farm
 If lessor cannot choose, the law provides this order of
workers shall also have the right to engage in concerted activities for
assumption: 1. surviving spouse; 2. eldest direct descendant the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or
by consanguinity; 3. next eldest descendants in the order of protection.
their age.
For the purpose of this and the preceding Section, it shall be the duty
of the farm employer or manager to allow the farm workers, labor
Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization? leaders, organizers, advisers and helpers complete freedom to enter
and leave the farm, plantation or compound at the portion of the
-Fine or imprisonment same where said farm workers live or stay permanently or
temporarily.
-Damages suffered
SECTION 42.Right to Minimum Wage. — Notwithstanding any
provision of law or contract to the contrary, farm workers in farm
-Attorney’s fees enterprises shall be entitled to at least P3.50 a day for eight hours'
work: Provided, That this wage may, however, be increased by the
-Remuneration for last income Minimum Wage Board as provided for in Republic Act Numbered Six
hundred and two.
That means that there must be a complaint filed before the
SECTION 43.Right to Eight Hours' Work. — Notwithstanding the
PARAD to be able to lawfully eject a tenant. So, it is also provided for provision of existing laws to the contrary, farm workers shall not be
under the law. required to work for more than eight hours daily. When the work is
not continuous, the time during which the farm worker is not working
Lease rental and can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not be
counted.

9
Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or

impending emergencies caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, TENANTS EMANCIPATION DECREE
typhoon, epidemic, or other disaster or calamity, or in case of urgent (Pres. Decree no.27.)  Marcos decree
work to be performed on farm machines, equipment or installations in
BENEFICIARIES
order to avoid a serious loss which the farm employer or manager
would otherwise suffer, or some other just cause of a similar nature,
but in all such cases the farm workers shall be entitled to receive Beneficiaries of the Decree are the bona fide tenant farmers of
compensation for the overtime work performed at the same rate as private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a
their regular wages, plus at least twenty-five per centum additional, system of share-crop or lease tenancy (not farm labor), whether
based on their daily wages. classified as landed estate or not
No farm employer or manager shall compel a farm worker to work
during Sundays and legal holidays: Provided, however, That should The tenant farmer- whether in land classified as landed estate (i.e.,
the farm worker agree to work on said days, he shall be paid an with an area of 24 hectares or above) or not, shall be deemed owner
additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of his regular (subject to certain requirements and conditions) of a portion constituting
compensation; Provided, further, That the farm employer or manager a family size of five (5) hectares, if not irrigated and three (3)hectares, if
shall not be held liable for any claim for overtime work which he had irrigated. Lands transferred to tenant-farmers under the Decree will
not previously authorized, except if the work rendered was to avoid
revert to the government and not to the landowners in case where the
damages to crops, produce, work animals or implements, buildings or
the like. tenant abandons his tillage or refuses to take advantage of his rights
under the laws.
Any agreement or contract between the farm employer or manager
and the farm worker contrary to the provisions of this Section shall be
Note that the Decree does not apply to lands owned by the
null and void.
government or government-owned corporation.
SECTION 44.Right of Action for Damages. — Notwithstanding the
provisions of existing laws to the contrary, Act Numbered Eighteen
hundred and seventy-four, as amended, entitled "An Act to extend DIFFERENCE:
and regulate the responsibility of employers for personal injuries and
death suffered by their employees while at work", shall apply to farm Difference between PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree) and
workers insofar as it may be applicable. RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
SECTION 45.Right to Compensation for Personal Injuries, Death, or
Illness. — Notwithstanding the provisions of existing laws to the PD 27 RA 6657
contrary, Act Numbered Thirty-four hundred and twenty-eight, as
Purpose Abolish leasehold Main purpose is to
amended, entitled "An Act prescribing the compensation to be
in tenanted provide land for the
received by employees for personal injuries, death or illness
lands. It made landless through
contracted in the performance of their duties", shall apply to farm
the tiller of the acquiring and
workers insofar as it may be applicable.
land the distribution of lands and
SECTION 46.Right Against Suspension or Lay-Off. — The landowner, amortizing providing support
farm employer or farm manager shall not suspend, lay-off or dismiss owner of the facilities and system for
any farm worker without just cause from the time a farm workers' land he tills. the benefit of the
organization or group of farm workers has presented to the landowner farmers.
a petition or complaint regarding any matter likely to cause a strike or Land Private lands Covers all public and
lockout and a copy thereof furnished with the Department of Labor, or Covered which are private agricultural lands
while an agricultural dispute is pending before the Court of Agrarian devoted to rice including other lands of
Relations. If it is proved during the said period that a worker has been and corn ONLY. public domain suitable
suspended or dismissed without just cause, the Court may direct the for agriculture
reinstatement and the payment of his wage during the time of his regardless of tenurial
suspension or dismissal, or of any sum he should have received had arrangement and
he not been suspended or dismissed, without prejudice to any criminal commodity produced.
liability of the landowner, farm employer or farm manager as Effect in With the passage Main governing law of
prescribed by Section twenty-four of Commonwealth Act Numbered Impleme of RA 6657, it is Agrarian Land Reform
One hundred and three, as amended. cdasia nting only a suppletory here in the Philippines.
Land law. This means,
SECTION 47.Other Applicable Provisions. — All other existing laws
Reform it will be
applicable to non-agricultural workers in private enterprises which are
Program applicable only
not inconsistent with this Code shall likewise apply to farm workers,
to those matters
farm labor organizations and agrarian disputes as defined in this Code,
not covered by
as well as to relations between farm management and farm labor and
RA 6657.
the functions of the Department of Labor and other agencies.
Number Makes a  Note: not beneficiaries:
SECTION 48.Exceptions to Preceding Section. — The preceding of distinction: this is referring to the
Sections of this Chapter, except Sections forty, forty-one, forty-two hectares - If irrigated: 3 tenants (because naa
and forty-three shall not apply to farm enterprises comprising not that a - If not
sad baya beneficiaries
more than twelve hectares tenant or irrigated: 5
farmer na children under
SUPPLETORY EFFECT (nothing sa slides or sa records, but apil sa CARL)
can own
syllabus, idk asa sa law dapit… enlighten meeee)  wala pud ang Reyes o The beneficiaries,
vs. Reyes GR 140164 (read case nalang) meaning the ARBs
- IMO: This law has suppletory effect on CARL based on the (agrarian reform
grounds to dispossess/eject since wala man dawn na sa CARL beneficiaries) can be
(believe at your own risk!!) awarded not

10
exceeding 3 hectares conducted on the matter which led to the issuance of an Order
issued by DAR Regional Director. In the said Order, the DAR
Ownershi 7 hectares if  the retention is 5 found the act of respondent in surrendering the subject land in
p of the personally hectares regardless of favor of petitioner as constituting abandonment thereof, and
land that cultivated by the whether the denied respondent’s prayer for redemption of the subject land.
landowner OR Respondent’s request for reinvestigation was denied in a
can be landowner is tilling the
will cultivate Resolution.
retained land or not.
o Children of the Thus, respondent appealed the case to the DAR
landowner – not Central Office which an order was issued reversing the assailed
exceeding 3 Order of DAR Regional Director and ordering the petitioner to
return the subject land to respondent. Petitioner’s Motion for
hectares each,
Reconsideration was denied.
subject to 2
conditions:
1. 15 years old and Issues:
above
2. Personally cultivating A. Whether or not there is a valid abandonment made by Respondent
or directly managing Mabalot.
B. Whether the act of Respondent Mabalot in conveying to petitioner the
right to possess and cultivate the disputed parcel of land constitutes a
PD 27 – rice & corn land
valid abandonment thereby rendering the property available for transfer
RA 6657 – all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain).
to other bonafide farmers.
C. Whether the issuance of an emancipation patent and thereafter a
Sigre vs. CA, G.R. No. 109568, August 8, 2002 transfer certificate of title in the name of petitioner has validated and
legitimized possession and ownership over the disputed property."
The Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law
operates distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and
private agricultural land including other lands of the public Held:
domain suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation Main Issue:
No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; while, P.D. 27 covers rice Abandonment
and corn lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides for the
The subject property was awarded to respondent by virtue of PD 27. A
mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically
CLT was issued in his favor. PD 27 specifically provides that when private
states: "Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to
agricultural land -- whether classified as landed estate or not – is
operate with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. x x x" It
primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease
cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or
tenancy, the tenant farmers thereof shall be deemed owners of a portion
supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D. 27 that
constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated, and
are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter, and
three (3) hectares if irrigated.
all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained even
with the passage of R.A. 6657. Petitioner avers that respondent neither protested when the former had
the subject land surveyed and planted with 40 mango trees, nor
Sigre v. CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates separately from RA 6657. attempted to return the money he had borrowed from petitioner in 1976.
Because the lot has been abandoned by respondent, the beneficiary, and
Can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to because PD 27 does not prohibit the transfer of properties acquired
another qualified beneficiary? under it, petitioner theorizes that the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) may award the land to another qualified farmer-grantee.
Estolas vs. Mabalot, G.R. No. 133706, May 7, 2002 Non-transferability of Land Awarded Under PD 27
Facts: We do not agree. PD 27 specifically provides that title to land acquired

pursuant to its mandate or to that of the Land Reform Program of the
A Certificate of Land Transfer (hereinafter referred government shall not be transferable except to the grantee’s heirs by
to as CLT) was issued in favor of respondent over a 5,000 hereditary succession, or back to the government by other legal means.
square meter lot (hereinafter referred to as subject land). The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation.
Needing money for medical treatment, respondent passed on Upon the promulgation of PD 27, their emancipation gave them the
the subject land to the petitioner. According to respondent, rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for themselves.
there was only a verbal mortgage; while according to These rights were granted by the government to them as the tillers and
petitioner, a sale had taken place. to no other. Thus, to insure their continuous possession and enjoyment
Respondent filed a Complaint against the petitioner of the property, they could not, under the law, effect any transfer except
before the Barangay Lupon in Pangasinan for the purpose of back to the government or, by hereditary succession, to their
redeeming the subject land. When no amicable settlement was successors.11
reached, the case was referred to the DAR regional office Furthermore, this Court has always ruled that agrarian laws must be
. DAR’s District Office found that respondent merely gave the interpreted liberally in favor of the grantees in order to give full force
subject land to petitioner as guarantee for the payment of a and effect to the clear intent of such laws: "to achieve a dignified
loan he had incurred from the latter; and recommending that existence for the small farmers"; and to make them "more independent,
the CLT remain in the name of respondent and that the money self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in
loan be returned to petitioner. our democratic society."12
Petitioner insisted that the subject land had been Neither are we convinced that an award under PD 27 may be transferred
sold to him by respondent and requested the DAR to cancel to another in case the grantee abandons it. The law is explicit.
the CLT in respondent’s name. Another investigation was No Abandonment

11
For abandonment to exist, the following requisites must be proven: (a) a It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based
clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a on the guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the
right or property and (b) an external act by which that intention is DAR’s failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable
expressed or carried into effect. There must be an actual, not merely a length of time. That just compensation should be determined in
projected, relinquishment; otherwise, the right or claim is not vacated or accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially
waived and, thus, susceptible of being appropriated by another. In the imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
present case, no such "willful failure" has been demonstrated. Quite the equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the
contrary, respondent has continued to claim dominion over the land. equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
No Valid Reallocation The land therefore should be valued under RA 6657 following the
guidelines set in DAR AO no. 5, series of 1998 and not under PD 27.
Furthermore, even if respondent did indeed abandon his right to possess
and cultivate the subject land, any transfer of the property may only be Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz:
made in favor of the government. In Corpuz v. Grospe,19 the Court held -The determination of just compensation should be based on
that there was a valid transfer of the land after the farmer-grantee had RA 6657 for lands covered under PD 27. PD 27 applies only
signed his concurrence to the Samahang Nayon Resolution surrendering suppletorily.
his possession of the landholding. This voluntary surrender to the
Samahang Nayon constituted a surrender or transfer to the government Although this was not discussed in any of the case: ngano nindot man
itself.
ang under 6657 and not under PD 27? Just by analysis. There are more
In the present case, there was no valid transfer in favor of the factors under 6657. So the factors are more reasonable and just insofar
government. It was petitioner himself who requested the DAR to cancel as the owner and the government is concerned.
respondent’s CLT and to issue another one in his favor.21 Unlike in the
above-cited case, respondent’s land was not turned over to the
government or to any entity authorized by the government to reallocate One of the factors considered under just compensation is the tax
the farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries declaration.
of PD 27. Petitioner cannot, by himself, take over a farmer-beneficiary’s  What can you find under the tax declaration?
landholding, allegedly on the ground that it was abandoned. The proper  Assessed value. Upon whose declaration? The
procedure for reallocation must be followed to ensure that there was OWNER’s declaration. If gamay ra imo ideclare
indeed abandonment, and that the subsequent beneficiary is a qualified then gamay ra sad imo just compensation.
farmer-tenant as provided by law.
Other factor is the zonal value.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED
*LBP vs. Sps. Rokaya GR 180804: not in records/ppt but according to
the syllabus: SAME PRINCIPLE with LBP vs. HEIRS OF CRUZ
Estolas v. Mabalot : Land may only be transferred either by succession or
to government. Abandonment:
DAR cannot transfer directly to a qualified beneficiary.
GUAN vs. QUIRINO
Land Bank of the Phil. vs. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, G.R. No.
175175, September 29, 2008
- The awardee here abandoned the land for 11 years.
Facts:
Case is regarding the valuation to the land of the respondents of which - The SC said that under this admin order that if the
the area was placed by the government under the coverage of the awardee/beneficiary fails to cultivate, till or develop or to use
operation land transfer program under PD 27. the land for any economic purpose continuously for a period of
The LBP, petitioners herein, valued the land in accordance with the 2 calendar years that is abandonment. NOTE: the law use
guidelines set forth under PD 27 and EO No. 228 and pegged the value CALENDER years, not agricultural. So calendar year is
of the land amounting to P106,935.76 per hectare. Respondents rejected
favorable to the tenant.
petitioner’s valuation and insist on claiming that the said land is worth
between P150,00 to P200,000 per hectare.
The Cagayan Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) however
valued the land at P80,000 following the factors set under RA 6557 PRESENT LAW (CARPER) RA 6657
(CARL) and of which such value, as just compensation to the
respondent, was approve by the lower court (RTC) setting as Special CHAPTER 1
Agrarian Court (SAC). Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?Yes.
 Sec.2 (RA 6657)
Issue:  “…sound rural development and
Whether or not PD 27 or RA 6557 is the applicable law in determining industrialization”
the value of the land which was taken under PD 27 or before RA 6557  “…to promote industrialization”
was enacted.  Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture
Held: (fertilizers, insecticides, hybrid seeds,
The Court laid down in Paris v. Alfeche the applicability of P.D. No. 27 irrigation systems, tractors)
and E.O. No. 228 in relation to R.A. No. 6657 in the matter of the
payment of just compensation. There the Court explained that while Can private corporation acquire ownership of alienable lands of
under P.D. No. 27 tenant farmers are already deemed owners of the public domain?
land they till, they are still required to pay the cost of the land before the Chavez v. PEA: No, only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs. Renewable
title is transferred to them and that pending the payment of just not more than 25yrs. And not to exceed 1,000 hectares
compensation, actual title to the tenanted land remains with the
landowner. (CONST., Art. XII, Sec.3)
In Paris, the application of the process of agrarian reform was still
incomplete thus, the Court held therein that with the passage of R.A. DEFINITIONS: Agriculture, enterprise, agricultural activity.
No. 6657 before its completion, the process should now be
completed under R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No.
228 applying only suppletorily.

12
One section that uses the word agriculture is Section 4. COVERAGE. The  Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect
law says: the rights of ARBs due to unauthorized change/conversion or
fraudulent declaration of areas used for cattle purposes.
This law covers all public/private agricultural lands including other  Why? (Just a possibility daw) It may have happened that DAR
may not be able to inspect all lands that are covered under
lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
CARP in fact if I’m not mistaken, up to now, only 63% has
been achieved insofar as implementation of the Law is
SEC 3(B) defines agriculture or agricultural activity. concerned.
Sec. 3 (b) “Agriculture” or “Agricultural Activity”  Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private
- Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit agricultural lands actually, exclusively and directly used for
trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting of such cattle raising as of 15 June 1988.
farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a
farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person DAR actually has a ratio for that  admin order no. 9 in the succeeding
whether natural or juridical. case: one animal is entitled to 1 hectare of land, 1 cattle. And then 1.7
something hectares that’s good for 21 heads insofar as infrastructure is
Question: Ngano man puwa mana ang raising of livestock, poultry or concerned.
fish?
o Originally, that was placed by law. But in the case of Luz Farms Those that will exceed or portions which will not be covered by this will
versus Secretary of DAR (1990), the SC struck down that phrase have to be covered under CARP, the purpose should be for the growth of
cattle industry but if the filing of the exclusion is in response to notice of
for being unconstitutional.
CARP coverage, DAR shall deny due course if the application is filed 60
days after date of receipt of notice. That means you have to be fast do
Luz Farms v. Sec. – Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional not wait for DAR to be able to send you a notice of CARP coverage.
(“raising of livestock, poultry and swine” per SC) Before DAR should serve that, you have to already apply for a petition
- “use of land is incidental and not the principal for exclusion. Only exclusion petitions fully supported shall be accepted.
factor”
 RA 7881 (effective May 1995)  Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow.
- amended Sec.3(b) and removed “the raising of livestock,  Policies:
poultry or fish” (1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall
 raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or be excluded (exclusion to be granted only upon proof and
tree farming. continuously utilized up to time of application);
 Industrial, not agricultural activity. (2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land
 Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form conversion
of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures (3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure
and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with necessary for cattle raising shall be excluded; all other areas
grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, shall be covered.
extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, (4) Encourage growth of cattle industry
anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants (5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP
augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, coverage, DAR shall deny due course if application is filed 60
elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other days after date of receipt of notice.
technological appurtenances (6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents
shall be accepted
SIR: Mao na akong kasagaran binuang ani “wala kay baboy na itanom,
baktin na mahimong baboy” hehehe. DAR v. Sutton: (leading case due to nullification of AO no. 9)
- DAR Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (RULES & Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE EXCLUSION OF (VOS - due to Luz Farms - withdraw VOS)
AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED FOR CATTLE RAISING - Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993 (prescribing a maximum
FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARP) retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock
- “Livestock and poultry do not sprout from the land.” raising);
5 years pa after nakarealize ang congress, so it was eventually removed - SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed definition of
“agricultural activity“ by dropping from its coverage
from sec3(B).
lands that are devoted to commercial livestock, poultry
and swine-raising. Congress clearly sought to align the
Governs the exclusion of agri lands used for cattle raising from coverage provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the
of CARP. If you have an application for exclusion, you file it with DAR to 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock
be excluded from CARP, you should prove that the land is actually, farms from the coverage of agrarian reform.
exclusively and directly (ADE) used for cattle raising. So it was the policy
Now what is the implication of Luz farms case and the amendment made
that if the land is ADE for cattle raising as of June 15, 1988 then it shall
by congress per RA 7881?
be excluded but of course you have to wait for the ruling of DAR with - Supreme court and congress are saying that lands devoted to
respect to application for exclusion. live stock are not to be covered under CARP.
Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion  If What did DAR do after the Luz Farms case?
you want to change classification of your land from agricultural to - DAR issued AO #9 series 1993. Remember the Luz farms case
residential or commercial or industrial it is governed by another policy was in 1990 and AO #9 is in 1993, that is why in this case,
originally the land owner filed a VOS; voluntary offer to sell
not this admin order.
meaning he is surrendering to the government the land for
purposes of CARP but here comes Luz Farms. (I’m not sure

13
how many months after the filing of the VOS did the supreme parcels of land are exempted from coverage as the said parcels of land
court come out with the ruling in Luz Farms case) with a total area of 110.5455 hectares are used for grazing and habitat
- In Luz Farms supreme court said, lands devoted to live stock of petitioner's 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads of
are not covered so they are saying “well we have parcels of goats and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the
land devoted to livestock so we have to withdraw our VOS” Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
and questioned AO #9 saying under the constitution, Luz
Farm, and congress, DAR cannot regulate the raising of On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, the MARO conducted an
livestock because in this particular AO, DAR stated that only onsite investigation on the two parcels of land confirming the presence
portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of of the livestock as enumerated.
livestock poultry or swine shall be excluded.
On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was
*There is a constitutional basis for saying that live stock raising is not cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the Republic of the
included under CARP because it was found in the deliberations of the Philippines under RP T-16356. On February 7, 1994, petitioner through
CON-COM particularly commissioner Tadeo, the one representing the its President, Salvador N. Lopez, Jr., executed a letter-affidavit addressed
tenant, (and he was asked in Filipino of course) whether the farm to the respondent-Secretary requesting for the exclusion from CARP
workers include those person who are working in livestock, poultry and coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that they needed the
swine. And his answer was that they are NOT included. additional area for its livestock business. On March 28, 1995, petitioner
- So taking a cue from that deliberation the supreme court, in filed before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an application for
the case of Luz Farms deleted that phrase raising of live stock the exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 stating that
etc. from the definition of agricultural activity. it has been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15, 1988 and that
the said two (2) lots form an integral part of its grazing land.
SC: DAR you have no power to regulate. What you did, using the AO
was trying to regulate live stock farming but you have no power because The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an
that is not within your jurisdiction, it is not part of CARP coverage. This Order dated March 5, 1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots
has been exempted by the constitution from the coverage of agrarian 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly shown that the
reform. same were actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising
since in its application, petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for
Because DAR lost in the Sutton case when supreme court nullified AO additional grazing area. The application for exemption, however of the
#9, DAR issued an admin order #7. This time DAR learned its lesson, we other two (2) parcels of land was approved.
will not regulate livestock because that is outside of our authority but
what we will do is we will classify lands those devoted to livestock and Issue:
those not devoted to livestock to their guidelines. Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL
Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008 Held:

In contrast, the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted
Policy guidelines: to coconut trees and rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from
 Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and CARP coverage.
continuously used shall be excluded; conversely, those not
ADE are subject to CARP if one or more of the following In the Report dated 06 April 1994, the team that conducted the
conditions apply: (1) there is agricultural activity in the area inspection found that the entire Limot lands were devoted to coconuts
(i.e., cultivation of soil, planting of crops, growing of trees (41.5706 hectares) and rubber (8.000 hectares) and recommended the
including harvesting); (2) land is suitable for agriculture and denial of the application for exemption. 30 Verily, the Limot lands were
occupied and tilled by farmers. actually, directly and exclusively used for agricultural activities, a fact
 In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official that necessarily makes them subject to the CARP. These findings of the
functions, all processes by DAR per AO No. 9 are valid. inspection team were given credence by the DAR Regional Director who
- But this one surprises me, despite the fact that AO denied the application, and were even subsequently affirmed by the DAR
#9 was nullified, DAR said in line with the principle Secretary and the Court of Appeals.
of regularity of the performance of official
functions all processes of DAR for AO number 9 are In the 07 February 1994 Letter-Affidavit addressed to the DAR Secretary,
valid. Anyway nobody questioned it! SNLABC requested the exemption of the Limot lands on the ground that
 Sec. 3 (c) “Agricultural land” land devoted to agricultural the corporation needed the additional area for its livestock business. As
activity & not classified as mineral, forest, residential, pointed out by the DAR Regional Director, this Letter-Affidavit is a clear
commercial or industrial land. indication that the Limot lands were not directly, actually and exclusively
used for livestock raising. SNLABC casually dismisses the clear import of
their Letter-Affidavit as a "poor choice of words." Unfortunately, the
Republic vs Salvador Lopez Agri-business semantics of the declarations of SNLABC in its application for exemption
are corroborated by the other attendant factual circumstances and
Facts indicate its treatment of the subject properties as non-livestock.
Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate
area of 160.1161 hectares registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez Verily, the MARO itself, in the Investigation Report cited by no less than
Agri-Business Corporation. SNLABC, found that the livestock were only moved to the Limot lands
On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro sporadically and were not permanently designated there. The DAR
C. Salga issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to Secretary even described SNLABC's use of the area as a "seasonal
the aforementioned landholdings which were subsequently placed under extension of the applicant's 'grazing lands' during the summer."
Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have been actually,
Reform Law). directly and exclusively used for SNLABC's livestock business, especially
since these were only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing
On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian areas. The said lands are more suitable — and are in fact actually,
Reform Office (PARO), Davao Oriental, an Application for Exemption of directly and exclusively being used — for agricultural purposes.
the lots covered by TCT No. T-12637 and T-12639 from CARP coverage.
It alleged that pursuant to the case of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary said

14
 Tax declaration classified as agricultural land (one way to logic there? “Needed the additional area” that will happen in the future
prove)- it is not conclusive. which is proof that the land is not yet being actually used for livestock
business.
There are 2 basic functions of DAR in relation to CARP,
1. Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI): who are involved in
implementation? From the bottom you have the MARO going
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
up you have the PARO(provincial), RARO (regional), Secretary
of Agrarian Reform and from that office of the president, CA
Facts:
then SC, that’s the 1st basic function in so far as
Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) was incorporated with the
implementation.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 1960. 4 Among its
2. Decision making(quasi-judicial): the MARO has no function but
pertinent secondary purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle,
in quasi – judicial from the bottom you have PARAB(provincial
pigs, and other livestock; to acquire lands by purchase or lease, which
adjudicator), RARAB(regional), DARAB based in manila the
may be needed for this purpose; and to sell and otherwise dispose of
central office from DARAB to CA to SC.
said cattle, pigs, and other livestock and their produce when advisable
and beneficial to the corporation; (2) to breed, raise, and sell poultry; to
But you have to note in the implementation aspect it is possible nga
purchase or acquire and sell, or otherwise dispose of the supplies,
from the MARO etc., there is a delineation along the way but only on two
stocks, equipment, accessories, appurtenances, products, and by-
aspects meaning (especially on the coverage on the land) it is possible
products of said business; and (3) to import cattle, pigs, and other
that the trial court will intervene somewhere, what aspects?
livestock, and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle, pigs,
1. Just compensation
and other livestock as may be authorized by law. 5
2. criminal offenses
It is only on two aspects that the civil court has jurisdiction. I’m referring
On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law, Republic Act (R.A.) No.
to RTC.
6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL), took effect, which included the raising of livestock, poultry, and
CASE: There are 2 lands here. You have the Lopez land and the 2nd one
swine in its coverage. However, on December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting
is the Limoc Lands. You have here the finding of MARO of several heads en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
of cattle, some covered by several certificates. There were structures Reform 6 that agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and/or
used for livestock business, the existence of the cattle prior to the swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
enactment of CARL positively affirmed, farm workers and overseers Program (CARP).
interviewed by the MARO.
Thus, in May 1993, petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion of its
316.0422-hectare property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos.
SC: Lopez lands you are devoted to livestock raising therefore not
(T-410434) M-15750, (T-486101) M-7307, (T-486102) M-7308, (T-
included under CARL. 274129) M-15751, (T-486103) M-7309, (T-486104) M-7310, (T-332694)
M-15755, (T-486105) M-7311, (T-486106) M-7312, M-8791, (T-486107)
DAR argued: SC the tax declaration characterized the lopez land as M-7313, (T-486108) M-7314, M-8796, (T-486109) M-7315, (T-486110)
agricultural. M-9508, and M-6013, and located in Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, from the
coverage of the CARL, pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this
SIR: In a tax dec, you will find there the classification of the land, and Court in Luz Farms.
pinakapermero ana nga table agricultural sa ubos either residential
Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, the Department of Agrarian Reform
commercial or industrial ug agri imu classification barato imu bayaran
(DAR) issued Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 (DAR A.O. No.
nga real property tax but the moment nga mahimo nag siyag
9), setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of
commercial(?) or industrial, it goes higher. agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from
CARP coverage. Thus, on January 10, 1994, petitioner re-documented its
So DAR is saying: therefore the fact that it is agri, this detracted from application pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9. 7
the claim that they were used for livestock purposes
Acting on the said application, the DAR's Land Use Conversion and
but SC said: there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that land Exemption Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted an ocular
classification in a tax dec is conclusive in filing. That means you may not inspection on petitioner's property and arrived at the following findings:
rely solely on the tax dec., you can base it on another evidence, and
[T]he actual land utilization for livestock, swine and poultry is 258.8422
what is that evidence? Here in the Lopez case you have the findings of hectares; the area which served as infrastructure is 42.0000 hectares;
the MARO, which findings stated the lands were used for livestock ten (10) hectares are planted to corn and the remaining five (5) hectares
raising. are devoted to fish culture; that the livestock population are 371 heads
of cow, 20 heads of horses, 5,678 heads of swine and 788 heads of
SIR: But I’m not saying you cannot use tax dec as a basis but you cocks; that the area being applied for exclusion is far below the required
cannot rely on it solely. You can also rely on other evidence specially on or ideal area which is 563 hectares for the total livestock population; that
the approximate area not directly used for livestock purposes with an
MARO’s findings which according to our jurisprudence is entitled to
area of 15 hectares, more or less, is likewise far below the allowable
respect by the SC. 10% variance; and, though not directly used for livestock purposes, the
ten (10) hectares planted to sweet corn and the five (5) hectares
What about Limot Lands, what is the finding? The report says the entire devoted to fishpond could be considered supportive to livestock
limot lands were devoted to coconut and rubber so the question was: production.
where the limot lands ADE devoted? NO! why? Because the entire limot
lands were planted with coconuts and rubber. So verily the limot lands On January 21, 1997, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao (Secretary
Garilao) issued an Order exempting from CARP only 240.9776 hectares
were ADE used for agricultural plantations which makes them subjects to
of the 316.0422 hectares previously exempted by Director Dalugdug,
CARL. The corporation SNL-ABC argued that there is a misapprehension
and declaring 75.0646 hectares of the property to be covered by CARP.
of facts and requested an exemption on the ground that the corporation 14
needed the additional area for the livestock business. So what is the

15
Secretary Garilao opined that, for private agricultural lands to be court accorded respect to the inspection of MARO that the 43 cows while
excluded from CARP, they must already be devoted to livestock, poultry, owned by petitioner were actually pastured outside of the subject
and swine raising as of June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect. He property. So what is the implication if there was no devotion to the
found that the Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle submitted by subject property to live stock raising? The property is not excluded from
petitioner showed that only 86 heads of cattle were registered in the CARP coverage.
name of petitioner's president, Misael Vera, Jr., prior to June 15, 1988;
133 were subsequently bought in 1990, while 204 were registered from Agricultural Land (Section 3 c)
1992 to 1995. Secretary Garilao gave more weight to the certificates
rather than to the headcount because "the same explicitly provide for  Sec. 3 (c) “Agricultural land” land devoted to agricultural
the number of cattle owned by petitioner as of June 15, 1988. activity & not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.
Issue: 2 elements:
Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL - Devoted to agricultural activity
- Not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
Held: industrial
With the procedural issue disposed of, we find that petitioner's
arguments fail to persuade. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. In Who classifies the land as mineral forest? DENR
Sutton, we held: The other one, residential, commercial, industrial? Local government
units to be approved by HLURB. So in our context we have a zoning
In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it ordinance, the zoning ordinance is a classification.
contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock
farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and The zoning ordinance delineates which part of the city is under
prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However, the residential classification, which part is under commercial, which part is
deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent industrial. And the LGU will submit the zoning ordinance to HLURB for
to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and approval.
poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock,
swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within Take note: there is a cut-off date (June 15, 1988) in passing a zoning
the definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural activity." The raising of ordinance (changing the classification from agricultural). Sec 4 of CARP
livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is covers all private and public lands so you need to present proof that
an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the there was classification
investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such
as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and Natalia Realty v. DAR – 1979 (Leading case)
blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and
generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land
anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as
lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which
pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological appurtenances. TaDSHC were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA
properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite
Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which reservation. NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills
have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian Subdivision. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the
reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O. Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares.
NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage
Petitioner's admission that, since 2001, it leased another ranch for its
own livestock is fatal to its cause. 64 While petitioner advances a SC:
defense that it leased this ranch because the occupants of the subject “ They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation”.
property harmed its cattle, like the CA, we find it surprising that not even Lands previously converted by government agencies, other than DAR, to
a single police and/or barangay report was filed by petitioner to amplify non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL were outside the
its indignation over these alleged illegal acts. Moreover, we accord coverage of that law. Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands
respect to the CA's keen observation that the assailed MARO reports and located within townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate
the Investigating Team's Report do not actually contradict one another, converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL.
finding that the 43 cows, while owned by petitioner, were actually
pastured outside the subject property. NOTE:
DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 and the case of Natalia
 Adjacent property is not covered. Realty, Inc opine that with respect to the conversion of agricultural land
covered by R.A. No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the
SIR: Upon the report of the MARO there was no livestock farming but in DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised from the date of its
the adjacent property there were 43 heads of cattle, in the area effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands that are already classified as
adjacent. The area is not owned by the land owner of the subject commercial, industrial or residential before June 15, 1988 no longer need
property because the land owner leased the area from another person. any conversion clearance.
The contention of the land owner: he did not use the subject property However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses
for this 43 head of cattle because according to him there were occupants shall not operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands
of the said property who harmed the 43 head of cattle. That’s why he covered by PD 27, which have been vested prior to June 15, 1988.
allegedly transferred the cattle to the area adjacent and leased the In order to implement the intent and purpose of the
adjacent area from another person. That means in the subject property, provisions of the aforecited laws, the DAR has issued guidelines through
there is no livestock found. The subject property was not devoted to AO No. 4, Series of 2003.
livestock raising. (Please refer to the attached files together with this reviewer… The
important provisions there are only the DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION,
SC: The fact that you are leasing another ranch for raising of your own APPROVING AUTHORITIES, EFFECT ON PRE-EXISTING CARP COVERAGE
livestock, that is fatal to your cause. Even if you have alleged that the and PROTESTS).
occupants of the subject property harmed its cattle, you did not submit a
police or a barangay report to amplify your argument and the supreme

16
There was already a presidential proclamation reserving lands (for DAR to determine whether the application for conversion
squatters) in antipolo, san mateo and montalban as townsite areas, the should be granted.
areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. (Relate this case with - Dissenting opinion by Ynares Santiago: there are already
Alangilan case below)
pieces of evidence submitted in this case. (1) certification from
DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption) - “all lands already classified as DENR. Na ang yuta dili na feasible, economically sound for
commercial, industrial or residential before June 15,1988 no longer need farm and agricultural development (2) you have a resolution of
conversion clearance” the sangguniang bayan panlalawigan letter of MPDC man
 Requirements: Sworn application, copy of title, certification ciguro ni siya, advising that the municipality had no objection
from HLURB (zoning or classification, citing zoning ordinance), to the conversion of the lands to non agricultural purposes. So
among others. Public notice. Disturbance compensation. it was raised by Justice Santiago, why refer it back when it can
be decided on the basis of these pieces of evidence.
Conversion clearance is a requirement before you can change the
classification of your land from agricultural to residential, commercial, or
One of the issues here is about notice of coverage. It was wrongfully
industrial. (And probably this is also where corruption…).
sent. Roxas and Company is a corporation and just like remedial law,
Public notice, sa land mismo mag notify ka na there is an application civil procedure, a corporation may authorize persons to receive notices
for exemption and disturbance compensation. i.e. President, general manager, corporate secretary, in-house counsel.
In this case ang gi tagaan administrator of the land, so it was wrongfully
Disturbance compensation is money to be paid to occupants of the sent. SC also remanded it to DAR for proper acquisition proceedings.
property, normally, Tenants of the property.
NHA vs. Allarde, G.R. No. 106593, November 16, 1999
Facts:
Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
Lots 836 and 839, registered in the of the Republic of the Philippines,
Facts:
and covered by the TCT No. 34624 and No. 34627, respectively, were
This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by
acquired by the Republic on April 2, 1938 from Philippine Trust
petitioner Roxas & Co., Inc and the validity of the acquisition of these
Company. They form part of the Tala Estate in Bagong Silang, Kalookan
haciendas by the government under RA No. 6657.
City, which, on April 26, 1971, was reserved by Proclamation No. 843
Petitioner is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner with
for, among others, the housing programs of the National housing
TCTs and Tax Declarations of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico,
Authority.
Banilad and Caylaway, all located in Nasugbu, Batangas.
According to private respondent Rufino Mateo, he had lived in the
Issue:
disputed lots since his birth in 1928. In 1959, he started farming and
Whether or not the petitioner’s landholdings are subject to coverage
working on six-hectare portion of said lots, after the death of his father
under the CARL, in view of the undisputed fact that petitioner’s
who had cultivated a 13 hectare portion of the same lots.
landholdings have been converted to non-agricultural uses by
In 1989, Mateo filed with the DAR the petition for the award to them of
Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 which declared the Municipality of
subject disputed lots under CARP.
Nasugbu as a tourist zone, and the zoning ordinance of the said
On March 18, 1992, the respondent spouses Mateo, relying on their
Municipality re-classifying certain portions of the petitioner’s landholdings
claim that the subject lots are agricultural land within the coverage of
as non-agricultural or at the very least entitle the petitioner to apply for
the CARP, brought before the respondent RTC a complaint for damages
conversion as conceded by respondent DAR.
with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to enjoin the NHA from
bulldozing further and making constructions on the lots under
Held:
controversy.
Respondent DAR’s failure to observe due process in the acquisition of
RTC Judge Allarde issued the injunction against NHA.
petitioner’s landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to
Held:
adjudicate over petitioner’s application for conversion of its haciendas
As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (included the disputed lots)
from agricultural to non-agricultural. The agency charged for conversion
was resrved, inter alia, under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the
is the DAR.
housing program of the NHA, the same has been categorized as not
The petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the
being devoted to the agricultural activity
three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR’s failure to observe due
process therein. In and the applicable administrative procedure, the case
is hereby remanded to the respondent DAR for proper acquisition
 SC: As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (including the
proceedings and determination of petitioner’s application for conversion.
disputed lots) was reserved under Presidential Proclamation
No. 843, for the housing program of the National Housing
 Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent
Authority, the same has been categorized as not being
 SC: . DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of
devoted to the agricultural activity contemplated by Section 3
petitioners' landholdings does not ipso facto give the Supreme
(c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore, outside the coverage of
Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for
the CARL. Verily, the assailed Orders of the respondent Court
conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-
declaring the lots under controversy as "agricultural land" and
agricultural. The power to determine whether Hacienda Palico,
restraining the petitioner from involving the same in its
Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural which exempts from
housing project thereon, are evidently bereft of any
the coverage of the CARL lies with the DAR, not with the
sustainable basis
Supreme Court. Case was remanded to DAR for proper
acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's
Presidential proclamation reserving the disputed lands for housing
application for conversion
programs by the state. Although nakalahi lang puro presidential
proclamation. Ang usa, local government unit.
Roxas and Company: sir is disappointed in this case… why?
- in Natalia diba the SC decided whether Natalia Landholdings is Advincula-Velasquez vs. CA,et al., G.R. No. 111387, June
excluded or included. Alangilan the SC decided. Alarde the SC 8,2004
decided. But in this case the SC did not. According to the SC The petitioners were the agricultural lessees of a Riceland located in
that power belongs to DAR not with the SC. So iyang gi uli to Parañaque Metro Manila.

17
In 1978, Sps. Nery and the Lorenzo sold the property to the Delta by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-79622. Petitioners claim that . . .
Motor’s Corporation (DMC). Petitioner Velasquez, in his capacity as Sta. Lucia Realty Corporation and the Estate of Guillermo Villasor,
leaseholder agricultural tenant, filed an action for the redemption of the represented by Irving Villasor, are bulldozing and leveling the subject
said property before the Court of Agrarian Relation. The CAR dismiss property for the purpose of converting it into a residential subdivision;
the petition for lack on the part of the petitioner to redeem the property that as prospective CARP beneficiaries of the land in question, 'being
in its acquisition price in the amount of 2,319,210 pesos but directing the former laborers, actual occupants and permanent residents of Barangay
defendant to maintain the petitioner as agricultural lessee to the land in Pahanocoy,' their rights will be prejudiced by the illegal conversion of the
question. land into a residential subdivision . . . .
Petitioner Velasquez and the defendants appealed the decision of the
CAR to the Intermediate Appellate Court who affirmed the decision of "On April 13, 1994, the DARAB OIC Executive Director forwarded the
the CAR. Petitioner Velasquez filed a petition for review to the Supreme complaint to [Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)], DAR,
Court who issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the CAR’s Region VI, Bacolod City for appropriate action . . . . Before any hearing
decision pending the out come of the petition. could be conducted thereon, the Secretary of the Department of
In 1981, the land in question was reclassified as residential zone under Agrarian Reform issued an Order dated September 13, 1994 in 'RE:
the ordinance issued by the city of Manila. Later, the land in question PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE PURSUANT TO DOJ
was mortgage by the DMC to the PNB as a security for its obligation who OPINION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990, IRVING P. VILLASOR, et al., Rep. by
later foreclose it because of the failure of the DMC to pay its account. Atty. Angel Lobaton, Jr., Petitioners,' portions of which read as follows:
The PNB in 1986 executed a deed of sale of the said land in favor of the
Remman Enterprise Inc. who decided to develop it in to a residential 'After a careful study of the facts of the case and the evidences
subdivision. presented by the parties, this Office finds the petition for exemption to
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issue a decision on the petition for review be well founded. Under DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, it provides
filed by the petitioner Velasquez affirming the decision of the IAC stating that lands which has already been classified as mineral, forest,
that the case had become moot and academic with regards the claim of residential, commercial and industrial areas, prior to June 15, 1988 shall
the petitioner against the DMC considering that the property had been be excluded from CARP coverage. To this, it is an [i]nescapable
foreclose by the PNB declaring however that the petitioner may redeem conclusion that the subject property is exempted from CARP coverage
the property from the PNB and its transferee. The record was considering the fact that the same was classified as residential as
remanded to the PARAD or the Provincial Agrarian Adjudication for the evidenced by the Resolution No. 5153-A, Series of 1976 of the City
petitioner to exercise there right of redemption but since the case had Council of Bacolod and as approved by the Human Settlements
become moot and academic, the PARAD denied the action of the Regulatory Commission (now HLURB) in its Resolution dated September
petitioner to recover the property against the DMC since the land in 24, 1980 as per Certification dated June 22, 1994 issued by the said
question is now a residential land. The right of the petitioner as an Commission. The Certification of the National Irrigation Administration
agricultural lessee was terminated and the property was now in the (NIA) dated June 9, 1994 stated that the subject land is not irrigable or
possession of the Remman Enterprise, Inc. The petitioner filed a is outside the service area of the irrigation system in the locality. In
motion before the DARAB or the Department of Agrarian Adjudication effect the said application had conformed to the requirements of the law
Board who reverses the decision of the PARAD stating that the land in on exemption. In accord thereto, the stand of Mr. Espanola that the
question is an agricultural land and uphold the right of the petitioner as portion, which he planted to trees and developed into mini-forest should
an agricultural lessee to recover the said land .The Remman Enterprise be covered by CARP[,] is beyond recognition as the program does not
filed an appeal before the CA who reverses the decision of the DARAB apply to those which are already classified as residential lands prior to
because the land in question was already reclassified as residential land the effectivity of CARL on June 15, 1988. Instead, it is confined only to
as early as 1981 converting it from agricultural land in to non-agricultural agricultural lands, which under R.A. 6657, Sec. 3(c), it defines
land. The petitioner filed a motion to the Supreme Court. agricultural lands as lands devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
Issue: this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential or industrial land.
Whether or not the land was an agricultural land or a With the above stated definition, it is beyond reason that the placing of
residential land. the said portion under CARP coverage (1.5 hectare) is devoid of legal
Held: and factual basis.'"
According to the Supreme Court, agricultural land was defined under RA.
6657 as those land devoted to agricultural activities and not classified as Issue:
forest, minerals, residential and industrial land. Whether the respondent DAR secretary had the inherent authority or
The records show that as early as 1981, the landholding was reclassified power to exclude or exempt at will from the coverage of the
as a low density zone under Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) the subject agricultural
Series of 1981 before Rep. Act No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1998. It land which was already automatically covered by the CARL (RA 6657)
has been considered as early as that time for residential purposes thus upon its effectivity on June 15, 1988 without affording due process to
not within the ambit of CAR. herein petitioners and without the necessity of Congress having first to
amend Section 4 of the said law authorizing such exemption or exclusion
from CARP coverage.
 SC: Since the property was already reclassified as residential
by the Metro Manila Commission and the HSRC before the Held:
effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657, there was no need for the Section 3(c) of the CARL defines agricultural land as that which is
private respondent to secure any post facto approval thereof "devoted to agricultural activity . . . and not classified as mineral, forest,
from the DAR residential, commercial or industrial land."
Jose Junio, et., al vs Garilao The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL was explained
Facts: further by the DAR in its Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, 12
"In a Complaint dated February 12, 1994, filed with the [Department of entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)] by complainants (some of Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Uses," issued pursuant to Section
whom are herein petitioners), identified as 'Potential CARP Beneficiaries' 49 of CARL, which we quote:
per Certification of OIC [Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)]
dated November 21, 1991 . . ., it is prayed that a writ of preliminary ". . . . Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as
injunction be issued against the registered owners of a certain parcel of defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the
agricultural land consisting of 71 hectares, more or less, known as Lot Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its
No. 835-B of Bacolod Cadastre, Brgy. Pahanocoy, Bacolod City, covered predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning

18
ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Zoning Ordinance approved by HLURB before the effectivity of R.A. No.
(HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 6657 on June 15, 1988.
for residential, commercial or industrial use."
Issue:
Prior to this Order, Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 dated March Whether or not the land is covered under RA 6657
16, 1990, which was addressed to then DAR Secretary Florencio Abad,
recognized the fact that before the date of the law's effectivity on June Held:
15, 1988, the reclassification or conversion of lands was not exclusively
done by the DAR. 13 Rather, it was a "coordinated effort" of all In ruling that the respondents' landholdings were not devoted to cattle
concerned agencies; namely, the Department of Local Governments and raising, the DAR relied on DAR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 9, series
Community Development, the Human Settlements Commission and the of 1993, which required that properties should be considered excluded
DAR. from the coverage of the CARL only if it was established that as of June
15, 1988, the date of effectivity of the law, there existed the minimum
It is thus settled that with respect to areas classified and identified as ratio of one head of cattle to one hectare of land, and one head of cattle
zonal areas not for agricultural uses, like those approved by the HSRC to 1.7815 hectares of infrastructure.
before the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988, the DAR's clearance
is no longer necessary for conversion. According to the DAR, only 15 heads of cattle were found within the 58
hectares sought to be excluded based on the semestral survey
DAR vs. Berenguer conducted in Sorsogon by the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics in the
Facts: period from 1988 to 1992, which was in contravention of DAO No. 9,
The respondents were the registered owners of several residential and series of 1993.
industrial lands with a total area of 58.0649 hectares located in Barangay
Bibincahan, Sorsogon. The CA found, however, that heads of cattle were really being raised in
the landholdings of the respondents. This finding was not disputed by
In April 1998, the respondents received from the DAR notices of the DAR. In view of the finding of the CA, we cannot now hold
coverage of their said landholdings by the Government's Comprehensive differently, for we are bound by the finding of fact of the CA. Verily, the
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 insufficiency of the number of heads of cattle found during the semestral
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL). They protested the survey did not automatically mean that the landholdings were not
notices of coverage, filing on October 5, 1998, in the office of DAR devoted to the raising of livestock. We concur with the CA that there
Regional Director Percival Dalugdug (Regional Director Dalugdug) in could be several reasons to explain why the number of cattle was below
Legaspi City, their application for exclusion of their landholdings from the ratio prescribed under DAO No. 9 at the time of the survey, including
CARP coverage, and praying for the lifting of the notices of coverage. pestilence, cattle rustling, or sale of the cattle.
In October and November 1998, the DAR Secretary, without acting on
the respondents' application for exclusion, cancelled their titles and Resolution No. 5, passed on March 12, 1981 by the Sangguniang Bayan
issued certificates of land ownership awards (CLOAs), covering their of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, showed that the limits of the poblacion area of
landholdings, to the members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform the municipality included Barangay Bibincahan, where the respondents'
Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (Baribag), not to the landholdings were situated.
respondents' workers on the landholdings, although Baribag was not
impleaded in the respondents' application for exclusion. There is no dispute that as early as 1981, the respondents' landholdings
have been part of the poblacion of Sorsogon, Sorsogon. Consistent with
In support of their claim that their landholdings were already classified Hilario and Natalia, holding that the respondents' landholdings were non-
as residential and industrial, the respondents submitted the following agricultural, and, consequently, outside the coverage of the CARL, was
documents, namely: 8 fully warranted. In fact, the excerpt from the Comprehensive
Development Plan of Sorsogon, Sorsogon showed that Barangay
a.The certification dated May 18, 1999 issued by HLURB, stating, among Bibincahan was within the Central Business District of the municipality.
others, that the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Sorsogon, Sorsogon
(classifying Barangay Bibincalan, * where the respondents' properties Actually involving same fact and ruling in so far as classification is
were located, as a residential and commercial area), was approved by concerned but this one gives us a principle that DAR has to establish that
HLURB (then Human Settlements Commission/Human Settlements the land holdings were agricultural. It is incumbent upon DAR to
Regulatory Commission);
establish.
b.An excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of the
Municipality of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, showing that Barangay Bibincalan * Alangilan v. Office of President
was part of the Central Business District; hence, the respondents'  SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was
landholdings in Bibincalan * were classified as residential and industrial; classified as agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and
was reclassified as residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to
c.Resolution No. 5 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon, series of petitioner's assertion, the term reserved for residential does
1981, expanding the area of the poblacion to include Barangay not change the nature of the land from agricultural to non-
Bibincalan, * among others; agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the term
reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land use.
d.The certification dated August 27, 1997 issued by the Office of the It does not denote that the property has already been
Zoning Administrator, Office of the Mayor, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, signed reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for
by Deputized Zoning Administrator Raul Jalmanzar, declaring that the residential is not a land classification category. Indubitably, at
respondents' landholdings were situated in Barangay Bibincalan * within the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject
the Poblacion area of the Municipality of Sorsogon; and landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the
fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an
e.Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, stating that a Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the landholding as residential-
parcel of land was considered non-agricultural, and, therefore, beyond 1. If, indeed, the landholding had already been earmarked for
the coverage of the CARP, if it had been classified as residential, residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would
commercial, or industrial in the City or Municipality Land Use Plan or have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994
Ordinance.

19
Petitioner Alangilan filed an application for exclusion from CARP. DAR was notarized on February 17, 1954 and registered on March 2, 1954.
denied it saying the term reserved denotes it is not yet classified. So Also, the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new
what is the proof of petitioner for asking exclusion and exemption? tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste. The arrears in the
- 1982: you have an ordinance from the sangguniang bayan of payment of taxes from 1952 had been updated by Deleste and from then
batangas that the subject landholding is reserved for on, he paid the taxes on the property. 6
residential under zoning which was approved by HSRC, the
predecessor of HLURB. On May 15, 1954, Hilaria died. 7 Gregorio's brother, Juan Nanaman, was
- 1994: provincial ordinance of the city zoning map and appointed as special administrator of the estate of the deceased
comprehensive zoning reclassifying the landholding as spouses. Subsequently, Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the
residential land. regular administrator of the joint estate.
Remember even prior to 1988, in this case, 1982 pa, naanay zoning On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of
approved by HLURB. But what is contested by DAR is the use of the the deceased spouses, filed before the Court of First Instance, Branch II,
word “reserved”. Lanao del Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over
the subject property, docketed as Civil Case No. 698. 9 Said case went
SC said the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural reserved up to this Court in Noel v. CA, where We rendered a Decision 10 on
by DAR contrary to petitioner’s assertion that the term reserved for January 11, 1995, affirming the ruling of the CA that the subject
residential does not change the nature of the land from agri to non agri. property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and
The term reserve simply reflects the intended the land used. It does not Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the
denote the property has already been reclassified. subject property to Deleste. As a result, Deleste, who died in 1992, and
the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the
SIR: I don’t agree with the court. subject property, each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it. 11
1. The reasoning there that the term “reserve” does not change
the nature of the land from agri to none agri, SC was talking Notably, while Civil Case No. 698 was still pending before the CFI,
about nature of the land, agricultural to non agricultural. But particularly on October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was
the question is: isn’t it a fact that there are (2) elements for issued. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought
agri land: devoted to agri activity and not classified as mineral, under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to
forest, etc. This issue answers the first element not the second farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property was placed under the
element. said program. 12 However, only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by
2. Second the law uses the word “classified”. If we are to abide the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners.
by the ruling of the court, is the court saying that before a Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to the coverage were
zoning ordinance is passed there is already actual use of the sent to these heirs. 13
land by the people residing in the city or conducting business?
In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the
Not necessarily, because a city or an LGU can have a
"Zoning Regulation of Iligan City," reclassifying the subject property as
projection. It can project. (It can say na oi kini na yuta bare
commercial/residential. 14
pa. wala pa gigamit we want to use this land as industrial para
mo daghan ang mga factory we will project.) So we will pass
Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land
an ordinance classifying this as industrial even in the absence
Transfer (CLTs) in favor of private respondents who were tenants and
of actual use. It can be classified already. But the SC was
actual cultivators of the subject property. 15 The CLTs were registered
referring to the nature of the land from agri to non agri. For
on July 15, 1986.
me you can still make a classification even if the intended land
used is not yet to be.
In 1991, the subject property was surveyed. 17 The survey of a portion
of the land consisting of 20.2611 hectares, designated as Lot No. 1407,
Did that case (Alangilan) overturn the other (Natalia)? No. There was no
was approved on January 8, 1999. 18 The claim folder for Lot No. 1407
issue. What Alangilan should have done is to raise that issue in Natalia
was submitted to the LBP which issued a Memorandum of Valuation and
and other cases (because it is not only in Natalia) that the word reserved
a Certificate of Cash Deposit on May 21, 2001 and September 12, 2001,
was used.
respectively. Thereafter, Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Original
Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued on August 1, 2001 and October
Heirs of Deleste vs Leviste
1, 2001, respectively, in favor of private respondents over their
Facts: respective portions of Lot No. 1407.
The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) On February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with
were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a
City, consisting of 34.7 hectares (subject property). Said spouses were petition seeking to nullify private respondents' EPs. 21 This was docketed
childless, but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by as Reg. Case No. X-471-LN-2002.
another woman. Virgilio had been raised by the couple since he was two
On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
years old. Gregorio also had two daughters, Esperanza and Caridad, by
rendered a Decision 22 declaring that the EPs were null and void in view
still another woman. 3
of the pending issues of ownership, the subsequent reclassification of
When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject the subject property into a residential/commercial land, and the violation
property. 4 On February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject of petitioners' constitutional right to due process of law.
property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP16,000. 5 The deed of sale

20
Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486, reversed the ruling lands subject of its application were already re-classified as part of the
of the PARAD in its Decision 25 dated March 15, 2004. It held, among Residential Cluster Area specified in Zone A VII of the Nasugbu Municipal
others, that the EPs were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste who should Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, which zoning ordinance was
have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case No. 698 at the time approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC [now
the subject property was placed under the coverage of the OLT Program the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)]) under HSRC
considering that DAR was not a party to the said case. Further, it stated Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983. Respondent cited DOJ Opinion No.
that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city ordinance has been 44 (1990) which provides that lands already classified by a valid zoning
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), as ordinance for commercial, industrial or residential use, which ordinance
mandated by DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and held was approved prior to the effectivity of the CARL, no longer need
that whether the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT conversion clearance from the DAR.
Program is an administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies
exclusively with the DAR Secretary or the latter's authorized In its Order 11 of November 6, 2002, the DAR granted the application in
representative. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise this wise:
denied by the DARAB in its Resolution 26 dated July 8, 2004.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Application for Exemption
Issue: Clearance from CARP coverage filed by Roxas & Company, Inc., involving
twenty-seven (27) parcels of land, specifically described in pages 1 and 2
Whether the land is covered under agrarian reform of this Order,[12] being portions of TCT No. T-44664, with an aggregate
area of 21.1236 hectares located [in] Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas
Held: is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
We agree with petitioners that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1.The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be
1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of maintained in their peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective
the enactment by the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance, City areas of tillage until a final determination has been made on the amount
Ordinance No. 1313. of disturbance compensation due and entitlement of such farmer-
occupants thereto by the PARAD of Batangas.
It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify
agricultural into non-agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers 2.No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land
Association, Inc. v. CA, 45 this Court held that pursuant to Sec. 3 of until the appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the
Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local Government Code, farmer-occupants who are determined by the PARAD to be entitled
municipal and/or city councils are empowered to "adopt zoning and thereto. Proof of payment of disturbance compensation shall be
subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National submitted to this Office within ten (10) days from such payment; and
Planning Commission." It was also emphasized therein that "[t]he power
of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural 3.The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer beneficiaries shall be
to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject subject of a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas.
to the approval of the [DAR]."
ISSUE:
Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which was
enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject property Whether the land is covered under CARL.
into a commercial/residential area.
Held:
However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not
operate to divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Having established through said documents that the 27 parcels of land
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which have been vested prior to 15 are within the coverage of the said (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning
June 1988. Ordinance No. 4, the DAR declared as well that respondent substantially
complied with the requirements of DAR AO No. 6, series of 1994 in DAR
1975: You have a zoning ordinance approved by the HLURB so the land ADM Case No. A-9999-014-98. The DAR thus granted the application in
is outside of CARP. an Order of the same date and of exactly the same tenor.
Rom vs Roxas & co. The Court recognized the power of a local government unit to classify
and convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the
Facts: effectivity of the CARL and thus upheld the validity of said zoning
ordinance.
On September 30, 1997, respondent sought the exemption of 27 parcels
of land located in Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas, having an You have the zoning ordinance (1982) and you have an approval HLURB
aggregate area of 21.1236 hectares and constituting portions of the land on 1983.
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title .
LBP vs Estate of Araneta
Respondent asserted that Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) Facts:
covers only agricultural land 5 which is defined under Section 3 (c)
thereof as "land devoted to agricultural activity . . . and not classified as On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283,
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land." Respondent carving out a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo,
claimed that prior to the effectivity of the CARL on June 15, 1988, the

21
Rizal and reserving the segregated area for townsite purposes, "subject To restate a basic postulate, the provisions of RA 6657 apply only to
to private rights, if any there be." agricultural lands under which category the Doronilla property, during
the period material, no longer falls, having been effectively classified as
Then came the amendatory issuance, Proclamation 1637 dated April 18, residential by force of Proclamation 1637. It ceased, following Natalia
1977, thereby increasing the size of the reservation, designated as Realty, Inc., to be agricultural land upon approval of its inclusion in the
"Lungsod Silangan Townsite" (LS Townsite), by 20.312 hectares and LS Townsite Reservation pursuant to the said reclassifying presidential
revising its technical description so as to include, within its coverage, issuance. In this regard, the Court cites with approval the following
other lands in the municipalities of San Mateo and Montalban, Rizal to excerpts from the appealed CA decision:
absorb "the population overspill in Greater Manila Area," but again
"subject to private rights, if any there be," The above [Natalia Realty, Inc.] ruling was reiterated in National Housing
Authority vs. Allarde where the Supreme Court held that lands reserved
Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased, for, converted to, non-agricultural uses by government agencies other
acquired ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of court than the [DAR], prior to the effectivity of [RA] 6657 . . . are not
litigation. A little over a week later, he had OCT No. 7924 canceled and considered and treated as agricultural lands and therefore, outside the
secured the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-70860 in ambit of said law. The High Court declared that since the Tala Estate as
his name. early as April 26, 1971 was reserved, inter alia, under Presidential
Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the [NHA], the same
On July 22, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation has been categorized as not being devoted to agricultural activity
No. 131 instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). contemplated by Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657, and therefore outside
Thereafter, then DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina, in a memorandum the coverage of CARL.
of March 10, 1988, ordered the Regional Director of DAR Region IV to
proceed with the OLT coverage and final survey of the Doronilla GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC.vs RUBEN ALCAIDE
property. 12 Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) 13 of 1988, was then Facts:
enacted, and took effect on June 15, 1988
Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. is the registered owner of 14
On December 12, 1989, DAR issued a "Notice of Acquisition" addressed parcels of land.
to Doronilla, covering 7.53 hectares of the land now covered by TCT No.
216746 and offering compensation at a valuation stated in the notice. 15 n April 14, 1998, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a
Alarmed by the turn of events whereby DAR was having its property, or Notice of Coverage over the subject landholding informing petitioner that
a portion of it, surveyed, incidental to effecting compulsory land the subject properties were being considered for distribution under the
acquisition, the Araneta Estate addressed a letter 16 to DAR dated June government's agrarian reform program. 4 Thereafter, on November 15,
27, 1990, formally protesting the series of land surveys being conducted 1998, the corresponding Notice of Valuation and Acquisition 5 was issued
by the Bureau of Lands on what is now its property. It claimed that the informing petitioner that a 37.7353-hectare portion of its property is
CARL does not cover the said property, being part of the LS Townsite subject to immediate acquisition and distribution to qualified agrarian
reservation, apart from being mountainous, with a slope of more than 70 reform beneficiaries and that the government is offering P7,071,988.80
degrees and containing commercial quantities of marble deposit. The as compensation for the said property.
Araneta Estate followed its protest letter with two (2) more letters dated
June 20, 1990 and May 28, 1991, in which it reiterated its request for Petitioner then filed a Petition 6 before the Department of Agrarian
conversion, citing, for the purpose, Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion Reform (DAR), wherein it argued that the properties were bought from
No. 181, Series of 1990. their previous owners in good faith; that the same remains uncultivated,
unoccupied, and untenanted up to the present; and, that the subject
Issue: landholdings were classified as industrial, thus, exempt from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Whether or not CA erred in gave retroactive effect or application to Petitioner prayed, among other things, that the Notice of Coverage and
Proclamation Nos. 1283 & 1637 resulting in the negation of "full land Notice of Acquisition be lifted and that the properties be declared exempt
ownership to qualified farmer-beneficiaries covered by P.D. No. 27 from the coverage of CARP.
Held: Respondents 8 on their part countered, among other things, that the
classification of the land as industrial did not exempt it from the
Several basic premises should be made clear at the outset. Immediately coverage of the CARP considering that it was made only in 1997; the
prior to the promulgation of PD 27 in October 1972, the 1,645-hectare HLURB 9 certification that the Municipality of Biñan, Laguna does not
Doronilla property, or a large portion of it, was indisputably agricultural, have any approved plan/zoning ordinance to date; that they are not
some parts devoted to rice and/or corn production tilled by Doronilla's among those farmer-beneficiaries who executed the waivers or voluntary
tenants. Doronilla, in fact, provided concerned government agencies with surrender; and, that the subject landholdings were planted with palay.
a list of seventy-nine (79) 30 names he considered bona fide "planters"
of his land. These planters, who may reasonably be considered tenant- On June 8, 2001, then DAR Secretary Hernani A. Braganza, issued an
farmers, had purposely, so it seems, organized themselves into Order 11 in favor of the respondent declaring that the subject properties
Samahang Nayon(s) so that the DAR could start processing their are agricultural land.
applications under the PD 27 OLT program. CLTs were eventually
generated covering 73 hectares, with about 75 CLTs actually distributed Issue:
to the tenant-beneficiaries. However, upon the issuance of Proclamation
1637, "all activities related to the OLT were stopped." Whether or not the land is exempted.

22
Held: Thus, the question of whether or not petitioner's properties could be

covered by the CARP has not yet been resolved. Until such
As aptly found by the Office of the President, the importance of determination, it follows that petitioner's landholdings cannot be the
conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated, since it is one of proper subject of acquisition and eventual distribution to qualified
the steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative farmer-beneficiaries. However, these involve factual controversies, which
due process. The Office of the President stressed this in its Decision, to are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. Verily, the review of factual
wit: matters is not the province of this Court. The Supreme Court is not a
trier of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and
In other words, before the MARO sends a Notice of Coverage to the substantiation of factual issues.
landowner concerned, he must first conduct a preliminary ocular
inspection to determine whether or not the property may be covered Puyat and sons vs. Alcaide is about ocular inspection. It’s about the first
under CARP. The foregoing undertaking is reiterated in the latest DAR element, whether it is devoted to agricultural purposes.
AO No. 01, s. of 2003, entitled "2003 Rules Governing Issuance of Notice
of Coverage and Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Under RA 6657." You have a preliminary ocular inspection report form signed by the
Section 1 [1.1] thereof provides that: MARO but the checkbox for this one “land condition suitability to
agriculture, land use” was not filled. So according to the SC it is not clear
"1.1Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) — whether there was an ocular inspection, so it was remanded to DAR for
After determining that a landholding is coverable under the CARP, and the conduct of ocular inspection. Why important? Because you cannot
upon accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, the MARO find if the land is suitable or unsuitable for agricultural purposes in the
shall prepare the NOC (CARP Form No. 5-1)." (NOC stands for Notice of absence of an ocular inspection.
Coverage)
AGRARIAN DISPUTE [Section 3(d)]
Found on the records of this case is a ready-made form Preliminary  any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold,
Ocular Inspection Report (undated) signed by the concerned MARO. tenancy, stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture
Interestingly, however, the check box allotted for the all-important items  any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
under CARL and other terms and conditions of transfer of
"Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture" and "Land Use" was not filled
ownership.
up. There is no separate report on the record detailing the result of the  “tenancy relationship”
ocular inspection conducted. These circumstances cast serious doubts on
whether the MARO actually conducted an on-site ocular inspection of the Different sections where the words “agrarian dispute” is used: Sec 47,
subject land. Without an ocular inspection, there is no factual basis for 53, 54
the MARO to declare that the subject land is devoted to or suitable for
agricultural purposes, more so, issue Notice of Coverage and Notice of BARC – Barangay agrarian reform committee
Acquisition.
If you are familiar with katarungang pambarangay, before you can file a
case generally you need to secure certificate to file action. Generally
The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be under DAR you need to secure a certification from BARC before you can
understated. In the event that a piece of land sought to be placed from file a case before DAR. Of course there are exceptions
CARP coverage is later found unsuitable for agricultural purposes, the
landowner concerned is entitled to, and the DAR is duty bound to issue, ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS
a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 34,
1) Parties (landowner & tenants)
s. of 1997, entitled "Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for Lands
2) Subject matter is agricultural land
Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) 3) Consent of parties
Found Unsuitable for Agricultural Purposes." 4) Purpose is agricultural production
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
More importantly, the need to conduct ocular inspection to determine 6) Sharing of harvest between parties
initially whether or not the property may be covered under the CARP is
one of the steps designed to comply with the requirements of  All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one
administrative due process. The CARP was not intended to take away a tenant.
property without due process of law (Development Bank of the
SIR: When you read the cases involving agrarian dispute take note that
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 245. [1996]). The exercise of “parties” are related to “consent” because I think they are inseparable.
the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in Another issue is this “subject matter is agri land”.
the taking of private property. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
321 SCRA 106 [1999], the Supreme Court nullified the CARP acquisition Isidro v. CA
proceedings because of the DAR's failure to comply with administrative - Private resp is owner of land. Sister of private respondent
allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition
due process of sending Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition of
to vacate upon demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer
the landowner concerned. was filed against Isidro. RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural
and so agrarian.
Considering the claim of appellant that the subject land is not agricultural SC:
because it is unoccupied and uncultivated, and no agricultural activity is  Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of
being undertaken thereon, there is a need for the DAR to ascertain complaint. Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of
whether or not the same may be placed under CARP coverage. 47** tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is
AcICHD shown, the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Case
involving agri land does not automatically make such case
agrarian. Six requisites were not present. There was no

23
contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim  Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Private respondent was
that he was paying rent for use of land. allowed by Suplico to till the land while Suplico will provide
the farm implements and thereafter Suplico was to receive
In this case, it was an action for unlawful detainer, but the court cavans from the palay by way of rental. Years later, Suplico
dismissed it because the land is agricultural and concluded that it is threatened to eject priv. resp. from the property, so private
agrarian. This is an error on the reasoning of the court, because the respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR.
Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of
dismissal was based only on one element and not on the 6 requisites.
contractual relationship. Trial court declared private
respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.
So the SC mentioned that when it comes to jurisdiction over the subject SC:
matter, it is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the - SC found no reasons to disturb findings
court does not lose jurisdiction by a defence of tenancy relationship. 1. Private respondent was in actual possession of land with
That a case involving agri land, does not automatically make the case family in a farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally
agrarian reform. would.
2. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting,
weeding and harvesting.
In actual practice, most landowners whose agri land is occupied by
3. Management was left entirely to private respondent
persons whom they want to be ejected from the land, the normal 4. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.
remedy is to file for an action for recovery of possession, you have a
summary action normally an unlawful detainer case. Or another action Let me just tell you in advance that agrarian disputes are a question of
which is accion publiciana. You have this principle that jurisdiction is to evidence. In the case of suplico, suplico is a lessee and the private
be determined from allegations of the complaint. This is a new respondent was allowed by suplico to till the land; suplico receiving the
innovation, section 19 was introduced by RA 9700. sharing. When suplico threatened the respondent to eject, the
respondent filed an action for damages. Based on the facts, there is no
Taking a cue from Isidro and other cases, what will determine consent from the owner, that is why the owner intervened in the case
jurisdiction would be the allegations of the complaint. If there is an and alleged absence of relationship. The trial court declared the
answer filed and there is an allegation of tenancy relationship, that respondent as agri lessee confirmed by the CA. Check on the ruling of
allegation will not take away the jurisdiction of the court. But read the court. Actual possession, cultivation, harvest, but the SC did not
section 50-A, which states that if there is any allegation from any of the discuss the other requirements specially on the consent requirement.
parties, that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a Probably petitioner in this case did not raise as issue the other
farmer, farm worker, or tenant, the case shall automatically be referred requirements and the SC relied on the findings of the lower court.
by the judge or the prosecutor to DAR which shall determine and certify
within 15 days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists. MONSANTO v. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established
verbally or writing
Where can you find an allegation? In an answer, not in the complaint. So  Sps. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of
coconuts owned by petitioner. They were acquitted but
if there is an action for unlawful detainer filed by a landowner against a
required Zerna to return P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground
tenant, the tenant will make a defense in his answer that there is a that Monsanto did not consent to harvest of coconut. Who is
tenancy relationship. What will the judge do? Pursuant to section 50, the entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra sale. This falls under
judge will automatically refer to DAR. DARAB
 There is Agrarian dispute:
If DAR will certify that the action is agrarian in nature, what will the 1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts
2. Private respondents were overseers at the time of taking by
judge do? Section 50 does not provide what the judge will do, but if you
virtue of Agreement .
were the judge, you would have to rely on the certification by DAR
because DAR is supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction.  tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing,
expressly or impliedly
But we have here a scenario that if the judge will rely on the - here there was agreement which contradicts petitioner’s
determination of DAR, that judge is now saying i have no jurisdiction contention that private respondents are mere overseers. Being
based on an allegation from an answer and based on the confirmation by overseers does not foreclose their being tenants. Petitioner
allowed respondent to plant coconut, etc. Harvests: receipts of
DAR. 1st issue, what happens now to the principle that jurisdiction is
remittance by respondent. Petitioner is claiming the amount of
determined on the allegations of a complaint. second, you have a case P1,100 as balance from proceeds of copra sale. Private
where a court loses jurisdiction, based on mere allegation, there is no respondents contend that this P1,100 is their compensation
hearing, because if you are the lawyer for the tenant, you allege in your pursuant to tenurial arrangements. Since this amount is
answer that as one of your defenses that there is tenancy relationship, intertwined with the resolution of agra dispute, CA correctly
under rule 16 of rules of procedure you will have to ask for a hearing of ruled that DARAB has jurisdiction. RTC has only jurisdiction
your affirmative defenses. In the hearing you present evidence about over criminal and it acted beyond when it ruled that agri
tenancy between parties. This belongs to DARAB.
tenancy relationship. That is the process prior to this, but under section
50, allegation and certification from DAR, the court may now lose To harass the tenants, gikiha ang tenants sa landowners ug qualified
jurisdiction. The court will have to dismiss the case and the aggrieved theft. Qualified theft kay allegedly they were taking coconuts.
party will have to appeal. If the court will not dismiss, and the tenant is
aggrieved, the tenant will file a petition for certiorari, or grave abuse of In the fiscal’s office, the respondent is supposed to file a counter
discretion using section 50. 2nd point, section 50 –A, does not only apply affidavit when a subpoena is issued. In the counter affidavit, the tenancy
to court, it also applies to the prosecutor’s office. relationship must be alleged by the lawyer of the tenant so that under
section 50-A the fiscal’s office will refer it to DAR. DAR will issue a
SUPLICO v. CA

24
certification and will inform the fiscal and the fiscal may be constrained - Valencia is the owner of land, she leased the property for
to dismiss the case. five (5)years to Fr. Andres Flores under a civil law lease
concept; lease with prohibition against subleasing or
encumbering the land without Valencia’s written consent.
The question is, isn’t it that in the fiscal’s office, the function is to find
During the period of his lease, private respondents were
probable cause? And when there is an allegation in the counter affidavit instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia. After lease,
made by the respondent which may be evidentiary in nature, the fiscal Valencia demanded vacate but refused; Private respondents
normally will say that if there is evidence, it is to be proven in court. But were later awarded with CLTs after they filed application with
this time, because of a mere allegation, the fiscal will say that he has no DAR; CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.
jurisdiction and the parties should go to DAR. If the case is dismissed,
the remedy there is you go to a higher fiscal – DOJ, Office of the Valencia is the owner, Flores is the lessee, it was flores who allowed the
President, etc. private respondents. No tenancy, again no consent. Tenancy relationship
cannot be presumed. The lessee did not have the authority to sublease
If you apply the context of Isidro vs. CA case about allegations in a because there was a prohibition to sublease.
complaint which will establish jurisdiction of a court, walay remedy ang
ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership)
landowner. The landowner cannot say that the case should not be
Facts:
referred because the tenant must first establish that he is a tenant. It Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown
may create a clash between law and court procedure. Remember, court to Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to
procedure are promulgated by the supreme court. We have a provision investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived his
of the law where there is an automatic referral, all those silent on what rights; Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property
the court will do, if there is certification from DAR. to Masiglat for radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him for
a carabao and P600. Almuete filed an action for recovery of
BEJASA v. CA possession and reconveyance before trial court. Issue is who
FACTS: between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property.
Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to Malabanan. SC:
Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it, with all This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so, beyond the
the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas continued to stay on ambit of agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant
the land and did not give any consideration for its use, be it in the form was alleged between petitioners and respondent. RTC was
of rent or a shared harvest competent to try the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of
the Bejasas The issue is whether there is an agrarian dispute. No. The issue was
SC: about ownership so it is beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute. There was
Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. no juridical tie.
There was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the
harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the
land . There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the PASONG BAYABAS v. CA : “no evidence”
Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential
tenancy were met in this case. There was no proof of sharing in harvest. as approved by DAR. Petitioners, claimed they are actual tillers
While Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasa’s word was presented to of land, they filed a complaint for damages alleging
prove this. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency surreptitious conversion; priv resp denied cultivation & waiver
Bejasa testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owner’s of rights was executed by some.
share, yet at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan
and 50% for owner. Moreover, landowners never gave consent, citing SC : no tenancy
Chico vs. CA , 284 534 – “self serving statement are inadequate, proof  no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are
must be adhered”. Even assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for tenants; waiver of rights constitutes abandonment. No
P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy . Consideration substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord.
should be harvest sharing. Possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner. Cultivation /
possession not proven. As to the remaining twenty and more
Candelaria is the owner, malabanan is the lessee. It was malabanan who other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown
hired Bejasa. Very obvious, no consent from the owner. There was no that their cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the lands
proof that malabanan and Bejasa shared the harvest. Candelaria never they claim to till have been by authority of a valid contract of
gave consent to Bejasa. There was no consent, and so there was no agricultural tenancy. On the contrary, as admitted in their
complaint a number of them have simply occupied the
tenancy relationship. The point is, if there are occupants in the property
premises in suit without any specific area of tillage being
claiming to be tenants, the land is agricultural, they are cultivating, they primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives
allege sharing of the harvest, but the owner proves there was no
consent, then the occupants cannot claim tenancy relationship. The There was no difficulty on the part of the supreme court here, why? In
tenants can be ejected. How do you prove sharing? There has to be a the complaint there was no allegation of tenancy. So how can the court
receipt, or any other similar evidence. Is it possible? No because the acquire jurisdiction over the complaint? There was no substantial
receipt can be used against the owner. Normally, in the absence of evidence, private respondent was landlord, there was no possession or
receipt, the evidence of the tenant can be an affidavit because the entry without knowledge of the owner that was alleged in the complaint.
proceedings before is submission of position paper. You attach affidavits. Again, just to reiterate, tenancy relationship is a question of evidence,
Can you submit your own affidavit if you are a tenant? Yes, but the court same here in Escariz vs Revilleza.
will normally say that it is self-serving. You have to prove through
independent evidence – affidavits of neighbours or other tenants. ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : “tenancy is not presumed”
Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent. Petitioner
VALENCIA v. CA is claiming tenancy. DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA
FACTS: reversed

25
SC: Tenancy is not presumed. There was no evidence to prove consent were divided equally between the two until 1975 when the relationship
of parties and sharing of harvest. SC agreed with CA that there is no was converted to leasehold tenancy. Per Order 2 from the Department of
evidence on record to prove the existence of the following elements: (a) Agrarian Reform (DAR), Regional Office, Region III, San Fernando,
the consent of the parties and (b) the sharing of harvests. Pampanga, rent was provisionally fixed at 27.42 cavans per year, which
Jesus Fajardo religiously complied with. From the time petitioner
cultivated the land, he was allowed by Leopoldo delos Reyes to erect a
HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA house for his family on the stony part of the land, which is the subject of
FACTS: controversy.
Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged by Heirs of priv
resp before DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery On January 26, 1988, Leopoldo delos Reyes died. His daughter and sole
possession; on appeal, DARAB upheld but CA reversed. heir, herein respondent Anita Flores, inherited the property. On June 28,
1991, Anita Flores and Jesus Fajardo executed an agreement,
SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. The taking of property denominated as "KASUNDUAN NG PAGHAHATI NG LUPA AT
violated due process (CA was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa PAGTATALAGA NG DAAN UKOL SA MAGKABILANG PANIG." 3 This was
was denied due process because the DAR failed to send notice of the followed by another agreement, "KASUNDUAN SA HATIAN SA LUPA,"
impending land reform coverage to the proper party); no ocular executed on July 10, 1991, wherein the parties agreed to deduct from
inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify Lot No. 2351 an area of 10,923 sq m, allotting the same to petitioner.
the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of Apparently, there was a conflict of claims in the interpretation of the
the property. By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies Kasunduan between Anita Flores and Jesus Fajardo, which was referred
to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process. No to the DAR, Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, Baliuag, Bulacan. 4 In the
concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except for their Report and Recommendation dated May 3, 2000, the Legal Officer
self-serving statements. Independent evidence, aside from self-serving advised the parties to ventilate their claims and counterclaims with the
statements, is needed. Plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Malolos,
Army and migrated to US and returned only in 1998, wife and daughter Bulacan.
were residents of California. Land involved is residential and not
agricultural because of zoning ordinance. Coverage Section 4: All On December 22, 2000, a complaint for ejectment was filed by herein
alienable and disposable public lands. All private lands devoted to or respondent Anita Flores, assisted by her husband Bienvenido Flores,
suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation – Sec. 5 “The against petitioners with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Ildefonso,
distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed Bulacan. In the complaint, she alleged that, as the sole heir of the late
within ten years from effectivity hereof.” Sec. 63: “The initial amount Leopoldo delos Reyes, she inherited a parcel of land consisting of stony
needed to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon approval land, not devoted to agriculture, and land suitable and devoted to
hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under agriculture located in Barangay Sumandig, San Ildefonso, Bulacan; that,
Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 299. xxx.”. RA 8542: sometime in the 1960s, during the lifetime of Leopoldo delos Reyes,
amended Sec. 63 as follows: “The amount needed to implement this Act Jesus Fajardo requested the former to allow him to work and cultivate
until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund.” RA 9700, that portion of land devoted to agriculture; that Jesus Fajardo was then
Sec. 21: allowed to erect a house on the stony part of the land, and that the use
“The amount needed to further implement the CARP as and occupation of the stony part of the land was by mere tolerance only;
provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding and that the land, which was divided equally between the two parties,
under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded excluded the stony portion. In February 1999, respondent approached
from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount petitioners and verbally informed them of her intention to repossess the
of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00)” stony portion, but petitioners refused to heed the request.
Issue:
Normally it is the tenant who will file a case because when the Whether or not MTC or the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the case.
landowner sends a demand letter to the occupant to vacate, the
occupant or the tenant would normally file an action before DAR. Held:
An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise,
This one is different, Jugalbot was granted a title – emancipation patent. over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning
He was granted a title because of his claim that he is a tenant. The title farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating,
was challenged by the heirs of the landowner, so the heirs filed and fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions
sought the cancellation of the title of jugalbot and wanting recovery of of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to
possession. The issue: is jugalbot really a tenant and therefore entitled compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and
to the emancipation patent? There was no proof of cultivation and per conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers,
tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants
findings of CA, jugalbot was a soldier of the US army, he migrated to the
stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
US and returned only in 1998. Kanus-a gi-issue ang title? It was in 1997, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. It relates to any controversy
so he was not here in pinas. His wife and daughter were residents of relating to, inter alia, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture.
California plus the land was residential. Meaning there was no tenancy
relationship between jugalbot and the landowner, so the title was Undeniably, the instant case involves a controversy regarding tenurial
cancelled. arrangements. The contention that the Kasunduans, which allegedly
terminated the tenancy relationship between the parties and, therefore,
NICORP case (found it in the later part… go go) removed the case from the ambit of R.A. No. 6657, is untenable. There
still exists an agrarian dispute because the controversy involves the
SPOUSES JESUS FAJARDO and EMER FAJARDO, vs. ANITA R. home lot of petitioners, an incident arising from the landlord-tenant
FLORES relationship.
Facts: "Indeed, section 21 of the Republic Act No. 1199, provides that 'all cases
Leopoldo delos Reyes owned a parcel of land located in Barangay involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party
Sumandig in Hacienda Buenavista, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. In 1963, he and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the
allowed petitioner Jesus Fajardo to cultivate said land. The net harvests relationship of landlord and tenant . . . shall be under the original and

26
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.' This jurisdiction employer-employee relationship with Geraldine, Ronald, and Patrick.
does not require the continuance of the relationship of landlord and Insofar as Alice is concerned, respondents asserted that Vicente is not a
tenant — at the time of the dispute. The same may have arisen, and tenant but a mere regular farm worker.
often times arises, precisely from the previous termination of such
relationship. If the same existed immediately, or shortly, before the Issue:
controversy and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not said WHETHER or not VICENTE IS A BONA FIDE tenant.
relationship has been lawfully terminated, or if the dispute springs or
originates from the relationship of landlord and tenant, the litigation is Held:
(then) cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations . . ." Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner
and a tenant once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly
In the case at bar, petitioners' claim that the tenancy relationship has the cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which
been terminated by the Kasulatan is of no moment. As long as the relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and
subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the termination of the cultivating the land. 23
relationship, or if the dispute originates from such relationship, the case
is cognizable by the DAR, through the DARAB. The severance of the The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and
tenurial arrangement will not render the action beyond the ambit of an allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security
agrarian dispute. of tenure. 24 For tenancy relationship to exist, the following essential
requisites must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
This one will disturb landowners. If you are a landowner and you don’t tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent
want the court to pass upon your relationship assuming you recognize between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there
that person occupying as a tenant, landowners may want to pay money is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (6) there is sharing of the
harvests between the parties. 25 All the requisites must concur in order
to their tenants and let them work, or possible, what happened is this,
to establish the existence of tenancy relationship, and the absence of
the tenant was given a portion of the land. There was an agreement one or more requisites is fatal.
here, the tenant was given a portion of the land. Nasayop ang abogado,
y man? It was not clear which portion of the land was given that is why After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case, we affirm the
there was a conflict of claims in the interpretation. The landowner is findings of the CA that the essential requisites of consent and sharing
saying that the tenant’s house is erected on the owner’s lot while the are lacking.
tenant is saying it is on the land that was given to him. The court said
The essential element of consent is sorely missing because there is no
there is agrarian dispute. As long as the subject matter is the legality of
proof that the landowners recognized Vicente, or that they hired him, as
the termination, if the dispute originates from such relationship that is their legitimate tenant. And, although Vicente claims that he is a tenant
tenancy relationship. Example, you have a waiver executed by a tenant of respondents' agricultural lot in Norzagaray, Bulacan, and that he has
saying that out of financial grant of the landowner or from person A, he continuously cultivated and openly occupied it, no evidence was
no longer has a right over the land and he has waived it etc. If the presented to establish the presence of consent other than his self-
tenant will question it and say that he was not fully apprised of his right serving statements. These cannot suffice because independent and
with respect to that and probably was not able to read. It has concrete evidence is needed to prove consent of the landowner.
something to do with that relationship, then the landowner will have a
Likewise, the essential requisite of sharing of harvests is lacking.
problem. If the dispute originates from such relationship, it is a tenancy Independent evidence, such as receipts, must be presented to show that
relationship. there was sharing of the harvest between the landowner and the tenant.
28 Self-serving statements are not sufficient.
VICENTE ADRIANO vs. ALICE TANCO
Here, there was no evidence presented to show sharing of harvest in the
Facts: context of a tenancy relationship between Vicente and the respondents.
On December 18, 1975, respondent Alice Tanco (Alice) purchased a The only evidence submitted to establish the purported sharing of
parcel of land consisting of 28.4692 hectares located in Norzagaray, harvests were the allegations of Vicente which, as discussed above, were
Bulacan. The land was devoted to mango plantation. Later on, it was self-serving and have no evidentiary value. Moreover, petitioner's
partitioned among the respondents. allegations of continued possession and cultivation do not support his
cause. It is settled that mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural
Controversy arose when Alice sent to Vicente a letter 6 dated January land does not automatically convert a tiller or farm worker into an
16, 1995 informing him that subject landholding is not covered by the agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws. 30 It is essential that,
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). She asked him to together with the other requisites of tenancy relationship, the agricultural
vacate the property as soon as possible. tenant must prove that he transmitted the landowner's share of the
harvest.
Seeing the letter of Alice as a threat to his peaceful possession of subject
farmland which might impair his security of tenure as a tenant, Vicente Neither can we agree with the DARAB's theory of implied tenancy
filed before the regional office of DARAB in Region III a Complaint for because the landowner never acquiesced to Vicente's cultivating the
Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with Prayer for Temporary land. Besides, for implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He averred that essential requisites of tenancy must be present.
in 1970, Arsenio Tanco (Arsenio), the husband of Alice, instituted him as
tenant-caretaker of the entire mango plantation. Since then, he has been Again a question of evidence. The court reiterating that independent
performing all phases of farm works, such as clearing, pruning, evidence include RECEIPTS that must be presented.
smudging, and spraying of the mango trees. The fruits were then divided
equally between them. He also alleged that he was allowed to improve Labor law: in illegal dismissal cases, it is the employer who has the
and establish his home at the old building left by Ang Tibay Shoes burden.
located at the middle of the plantation. Presently, he is in actual Agrarian: it is the person claiming to be the tenant who has the burden
possession of and continues to cultivate the land. to prove his allegation of tenancy. He who alleges has the burden to
prove. Not only that, Respondent-landowner has no obligation to prove
In their Answer, respondents denied having instituted any tenant on exception or defects.
their property. They stressed that Vicente never worked and has no

27
ESTATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON vs. MERCEDES R. SUSANO It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an
agricultural land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant.
Facts: Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal
Pastor M. Samson (Pastor) owned a 1.0138-hectare parcel of land known cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner. Substantial
as Lot 1108 of the Tala Estate Subdivision located in Bagumbong, evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing cannot be satisfied by
Caloocan City. a mere scintilla of evidence; there must be concrete evidence on record
adequate to prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests,
Pastor was approached by his friend Macario Susano (Macario) who a receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented, because
asked for permission to occupy a portion of Lot 1108 to build a house for self-serving statements are inadequate. Tenancy relationship cannot be
his family. Since Pastor was godfather to one of Macario's children, presumed; the elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot
Pastor acceded to Macario's request. Macario and his family occupied be done away with by conjectures. Leasehold relationship is not
620 square meters of Lot 1108 and devoted the rest of the land to palay brought about by the mere congruence of facts but, being a legal
cultivation. Herein respondents, Macario's wife Mercedes R. Susano and relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that relationship should be
their son Norberto R. Susano, insist that while no agricultural leasehold primordial. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the
contract was executed by Pastor and Macario, Macario religiously paid 15 essential requisites of tenancy must be present.
cavans of palay per agricultural year to Pastor, which rent was reduced
by Pastor in 1986 to 8 cavans of palay per agricultural year. The affidavits executed by three of respondents' neighbors are
insufficient to establish a finding of tenancy relationship between Pastor
Pastor subdivided Lot 1108 into three portions of which he sold portions and Macario.
of it without Macario's knowledge.
Pastor sold 2,552 square meters of Lot 1108-A to spouses Felix Pacheco Principle: affidavits of the tenant or persons claiming to be a tenant are
and Juanita Clamor, allegedly also without Macario's knowledge and self-serving.
consent.
This case deals with affidavits executed by the neighbors of the
According to respondents, no written notice was sent by Pastor to occupants. SC considered the affidavits as insufficient because of lack of
Macario prior to the sale to Chan of Lot 1108-C comprising an area of details.
6,696 square meters. They aver that Macario came to know of the
transaction only after Chan visited the property sometime in October Lesson: you can use affidavits of neighbors for as long as it has the
1990 accompanied by an employee from the city government. specific details which are:
- how the agreement was implemented
Issue: - how much was given
- when and where the payments were made
Whether or not there was a tenancy relation between Pastor Samson - whether they have a witness when the landowner is receiving
and Macario Susano and in binding herein petitioner. the share.
Held: JUAN GALOPE vs. CRESENCIA BUGARIN

We find in favor of petitioners. Applying our pronouncement in Levardo
v. Yatco, 51 we rule that the subject land cannot be subject to the OLT Facts:
program of P.D. No. 27 for two reasons: first, the subject land is less
than seven hectares; and second, respondents failed to show that Pastor Respondent owns a parcel of land. Petitioner farms the land.
owned other agricultural lands in excess of seven hectares or urban land In Barangay Case No. 99-6, respondent complained that she lent the
from which he derived adequate income, as required by Letter of land to petitioner in 1992 without an agreement, that what she receives
Instruction (LOI) No. 474. 52 in return from petitioner is insignificant, and that she wants to recover
the land to farm it on her own. Petitioner countered that respondent
Moreover, the DAR Memorandum on the "Interim Guidelines on cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a long time
Retention by Small Landowners" dated July 10, 1975 is explicit: and that he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to P6,000 or 15 cavans of
palay per harvest. The case was not settled. 5
5.Tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7) hectares or less shall not be
covered by Operation Land Transfer. The relation of the land owner and Represented by Celso Rabang, respondent filed a petition for recovery of
tenant-farmers in these areas shall be leasehold . . . 53 possession, ejectment and payment of rentals before the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case
However, while the disputed landholding which had an original No. 9378. Rabang claimed that respondent lent the land to petitioner in
aggregate area of only 1.0138 hectares is not covered by the OLT 1991 and that the latter gave nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or
program, the same may still be covered by P.D. No. 27, albeit under its monetary consideration for the use of the land. Rabang also claimed that
Operation Land Leasehold (OLL) program. The OLL program placed petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses
landowners and tenants of agricultural land devoted to rice and corn into the land.
a leasehold relationship as of October 21, 1972. 54 But the fact that
Macario, respondents' predecessor-in-interest, was a de jure tenant must Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a
be established. tenant entitled to security of tenure. The Adjudicator said substantial
evidence prove the tenancy relationship between petitioner and
In the case at bar, while the RARAD, DARAB and the CA are unanimous respondent. The Adjudicator noted the certification of the Department of
in their conclusion that an implied tenancy relationship existed between Agrarian Reform (DAR) that petitioner is the registered farmer of the
Pastor Samson and Macario Susano, no specific evidence was cited to land; that Barangay Tanods said that petitioner is the tenant of the land;
support such conclusion other than their observation that Pastor failed to that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioner's possession and cultivation of the
protest Macario's possession and cultivation over the subject land for land; that Allingag also stated that petitioner hired him only as farm
more than 30 years. Contrary to what is required by law, however, no helper; and that respondent's own witness, Cesar Andres, said that
independent and concrete evidence were adduced by respondents to petitioner is a farmer of the land.
prove that there was indeed consent and sharing of harvests between
Pastor and Macario. The DARAB found no tenancy relationship between the parties and
stressed that the elements of consent and sharing are not present. The
DARAB noted petitioner's failure to prove his payment of rentals by

28
appropriate receipts, and said that the affidavits of Allingag, Rolando Romanito P. Lim and his wife. Petitioner also claimed to have been
Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are self-serving and are not concrete proof denied due process for not receiving any notice of private respondents'
to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. The DARAB added that application proceedings for CLOA. The petition was amended to include
respondent's intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as
the MARO, PARO and the Register of Deeds of Masbate as additional
implied tenancy for such lending was without consideration.
respondents.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship Private respondents averred that, being the actual occupants and
qualified beneficiaries of the subject lot which formed part of the
Held: alienable and disposable portion of the public domain, the DAR Secretary
The matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondent's correctly issued the CLOA in their favor. While admitting having sold a lot
admission that she receives rentals from petitioner. To recall, in favor of Samuel Sutton from whom petitioner purportedly inherited
respondent's complaint in Barangay Case No. 99-6 was that the rental or
the subject parcel of land, they asserted that the lot sold was different
the amount she receives from petitioner is not much. 14 This fact is
evident on the record 15 of said case which is signed by respondent and from Lot No. 1493. Moreover, they interposed the defense of
was even attached as Annex "D" of her DARAB petition. Consequently, prescription since the petition for cancellation was filed after the subject
we are thus unable to agree with DARAB's ruling that the affidavits 16 of title became indefeasible.
witnesses that petitioner pays 15 cavans of palay or the equivalent
thereof in pesos as rent are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of On the other hand, the MARO and PARO, in their Answer with Motion to
nonpayment of rentals. Indeed, respondent's admission confirms their Dismiss, invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of
statement that rentals are in fact being paid. Such admission belies the
their official functions in issuing the CLOA. They also clarified that the
claim of respondent's representative, Celso Rabang, that petitioner paid
nothing for the use of the land. subject parcel of land has been classified as Government Owned Land
(GOL) or Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK) areas pursuant to
Respondent's act of allowing the petitioner to cultivate her land and Presidential Proclamation No. 2282, hence, subject to the Comprehensive
receiving rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten Agrarian Reform Program's immediate coverage (CARP coverage).
tenancy agreement. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined Moreover, petitioner was not able to prove that she is the registered
by the explicit provisions of a written contract alone. Section 5 18 of owner of the subject parcel of land and that it is exempt from the CARP
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land
coverage.
Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural leasehold relation may exist
upon an oral agreement.
The CA Ruling: CA denied the petition on jurisdictional grounds and
Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present. dismissed the case without prejudice to its re-filing. It held that the
Respondent is the landowner; petitioner is her tenant. The subject DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the instant controversy due to the
matter of their relationship is agricultural land, a farm land. 19 They absence of a landlord-tenant relationship or any agrarian relations
mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in between the parties. It also ruled that since the issuance of the subject
the harvest. The purpose of their relationship is clearly to bring about
CLOA was made in the exercise of the DAR Secretary's administrative
agricultural production. After the harvest, petitioner pays rental
consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondent's motion 20 to powers and function to implement agrarian reform laws, the jurisdiction
supervise harvesting and threshing, processes in palay farming, further over the petition for its cancellation lies with the Office of the DAR
confirms the purpose of their agreement. Lastly, petitioner's personal Secretary.
cultivation of the land 21 is conceded by respondent who likewise never
denied the fact that they share in the harvest. Issue: WON there is tenancy relationship?
One of a kind case!!! (LO was very honest) HELD: The petition is without merit. While the DARAB may entertain
petitions for cancellation of CLOAs, as in this case, its jurisdiction is,
Landowner filed a complaint at the barangay because she would want
however, confined only to agrarian disputes. For the DARAB to acquire
the occupant to vacate the property. Reason: gigamyan sa renta  the
rent was insignificant, she wants to recover the land to farm it on her jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between
own so that she can gain more profits. the landowners and tenants in whose favor CLOAs have been issued by
the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction
SC used her own admission that she received rentals from the petitioner. and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative
This is a confirmation that indeed rentals were paid and that this is an implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations
agrarian dispute.
to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within
SUTTON VS. LIM the jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB.
FACTS: On December 7, 1993, private respondents applied for the Thus, it is not sufficient that the controversy involves the cancellation of
issuance of a CLOA over a parcel of land before the Department of a CLOA already registered with the Land Registration Authority. What is
Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary. Upon the recommendation of the of primordial consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), the application was granted between the parties.
and they were issued CLOA. Subsequently, on January 31, 1994, the
Register of Deeds of Masbate issued the corresponding OCT. As defined in Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657, an agrarian dispute relates
to "any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
On November 23, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to
the said CLOA and title before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), assailing the validity of the said issuances representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing,
on the ground that the subject parcel of land is a private land devoted to or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
cattle raising which she inherited from her deceased father, Samuel It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
Sutton, who, in turn, previously bought the subject parcel of land from under the said Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of

29
ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian afterwards, the respondents fenced the property and destroyed some
reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate of the trees and kawayan planted thereon. Ladano prayed that he be
relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or declared the rightful "occupant/tiller" of the property, with the right to
lessor and lessee." security of tenure thereon. In the alternative that the judgment is in
the respondents' favor, he prayed that the respondents compensate
Verily, an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial him for the improvements that he introduced in the property.
arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. 18 Tenurial
arrangements pertain to agreements which set out the rights between a Respondents countered that Ladano's Complaint should be dismissed
landowner and a tenant, lessee, farm worker or other agrarian reform for lack of merit. 11 He is not entitled to the reliefs he sought because
beneficiary involving agricultural land. Traditionally, tenurial he does not have, as he did not even allege having, a leasehold
arrangements are in the form of tenancy 19 or leasehold arrangement with Neri, the supposed owner of the land he is
arrangements. 20 However, other forms such as a joint production occupying. 12
agreement to effect the implementation of CARP have been recognized
as a valid tenurial arrangement. 21 Instead of arguing that he has a right to remain on the property as
its bona fide tenant, Ladano maintained that he has been its
To be sure, the tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations referred to may possessor in good faith for more than 30 years. He believed then that
be established with the concurrence of the following: 1) the parties are the property was part of the "public land and [was] open to
the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject anybody." 13 As a possessor and builder in good faith, he cannot be
matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent removed from the subject property without being compensated for the
between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the improvements that he had introduced. 14 He prayed for an award of
agricultural relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there P100,000.00 as disturbance compensation. 15
is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee;
and 6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or On June 23, 2004, the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed Ladano's
agricultural lessee. Complaint. 16 She determined that the two-hectare property, while
agricultural, is not covered by RA No. 6657, as amended, 17 which
In this case, a punctilious examination reveals that petitioner's only covers agricultural properties beyond five hectares. Presidential
allegations are solely hinged on the erroneous grant by the DAR Decree No. 27, as amended, 19 does not apply either because the
Secretary of CLOA No. 00122354 to private respondents on the grounds property was not planted with rice and corn. Neither is it covered by
that she is the lawful owner and possessor of the subject lot and that it other agrarian tenancy laws because Ladano had not presented any
is exempt from the CARP coverage. In this regard, petitioner has not evidence of his tenancy relationship with the landowner.
alleged any tenurial arrangement between the parties, negating the
existence of any agrarian dispute and consequently, the jurisdiction of The DARAB determined that the only issue to be resolved is whether
the DARAB. Indisputably, the controversy between the parties is not Ladano is a tenant on the subject landholding. 25 If he is a tenant, he
agrarian in nature and merely involves the administrative implementation is entitled to security of tenure and cannot be removed from the
of the agrarian reform program which is cognizable by the DAR property. The DARAB held that Ladano's 30-year occupation and
Secretary. Section 1, Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure cultivation of the land could not have possibly escaped the
clearly provides that "matters involving strictly the administrative landowner's notice. Since the landowner must have known about, and
implementation of R.A. No. 6657, and other agrarian reform laws and acquiesced to, Ladano's actions, an implied tenancy is deemed to exist
pertinent rules, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by between them. 27 The landowner, who denied the existence of a
the DAR Secretary." tenancy relationship, has the burden of proving that the occupant of
the land is a mere intruder thereon. 28 In the instant case,
Furthermore, it bears to emphasize that under the new law, R.A. No. respondents failed to discharge such burden.
9700, 24 which took effect on July 1, 2009, all cases involving the
cancellation of CLOAs and other titles issued under any agrarian reform Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. They assailed the
program are now within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR DARAB's finding of a tenancy relationship as having no factual basis.
Secretary. (Section 9) Ladano himself never claimed sharing his harvests with, or paying
rentals to, the landowner. Without such an arrangement, no tenancy
Consequently, the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the herein relationship can exist between them 32 and Ladano cannot claim
controversy, rendering its decision null and void. Jurisdiction lies with the rights under the agrarian laws.
Office of the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of classification of
landholdings for coverage (whether the subject property is a private or Contrary to the DARAB's ruling, the CA held that the burden lies on
government owned land), and identification of qualified beneficiaries. the person who is asserting the existence of a tenancy relationship to
prove that all the elements necessary for its existence are present (6
LADANO VS. NERI requisites).
FACTS: Complaint by petitioner Luciano Ladano (Ladano) before the The CA concluded that there is no evidence supporting the DARAB's
DARAB Provincial Adjudicator against respondents Felino Neri (Neri), conclusion that a tenancy relationship exists between Ladano and
Edwin Soto, Adan Espanola and Ernesto Blanco. Ladano alleged that Neri. 38 In fact, Ladano himself admitted that he entered and tilled
on May 7, 2003, the respondents forcibly entered the two-hectare the subject property without the knowledge and consent of the
land, located in Manalite I,Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City, which he landowner. Such admission negates the requisites of consent and of
and his family have been peaceably occupying and cultivating since an agreement to share harvests. 39
1970. The said respondents informed him that the property belongs to
Neri and that he should vacate the same immediately. Not too long

30
In seeking a reconsideration 41 of the CA Decision Ladano alleged, for agriculture. So why should we refer this to DAR when there is already a
the first time, that he indeed shared a portion of his harvest with the certificate?
landowner's caretaker.
HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec.6) “Very important”
Issues Whether petitioner is an agricultural tenant on the subject
FIRST ASPECT of section 6 is about homestead. (Underlined provision)
property.
Our Ruling: Petitioner is not a tenant on the land and is not entitled SECTION 6.Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private
to security of tenure nor to disturbance compensation. His Complaint
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing
was properly dismissed for lack of merit. a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian
The Department of Agrarian Reform and its adjudication boards have Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention
no jurisdiction over Ladano's Complaint. "For the DARAB to acquire by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be
jurisdiction over the case, there must exist a tenancy [relationship] awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following
qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2)
between the parties." 70 But a careful reading of Ladano's Complaint
that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the
shows that Ladano did not claim to be a leasehold tenant on the land. farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by
Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally
Petitioner never alleged that he had any agreement with the retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead
landowner of the subject property. Indeed Ladano's Complaint did not grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
assert any right that arises from agrarian laws. He asserted his rights homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas
as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
based on his prior physical possession of the two-hectare property and
on his cultivation of the same in good faith. The issues that he wanted The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be
resolved are who between himself and the respondents have a better compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however,
That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted,
right to possess the property, and whether he has a right to be
the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a
compensated for the improvements he introduced on the property. beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
Clearly, the nature of the case he filed is one for forcible entry 72 and comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained
for indemnification, 73neither of which is cognizable by the DARAB, area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a
but by the regular courts. While neither of the parties challenged the beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in
another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land
jurisdiction of the DARAB, the Court can consider the issue of
retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a
jurisdiction motu proprio. period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of
the area for retention.
Still a question about evidence.
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers
on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected.
In Isidro, the pronouncement of the SC that even if the land was agri,
that does not automatically become an agrarian dispute. Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease,
management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by
the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and
In the same manner, even if the person is occupying and cultivating,
void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid
that does not ipso facto make that person a tenant. 6 requisites must only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3)
be satisfied. Even if there is harvest or cultivation, but there is no months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds
consent, there is no agrarian dispute. shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30)
days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5)
hectares.
Chapter II (Coverage) Purpose of Homestead: Given to the citizens of the Philippines for
cultivation and for residence
Recap on difference between PD 27 and CARL:
PD 27: rice and corn Maximum number of hectares that can be given to citizens is 12
CARL: everything is covered subject to certain exceptions (prawn hectares
farming, fishpond, livestock, etc., under sec. 10) but generally all land,
public and private lands. Homestead is also a title  which you will learn in Land Titles and Deeds
Common denominator: devoted to or suitable to agriculture *More or less similar with Free Patent but they differ in the requisites
- Why is there such an element? *Title given by DENR and normally there is a prohibition of conveyance
- These lands are supposed to be acquired by the government within a period of 5 years
to be given to farmer beneficiaries. Purpose: they will
improve, (to cultivate the land and for the land to be SIR: Mao na ang uban mu.ingon nga “we might as well suffer the 5 yr
developed) prohibition under free patent or homestead than go through with the
judicial process of titling which may take several years”
Actual cases: LO will allege that lands are suitable for ECOTOURISM so Qualifications under Sec. 6 (Take note):
that it will not be suitable for agriculture. 1. original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
- Proof needed to show ecotourism suitability: certification from 2. who still own the homestead
department of agriculture. 3. as long as they continue to cultivate (most important)
(there was an issue on Roxas’ application for exemption) but SC said

that this issue has to be determined by DAR, not us. HOMESTEAD PATENT A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable
Dissenting opinion of Ynares Santiago in Roxas and Company: There was lands of public domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual
a certification from DA certifying that the land is not suitable for cultivation and residence.
 filed at CENRO where land being applied is located.

31
 who are qualified - citizens of Philippines over 18 but he continues to be a tenant on the retained
years old & not an owner of more than 12 hectares area and to be governed by Chapter 3 of the law.
of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
 designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State 2 CASES UNDER HOMESTEAD:
to land-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation.
Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the Alita vs. CA, 170 SCRA 706
sale or encumbrance of the homestead (CA 141, Section 116) Facts:
within five years after the grant of the patent. After that five- Two parcels of land in Tungawan, Zamboanga del Norte were
year period the law impliedly permits alienation of the acquired by private respondents’ predecessors-in-interest through
homestead, but in line with the primordial purpose to favor homestead patent under the provisions C.A. No. 141.
with the homesteader and his family the statute provides that Private respondents/owners Enrique Reyes, et al. herein are
such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to desirous of personally cultivating these lands, but petitioners/tenants
the right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or Gabino Alita refuse to vacate, relying n the provisions of PD 27 and PD
heirs. 316 and appurtenant regulations issued by the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform.
CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec.6,)
 expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII, Constitution Held:
We agree with the petitioners in saying that PD 27 decreeing
SECOND ASPECT the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and
Retention right of the landowner: xxx but in no case shall retention by the transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social
landowner exceed five (5) hectares. legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social
- What is the meaning of that? A landowner, for ex., who has justice precepts of the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be
20 hectares, at the effectivity of the law will now be able to invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land
retain only 5 hectares. 15 hectares will be acquired by the Act or CA No. 141. Thus,
government subject to payment of just compensation. “The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and
- Why retention? That is a right of the landowner to hold on to protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land
5 hectares without any condition or qualification. where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant
 Meaning: WON the landowner is personally cultivating, what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life’s other
that is not required by law. That is an absolute right of needs.xxx”
the landowner Both the Philippine constitution and the CARL respect the
 Although later on, we will later on discover that there is superiority of the homesteaders right over the right of the tenants
an admin order issued by DAR setting limitations – guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform Statute.
landowner has to apply with DAR to be able to exercise
retention, there is a period within which to exercise and In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the
if there is a failure to exercise within the period given superiority of the homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants
then there is a possible waiver of that right. guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In point is Section 6 of
 But the landowner, if aggrieved by the MARO (for ex. Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides:
because it is the MARO who normally handles the
application at the lower level) can go the Sec. of DAR “The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
on appeal. whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of public domain
THIRD ASPECT under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous
to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of communities to their ancestral lands.”
age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm
Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated
Take note that the word used by law with respect to the children or child Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657
of the landowner is NOT retention but AWARD. likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to
- Meaning: for a child to be awarded by the government with 3 lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in
hectares, he HAS to COMPLY with these qualifications question, reading,
- Who normally examines the qualifications? MARO Section 6. Retention Limits. “xxxx... Provided further, That original
 SIR: and with due respect with MAROs, it is also homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the
possible that it is in the appreciation of these original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the
qualifications that corruption can come in, with or same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.”
without consideration
ALITA v. CA: (1989)
FOURTH ASPECT: Retained area of the landowner (second par. of Sec.  private respondents predecessors-in-interest have
6) acquired 2 parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur
- Who has the right to choose? LANDOWNER thru homestead patent
- What if in the chosen area, there are tenants? What would  petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27
happen to the tenants? Law gives them (tenant) two options: SC:
1. You can be a qualified beneficiaries of other portions of  PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil
the land of the landowner or on agricultural lands and transferring to them ownership of land they till.
owned by other persons  However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose
2. You can remain on the retained area. If he chooses to of CA 141 (Public Land Act)
remain on the retained area:  Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteader’s
 The tenant loses his right to become a qualified rights and CARL also.
beneficiary Sec. 6:
 There is now a leasehold relation between the Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct
landowner-lessor and the tenant on the retained compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the
area. Tenant will not acquire any parcel of land

32
approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001)
to cultivate said homestead.  Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another
property of 13 hectares. She admitted that land is fully
Paris vs. Alfeche, 364 SCRA 110 tenanted by private respondents Alfeche,et al.
Facts:  Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as
Petitioner Florencia Paris is the owner of 10.6146 hectare of original homestead grantee, she is entitled to retain the lands
land in Paitan,Bukidnon. The said parcels are fully tenanted by private to the exclusion of tenants.
respondents Dionisio Alfeche, et al. who are recipients of Emancipation
Patents in their names pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under SC :
PD 27 notwitstanding the fact that neither the tenants nor the Land Bank  Petitioner’s contention is w/o legal basis. PD applies to all
[has] paid a single centavo for the said land. tenanted private agriculture lands primarily devoted to rice and
Petitioner contends that since she is entitled to a retention of corn. Nowhere does it appear that lots obtained by homestead
7 hectares under PD 27 and/or 5 hectares and 3 hectares each for her patents are exempted from its operation. Under RA 6657,
children under CARL., the tenants are not supposed to acquire the rights of homestead grantee are provided but with condition:
subject land and the Emancipation Patents precipitately issued to them only for “as long as they continue to cultivate them”. That
are null and void for being contrary to law. Petitioner further alleged that parcels of land are covered by homestead will not
she owns the subject property as original homestead grantee who still automatically exempt them from operation of land reform. It is
owned the same when RA 6657 was approved, thus she is entitled to the fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct
retain the area to the exclusion of her tenants. compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands. Petitioner can
As regards to the land, petitioner has applied for retention of retain however 5 hectares which require no qualifying
7 hectares contending that the lands subject of the instant petition are condition (Sec.6)
covered by Homestead Patents, and as decided by the Supreme Court in
Patricio vs. Bayug and Alita vs. CA, the homesteaders and their heirs DIFFERENCE between Alita and Paris:
have the right to cultivate their homesteads personally, which is a - Alita: had the desire to personally cultivate  granted
superior right over that of tenant-farmers. - Paris: no desire to cultivate  denied
Held: RETENTION RIGHTS

Petitioner’s contention is without legal basis. PD 27, under NCC: conjugal – total is 5; capital/paraphernal – not more than 5 each
which the EP sought to be canceled here were issued to respondents, but not exceed 10
applies to all tenanted private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice FC (Aug.3,1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2, s. 2003:
and corn under a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy, whether capital/paraphernal - not to exceed 5 provided with judicial
classified as landed estate or not. The law makes no exceptions separation
whatsoever in its coverage. Nowhere therein does it appear that the lots absolute (presumed) – not to exceed 5
obtained by homestead patents are exempt from it operation.
Petitioner’s claimed entitlement to retain 7 hectares is also *Even if you have two spouses, the two is considered to be one!
untenable. PD 27, which provides the retention limit, states: Therefore, they shall only have 5 hectares depending of course on the
“In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than 7 relation.
hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate
it.” SIR: This is what is actually happening but do not do this. (with respect
Clearly, the right to retain an area of 7 hectares is not to retention limit
absolute. It is premised on the condition that the landowner is cultivating
*illegal: A has 5 hectares of agri land, and wants to buy the 5 hectares
the area sought to be retained or will actually cultivate it upon effectivity
of the law. of B. If A will buy the land and will change the document of B with A’s
In the case at bar, neither of the conditions for retention is name, A’s land holding will exceed 5 hectares (that is not allowed under
present. As admitted by petitioner herself, the subject parcels are fully the law because the buyer is supposed to execute an affidavit of the
tenanted; thus, she is clearly not cultivating them, nor will she personally transferee saying that the acquisition will not exceed the landholding
cultivate any part thereof. Undoubtedly, therefore, she has no right to provided by law). Limitation applies throughout the Philippines.
retain any portion of her landholdings. What would A do? A will pay B with the consideration but A
Even under the current primary law on agrarian reform,
will not cause the transfer of B’s name on the land. Ipabilin ang name sa
Republic Act (RA) No. 6657, to which the application of PD 27 is
suppletory, petitioner's lands are subject to land reform. The said Act yuta in the name of B to avoid perjury. But there will be complications…
lays down the rights of homestead grantees under Sec. 6 thereof. *legal:
- Before buying the land, change the classification in tax declaration from
Indisputably, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can agricultural to residential or commercial or industrial.
own and retain the original homesteads, only for "as long as they - Disadvantage: Real property taxes
continue to cultivate" them. That parcels of land are covered by - Be careful: Republic vs. CA (under Sec. 10 on exemptions): There is no
homestead patents will not automatically exempt them from the
law or jurisprudence that says that the classification under tax
operation of land reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by the
original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their declaration is the absolute standard.
lands from land reform coverage. - tax dec vs. MARO's findings (land is agri) ,SC upheld MARO’s findings
Neither petitioner nor her heirs are personally cultivating the
subject homesteads. The DAR and the CA found that respondents were LANDOWNER’s RETENTION RIGHTS
the ones who had been cultivating their respective portions of the Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs?
disputed properties.
However, petitioner can retain five (5) hectares in accordance How CLOA is issued to farmer beneficiaries:
with Section 6 of RA 6657, which requires no qualifying condition for the - Under Sec. 16 on acquisition by the government, there are
landowner to be entitled to retain such area. different schemes under the reform:
Petitioner's heirs, however, are not entitled to awards of  Land transfer schemes: 2 aspects – voluntary and
three (3) hectares each, since they are not actually tilling the parcels or compulsory
directly managing the farm.

33
 Voluntary – the landowner will volunteer to Next time, you amend correctly!!! May have question on legality!!!
convey the land to the government, agree on the What is the good point of these amendments? Congress was consistent
price and then execute the deed of conveyance of its error!
 Compulsory – if the landowner refuses the notice
of acquisition and notice of coverage. Gov. will “SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. - Provincial, city and
have to expropriate. This time is a different municipal government, units acquiring private agricultural lands by
expropriation. WHY? expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct
 Even without the title (2 copies: owner’s title and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public
and the RD’s title), if the government has markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities,
already deposited the amount with LBP, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the
registry of deeds can already cancel the title approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the
of the owner and issue a new title in favor of five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section xxx.” (RA 9700, Sec. 4)
the government. The government can now
issue different titles to farmer beneficiaries. SIR: That means if you have an agricultural land, the landowner will
It is now called CLOA “Certificate of Land choose an area which the LGU will use for public purposes, the
Ownership Award”. landowner cannot use his right of retention to prevent the LGU from
exercising its right to expropriate.
Even if the farmer beneficiary is given the CLOA, he still has to pay the - REASON: Public purposes such as road, bridges, public
government 30 annual amortizations with interest. (that is how long the market, school sites, resettlement sites, local government
farmer pays the government for the just compensation) facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares
- So what the landowner can do is choose another area. That is
DAEZ v. CA if it is consistent with the comprehensive land use of the LGU.
Issuance of EPs/CLOA’s to beneficiaries does not absolutely
bar landowner from retaining the area. In fact, EP or CLOA may be Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL
cancelled if land covered in later found to be part of landowner’s (a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
retained area. In this case, CLTs of private respondent were leased w/o reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
according Daez her right of choice. So DAR was ordered to fully accord watersheds and mangroves (exempt);
Daez her rights under Sec.6 of RA 6657. - You will note, jurisdiction here lies with DENR
 Retention by landowner: 5 hectares - Example: agricultural lands all the way to balamban
 Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided: (watershed area), exempted from CARP because it is for a
1. at least 15 years of age; and different purpose
2. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm (b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds
(exempt)
DAR Adm. Order # 2, S.2003 - You have RA 7881, that exempts it from the coverage during
 Who may apply for retention the time of Ramos
 Period to exercise right of retention (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national
 Where to file defense, school sites and campuses including
 Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings
of retention research, church sites and convents, mosque sites,
 Operating produces : MARO – PARO – REG. DIRECTOR- Sec. communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal
(Appeal) colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and
over (exempt)
RA 9700, Sec 3 amended Sec 4. - Very interesting (daw), Why? (a) and (b), you have the
“That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares qualifying words ADE, which is used under letter (b) and
and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to which is also used under letter (c) BUT, there is an additional
qualified beneficiaries”. (RA 9700, Sec. 3) phrase: found to be necessary. And this was tested in the
case of Central Mindanao. WHY? (go to Central Mindanao
Kini kataw.anan kay (hmm…), Sec 5 is about schedule of Case)
implementation. The law says, the distribution shall be implemented - experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings research 
within 10 yrs from effectivity. So when CARL took effect, June 15, 1988, why exempted? For agricultural production
it was effected for 10 years. Why is it that we are still implementing - church sites and convents, mosque sites  freedom of
CARL till now? Because the law was amended. religion
 SIR: reminded me of Estrada vs. Escritor
How was the law amended? Sec. 5 was not the one amended but SEC  There is an allowable accommodation for religion under
63 which is about funding. So legislators should have amended Sec 5!!! CERTAIN circumstances  this is part of the
RA 8542 amended Sec 63 extending implementation for another 10 accommodation
years. How was it worded? - Last part is: lands with 18 degrees slope and over  bakilid
“the amount needed xxx until 2008 (Dec 31)” au (exempted) WHY? Because of possible soil erosion
Worse, when CARL expired on 2008, it was amended extending it further DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 06-06
to June 30, 2009. How? Joint Resolution which was easier.
SECTION 3. Qualifications of Children-Awardees. — The child of a
RA 9700 approved Aug 7 2009 but given retroactive effect. Why? Na.late landowner whose landholding is subject of acquisition and distribution
pag approve sa Congress. under the CARP may be awarded and given preference in the distribution
of said lands if he/she meets all of the following criteria: DaCTcA
6657: 10 years upto 1998
8542: upto 2008 interpreted up to Dec. 31 3.1 Filipino citizen;
Joint Resolution: From Dec. 31, 2008 to June 30, 2009
9700: approved Aug but they reckoned July 1, 2009 ang effectivity up to 3.2 At least fifteen (15) years of age; and
June 15, 2014 (5 yr period)

34
3.3 Actual tillers or one directly managing the farm as of June 15, land was not used, if it was found to be necessary for future
1988 up to the time of the conduct of field investigation of the expansion, it is to be exempted from coverage.
landholding under CARP. Direct management shall refer to the - QUESTION: who will determine/decide when and what lands
cultivation of the land through personal supervision under the system of
are found to be necessary? SC: it is the school and the only
labor administration. It shall be interpreted along the lines of farm
management (this one is more difficult…) as an actual major activity exception is if it is manifest that CMU has no real need for the
being performed by the landowner's child from which he/she derives land. (but who will admit that??)
his/her primary source of income.
Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Secretary of DAR, 274 SCRA 30
SECTION 4. Rights and Obligations. — The children-awardees shall Facts:
have the following rights and obligations: Petitioners are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing
fishponds and prawn farms. They question Sections 3[b], 11, 13, 6[d],
4.1 All children-awardees shall exercise diligence in the use, 17 and 32 of RA 6657 as unconstitutional because they extend the
cultivation and maintenance of the land including the improvements agrarian reform to aquaculture lands even as Sec. 4, Art. 13 of the
thereon. Unauthorized sale of the land, or negligence or misuse of the Constitution limits agrarian reform only to agricultural lands.
land and support extended to children-awardees, and other violations Held:
under existing guidelines shall be grounds for the forfeiture of their right The Court ruled that provisions of RA 7881 expressly states that fishpond
as such; and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. Thus, petition
to question the constitutionality of some portion of the Comprehensive
4.2 Lands awarded to qualified children of landowners may not be Agrarian Reform Law is moot and academic with the passage of RA
sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to 7881.
the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a
period of ten (10) years; Provided, however, that the children or the Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec.
spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from  Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds
the government or the LBP within a period of two (2) years from the and prawn farms; challenged RA 6657 which coverage lands
date of transfer; and devoted to the aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and
4.3 The children-awardees may avail of any support services prawn farms.
being provided by the government in agrarian reform areas. SC:
R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms
Exemptions from coverage (Section 10) are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the
question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has
Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL become moot and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881
(a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish
sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves (exempt);
(b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) Sanchez v. Marin
(c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense, Issue:
school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations, seeds Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the
and seedlings research, church sites and convents, mosque sites, coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the
communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and farms and government by virtue of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7881 to
all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt) R.A. No. 6657
CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB SC:

 The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended Section 10 of
directly & exclusively used and found necessary for school site Republic Act No. 6657 by expressly exempting/excluding private lands
and campus, including experimental farm stations for actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds
educational purposes and for establishing seed and seeding from the coverage of the CARL.
research
 The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land
area of CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant Republic vs. CA, 342 SCRA 189
factor it growth of a university in years to come. By the nature Facts:
of CMU, which is a school established to promote agriculture & Parcels of land in Jala-Jala, Rizal was covered and has a tax
industry, the need for vast tract of agriculture land for future declaration classifying the said land as agricultural. The DAR then issued
programs of expansion is obvious. a Notice of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory
 While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing acquisition pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II of RA 6657.
Corp.(now Del Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & Private respondent corporation filed with the DAR office an application
was directly connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as for exemption of the land from agrarian reform but the same was
educational institution denied.
 As to determination of when and what lands are found to be The CA reversed the DAR orders declaring those portions of the land of
necessary for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve the petitioner which are mountainous and residential to be exempt from
& answer the question. DARAB & CA have no right to the CARP.
substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has no real need for DAR then appealed to SC contending and claiming that the subject
land. properties have already been classified as agricultural based on the tax
declaration and therefore is covered by CARL.
- one part used for school and campus site
- another part not used, part is leased to Del Monte Phil. Held:
Packing Co. RA 6657 (CARL) covers all private and agricultural land. Agricultural
lands are “land devoted for agricultural activity and not classified as
- Central Mindanao is an agricultural school
minerals, forest, residential commercial or industrial”
- SC: did not use the phrase “found to be necessary”, but No law or jurisprudence holds that the land classification embodied in
impliedly it was referring to it. Because even if that portion of the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any
further inquiry. The DAR administrative order no.6 lists the other

35
documents, aside from tax declaration, that must be submitted when entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice planted on the
applying for exception from CARP. The classification made by the Land land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy equipment;
Regulatory Board outweighed the classification stated in the tax that the incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
declaration. (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist Order 5 but to no avail.
Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her

REPUBLIC v. CA tenancy rights over the land; restore the land to its original condition and
Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. DAR issued notice not to convert the same to non-agricultural use; that any act of
of coverage & owner applied for exemption. Application was denied and disposition of the land to any other person be declared null and void
on appeal the Court of Appeals created a commission to conduct ocular because as a tenant, she allegedly had a right of pre-emption or
inspection and survey the land. Later, based on the report submitted by redemption over the land.
the commission, the Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and
exempted the lands from CARL. Republic contends that tax declaration Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject
classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered by mere ocular property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). He
inspection. alleged that respondent is a septuagenarian who is no longer physically
SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax capable of tilling the land; that the MARO issued a certification 7 that the
declaration is conclusive; tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of land had no registered tenant; that respondent could not be regarded as
classification of land. SC gave credence to commission’s report. Based on a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns and resides in the
their report, it was found that the land use map submitted by private property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired through
respondent was an appropriate document consistent with the existing inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy 8 was executed by the De
land use. It was confirmed that the lands are not wholly agricultural as Leon sisters when they sold the property to him. DTIaCS
they consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope. The
CARL has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except Moreover, Lim claimed that respondent and her family surreptitiously
those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of CARL. entered the subject land and planted a few crops to pass themselves off
as cultivators thereof; that respondent tried to negotiate with petitioner
Sta. Rosa Realty Dev’t Corp. vs. CA, 367 SCRA 175 Lim for the sale of the land to her, as the latter was interested in
Facts: entering into a joint venture with another residential developer, which
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the shows that respondent has sufficient resources and cannot be a
registered owner of two parcels of land at Cabuyao, Laguna. According beneficiary under the CARP; that the land is no longer classified as
to the petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which provide clean agricultural and could not thus be covered by the CARP. Per certification
potable water to the Canlubang community, and thet 90% light issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development
industries are now located in the area. Thus, praying for the exemption Coordinator of Bacoor, Cavite, the land is classified as residential
of the said parcels of land for the compulsory acquisition under CARP. pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan approved by the
Held: Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
The disputed land is classified as PARK and subsequent
studies and survey showed that the parcel of land in question forms a Issue:
vital part of a watershed. Article 10 of RA 6657 expressly states that Whether or not the land is exempted.
“Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, Held:
watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this In the instant case, there is no substantial evidence to support the
Act. appellate court's conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on the
Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that subject property. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements
during the DARAB hearing, petitioner presented proof that the Casile cited above. It was not shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a
property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the land from the tenancy relationship with respondent who was their sister-in-law; or that
coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section 10, provides: the De Leon sisters received any share in the harvests of the land from
"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. – “xxx..and all lands with respondent or that the latter delivered a proportionate share of the
eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed harvest to the landowners pursuant to a tenancy relationship.
shall be exempt from coverage of this Act."
Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the The affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a
disputed parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory portion of the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her
acquisition coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes. sisters-in-law. The affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or
details of the alleged harvest sharing; it merely stated that the affiants
NICORP MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. have known respondent to be the cultivator of the land since time
LEONIDA DE LEON immemorial. It cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest
Facts: sharing.
On August 26, 2004, respondent filed a complaint before the Office of
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Region IV- That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without
Province of Cavite, praying that petitioners Salvador R. Lim and/or opposition, does not mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly recognized
NICORP Management and Development Corporation (NICORP) be the existence of a leasehold relation with respondent. Occupancy and
ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land located in continued possession of the land will not ipso facto make one a de jure
Barangay Mambog III, Bacoor, Cavite, registered under TCT No. T- tenant.
72669 in the name of Leoncia De Leon and Susana De Leon Loppacher
(De Leon sisters), who were likewise impleaded as parties-defendants in Finally, the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate Sections
the suit. 65 33 and 73 34 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. There was no illegal conversion of
the land because Sec. 65 applies only to lands which were covered by
Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the the CARP, i.e., those lands beyond the five-hectare retention limit
land since time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of the allowed to landowners under the law, which were distributed to farmers-
owners, who were her sisters-in-law; that sometime in 2004, petitioners beneficiaries. In the instant case, it was not shown that the subject land
circulated rumors that they have purchased the property from the De was covered by the CARP. Neither was it shown that the sale was made
Leon sisters; that petitioners ignored respondent's requests to show to circumvent the application of R.A. 6657 or aimed at dispossessing
proof of their alleged ownership; that on August 12, 2004, petitioners tenants of the land that they till

36
 According to DAR, it requires that CLOA be issued

The evidence that was mentioned by the SC was a letter. In this letter, it collectively or under co-ownership under the direct
was found that there was no tenancy relationship, because of the use of payment scheme
the word kasama. The word kasama would be taken in varying context,
*NOTE: Former landowner shall be given priority with respect to these
not necessarily in relation to agricultural leasehold agreement. It was not
methods.
also clear the word kasama referred to the tenant. Contracts are reviewed by DAR Support Services to be submitted to the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) and to
be endorsed to PARC. PARC is the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(Sec. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS headed by the President of the Philippines.
Commercial farms – private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit
farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms and cacao, coffee and Please note: these are not the only methods under CARP. Another is the:
rubber plantations. They are subject to compulsory acquisition and - Stock distribution option: referring to hacienda Luisita
distribution after 10 years from effectivity. - For how many years, the SDO was perfectly managed, it was
a good method until when the Presidential Agrarian Reform
SIR: I think Del Monte falls under this classification. I’m not sure. Council headed by GMA revoked the SDO on the ground that
among others, it failed to alleviate the conditions of the
LUZ FARMS farmer beneficiaries. And which revocation was upheld by the
 Sec. II which includes “private agricultural land devoted to SC.
commercial livestock, poultry & swine raising” in definition of - Right now, the lands are being distributed to farmer
“commercial farms” is invalid. beneficiaries consistent with the ruling of the Court.
Adm. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of DAR vs. Sutton, et al., G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005
agricultural land used for cattle raising from CARP. Citing Luz Farms case DAR issued A.O. No. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be
private agricultural land or portions thereof actually, exclusively &directly retained by a landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and
used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded. Exclusion private agricultural lands under the coverage of agrarian reform.
shall be granted only upon proof of AED prior to 15 June 1988 &
continuously utilized for such purpose up to application. Any act to Issue:
change or convert ; w/ intent to avoid CARP,shall be invalid. Only the The constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993.
grazing area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary
for cattle raising shall be considered for exclusion Held:
Petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have
Why is there special treatment to commercial farms? Because of possible been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian
effect to company and distribution of lands to farmer beneficiaries, basin reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O.
ug mawagtang and kanindot sa yuta na dili unta i-subdivide or i- The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid,
distribute. Agricultural production can be better if they are not administrative rules and regulations must be issued by authority of a law
distributed or are intact as a whole. and must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution. The rule-
making power of an administrative agency may not be used to abridge
For commercial farms, there is a suspension of 10 years sa pag- the authority given to it by Congress or by the Constitution. Nor can it
implement. And there are alternative methods available to commercial be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the
farms other than distribution of lands. scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with
respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by
DAR A.O #9, S of 1998 – allows commercial farms certain options, administrative agencies and the scope of their regulations In the case at
subject to approval of DAR & workers: (aside from voluntary & bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the
compulsory coverage) Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including
them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum
CLOAs are issued - joint venture retention limit for their ownership. However the deliberations of the
in name of cooperative - growership agreement 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia,
of workers - lease – back all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry- raising.
- direct payment The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and
poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition
Please note: in any of these methods, ang yuta ma.adto gihapon sa of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity.” The raising of livestock, swine
farmer beneficiaries, dili lang i-distribute. Intact ang yuta, but the former and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not
landowner can participate in this method. an agricultural, activity.
- For instance, joint venture: kinsa ang mag.joint venture? Ang
farmer beneficiary and former landowner DAR v. SUTTON :
 Beneficiaries will contribute the use of the land, the Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. Lands under VOS
investor furnishing the capital and technology. before CARP. After CARP & Luz Farms case, Sutton filed withdrawal of
 Note: there has to be approval from DAR VOS. DAR issued A.O #9 (1993) which provide that only portions of land
- Lease-back: an owner of the land will now rent his own land used for raising of livestock, poultry & swine shall be excluded. DAR
from the farmer beneficiary partially exempted portion but ordered acquisition the rest.
 Lease may not exceed 10 years. There is a least rental SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock ,
 Needs approval of DAR swine/poultry raising do not fall under “agriculture” & “agricultural
- Growership arrangements: magsabot sila daan na ug activity”
mag.harvest na gani, ako ang mu.palit sa inyohang products
 To be approved by DAR
- Direct payment scheme: if they can agree na ang property will DAR Adm. Order No. 7-2008
have to be transferred to the farmer beneficiary and the Policy Guidelines:
farmer beneficiaries will be paying the landowner for the land. 1. Private agricultural lands or portions therof actually, directly or
 To be approved by DAR exclusively used for livestock purposes other than agricultural like cattle
raising as of june 15, 1988 and continuously and exclusively utilized or

37
devoted for such purpose up until the time of inventory shall be excluded
from CARP coverage. VLT is not anymore an option under the present law (RA 9700)
2. Conversely, landholdings or any portions thereof not actually, directly - VLT is an option by the landowner that after receiving the
and exclusively used for livestock raising are subject to CARP coverage if notice of acquisition from DAR, the landowner offers.
one or more of the following conditions apply:
2.1 if there is agricultural activity in the area, i.e cultivation of the soil, Under RA 9700, what will remain is COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.
planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such
products, and other farm activities and practices, whether done by a Note: That is consistent with the thrust of the government, that by 2014,
natural or juridical person and regardless of the final use or destination everything should have been offered compulsorily, without waiting
of such agricultural products whether the landowner will offer or not.
2.2 the land is suitable for agriculture and it is presently occupied and
tilled by farmer/s. Under Sec 12, DAR is mandated to determine and fix the lease rentals.
5. in case of any of the conditions under items 2.1 and 2.2 are evident, And this is shown in Admin Order No. 02-06.
the PARO shall immediately proceed with the issuance of NOTICE of
COVERAGE on the subject landholding or portions thereof DAR Adm. Order No. 2-06
8. any act of the landowner to change or convert his agricultural land for
livestock raising shall not affect the coverage of his landholdings under RA 6389 automatically converted share tenancy throughout the country
CARP. Any diversification or change in the agricultural use of the into agricultural leasehold relationship
landholdings, or shift from crop production to livestock raising shall be 1. abolition of share tenancy now covers all agricultural landholdings
subject to the existing guidelines on land use conversion. without exceptions
2. the conversion of share tenancy into leasehold is mandated by law.
Adm. Order #7 (2008) 3. All share-crop tenants were automatically converted into agricultural
(Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising) lessees as of june 15, 1988 whether or not a leasehold agreement has
 Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June been executed
1988 & continuously devoted shall be excluded. 4. Leaseholders security of tenure shall be respected and guaranteed.
 Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided that the
agricultural activity in land is suitable for agriculture presently
tilled by farmers IV. GOVERNING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES
Pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 6657, and in order to fully implement
the provisions of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, on agricultural leasehold,
Chapter III (IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR RELATION)
the following policies and principles are hereby issued:
WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED 1. Agricultural leasehold shall be based on a tenancy
FARMERS? relationship. The following are essential elements of agricultural
1. Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16) tenancy:
2. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer 1.1. The parties are the landholder and the tenant;
(Sec.20) 1.2. The object of the relationship is an agricultural
3. Non-land transfer schemes –stock distribution land;
option(SDO); production & profit sharing (PPS)- Sec. 1.3. There is consent freely given either orally or in
13/32; leasehold operation(Sec.12) writing, express or implied;
1.4. The purpose of the relationship is agricultural
In the case of Hacienda Luisita, CJ Corona was the only one who gave a production;
dissenting opinion because remember, in the decision of Hacienda 1.5. There is personal cultivation;
Luisita, while the SC revoked the Stock Distribution Program, the SC 1.6. There is consideration given to the lessor either in
used the Operative Fact Doctrine. Even if the program is null and void, a form of share of the harvest or payment of fixed
using that doctrine, we have the consult the farmers whether they would amount in money or produce to or both.
want to remain as stockholders or they would want the land distributed. 2. Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished
- CJ Corona dissented saying Sec 31 is void because with by mere expiration of the term of period in a leasehold contract
respect to agrarian reform, it is only distribution, there are no nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of
other ways. the land. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or
transfers the legal possession of the landholding, purchaser or
Leasehold Operation: (We can understand because) Under sec. 6, if the transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and
area chosen by the landowner is tenanted, and the tenant chooses to substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor as
remain on the land. That is a choice personal to the tenant provided for under Sec. 10, R.A. 3844, as amended.
xxx
SDO: different scheme. That’s why some authors are saying, the land 4. The consideration for the lease shall not be more than
reform of the Philippines is very different: the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest (ANH)
1. Other asian countries only have 3 hectare retention limit, in during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding the
the Phil, why 5? date the lease was established. If the land has been cultivated
2. Why do have an SDO as an option? for less than 3 years, the initial consideration shall be based on
 There is no evidence to prove that this is an the average normal harvest of the preceding year/s when the
accommodation in favor of Hacienda Luisita during the land was actually cultivated.
time of Aquino. At the same time, there is no proof that
the revocation by the PARC of the program of Hacienda If we talk about leasehold, and there is a determination by DAR on the
Luisita headed by GMA was also as a defense? (dili lease rentals, the perfect scenario is: there has to be a document
maklaro seri) against Aquino showing the agreement on leasehold between the landowner and the
lessee-tenant.
Take note: VOS, there is a cut-off date under RA 9700. (Right now you
cannot avail of this) If you have a document, the tenant can have it annotated, registered
- Without any notice from DAR, the landowner proposes to the with the registry of deeds and the law itself provides this should be free
government. from payment of all fees and services.

38
- point of registration: protect the right of the lessee-tenant, so In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the
that any prospective buyer may be cautioned by simply Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare
looking at the title itself that there is a leasehold relationship property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at
P2.38 million. 4
involving that parcel of land.
NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action. In February, 1992, it
But even without the document, under AO 02-06, leasehold relation shall sought and was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB),
through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB
not be extinguished by expiration of term, by sale, in case of alienation,
Case No. X-576, a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction which
purchaser-transferee shall be subrogated to rights obligations of ordered the DAR Region X Director, the Provincial Agrarian Reform
tenancy. Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
(MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land
RA 6657 mandates Dar to determine the fix rentals within retained areas Bank), and their authorized representatives "to desist from pursuing any
and areas not yet acquired for agrarian reform activity or activities" concerning the subject land "until further orders." 5
- Farmer has a right to elect whether to become a farmer beneficiary or On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the
a leaseholder in the retention are of the landholder. strikers' protest by issuing the so-called "Win/Win" Resolution penned by
then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona
Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within
the retained areas and areas not yet acquired. In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution, the
petitioners claim that the Office of the President was prompted to issue
Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect whether farmer- the said resolution "after a very well-managed hunger strike led by fake
beneficiary OR leaseholds in retained area. farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or
politically blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this
Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title & documents required purely political decision to appease the 'farmers,' by reviving and
for implementation of CARP modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final
 Pursuant to DAR’s mandate to protect the rights & improve and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997.
tenurial & economic status of farmers in tenanted lands, DAR Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory
issued AO 02-06(REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES Decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the
GOVERNING LEASEHOLD IMPLEMENTATION IN "Win-Win" Resolution.
TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS):
-Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6
requisites) We rule in the negative.
-Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at
term nor by sale. In case of alienation, purchaser/transferee The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of
shall be subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor. the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No.
- specific provision on the consideration to be given to the 18. Section 7 thereof provides:
lessor which can either be in a form of share of harvest or
payment of money Sec. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of
-DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract. Why the President shall, except as otherwise provided for
DARAB? by special laws, become final after the lapse of
- DARAB exercises quasi-judicial powers. With fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by
respect to quasi-judicial powers, Leasehold contract the parties, unless a motion for reconsideration
involves rights, obligations and others terms of the thereof is filed within such period.
contract Only one motion for reconsideration by any one
-The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of party shall be allowed and entertained, save in
average normal harvest during 3 agri years exceptionally meritorious cases. (Emphasis ours).
-AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of
lessor/lessee. It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court
shall apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable.
CHAPTER IV – REGISTRATION
When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997
 Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners &
declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one
beneficiaries w/ DAR. Purpose is to establish databank &
has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office
identify actual famer-beneficiaries.
had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision.
Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more
Insofar as beneficiaries are concerned, registration will determine if you
authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by
have a standing to intervene in a case. Enunciated in the case of Fortich
respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis of
vs. Corona:
the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative Order No.
18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al., G.R. 131457, August 19, 1999
only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the
Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if a second motion for
This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente,
reconsideration was permitted to be filed in "exceptionally meritorious
Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management
cases," as provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18, still
and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. The
the said motion should not have been entertained considering that the
property is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371 3 of the
first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed, thereby
Registry of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon.
allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the
In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially
Philippine Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already become final
a multinational corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal
Producer and Grower's Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of precept that accord finality to administrative determinations.
title. The lease expired in April, 1994.

39
Fortich vs. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.- For purposes of
so intervened in case. acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are
beneficiaries, so they have no standing yet to intervene in the case. (a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the
 DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the
bonafide beneficiaries owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the
 DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB. same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall
of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the
Concha vs. Rubio: Not a dispute between LO and tenant. Fight among offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the
tenants valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions
- question: who among them should be considered qualified to become hereof.
beneficiaries over a portion of land?
But it was not clear in the law about how identification is determined 
- who determines who is qualified? DAR specifically MARO this was filled up by DAR through an Admin Order.
- although SC said in this case that it is the Sec. of DAR through the - talks about “notice to acquire”: In the case of CONFED vs. DAR, SC
authorized offices talks about two notices
- What was the finding of MARO? 1. Notice of coverage: More or less Preliminary: WHY?
- when he was talking about respondents, he was talking - because while it notifies that the property shall be placed
about the parties who were not considered qualified. Why were they not under CARP, the landowner is entitled to retention.
- notifies the landowner about the public hearing about the
qualified? According to the MARO they:
results of field investigation, land evaluation and other
-refused to sign the form pertinent matters
-already given disturbance compensation - the landowner will be informed that the field investigation of
-Respondents: we returned the money to the his landholding shall be conducted. After that comes the
landowners notice of acquisition.
-But MARO found that they used the money in 2. Notice of acquisition:
building their houses in the lot given to them - the area subject of compulsory acquisition has to be stated.
WHY? It is based already on the field investigation
-executed the document “sinumpaang salaysay” that they
- plus the amount of just compensation offered by DAR
already abandoned the landholding in question
-As a matter of principle, the finding of the MARO is to be accorded
How is the notice to be done? Personal delivery, registered mail and
respect unless there is a showing of abuse of authority.
posting
CHAPTER V – LAND ACQUISITION
Note in the case of CONFED: Notice shall contain the offer of DAR
- OFFER: offer of the government to the landowner as to how much the
government will pay the landowner corresponding to the land to be
 Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural
acquired.
areas and the root cause of peasant unrest.
- Discuss this in relation to par. (e): It is the deposit that is the key to
 In order to hasten the implementation of the program, the
the immediate possession and issuance of a title
Department of Agrarian Reform has made compulsory
acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by
end, the law provides for the steps in acquiring private lands
personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or
through administrative instead of judicial proceedings. This
representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the
procedure is allowed provided the requirements of due process
offer.
as to notice and hearing are complied with.
 Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the
acquisition of agricultural lands including facilities and
landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he
improvements necessary for agricultural production, as may be
executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and
appropriate, for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon
surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
payment of just compensation.
 The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory
If landowner accepts  no problem
acquisition of private agricultural lands coverable under the
If landowner rejects or fails to reply  summary admin proceedings
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Along the
various phases of the CARP proceedings, the process stalls
Take NOTE: the purpose of this is compensation. With respect to just
because of Land Owner (LO) resistance, most of whom invoke
compensation, RTC has jurisdiction.
the ground of lack of notice or non-observance of due process
Reiterate: there are only 2 instances where RTC has jurisdiction insofar
in attacking the proceedings.
as CARP is concerned:
1. just compensation
Just to show us the amendment by RA 9700, the words added under
2. criminal offenses
section 16. “AND DISTRIBUTION”
then why is it that the law in par. (d) talks about determination of just
compensation? It was determined by the SC in CONFED, that this
SECTION 6.The title of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6657, as determination is only PRELIMINARY. Meaning that the landowner (as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: also shown in par. (f)) can still resort to court IF he disagrees with the
decision referred in par. (d).
"SEC. 16.Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of - So they bring the matter to court of proper jurisdiction for
Private Lands." the FINAL determination of just compensation.
Why was this added? Because Sec. 16 doesn’t only talk about
acquisition, it also involves distribution of lands. (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct
summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of
LAND ACQUISITION the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties

40
to summit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA.
the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR
shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for In Association of small land owners, SC did not say
decision. “automatically”. SC said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full
payment of past conversation.
Notice in par. (e), par (d) would give you 30 days to respond. You have
to inform DAR whether you accept or reject it. CONFED vs. DAR
Facts:
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in Petitioners CONFED, NFSP, UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that their
case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit members own or administer private agricultural lands devoted to
with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in sugarcane. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been planting
cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take sugarcane on their lands allegedly since time immemorial. While their
immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register petition is denominated as one for prohibition and mandamus, the
of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of Section
Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the 16 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. In other words, their arguments,
which will be discussed shortly, are anchored on the proposition that
How do we know the amount to be deposited? Should it be based on these provisions are unconstitutional.
par. (d) after summary admin proceedings or par. (a) that is contained in
the notice to acquire?  CONFED CASE They allege the following grounds in support of their petition:
In real scenario: transfer of title may happen before immediate It is the principal contention of the petitioners that, in the exercise by
possession. Why? It is possible that there is resistance here on the part the State of the power of eminent domain, which in the case of RA 6657
of the landowner. is the acquisition of private lands for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries,
ex. Even if the title is already in the name of the Republic of the expropriation proceedings, as prescribed in Rule 67 of the Rules of
Philippines but DAR cannot take possession because gibutangan ug Court, must be strictly complied with. The petitioners rely on the case of
guard ang agri land, landowner still actually possesses the land while he Visayas Refining Company v. Camus and Paredes 7 decided by the Court
is fighting for the acquisition in court. in 1919. In the said case, the Government of the Philippine Islands,
through the Governor-General, instructed the Attorney-General to initiate
Take note here: in normal dealings (voluntary dealings), if you have a condemnation proceedings for the purpose of expropriating a tract of
sale of land, the seller will execute the Deed of Sale and give the original land containing an area of 1,100,463 square meters to be used for
copy (owner’s duplicate copy) to the buyer, so that the buyer can go to military and aviation purposes. In compliance therewith, the Attorney-
RD, and be issued a new title in favor of the purchaser. But here it is General filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance (CFI) and
different. among the defendants impleaded was Visayan Refining Co. which owned
a portion of the property intended to be expropriated. The CFI
1. Under par. (e), Registry of Deeds can cancel the title of the LO provisionally fixed the total value of the subject property at P600,000
on the basis of the deposit, certification from land bank which and upon payment thereof as deposit, the CFI authorized that the
will be annotated to the title and RD will issue a new title in Government be placed in possession thereof.
favor of the Republic of the Philippines.
2. The title is cancelled even without the surrender of the Paragraph (e) is assailed by the petitioners as it authorizes the DAR, by
owner’s copy allegedly merely causing the deposit with the Land Bank of the
3. RD’s copy of the LO’s title is cancelled even if the owner’s copy compensation, to immediately take possession of the property and to
is subsisting direct the Register of Deeds to cancel the certificate of title of the
 Probable in case LO rejects offer or does not reply, he is landowner without notice to and consent of the latter. The petitioners
still in possession of the title contend that, in contrast, under the Civil Code, if the creditor or obligee
 Advise: do not simply rely on the owner’s copy, you get refuses to accept the tender of payment, it is the duty of the debtor or
a certified true copy from the RD. obligor to make consignation of the thing or amount due. Under the Civil
4. RD can cancel and issue under CARL even if there is no Code, there is no effective payment without valid tender of payment and
payment of taxes and transfer fees (provided in Sec 66 and 67 consignation in court. 15 The petitioners theorize that, in the same
below) manner, the DAR cannot be allowed to take possession of the property
of a landowner, by mere deposit of the compensation that it has
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to summarily fixed under paragraph (e), without having to go to court.
the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation. Paragraph (f) is characterized by the petitioners as meaningless and
useless to the landowner. It allegedly compels him to file a case, and in
Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land the process incur costs therefor, for the final determination of just
 Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e): compensation when, in the meantime, he has already been deprived of
(1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance possession of his property and his certificate of title cancelled.
(2) titles are cancelled w/o owner’s copy surrendered (in
Torren's System, if there is refusal in involuntary dealings The Respondents' Counter-Arguments
remedy is file petition in court
(3) RD titles are cancelled while owner’s copy is subsisting The Land Bank urges the Court to dismiss the petition since the
constitutionality of RA 6657 had already been categorically upheld by the
Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer) Court in Association of Small Landowners. Further, some of the grounds
relied upon by the petitioners allege matters that require factual
Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required for determination. For example, the allegation that the DAR is subjecting the
implementation of CARP) sugar lands to the coverage of RA 6657 without first ascertaining
Sec. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, whether there are regular farmworkers therein and whether they are
DAR can request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. So interested to own, directly or collectively, the land they till, allegedly
even if landowners protests valuation, distribution of land will proceed. requires factual determination. Considering that the Court is not a trier of

41
facts, the Land Bank argues that these matters are better threshed out except those for which the landowners have already filed applications to
in a trial court. avail of other modes of land acquisition. A case folder shall contain the
following duly accomplished forms:
HELD:
DAR's compulsory acquisition procedure is based on Section 16 of RA a)CARP CA Form 1 — MARO Investigation Report
6657. It does not, in any way, preclude judicial determination of just
compensation b)CARP CA Form 2 — Summary Investigation Report of Findings and
Evaluation
Contrary to the petitioners' submission that the compulsory acquisition
procedure adopted by the DAR is without legal basis, it is actually based c)CARP CA Form 3 — Applicant's Information Sheet
on Section 16 of RA 6657. Under the said law, there are two modes of
acquisition of private agricultural lands: compulsory and voluntary. The d)CARP CA Form 4 — Beneficiaries Undertaking
procedure for compulsory acquisition is that prescribed under Section 16
of RA 6657. TCDcSE e)CARP CA Form 5 — Transmittal Report to the PARO
In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 41 the Court painstakingly The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-
outlined the procedure for compulsory acquisition, including the mentioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the
administrative orders issued by the DAR in relation thereto, in this same are true and correct. IEHTaA
manner:
3.Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case
landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said conference/meeting shall also
identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC
landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a representative(s), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative
conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the
place where the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt of property. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and
the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or solicit the views, objection, agreements or suggestions of the
representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the participants thereon. The landowner shall also be asked to indicate his
offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all
transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. participants in the conference and shall form an integral part of the
Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land CACF.
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the
landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR 4.Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform
conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just Officer (PARO).
compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and
other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation B.The PARO shall:
within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the
DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its decision and the 1.Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his
amount of just compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the MAROs.
corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from
the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP 2.Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of
bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take the land in accordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of 1988. The valuation
possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified
title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then correct by the PARO and all the personnel who participated in the
be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the accomplishment of these forms. TCASIH
decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination of just
compensation. 3.In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through
ocular inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land and verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds
acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian 500,000 per estate.
Reform Program (CARP). Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in
compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners 4.Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together
and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to
process must be made. To fill in this gap, the DAR issued on July 26, the Central Office. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned
1989 Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989, which set the shall be furnished a copy each of his report.
operating procedure in the identification of such lands. The procedure is
as follows:
C.DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition
"II.OPERATING PROCEDURE and Distribution (BLAD), shall: ECTHIA
A.The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, with the assistance of the 1.Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO,
pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall: EDATSI review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property
covered by the case folder. A summary review and evaluation report
1.Update the master list of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP shall be prepared and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the
in his area of responsibility. The master list shall include such information personnel directly participating in the review and final valuation.
as required under the attached CARP Master List Form which shall
include the name of the landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number, 2.Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized
and tax declaration number. representative, a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject
property. Serve the Notice to the landowner personally or through
2.Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title registered mail within three days from its approval. The Notice shall
(OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP

42
include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and

the amount of just compensation offered by DAR. Private respondent offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
the price of P2,000,000.00 per hectare for said portion of the land
3.Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall covered by CARP.
prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of
Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just
Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative compensation for said 14.999 hectares the amount of P1,145,806.06 or
hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance with the P76,387.57 per hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent.
procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1989.
Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, In accordance with Section 16 of RA No. 6657, petitioner LBP deposited
the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the for the account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in
required Order of Acquisition. bonds as provisional compensation for the acquisition of the property.
4.Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional
upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative
non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent proceedings under DARAB Case No. LV-XI-0330-DN-2002 to fix the just
Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title compensation.
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property
is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the On June 26, 2002, the DARAB rendered a decision fixing the
land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries." AEDCHc compensation of the property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per
hectare.
CONFED vs. DAR Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision
 Compulsory Acquisition but the same was denied on September 4, 2002.
 Notice of Acquisition
 First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial
beneficiaries. determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court,
 Law is silent Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum City, docketed as DAR Case No.
 Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 78-2002, which is the subject of this petition.
 Valid implementation , two notices
 DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition against
A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series DAR before the same Special Agrarian Court docketed as DAR Case No.
of 1993 79-2002, to which petitioner LBP filed its answer and moved for the
dismissal of the petition for being filed out of time.
Expropriation in Consti Law: two limitations:
1. Public use 2. Payment of just compensation Private respondent filed a Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation
SC: In this case, there is no more need to prove public use because this praying that petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined
has been settled in the Constitution when it called for Agrarian Reform. amount of P10,294,721.00 in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling
So there is only one limitation remaining: just compensation. in "Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, Pedro L. Yap, Et
Al., G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995". EAIcCS
JUST COMPENSATION
1. What are the factors which the court must rely upon to be able Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the
to determine just compensation? (Sec. 17) deposit should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount
2. When shall we reckon the payment of the determination of of P1,145,806.06 and not P10,294,721.00 as determined by the DARAB.
just compensation? Time of ACTUAL taking
 But it is different in this case, while the SC has On December 12, 2002, public respondent rendered the assailed
mentioned about date of taking, but it has been resolution ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for release to the private
interpreted at the time of the issuance of the title which respondent the DARAB determined just compensation of
may different. P10,294,721.00.
 Actual scenario: actual taking may precede issuance or
vice versa On December 13, 2002, petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration
3. Is the landowner entitled to claim interest? of the said order to deposit.
Last issue is the application of Rule 67: On December 17, 2002, private respondent filed a motion to cite Romeo
- sec. 58 and rule 67 talks about appointment of commissioners. When Fernando Y. Cabanal and Atty. Isagani Cembrano, manager of petitioner
the case is filed in the RTC: in the law itself, it says MAY appoint, under LBP's Agrarian Operations Office in Region XI and its handling lawyer,
rule 67, court SHALL appoint Commissioners for the determination of just respectively, for contempt for failure to comply with the order to deposit.
compensation.
After the filing of private respondent's comment to the motion for
- who normally opposes commissioners? BIR, city assessor, provincial reconsideration and petitioner LBP's explanation and memorandum to
assessor (they are more or less knowledgeable on the aspect of just the motion for reconsideration, public respondent rendered the assailed
compensation) resolution dated February 17, 2003, denying petitioner LBP's motion for
reconsideration.
LBP vs Trinidad
Facts: Petitioner LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for
Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land reconsideration which still remains unacted upon by public respondent.
situated in Sampao, Kapalong, Davao del Norte with an approximate
area of 37.1010 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- ISSUE:
49200, 14.999 hectares of which was covered by RA No. 6657 through The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional
the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the
Reform Program (CARP). landowner if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. Petitioner maintains it

43
should be its initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell - reasoning: if the DAR will wait for the summary admin
(VOS) while respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the proceedings this will hamper land redistribution process
PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary administrative proceeding pending Note that: par (a) precedes over par. (d) on the determination of the
final determination by the courts. correct amount to be deposited.
HELD: Reiterated in the case of Pagayatan.

Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 reads:
LBP vs Pagayatan
(d)In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct Facts:
summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for
the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties On October 21, 1972, the 3,682.0286-hectare Suntay Estate, consisting
to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within of irrigated/unirrigated rice and corn lands covered by Transfer
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of Certificate of Title No. T-31(1326) located in the Barangays of Gen.
the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR Emilio Aguinaldo, Sta. Lucia, and San Nicolas in Sablayan, Occidental
shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for Mindoro, was subjected to the operation of Presidential Decree No. 27,
decision. under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT), with the farmer-beneficiaries
declared as owners of the property. However, a 300-hectare portion of
(e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in the land was subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit (CARP) instead of the OLT. Thus, Certificates of Landownership Award
with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in possession of the land. 5 Such
cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take application of the CARP to the 300-hectare land was later the subject of
immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register a case before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board
of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the (DARAB), which ruled that the subject land should have been the subject
Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the of OLT instead of CARP. The landowner admitted before the PARAD that
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. said case was pending with this Court and docketed as G.R. No. 108920,
entitled Federico Suntay v. Court of Appeals.
We find the foregoing as a strained interpretation of a simple and clear
enough provision on the procedure governing acquisition of lands under Meanwhile, the owner of the land remained unpaid for the property.
CARP, whether under the compulsory acquisition or VOS scheme. Thus, Josefina S. Lubrica, in her capacity as assignee of the owner of the
Indeed, it would make no sense to mention anything about the property, Federico Suntay, filed a Petition for Summary Determination of
provisional deposit in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) — the landowner is Just Compensation with the PARAD, docketed as Case No. DCN-0405-
sent a notice of valuation to which he should reply within a specified 0022-2002. Thereafter, the PARAD issued its Decision dated March 21,
time, and in sub-paragraph (c) — when the landowner accepts the offer 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads: ECSHID
of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. Sub-paragraph (d)
provides for the consequence of the landowner's rejection of the initial WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
valuation of his land, that is, the conduct of a summary administrative
proceeding for a preliminary determination by the DARAB through the 1.Fixing the preliminary just compensation for 431.1407 hectare property
PARAD or RARAD, during which the LBP, landowner and other interested at P166,150.00 per hectare or a total of P71,634,027.30.
parties are required to submit evidence to aid the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD
in the valuation of the subject land. Sub-paragraph (e), on the other 2.Directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to immediately pay the
hand, states the precondition for the State's taking of possession of the aforestated amount to the Petitioner.
landowner's property and the cancellation of the landowner's title, thus
paving the way for the eventual redistribution of the land to qualified 3.Directing the DAR to immediately comply with all applicable
beneficiaries: payment of the compensation (if the landowner already requirements so that the subject property may be formally distributed
accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP) or deposit of the provisional and turned over to the farmer beneficiaries thereof, in accordance with
compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond to the offer of the Decision of the DARAB Central in DARAB Case No. 2846.
the DAR/LBP). Indeed, the CARP Law conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by The LBP then filed a Petition dated March 4, 2004 with the RTC docketed
the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of the as Agrarian Case No. 1390, appealing the PARAD Decision. In the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Petition, the LBP argued that because G.R. No. 108920 was pending with
this Court in relation to the 300-hectare land subject of the instant case,
Question was on the correct amount of provisional compensation which the Petition for Summary Determination of Just Compensation filed
LBP was required to deposit. before the PARAD was premature. The LBP argued further that the
-is it the amount stated in par. (a) which is supposed to be contained in PARAD could only make an award of up to PhP5 million only. The
the notice of acquisition? PARAD, therefore, could not award an amount of PhP71,634,027.30. The
- or is it the amount based on par. (d) after the conduct of summary LBP also contended that it could not satisfy the demand for payment of
proceedings? Lubrica, considering that the documents necessary for it to undertake a
- there is a difference there in actual practice preliminary valuation of the property were still with the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR).
LBP: says that it is our offer under par. (a) which is P1M only.
Respondent: it is the amount after the summary admin proceeding to be ISSUE:
undertaken by PARAD, RARAD and DARAB which is P10M. What is the proper amount to be deposited under Section 16 of Republic
SC: subpar. (e) should be related to subpar (a), (b), and (c) considering Act No. 6657? Is it the PARAD/DARAB determined valuation or the
that the taking of possession by the state is the next step after DAR, and preliminary valuation as determined by the DAR/LBP?
LBP supplied with the notice requirements.
HELD:
In effect the SC is saying: it is the offer of the LBP that will determine The LBP posits that under Sec. 16 (e) of RA 6657, and as espoused in
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 18 it is the purchase
that that is the correct amount to be deposited not the amount after the
price offered by the DAR in its notice of acquisition of the land that must
determination of just compensation in a summary administrative be deposited in an accessible bank in the name of the landowner before
proceeding taking possession of the land, not the valuation of the PARAD.

44
Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9, Series of

The Court agrees with the LBP. 1990 was issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion
because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in lieu
Conspicuously, there is no mention of the PARAD in the foregoing Sec. of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the
16 (e) when it speaks of "the deposit with an accessible bank designated DAR, the compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are
by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA 6657. 9 Private
with this Act." Moreover, it is only after the DAR has made its final respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank merely
determination of the initial valuation of the land that the landowner may "earmarked," "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their
resort to the judicial determination of the just compensation for the land. names as landowners despite the clear mandate that before taking
Clearly, therefore, it is the initial valuation made by the DAR and LBP possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash
that is contained in the letter-offer to the landowner under Sec. 16 (a), or in bonds. 10
said valuation of which must be deposited and released to the landowner
prior to taking possession of the property. Petitioner DAR, however, maintained that Administrative Order No. 9 is a
valid exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA
It is clear from Sec. 16 of RA 6657 that it is the initial valuation made by 6657. 11 Moreover, the DAR maintained that the issuance of the
the DAR and the LBP that must be released to the landowner in order for "Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance
DAR to take possession of the property. Otherwise stated, Sec. 16 of RA with Section 16(e) of RA 6657.
6657 does not authorize the release of the PARAD's determination of just
compensation for the land which has not yet become final and ISSUE:
executory. Whether the opening of trust accounts for payment of just compensation
is valid.
Compensation in cash or in LBP bonds (Section 16) HELD:

The contention is untenable. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as
Payment of cash and bonds otherwise the government will go follows:
bankrupt if all in cash.
Bonds  to give the government time to appropriate in the future when "SECTION 16.Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — . . .
the bonds will mature
(e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in
VOS (Voluntary offer to sell): under the law, if you make VOS, landowner case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit
is entitled to 5% payment in cash, additional than that provided by law. with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in
cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take
Land Bank v. CA immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register
 Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the
permitting the opening of trust account by LBP, in lieu of Republic of the Philippines. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
depositing in cash or in LBP bonds.
SC: It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash"
 Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in “cash” or in “LBP or in "LBP bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the
bonds”; deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the intention to include
 Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have
can be made in any other form like a trust account; been made express, or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared
 There was no basis for issuance of order. from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In
sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an
WHY? Because the trust account is under the control of the trustee. The expanded construction of the term "deposit."
beneficiary-landowner cannot properly use or control the funds when the
funds is supposed to be given due for land owner.  not sanctioned by LBP vs Honeycomb
law Facts:
Honeycomb Farms Corporation (Honeycomb Farms) was the registered
SIR: ila baya ng yuta, gikuha ra sa gobyerno, di pa jud nimo bayaran owner of two parcels of agricultural land in Cataingan, Masbate.
ang just compensation niya? The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), as the agency vested with the
responsibility of determining the land valuation and compensation for
The same with the case of Honeycomb. parcels of land acquired pursuant to the CARL, 6 and using the
guidelines set forth in DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 17, series of
Land Bank v. CA 1989, as amended by DAR AO No. 3, series of 1991, fixed the value of
Facts these parcels of land.
Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired
by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries When Honeycomb Farms rejected this valuation for being too low, the
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL, Republic Act No. Voluntary Offer to Sell was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board,
6657). Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank Region V, Legaspi City, for a summary determination of the market value
with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation for their land of the properties.
pursuant to the provisions of RA 6657, private respondents filed with this
Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary HELD:
mandatory injunction. Private respondents questioned the validity of DAR As a final point, we have not failed to notice that the LBP in this case
Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 6 and DAR Administrative made use of trust accounts to pay Honeycomb Farms. In Land Bank of
Order No. 9, Series of 1990, 7 and sought to compel the DAR to expedite the Phil. v. CA, 29 this Court struck down as void DAR Administrative
the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the Circular No. 9, Series of 1990, providing for the opening of trust
just compensation of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in bonds contemplated in
cash and bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked," "reserved" and Section 16 (e) of RA 6657. We said: CSDcTH
"deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents, and to allow them
to withdraw the same. It is very explicit . . . [from Section 16(e)] that the deposit must be made
only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be

45
inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the
intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit, 4. Service of the NOC
that should have been made express, or at least, qualifying words ought
to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust 4.1. General rule — The NOC shall be addressed to and received
account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA by the LO.
6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit."
4.2. Service upon co-owners — In case of co-ownership, the NOC
xxx xxx xxx shall be served upon each and every co-owner, unless one is specifically
authorized to receive for the other co-owners. AHEDaI
In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to
enact rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. 4.3. Service upon minors or incompetents — When the LO is a
There is no basis in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of minor, insane or otherwise incompetent, service shall be made upon him
the landowner as compensation for his property because, as heretofore personally and to his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his
discussed, Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the DLR. In
must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." In the same vein, the case of a minor, service may also be made on his father and/or
petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 because mother.
these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of
the law. Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking 4.4. Service upon entity without juridical personality — When the
down Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void. LOs who are persons associated in an entity without juridical personality
are sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly
known, service may be effected upon all the LOs by serving upon any
Compulsory acquisition and notice requirements (Section 16) one of them, or upon the person in charge of the Office or place of
business maintained in such name. Such service shall not bind
DLR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04-05 individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due
notice, been severed before the proceeding was brought.
PROCEDURES
4.5. Service upon domestic private juridical entity — When the LO
1. Commencement is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of
the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the
1.1. Commencement by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
(PARO) — After determination by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer treasurer, in-house counsel or administrator.
(MARO) of the agricultural landholdings coverable under CARP in his
area of jurisdiction, he shall submit the list of these agricultural 4.6. Service upon LO whose identity or whereabouts is unknown —
landholdings to the PARO who shall prepare and send, through the In any proceeding where the LO is designated as an unknown owner, or
MARO, the NOC (CARP-LA Form No. 7) to the concerned LO. the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may be effected upon him by
1.2. Commencement by a party — Any person may commence the publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for
proceedings herein by filing a petition for coverage before the such time as the DLR may order.
Department of Land Reform (DLR) Central Office (DLRCO), DLR Regional
Office (DLRRO), DLR Provincial Office (DLRPO) or DLR Municipal Office 4.7. Extraterritorial service — When the LO does not reside and is
(DLRMO) of the region/province or municipality where the subject not found in the Philippines, or when the LO ordinarily resides within the
landholding is located. The DLR office which received the petition for Philippines but is temporarily out of the country, service may be made by
coverage shall transmit or forward the same to the PARO of the province publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for
where the subject landholding is located. The DLRPO, through the such time as the DLR may order.
MARO, shall validate the petition and shall issue the NOC, if warranted.
In the event that the result of the validation/evaluation by the 5. Modes of Service:
DLRMO/DLRPO is such that an NOC is not warranted, the DLRPO shall
forward its findings or that of the DLRMO to the DLRRO for evaluation 5.1. Personal Service — This is made by handing a copy of the
and issuance of an Order, treating the petition as an Agrarian Law NOC to the LO in person, or if the LO refuses to receive and sign the
Implementation (ALI) case. NOC for whatever reason, by tendering the same to him/her.
2. Posting of the NOC 5.2. Substituted Service — If personal service of the NOC cannot
be served directly to the LO within a reasonable time, service may be
The MARO shall post copies of the NOC for at least seven made by leaving copies of the NOC at the LO's:
(7) days in the bulletin boards or any conspicuous places in the
municipality/city and the barangay where the property is located and 5.2.1. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion
thereafter issue the corresponding Certification of Posting Compliance residing therein; or
(CARP-LA Form No. 5). 5.2.2. office or regular place of business with some competent person
in charge thereof.
3. By Whom the NOC is served 5.3. Service by Registered Mail — if personal or substituted service
is not practicable, service by registered mail will be made to the last
3.1. Upon receipt of a copy of the NOC and upon instruction by the known address of the LO. The registered mail envelope shall be marked
PARO (CARP-LA Form No. 8), the MARO where the subject landholding is "DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY" and "RETURN TO SENDER" if
located or any DLR personnel officially authorized by the PARO shall addressee has: MOVED OUT, UNKNOWN ADDRESS, REFUSED TO
cause the service of the NOC to the LO in accordance with these rules. ACCEPT OR INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS.
5.4. Service by publication — If any of the preceding three (3)
3.2. If the LO's residence is outside the Philippines or unknown, modes of service fails, the NOC will be published once in a newspaper of
the MARO of the place where the subject landholding is located shall general circulation. A "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped on the mailing
submit a report of such fact or failure to notify the LO through the envelope will serve as proof that the NOC was not received by the LO.
regular mode of service to the PARO, and shall request the latter to The publication need not state the entire contents of the NOC but only
cause the publication of the NOC in a newspaper of general circulation. the following essential particulars:

46
However, the law is silent on how the identification

5.4.1. Complete name/s of the LO/all LOs and last known address, if process must be made.
available;  Identification process in Sec. 16 is silent so DAR
5.4.2. Address or location of the subject landholding (barangay, filled gap (AO #12, s. 989)
municipality/city, province);
5.4.3. The number of the Original or Transfer Certificate of Title (OCT Situation: Violation on the procedure of compulsory acquisition
or TCT) or latest Tax Declaration (TD) covering the subject landholding; proceedings
5.4.4. A declaration that the Republic of the Philippines shall cover the
subject landholding under CARP; Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given
5.4.5. A reasonable period of thirty (30) days from publication date chance to validate (correct) proceedings.
within which the LO must file a response to the NOC, with a warning that -the violation does not give the court the power to nullify CLOA already
failure to do so within the period shall mean waiver of the right/privilege issued
to: apply for exemption/exclusion or choose the retention area;
nominate child/ren as preferred beneficiaries or submit evidence for Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in
determining just compensation. violation of law.
6. Proof of Service
SIR’s opinion: ROXAS should be controlling because the issue and the
6.1 Personal or substituted service — The proof of service of the ruling are in point. Fortich, in my opinion, is an obiter dictum because
NOC shall consist of: there was already a judgment that became final and executor and this
was challenged before the SC. They have already reached a win-win
6.1.1. Written admission of the LO served, or; resolution and because of that, there was just one or two sentences that
6.1.2. Official Return of the MARO or affidavit of the DLR personnel talked about cancelling the illegal CLOA. But this conclusion was
serving, stating the following: the date, place and manner of service, the pursuant to that final judgment.
papers, if any, which have been served with the process and name of
the person who received the same. Notice of Coverage:
6.2 Proof of service by registered mail — If service is made by  Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under
registered mail, proof may be made by the affidavit of the DLR personnel CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention right;
effecting the mail and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office.  Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he
The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may
sender or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter marked "RETURN TO attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land
SENDER" stamped by then post office concerned or together with the valuation and other pertinent matters.
certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the  Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his
addressee. landholding shall be conducted where he and the other
representatives may be present.
6.3 Proof of service by publication — If the service has been
made by publication, service may be proved by the following: 1) the Notice of Acquisition:
unclaimed or returned/unopened envelope referred to in paragraph 5.4  The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of
hereof; and 2) an affidavit of publication by the publisher or authorized compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just compensation
official together with a copy of the newspaper where the NOC appeared. offered by DAR.
 Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the
7. Voluntary appearance — The LO's voluntary appearance in Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall
the proceedings shall be equivalent to service of NOC. prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of
Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the
8. Notice of Field Investigation DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary
administrative hearing to determine just compensation.
Upon proof of service of the issuance of NOC, the MARO
sends to the LO an invitation letter for the conduct of field investigation  Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just
(CARP-LA Form No. 10). compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the
Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
Assoc. of Small Landowners:  Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of
Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the designated
private agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation). bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall
Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that: “Upon receipt by the immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the
landowner of the corresponding payment, or in case of rejection or no corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name
response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is
designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession
accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer  RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.  affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of
The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to whatever kind as long in excess of max retention limits;
the qualified beneficiaries”  intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or
Sec. 16, RA 6657 of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino
The title of the section states: “Procedure for Acquisition of nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished
Private Lands.” farmer to the land-glutted owner;
Section 6, RA 9700  does not cover only the whole territory of this country but
The title was amended: "SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future;
and Distribution of Private Lands."  Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling
 Confed v. DAR for "a just distribution" among the farmers of lands that have
 Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in heretofore been the prison of their dreams and deliverance
compulsory acquisition is the identification of the  Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA
land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. 6657, however, the chief limitations on the exercise of the

47
power of eminent domain, namely: (1) public use; and (2)

payment of just compensation, are embodied therein as well Applying the law, we held in Bautista v. Fule that the registration of an
as in the Constitution. instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates
 With respect to "public use,“ in Association of Small constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently deal
Landowners declared that the requirement of public use had with the same property.
already been settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for
agrarian reform”, which is the reason why private agricultural It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration is "to notify
lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the
prescribed maximum retention limits. property has been entered into." 64 There was, therefore, no reason for
 On “just compensation”, judicial determination is expressly DAR to feign ignorance of the transfer of ownership over the subject
prescribed in Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special property.
Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to Moreover, that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste, and not to
landowners. It bears stressing that the determination of just the Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the
compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the name
of Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only, court can review. of Deleste. Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property
are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless "good
Section 16 (f) clearly provides: indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right
“(f)Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at
matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just least, constructive possession."
compensation”
Petitioners' right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when the
Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court? DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under
 Rules of Court, including Rule 67 thereof, is not completely the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
disregarded in the implementation of RA 6657 since the
Special Agrarian Courts, in resolving petitions for the Failure to notify owners violating section 16.
determination of just compensation, are enjoined to apply the -Spouses Gregorio and Hilaria, childless. But the husband had a son
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court. name Virgilio by another woman but was raised by the couple. Gregorio
 Section 58 of RA 6657, like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court,
also had two daughters, Esperanza and Caridad by still another woman.
provides for the appointment of commissioners by the Special
Agrarian Courts. Gregorio died. Hilaria and Virgilio sold the land to Jose Deleste. Sale was
 Sec. 58: “may”; “motu proprio or instance of party” notarized, registered, declaration was cancelled and tax declaration was
 Rule 67: “shall” issued in the name of Deleste.
-DAR notified the heirs of Gregorio meaning that Deleste was not
Santos v. LBP : notified.
Facts:
RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land
SC: it was incumbent upon DAR to notify Deleste, he was the landowner,
taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, to be made
in cash and bonds. According to petitioner, said order illegally amended sale was registered and tax declaration was already in the name of
the judgment rendered which directs payment of compensation to be Deleste.
made "in the manner provided in RA 6657”. - petitioner’s right to due process was indeed violated, DAR failed to
notify them.
SC: - There can be no valid transfer of title should the CLT’s are void,
Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation cancellation of TCTs and OCTs are clearly warranted.
“in the manner provided by RA 6657” is not illegally amended but is
merely clarified by an order issued during execution proc that such
amount shall be paid in cash and bonds. There was also another case where SC sanctioned the cancellation of the
title for violating Sec. 16.
It is a matter of terminology because payment in cash and in bond are 1
the SAME in the manner provided by law. CHAPTER VI –COMPENSATION
Just Compensation:
Heirs of Deleste vs LBP  “full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by
HELD: expropriation” (Assoc. of Small Landowners). The word "just"
is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation"
On the violation of petitioners' right to due process of law to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the
property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, ample.”
Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting
the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program; Sec. 7, RA 9700:
hence, their right to due process of law was violated. "SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In
determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the
We agree with petitioners. The importance of an actual notice in value of the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its
subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program cannot be nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the
underrated, as non-compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential tax declarations, the assessment made by government assessors, and
requirements of administrative due process of law. seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the
It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the landowner DAR shall be considered, subject to the final decision of the proper
of the subject property. It should be noted that the deed of sale court. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and
executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was registered on March 2, 1954, the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the
and such registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole world nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing
that the subject property was already owned by Deleste by virtue of the institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to
said deed of sale. In Naval v. CA, this Court held: determine its valuation."

48
Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. Secretary is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the
grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the
JUST COMPENSATION; DEFINED. — Just compensation is defined as the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to
full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the the landowner.
expropriator.  However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial
court should determine the date of issuance of these
LBP v. Dumlao emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date of taking
Facts: and proceed to compute the just compensation due to
 Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27; respondents.
Determination of just compensation remained pending with  Petitioner’s argument that respondents should not be paid yet
DAR, so they filed complaint with RTC for determination. pending determination by DAR is specious.
SC:  To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect
 if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA and delay in processing is to violate the elementary rule that
No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable
although property was acquired under PD No. 27; period from the taking of property;
 the determination made by the trial court, which relied solely  Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation means not only the
on the formula prescribed by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, is correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner
grossly erroneous. The amount of P6,912.50 per hectare, of the land but also the payment of the land within a
which is based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment,
time of their taking in the 1970s", does not come close to a full compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property
and fair equivalent of the property taken from respondents; owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately
 CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or
P109,000.00 would have been a valid exercise of this judicial more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope
function, had it followed the mandatory formula prescribed by with his loss
RA No. 6657. However, the appellate court merely chose the
lower of two (2) values specified by the commissioner as basis PRINCIPLE: If an agri land is acquired under PD 27 but just
for determining just compensation, namely: (a) P109,000.00 compensation has not been paid until RA 6657 took effect, just
per hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated rice compensation will be computed on the basis of the present law, NOT
land in the Municipality of Villaverde; and (b) P60.00 per under PD 27.
square meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays
in Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because it does not REASON: It is inequitable that just compensation should be determined
adhere to the formula provided by RA No. 6657. under PD 27 because just compensation is defined as the full and ample
 It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be value of the land to be given to the LO.
given to the owner cannot be assumed and must be
determined with certainty. Under PD 27: only ONE factor in determining just compensation: average
 Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through crop harvest
AO No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by AO No. 11, Series of
1994: Under the Present law: FACTORS (Section 17)
Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory 1. cost of acquisition
Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the - Under Tax Law: basis either selling price or zonal evaluation
claim: whichever is higher
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1) 2. current value of like properties
Where: - case of Dumlao: factors were reduced into a formula by DAR.
LV = Land Value Formula upheld by SC as valid
CNI = Capitalized Net Income - value described in comparable sales
CS = Comparable Sales 3. actual use & income & nature;
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration 4. sworn valuation by owner;
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are 5. tax declaration;
present, relevant and applicable. - assessed value, market value, and classification of land
Note: 6. assessment made by Government assessors.
1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;
RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation. Additional factors under Sec. 17 because of the amendment:
2. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not 1. Value of the standing crop
been determined at the time of passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 2. Additional 70% of the zonal valuation of the BIR
27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect.
Other additional factors under the Nable Case:
Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, 1. Farming experience
assessed value at the time of the taking, location (i.e., along 2. Thumb method
highway) and the volume and value of its produce, like:
 (a) prevailing market value of in the area and EFFECT if just compensation is not based on the factors: NOT VALID
adjacent areas; - Even if the findings are based on the factors but not based on
 (b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to any evidence in relation to the factors: evaluation is without
augment and increase agricultural production; basis
 (c) available comparable sales in the area;
 (d) average harvests per hectare. You have decision from PARAD, do you need to go to RARAD or DARAB
before you can file a case with RTC? NO
 The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of - Sec. 57: Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian
computing just compensation should be reckoned from the Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
issuance dates of the emancipation patents. petitions for the determination of just compensation to
 Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under
of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. It this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings

49
before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this .12

Act.
- SAC refers to RTC AGP= Average Gross Production corresponding to the latest available 12
- Determination of DAR is only preliminary months gross production immediately preceding the date of FI (field
- Sec 16 (f): the final determination of just compensation is investigation)
vested on the Special Agrarian Courts
SP= Selling Price (the average of the latest available 12 months selling
Sps. Lee, vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, prices prior to the date of receipt of the CF (claim folder) by LBP for
processing, such prices to be secured from the Department of
Facts: Agriculture (DA) and other appropriate regulatory bodies or, in their
Petitioner were notified that their land holdings is covered by absence, from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. If possible, SP data
Gov't Action Scheme pursuant to CARP. They received a notice of Land shall be gathered for the barangay or municipality where the property is
valuation from DAR which offers P315, 307 for 3.195 hec. DAR located. In the absence thereof, SP may be secured within the province
Adjudication Board affirmed the compensation and valuation and or region.
declared that LBP fully complied with the criteria set forth by CARP.
Petitioners sought reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner filed a CO = Cost of Operations
petition for determination of Just Compensation before RTC. RTC acting
as Special Agrarian Court (SAC), citing appraisal report decided Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or verified, an
P7,978,750.00 as just compensation and ordered LBP to pay. assumed net income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. Landholdings
planted to coconut which are productive at the time of FI shall continue
Petition for review by LBP to CA and found that the SAC to use the assumed NIR of 70 %. DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct
made a wholesale adoption of the valuation of the appraisal company joint industry studies to establish the applicable NIR for each crop
and did not consider the other factors set forth in R.A. No. 6657 even covered under CARP.
though the appraisal company admitted that it did not consider as
applicable the CARP valuation of the property. Hence, this petition. 0.12 = Capitalization rate”
Held:
The Court finds that the factors required by the law and
The Court took note: enforced by the DAR Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC
“These factors have already been incorporated in a basic formula by the when it adopted wholeheartedly the valuation arrived at in the appraisal
DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. report. The Court repremands the case to the RTC acting as a Special
6657. AO No. 5 precisely filled in the details of Section 17, R. A. No. Agrarian Court for the determination of just compensation in accordance
6657 by providing a basic formula by which the factors mentioned with Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657.
therein may be taken into account. This formula has to be considered
by the SAC in tandem with all the factors referred to in Section 17 of the Sps. Lee v. LBP
law. The administrative order provides:  If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid .
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by (Note that in this case, there was admission that valuation
VOS or CA: was not based on factors under CARL: a representative of the company
admitted that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable).
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)  Case remanded.
Where:
LV = Land Value Land Bank of the Phils. vs. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,
CNI = Capitalized Net Income Facts:
CS = Comparable Sales Landholding of the respondents was placed under the
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration coverage of the land transfer program of P.D. 27. Petitioner pegged the
value of the acquired landholding at P106,935.76 based on the
The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present, relevant, guidelines set forth under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. 228. Respondents
and applicable. petitioned for valuation and determination of just compensation before
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator which fixed it to P80,000.00
A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, per hectare. Motion for Reconsideration was denied so the Petitioner
the formula shall be: petition for the determination of just compensation before the RTC
LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1) acting as SAC held that the value of P80,000.00 per hectare fixed by the
PARAD should be accorded weight and probative value and that the SAC
A2. When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, is guided by the various factors enumerated in Section 17of R.A. No.
the formula shall be: 6657 in determining just compensation. It disregarded respondents'
LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1) claim that the valuation should be based on the current market value of
the landholding since no evidence was adduced in support of the claim
A3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is and also did not accept petitioner's valuation as it was based on P.D. No.
applicable, the formula shall be: 27, in which just compensation was determined at the time of the taking
LV = MV x 2 of the property. CA rendered the assailed decision partly granting
petitioner's appeal but affirmed the SAC decision fixing just
In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed compensation at P80,000.00 per hec. Reconsideration was denied.
the lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or Hence, the instant petition, arguing that the formula set forth in P.D. No.
within the same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by 27/E.O. No. 228 should be applied in fixing just compensation since
LBP within one (1) year from receipt of claimfolder. respondents' landholding was acquired under P.D. No. 27 in cognizance
to a settled rule that just compensation is the value of the property at
--- the time of the taking, on 21 October 1972.
Where: Held:
CNI= The Court citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,
(AGPxSP) - CO “It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based

50
on the guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the Philippines where it declared that the reckoning period for the
DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable determination of just compensation is the time when the land was taken
length of time. That just compensation should be determined in applying P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228.
accordancewithRA6657,and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative
considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 vis a vis R.A. No. 6657 was applied to cases
of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent involving lands placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228
being real, substantial, full and ample.” where payment of just compensation had not been completed. When in
The Court remanded the determination of just compensation the interim R.A. No. 6657 was passed before the full payment of just
to RTC acting as SAC. compensation, as in the case at bar, the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on
just compensation control.
LBP v. Heirs of Cruz
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based
 If valuation is not based on any evidence, it is w/o basis, so on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's
determination be remanded. failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of
 In this case, decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence, time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with
so case was remanded. RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering
Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for determination of JC that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the
may be filed? property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being
 No: real, substantial, full and ample.
(a) because DAR may continue to alienate the lots during
the pendency of protest; LBP vs Livioco
(b) Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has orig and exclusive Facts:
jurisdiction. Respondent Enrique Livioco (Livioco) was the owner of 30.6329 hectares
 Content and Manner (Section 18) of sugarland 6 located in Dapdap, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Sometime
 Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits or LBP between 1987 and 1988, 7 Livioco offered his sugarland to the
bonds. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for acquisition under the CARP at
 Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash? P30.00 per square meter, for a total of P9,189,870.00. The voluntary-
No, because “revolutionary kind”. offer-to-sell (VOS) form 8 he submitted to the DAR indicated that his
 Parties involved (Section 18) property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an international
paper mill.
LBP vs. Jocson and sons
Facts: The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. Following
The property was placed under the coverage of the government's Section 17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order
Operation Land Transfer 2 (OLT) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 17, series of 1989, 11 as amended by Administrative Order No. 3,
No. 27 3 and awarded to the tenant-beneficiaries by the Department of series of 1991, 12 the LBP set the price at P3.21 per square meter or a
Agrarian Reform (DAR), which valued the compensation therefor in the total of P827,943.48 for 26 hectares. Livioco was then promptly informed
total amount of P250,563.80 following the formula prescribed in P.D. No. of the valuation 14 and that the cash portion of the claim proceeds have
27 and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228. 4 been "kept in trust pending [his] submission of the [ownership
documentary] requirements." 15 It appears however that Livioco did not
The valuation was later increased to P903,637.03 after computing the act upon the notice given to him by both government agencies. On
6% annual interest increment 5 due on the property per DAR September 20, 1991, LBP issued a certification to the Register of Deeds
Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994, which amount respondent of Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827,943.48 as
withdrew in 1997, without prejudice to the outcome of the case it had compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares.
filed hereunder to fix just compensation.
It was only two years later 17 that Livioco requested for a reevaluation
Finding the DAR's offer of compensation for the property to be grossly of the compensation on the ground that its value had already
inadequate, respondent filed a complaint 6 on July 18, 1997 before the appreciated from the time it was first offered for sale. 18 The request
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Br. 46, sitting as a Special Agrarian was denied by Regional Director Antonio Nuesa on the ground that there
Court (SAC), against the Land Bank (petitioner), 7 the DAR, and the was already a perfected sale.
tenant-beneficiaries, for "Determination and Fixing of Just Compensation
for the Acquisition of Land and Payment of Rentals". Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes
was an outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco finally filed a
In their respective Answers, petitioner and the DAR claimed that the petition for judicial determination of just compensation against DAR,
property was acquired by the government under its OLT program and LBP, and the CLOA holders.
their valuation thereof constituted just compensation, having been made
pursuant to the guidelines set by E.O. No. 228 and P.D. No. 27. In this Petition before us, LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of
Livioco's property as a residential land. It maintains that it is not the
In arriving at the just compensation, the SAC adopted a higher valuation State's policy to purchase residential land. Since the property was
(P93,657.00/hectare) which the DAR had applied to a similar landholding acquired under the CARP, it had to be valued as an agricultural land.
belonging to one Pablo Estacion adjacent to respondent's.
Issue
Issue:
Whether the SAC erred in the valuation the land Was the compensation for respondent's property determined in
accordance with law?
HELD:
In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Chico, 27 the Court HELD:
declared in no uncertain terms that R.A. No. 6657 is the relevant law for For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an
determining just compensation after noting several decided cases where expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the
the Court found it more equitable to determine just compensation based time of taking. 68 There are three important concepts in this definition —
on the value of the property at the time of payment. This was a clear the character of the property, its price, and the time of actual taking.
departure from the Court's earlier stance in Gabatin v. Land Bank of the

51
The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barrido. 26 In Barrido, we were explicit in
has changed from agricultural to residential, because there is no stating that:
allegation or proof that the property was approved for conversion to
other uses by DAR. It is the DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial
and to approve land use conversions 73 so as to prevent fraudulent function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge
evasions from agrarian reform coverage. Even reclassification 74 and cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the
plans for expropriation 75 by local government units (LGUs) will not ipso factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special
facto convert an agricultural property to residential, industrial or Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in
commercial. Thus, in the absence of any DAR approval for the DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order
conversion of respondent's property or an actual expropriation by an is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts
LGU, it cannot be said that the character or use of said property changed cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided
from agricultural to residential. Respondent's property remains by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.
agricultural and should be valued as such. Hence, the CA and the trial
court had no legal basis for considering the subject property's value as Valuation and Payment (Section 18)
residential. FORMS OF PAYMENT
Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property SEC. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. - The LBP shall
(which the lower courts found to be preponderant) could, at most, refer compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by
to the potential use of the property. While the potential use of an the landowner and the DAR and LBP or as may be finally determined by
expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where there is a the court as just compensation for the land.
great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property, it
should never control the determination of just compensation (which The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes at the
appears to be what the lower courts have erroneously done). The option of the landowner:
potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for
determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled (1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions:
doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is (a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is
determined by its character and its price at the time of taking, not its concerned - Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in
potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the property or its government financial instruments negotiable at any time.
"adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, not the ultimate in
determining just compensation." 77 (b) For lands above twenty-four hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares -
Thirty percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in government
The proper approach should have been to value respondent's property financial instruments negotiable at any time.
as an agricultural land, which value may be adjusted in light of the
improvements in the Municipality of Mabalacat. Valuing the property as a (c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below - Thirty-five percent
residential land (as the lower courts have done) is not the correct (35%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments
approach, for reasons explained above. It would also be contrary to the negotiable at any time.
social policy of agrarian reform, which is to free the tillers of the land
from the bondage of the soil without delivering them to the new (2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations,
oppression of exorbitant land valuations. Note that in lands acquired LBP preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in
under RA 6657, it is the farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the accordance with guidelines set by the PARC;
valuations paid to the former land owners (LBP merely advances the
payment). 78 If the farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands (3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;
valued as residential lands (the valuation for which is substantially higher
than the valuation for agricultural lands), it is not unlikely that such (4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:
farmers, unable to keep up with payment amortizations, will be forced to
give up their landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to sell the (a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten
property to other parties. This may just bring the State right back to the percent (10%) of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year
starting line where the landless remain landless and the rich acquire from the date of issuance until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That
more landholdings from desperate farmers. should the landowner choose to forego the cash portion, whether in full
or in part, he shall be paid correspondingly in LBP bonds;
LO tried to prove that lot was residential not agricultural for higher just (b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the
compensation. There were several evidences presented by owner; landowner, his successors-in-interest or his assigns, up to the amount of
certification from the municipal planning office, zoning, HLURB, etc. their face value for any of the following:
SC: No clearance from DAR. No allegation or proof that there was a (i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government,
conversion clearance from agri to residential. That means that the land including assets under the Assets Privatization Program and other assets
has to be valued as agricultural land, NOT residential. foreclosed by government financial institution in the same province or
region where the lands for which the bonds were paid are situated;
DISCUSSION: Do you need conversion clearance? SIR: IMO, no more.
- You need conversion clearance for purposes of real property (ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or controlled
tax in LGU corporations or shares or stock owned by the government in private
- Or assurance from DAR that your land is not covered under corporations;
DAR because the use is not anymore for agricultural activity
- Under sec. 17, no factor of conversion but actual use of the (iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of
land accused persons, or for performance bonds;
LBP vs Honeycomb (iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided
HELD: We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the the proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise,
applicable DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines preferably in a small and medium-scale industry, in the same province or
v. Lim, 24 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, 25 and region as the land for which the bonds are paid;

52
(v) Payment for various taxes and fees to the government: Provided, - WHY? Implementation of the program is with DAR in the
That the use of these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a EXECUTIVE aspect. There is another aspect of DAR which is
certain percentage of the outstanding balance of the financial quasi-judicial.
instrument: Provided, further, That the PARC shall determine the - Probably, LBP coordinates with DAR in the implementation
percentages mentioned above; aspect but LBP cannot dictate the quasi-judicial aspect
(vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original SC: these are the parties involving just compensation under Sec. 18.:
bondholder in government universities, colleges, trade schools and other Landowner, DAR, and LBP. LBP is not merely a nominal party but is
institutions; indispensable, independent of DAR.
(vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder
in government hospitals; and DAR vs Heirs of Domingo
Facts:
(viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow. The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a
In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take 70.3420-hectare rice land situated at Macapabellag, Guimba, Nueva
appropriate measures to protect the economy. Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-97157.
LO can withdraw… On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 2 (P.D. No. 27) was
issued, pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private agricultural
LBP vs Darab lands devoted to rice and corn were deemed as full owners of the land
- the valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the they till. The land transfer program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently
landowners, After re-computation upon order of PARAD, a revaluated implemented by Executive Order No. 228.
amount was made but Los still found it low. Los appealed to DARAB,.
Pending resolution of their appeal Los interposed a Motion to Withdraw On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Amended Valuation seeking the release to tem of the amount Guimba, Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just
representing the difference between the initial value. compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR.
SC- the need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just
amount deposited in their behalf, pending final determination of what is compensation for the subject land should be computed using the
just compensation for their land parameters set forth under Republic Act No. 6657 4 (R.A. No. 6657).
- it is a an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not
allow withdraw The LBP and DAR disputed Domingo's valuation and claimed that the
- it is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional determination of just compensation should be governed by the
compensation under Section 16 (e) and final compensation under provisions of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
Section 18 for the purposes of exercising the landowners’ right to
appropriate the same. The immediate effect in other situations in the ISSUE:
same, the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation of
property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. just compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken by
the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No.
SC invalidated LBP’s practice of opening trust accounts in favor of the 228.
landowner.
HELD:
In case the amount has already been deposited, even if the landowner Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process
questions the accuracy or the validity of the amount deposited and will is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private
thereafter file with the RTC for determination of just compensation, the respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic
LO can withdraw the amount deposited.  Part of his right to just Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process, the just
compensation compensation should be determined and the process concluded under
the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO
It should be deposited in the name of the landowner, not trust accounts 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v.
(trust accounts not expressly stated in Sec. 18) Alfeche.
xxx xxx xxx

Heirs of Lorenzo vs. LBP
- Petitioner are owners of land; first valuation was rejected but It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based
upon re-computation and order of RRAD, the revaluation was accepted on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's
by owners LBP filed MR but denied, LBP filed an opposition for failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of
determination of JC with the RTC time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with
- Petitioner submit that LBP has no legal personality RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering
- SEC 18, clearly states there should be a consensus among that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the
- LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedings property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being
under RA 6657 and thus has the legal personality to question the real, substantial, full and ample.
determination.
Same Principle with Dumlao Case: Based on RA 6657 not PD 27: Basis:
There are cases where LBP is the plaintiff of an RTC Case. Equity
FACTS: LBP did not agree with the computation of RARAD. Landbank Content and manner of compensation
filed the case in RTC. Challenged by the petitioners that LBP has no legal
personality to institute the agrarian case. Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits, or LBP bonds
Is it possible that LBP and DAR cannot agree with the evaluation? YES Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash?

53
- No, because “revolutionary kind” and also practicality (Gov. - sec. 10 (c) exceptions and exemptions; esp. Central Mindanao Case
will go bankrupt if we rely on the ordinary expropriation which - association of small landowners: revolutionary kind of expro:
is all in cash) justification of the SC
- Cash usually only 25-30% - sec. 16: procedure on compulsory acquisition (heirs of Trinidad: correct
- LBP bonds usually spreads/matures in 10 years. (gives the payment of deposit)
Gov time) - Livioco: Landowner tried to prove that land is residential. There were
several evidences, etc… SC: no clearance from DAR. Land is valued as
Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. Sec. Agricultural land.
- sec. 6 homestead (note the important qualifications) (cases: Alita and
We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of Paris vs. Alfeche)
eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a - Dumlao case: just compensation PD  RA 6657: computed on the
specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the basis of the present law
State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we - landbank of the phil: whether it has legal personality to file a case
deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The expropriation before RTC involving just compensation?
before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of - Ways of distribution of lands to qualified beneficiaries (Chapter 3):
whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention voluntary offer (sec.20), compulsory (Sec. 16), non-land transfer
limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not mere schemes (SDO, Leasehold operation- sec.12)
millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous. - type: 60 (mcq) -40
The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his Additional from Francis
option, are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of
stock, LBP bonds, other properties or assets, tax credits, and other - Confed vs. DAR (2 chief limitations)
things of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation. - 6 requisites of agrarian dispute (know different principles of the case)
- definition of agricultural land (Alangilan case)
Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always required to - Sec. 16: (heirs of deleste): correct amount to be deposited by landbank
be made fully in money. - preliminary determination of just compensation by DAR vs. RTC as
special agrarian court
- sec. 16: notice of acquisition (who is to be notified): heirs of Trinidad
Parties Involved (Section 18) case
Land Bank v. CA:

The parties are DAR, landowner and LBP. The law does not
mention the participation of farmer-beneficiary.
So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in Payment in interest in just compensation
establishing proper compensation.
 Voluntary offer (Section 19) Apo Fruits corp. vs CA
 Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash payment if LO
voluntarily offers land for sale. Facts:
 Voluntary land transfer (Secs. 20 and 21) On October 12, 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the lands
subject of this case pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive
How is VLT made? Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL). The Department of Agrarian Reform
Sec. 20 – LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for direct transfer to (DAR) referred their voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) applications to Land
qualified beneficiaries but subject to guidelines (i.e., all notices for VLT Bank for initial valuation. Land Bank fixed the just compensation at
be submitted to DAR within 1st year of implementation of CARP, terms P165,484.47/hectare, that is, P86,900,925.88, for AFC, and
and conditions shall not be less favorable to transferee). P164,478,178.14, for HPI. The valuation was rejected, however,
prompting Land Bank, upon the advice of DAR, to open deposit accounts
Sec. 21 – direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under in the names of the petitioners, and to credit in said accounts the sums
terms mutually agreed and which shall be binding upon registration and of P26,409,549.86 (AFC) and P45,481,706.76 (HPI). Both petitioners
approval by DAR. withdrew the amounts in cash from the accounts, but afterwards, on
 Sec. 44 (2) – provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC February 14, 1997, they filed separate complaints for determination of
the adoption of direct payment scheme. So, AO #2, s. 1995 just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
was issued:
 Beneficiaries are determined by DAR; When DARAB did not act on their complaints for determination of just
 Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area compensation after more than three years, the petitioners filed
which the govt would otherwise acquire; complaints for determination of just compensation with the Regional
 CLOA’s should bear proper annotations. Trial Court (RTC) in Tagum City, Branch 2, acting as a special agrarian
court (SAC), docketed as Agrarian Cases No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000.
END OF MIDTERM (But take note of SEC. 27 on page 37… apil sa Summonses were served on May 23, 2000 to Land Bank and DAR, which
exam) respectively filed their answers on July 26, 2000 and August 18, 2000.
The RTC conducted a pre-trial, and appointed persons it considered
Room 405 competent, qualified and disinterested as commissioners to determine
- Except no. 3 LBP vs. Nable the proper valuation of the properties.
- Not including payment of interest (3 cases)
- Nable not included
- Sec. 27 (Carper) transferability, how many years is the prohibited The RTC rendered its decision:
period? 4 exceptions?
- agricultural activity, agrarian dispute, agricultural land (read all DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE
the cases)  concentrate here PHILIPPINES, thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly and severally
- ra 3844: focus on in case of death of lessee, who will assume the Commissioners' fees herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to
cultivation; grounds to dispossess lessee; 2 cases (Po and Sta. Ana Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, equivalent to,
cases) and computed at Two and One-Half (2 1/2) percent of the determined

54
and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and just compensation of hectares of land 3 owned by the respondents, 18.2820 hectares were
plaintiffs' land and standing crops plus interest equivalent to the interest placed under the Operations Land Transfer and the CARP pursuant to
of the 91-Day Treasury Bills from date of taking until full payment; Presidential Decree No. 27 4 and Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. 5
ISSUE:
Whether or not the interest was validly imposed. The LBP 6 pegged the value of 18.0491 hectares of land at P482,363.95
7 (P133,751.65 as land value plus P348,612.30 incremental interest),
HELD: while the remaining 0.2329 hectare was computed at P8,238.94. 8 Not
It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA, satisfied with the valuation, respondents, on 23 November 2000,
by filing a notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in March 2003 its instituted a Complaint 9 for judicial determination of just compensation
petition for certiorari in the CA only because the RTC did not give due with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, 10 sitting as a Special
course to its appeal. Any intervening delay thereby entailed could not be Agrarian Court (SAC). Respondents alleged that they are entitled to an
attributed to Land Bank, however, considering that assailing an amount of not less than P4,500,000.00 as just compensation. 11
erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy afforded by law to
every losing party, who cannot thus be considered to act in bad faith or On 21 February 2005, the SAC rendered a judgment, ordering LBP to
in an unreasonable manner as to make such party guilty of unjustified pay the respondents P894,584.94. The dispositive portion reads:
delay. As stated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation:
18 HAcaCS ACCORDINGLY, the just compensation of the 18.0491 hectares of
irrigated riceland is P133,751.79, plus increment of 6% per annum
The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court computed annually beginning October 21, 1972, until the value is fully
of Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of paid, and of the 0.2329 hectare of rain fed riceland is P8,238.94 plus
just compensation to KPCI. . . . It may disagree with DAR and the 12% interest per annum, beginning August 17, 1998, until the value is
landowner as to the amount of just compensation to be paid to the latter fully paid or a total of P894,584.94 as of this date. Land Bank is ordered
and may also disagree with them and bring the matter to court for to pay the landowners Domingo Soriano and Mamerto Soriano said
judicial determination. This makes LBP an indispensable party in cases amount/land value in accordance with law.
involving just compensation for lands taken under the Agrarian Reform
Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such cases that are Both parties disagreed with the trial court's valuation, prompting them to
unfavorable to it. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case, file their respective appeals with the Court of Appeals. The appellate
LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for interest. court, however, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It also upheld
the award of compounded interest, thus:
It is explicit from LBP v. Wycoco that interest on the just compensation is In the case at bar, the subject lands were taken under PD 27 and were
imposed only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be covered by Operation Land Transfer, making the aforecited
sufficiently established. Given the foregoing, we find that the imposition Administrative Order applicable.
of interest on the award of just compensation is not justified and should
therefore be deleted. HELD:
It must be emphasized that "pertinent amounts were deposited in favor In the instant case, while the subject lands were acquired under
of AFC and HPI within fourteen months after the filing by the latter of Presidential Decree No. 27, the complaint for just compensation was only
the Complaint for determination of just compensation before the RTC". It lodged before the court on 23 November 2000 or long after the passage
is likewise true that AFC and HPI already collected P149.6 and P262 of Republic Act No. 6657 in 1988. Therefore, Section 17 of Republic Act
million, respectively, representing just compensation for the subject No. 6657 should be the principal basis of the computation for just
properties. Clearly, there is no unreasonable delay in the payment of just compensation. As a matter of fact, the factors enumerated therein had
compensation which should warrant the award of 12% interest per already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its
annum in AFC and HPI's favor. rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657.
APO: GR: When it comes to just compensation, there is no interest to be The award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to
imposed. ensure prompt payment. Moreover, respondents claim that the date LBP
EX: in case of delay on the basis of Art. 2209 approves the payment of the land transfer claim and deposits the
- How do you appreciate delay? Depending on the FACTS proceeds in the name of the landowner is not tantamount to actual
payment because on said date, the release of the amount is conditioned
Apo: Rate of interest is 12%.  in relation to damages (2209) as in on certain requirements.
forbearance of money
- Already amended from 12%- 6% per annum (July 2013) Note: RA 6657 – 12%
- But per jurisprudence, 12% per annum PD 27 – 6%
Soriano: rate of interest is 6% LBP vs Rivera

- Based on admin order issued by DAR: that the rates of
interest to be imposed on lands acquired under PD 27 is 6% Facts:
- Not the issue in the case but is the reckoning point (from The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land
where 6% should be imposed) embraced by Original Certificate of Title No. P-082, and later transferred
- LBP: reckoned from the date of taking (advantageous to in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-95690 that was
government) placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to
- SC: NO! should be reckoned from the payment of just Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972. Only 18.8704 hectares of the total
compensation. area of 20.5254 hectares were subject of the coverage.
LBP vs Soriano After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment, LBP
approved the payment of P265,494.20, exclusive of the advance
Facts: payments made in the form of lease rental amounting to P75,415.88 but
Domingo and Mamerto Soriano (respondents) are the registered owners inclusive of 6% increment of P191,876.99 pursuant to DAR
of several parcels of rice land situated in Oas, Albay. Out of the 18.9163 Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994.

55
purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries, if such

On 1 December 1994, the respondents instituted Civil Case No. 94-03 for offers have been made and are fully known to both parties.
determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional (c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance
Trial Court. by either party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation
monitored by the DAR.
LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under the
coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 7 were governed and valued in SEC. 21. Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary
accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 8 as Land Transfer.- Direct payment in cash or in kind may be made by the
implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1987 and farmer-beneficiary to the landowner under terms to be mutually agreed
other statutes and administrative issuances; that the administrative upon by both parties, which shall be binding upon them, upon
valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive registration with and approval by the DAR. Said approval shall be
Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm; considered given, unless notice of disapproval is received by the farmer-
that the funds that LBP would use to pay compensation were public beneficiary within 30 days from the date of registration. In the event
funds to be disbursed only in accordance with existing laws and they cannot agree on the price of the land, the procedure for compulsory
regulations; that the supporting documents were not yet received by acquisition as provided in Section 16 shall apply. The LBP shall extend
LBP; and that the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 27 and financing to the beneficiaries for purposes of acquiring the land.
Executive Order No. 228 was already settled.
Chapter VII
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 19 we affirmed the award of 12%
interest on just compensation due to the landowner. The court decreed: Distribution of lands to landless residents (will not be included in the
Midterms)
The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be - Defined under Sec. 2: Landless resident does not necessarily
the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly mean that a person does not own a land. One can be
described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual considered landless for purposes of CARP if that person does
and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of not own more than 3 hectares of land.
the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell,
if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Thus, if QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
property is taken for public use before compensation is (1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as
deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence
final compensation must include interest on its just value to be thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following
computed from the time the property is taken to the time when order of priority:
compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. In (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
fine, between the taking of the property and the actual (b) regular farmworkers;
payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a (c) seasonal farmworkers;
position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in (d) other farmworkers;
before the taking occurred. (e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing (g) others directly working on the land;
interest on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time
petitioner instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the property Previous law: there is no provision that (a) and (b) should be prioritized
in September 1969. This allowance of interest on the amount found to Amendment: they are prioritized of that same landholding up to a
be the value of the property as of the time of the taking computed, maximum of 3 hectares each.
being an effective forbearance, at 12% per annum should help eliminate
the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the (2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given
currency over time. preference in the distribution of the land of their parents.
(3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or

Voluntary Offer for Sale (Section 19) removed therefrom.
SEC. 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. - Landowners other (4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably
than banks and other financial institutions who voluntarily offer their sold, disposed of, or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become
lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash beneficiaries under the Program.
payment.
(5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude,
NOTE: Under CARPER, there is no more voluntary offer. Only compulsory and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.
acquisition
Presupposing that the beneficiary has registered with the department.
Voluntary Transfer (Section 20 and 21)
(6) If, due to the landowner’s retention rights or to the number of
SEC. 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. - Landowners of agricultural lands tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to
subject to acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of
arrangement for direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries other lands available for distribution under the Act, at the option of the
subject to the following guidelines: beneficiaries.
(a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR
within the first year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations (8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of
between the landowners and qualified beneficiaries covering any agricultural land. (Sec. 23)
voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall
not be recognized and such land shall instead be acquired by the Beneficiaries to be awarded with the land of Polo Coconut were
government and transferred pursuant to this Act. questioned by Polo Coconut.
(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable Polo: these beneficiaries are not tenants of our land thus not qualified.
to the transferee than those of the government's standing offer to

56
SC: it is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries. (1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the
beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortization at 6% interest
Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of per annum subject to the following rules:
the landowners. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed (a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award
grave abuse of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were may be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC.
not tenants of PCPCI (DAR vs. Polo Coconut Plantation Co., In., et (b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than
al., G.R. 168787, September 3, 2008). 5% of the value of the annual gross production as established by the
DAR.
(c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year
Award Ceiling Limit (Section 23) exceed 10% of the annual gross production and the failure to produce
accordingly is not due to the beneficiary’s fault, the LBP may reduce the
SEC. 23. Distribution Limit. - No qualified beneficiary may own more than interest rate or reduce the principal obligation to make the repayment
three (3) hectares of agricultural land. affordable.
AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES (2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on
 Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage may be
Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three(3)
restrictions and conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be annual amortization. The LBP shall advice the DAR of such proceedings
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other
the Certificate of Title. (Sec. 24) qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land has been foreclosed
shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary
Same principle of indefeasibility and imprescriptibility after one year from under the Act. (Sec. 26.)
registration  due to the amendment (RA 9700)
If there is certification of deposit, it is the ministerial duty of the RD. TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS (Sec. 27)
(1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be
Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to
 When certificate issued. – Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 the government, or to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a
provides that the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary period of ten (10) years. However, the children of the spouse of the
shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government
land to him, which award shall be completed within 180 days or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of
from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall be evidenced Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The
by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) shall,
Ownership Award (CLOA), which shall contain the restrictions, in turn, be given the due notice thereof by the BARC.
and conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in
the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Land titles: one year repurchase from registration; here, it is two years
Certificate of Title.
(2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights
to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the
If there is no CLOA yet (for any reason), beneficiary will be issued CARP DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a
Beneficiary Certificate. condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land
himself.
Beneficiaries are required to pay LBP in 30 annual amortizations with 6%
interest per annum. Lebrudo vs Loyola
In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately Facts:

issued pending the fulfillment of certain legal and administrative Respondent Remedios Loyola (Loyola) owns a parcel of land located in
requirements. Examples of these are: Barangay Milagrosa, Carmona, Cavite, awarded by the Department of
(a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Association of Small Agrarian Reform (DAR) under Republic Act No. 6657 4 (RA 6657) or the
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform” Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. This lot is covered by
(G.R. No. 76742, 14,July 1989.) that title to all expropriated properties Certificate of Land Ownership 5 (CLOA) No. 20210 issued in favor of
shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation Loyola on 27 December 1990 and duly registered on 14 March 1991
to their respective landowners; under Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT)/CLOA No. 998.
(b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of On 27 June 1995, petitioner Julian S. Lebrudo (Lebrudo), now deceased
land being awarded through the EP or CLOA. and represented by his son, petitioner Reynaldo L. Lebrudo, filed with
Cont. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1)… the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of
 Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the Trece Martires City, Cavite, an action 6 for the cancellation of the
identified beneficiaries may already be in possession of the TCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola and the issuance of another for the
land but still have no EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, one-half portion of the lot in Lebrudo's favor.
the DAR shall first issue a CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to
provide the would-be beneficiaries, an intermediate document In a Decision 7 dated 18 December 1995, the PARAD dismissed the case
to evidence that they have been identified and have qualified without prejudice on the ground that the case was filed prematurely. On
as agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP. Moreover, 11 March 1996, Lebrudo re-filed the same action. 8
aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the identified
beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof, the CBC Lebrudo alleged that he was approached by Loyola sometime in 1989 to
issued shall entitle the recipient to receive support services redeem the lot, which was mortgaged by Loyola's mother, Cristina Hugo,
under the CARP. to Trinidad Barreto. After Lebrudo redeemed the lot for P250.00 and a
cavan of palay, Loyola again sought Lebrudo's help in obtaining title to
PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES the lot in her name by shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of

57
the title of the lot from her mother, Cristina Hugo. In exchange, Loyola (1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners’
promised to give Lebrudo the one-half portion of the lot. Thereafter, retained areas or lands not yet due for distribution are placed
TCT/CLOA No. 998 was issued in favor of Loyola. Loyola then allegedly under leasehold to ensure farmers’ security over the land they
executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay 9 dated 28 December 1989, waiving till and pre-empt their displacement while waiting for the
and transferring her rights over the one-half portion of the lot in favor of eventual distribution of the land;
Lebrudo. To reiterate her commitment, Loyola allegedly executed two (2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim
more Sinumpaang Salaysay 10 dated 1 December 1992 and 3 December measure while the lands owned or operated by agricultural
1992, committing herself to remove her house constructed on the entities await coverage under the CARP. There entities are
corresponding one-half portion to be allotted to Lebrudo. companies mostly involved in the commercial production of
rubber, banana, and pineapple;
Thereafter, Lebrudo asked Loyola to comply with her promise. However, (3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the
Loyola refused. Lebrudo sought the assistance of the Sangguniang farmers are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits
Barangay of Milagrosa, Carmona, Cavite; the Philippine National Police and are also assured of at least a representatives at the Board
(PNP) of Carmona, Cavite; and the Department of Agrarian Reform to of Directors, management or executive committee to protect
mediate. However, despite steps taken to amicably settle the issue, as the rights and interest of shareholders; and
evidenced by certifications from the PNP and the barangay, there was no (4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). – This scheme provides
amicable settlement. Thus, Lebrudo filed an action against Loyola. corporate landowners of newly-established commercial
plantations enough time to recover their investment before
In her Answer, Loyola maintained that Lebrudo was the one who such agricultural lands are covered by CARP. The deferment
approached her and offered to redeem the lot and the release of the period was up to 1998. Pending final land transfer, however,
CLOA. Loyola denied promising one-half portion of the lot as payment for these corporations shall implement a production and profit-
the transfer, titling and registration of the lot. Loyola explained that the sharing scheme in their farms.
lot was her only property and it was already being occupied by her The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the
children and their families. DAR has not been given much priority, as there has been greater
pressure for them to deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD)
ISSUE: targets.
The main issue is whether Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of
the lot covered by RA 6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of LEBRUDO: There was a violation of the prohibited period (sold within
rights embodied in the two Sinumpaang Salaysay. the prohibitory period). There was a waiver, signed by the owner.
Subject is the validity of the waiver
HELD:
SC: Waiver is void. It violated the law.
A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing
ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR,
and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and
other applicable laws. Section 27 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700, Chapter VIII (Corporate Farms)
20 which provides for the transferability of awarded lands, states:
SEC. 31. Corporate Landowners. - Corporate landowners may
SEC. 27.Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the
beneficiaries under this ACT may not be sold, transferred or conveyed Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified
except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the beneficiaries, under such terms and conditions consistent with this Act,
LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. as they may agree upon, subject to confirmation by the DAR.
Upon certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands
It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under may give their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold, proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural
transferred or conveyed for a period of 10 years. The law enumerate land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the
four exceptions: (1) through hereditary succession; (2) to the company's total assets, under such terms and conditions as may be
government; 3) to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); or (4) to other agreed upon by them. In no case shall the compensation received by the
qualified beneficiaries. In short, during the prohibitory 10-year period, workers at the time the shares of stocks are distributed be reduced. The
any sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform rights is void, except as same principle shall be applied to associations, with respect to their
allowed by law, in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian reform equity or participation.
laws.
Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their
In the present case, Lebrudo insists that he is entitled to one-half portion capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other
of the lot awarded to Loyola under the CARP as payment for shouldering qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have
all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from Loyola's complied with the provisions of this Act: Provided, That the following
mother, Cristina Hugo, to Loyola's name. Lebrudo used the two condition are complied with:
Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola alloting to him the one-half
portion of the lot as basis for his claim. (a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of
stocks to dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the
Lebrudo's assertion must fail. The law expressly prohibits any sale, corporation or association shall be subject to periodic audit by certified
transfer or conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land reform rights public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries;
within 10 years from the grant by the DAR. The law provides for four (b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or
exceptions and Lebrudo does not fall under any of the exceptions. In association, the beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1)
Maylem v. Ellano, 21 we held that the waiver of rights and interests over representative in the board of directors, or in a management or
landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for being violative of executive committee, if one exists, of the corporation or association;
agrarian reform laws. Clearly, the waiver and transfer of rights to the lot (c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the
as embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola is void for same rights and features as all other shares; and
falling under the 10-year prohibitory period specified in RA 6657. (d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be
void ab initio UNLESS said transaction is in favor of a qualified and
NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES registered beneficiary within the same corporation.

58
after it has been implemented by the parties.[13][93] To HLI, it is the

If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock court which has jurisdiction and authority to order the revocation or
transfer envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such rescission of the PARC-approved SDP.
stock distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the
agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject HELD
to the compulsory coverage of this Act. We disagree.
Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to
HLI vs PRAC approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner
belongs to PARC. However, contrary to petitioner HLI’s posture, PARC
BASIC Facts: also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously approved. It
THE HACIENDA COMPRISED 6,443 HAS. IN 1957 TABACALERA SOLD may be, as urged, that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian
THE LAND TO TADECO OWNED BY THE COJUANCOS. GSIS FINANCED reform do not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an
THE PURCHASE ON CONDITION THAT THE LAND WILL ULTIMATELY BE approved SDP. Such power or authority, however, is deemed possessed
SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD TO THE TENANTS. by PARC under the principle of necessary implication, a basic postulate
that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is
IN 1980 GOVT FILED AT RTC MANILA CASE AGAINST TADECO FOR IT expressed.[14][94]
TO SURRENDER THE HACIENDA TO MAR (NOW DAR) SO THE LAND We have explained that “every statute is understood, by implication, to
WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO FARMERS. MANILA RTC RULED AGAINST contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object
TADECO. TADECO APPEALED TO CA. IN 1988 CA DISMISSED THE and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or
APPEAL SUBJECT TO REVIVAL IF TADECO FAILS TO GET APPROVAL OF jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary
FARMERS OF STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO) AND IF OPTED BY consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its
FARMERS TADECO FAILS TO IMPLEMENT SDO. terms.”[15][95] Further, “every statutory grant of power, right or
privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or
IN 1988 TADECO CREATED HACIENDA LUISITA INC (HLI) AND TADECO privilege.[16][96]
BOUGHT SHARES OF HLI IN EXCHANGE OF THE HACIENDA LAND. THE
TOTAL SHARES WERE 400,000,000 WITH PAR VALUE OF Gordon v. Veridiano II is instructive:
P400,000,000.00. 150,000,000 SHARES WERE FOR FARMERS AND The power to approve a license includes by implication, even if not
250,000,000 SHARES FOR OTHER STOCKHOLDERS. FARMERS AND HLI expressly granted, the power to revoke it. By extension, the power to
ENTERED INTO STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION AGREEMENT (SDOA) revoke is limited by the authority to grant the license, from which it is
WHICH PROVIDES THAT FARMERS AGREE BECAUSE SUCH SDO WILL derived in the first place. Thus, if the FDA grants a license upon its
IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND THEY WILL GET GREATER BENEFITS. DAR finding that the applicant drug store has complied with the requirements
APPROVED SDOA. of the general laws and the implementing administrative rules and
regulations, it is only for their violation that the FDA may revoke the said
IN 1995 HLI APPLIED TO CONVERT 500 HAS TO INDUSTRIAL USE. license. By the same token, having granted the permit upon his
CONVERSION WS APPROVED. THEN IT TRANSFERRED THE 500 HAS TO ascertainment that the conditions thereof as applied x x x have been
CENTENNARY HOLDINGS INC WHICH TRANSFERRED IT TO LUISTA complied with, it is only for the violation of such conditions that the
INDUSTRIAL PARK CORP OR LIPCO. LIPCO CONVEYED SOME LANDS TO mayor may revoke the said permit.[17][97] (Emphasis supplied.)
RCBC AS PAYMENT FOR LOANS. IN ADDITION TO THE 500 HAS SOLD
TO LIPCO, 80.51 HAS WAS EXPROPRIATED FOR USE OF SCTEX.
Following the doctrine of necessary implication, it may be stated that the
IN 2003 FARMER GROUPS FILED CASE AT DAR FOR EITHER conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of
RENEGOTIATION OF SDOA OR ITS REVOCATION ON GROUND THAT the agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power
THEIR LIVES DID NOT IMPROVE AND THEY DID NOT GET FAIR SHARES to revoke or recall the approval of the plan.
IN THE SALE OF LANDS TO LIPCO AND FOR SCTEX USE. DAR CREATED
TASK FORCE WHICH RECOMMENDED TO PARC (PRESIDENTIAL As public respondents aptly observe, to deny PARC such revocatory
AGRARIAN REFORM COUCIL) THAT THE PREVIOUS ORDER APPROVING power would reduce it into a toothless agency of CARP, because the very
THE SDO BE REVOKED. same agency tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner
with the approved SDP would be without authority to impose sanctions
IN 2005 PARC REVOKED THE SDO AND ORDERED THE COMPULSORY for non-compliance with it.[18][98] With the view We take of the case,
ACQUISITION OF THE HACIENDA FOR DISTRIBUTION TO FARMERS. only PARC can effect such revocation. The DAR Secretary, by his own
HLI WENT TO THE SC AND ASKED FOR TRO TO STOP authority as such, cannot plausibly do so, as the acceptance and/or
IMPLEMENTATION OF PARK ORDER. IN 2006 SC ISSUED TRO. HENCE approval of the SDP sought to be taken back or undone is the act of
THE CASE. PARC whose official composition includes, no less, the President as chair,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX the DAR Secretary as vice-chair, and at least eleven (11) other
department heads.[19][99]
ISSUE:
HLI ARGUES THAT PARC IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REVOKE THE Hacienda Luisita CASE: (binalik na discussion from Chapter 3)
STOCK DISTRIBUTION PLAN (SDP). THE LAW GIVES PARC THE POWER
TO APPROVDE SDP. BUT THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT IT CAN Hacienda Luisita Inc (HLI) was not the original corporation owning the
DISAPPROVE THE SDP. IS HLI’S ARGUMENT CORRECT? Hacienda Luisita Estate. But under SDO, one of the requirements is that
there has to be a corporation  they will have to make a new
NO. IF PARC WAS GIVEN POWER TO APPROVE SDP, IT HAS THE corporation consisting of the old corporation plus the farmer tenants as
POWER TO REVOKE IT BY THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY stockholders.
IMPLICATION. OTHERWISE PARC WOULD BE A TOOTHLESS AGENCY.
There was a program approved by PARC headed by the President of the
On the postulate that the subject jurisdiction is conferred by law, HLI Philippines. For a period of time it was valid especially from Aquino,
maintains that PARC is without authority to revoke an SDP, for neither Ramos and Estrada. Time of Arroyo, there was a complaint that the
RA 6657 nor EO 229 expressly vests PARC with such authority. While, as standard of living has not improved and there were violations of the
HLI argued, EO 229 empowers PARC to approve the plan for stock program. Investigated and allegations found to be true, the
distribution in appropriate cases, the empowerment only includes the program/agreement was cancelled by PARC headed by Arroyo. No
power to disapprove, but not to recall its previous approval of the SDP

59
improvement of lives and a violation on the giving of homelots (yuta scope of the term “agrarian reform.” The constitutionality of a law, HLI
para sa balay). HLI did not present any proof that they complied. added, cannot, as here, be attacked collaterally.
The instant challenge on the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 and
SC: annulment or revocation of the program is valid necessarily its counterpart provision in EO 229 must fail as explained
below.
Confronted with the issue: Previously it was legal but now it was When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review
revoked. What shall we do now? Used Operative fact doctrine: let over, and pass upon the constitutionality of, acts of the executive or
tenants choose. legislative departments, it does so only when the following essential
- Plebescite: to remain as stockholders of HLI or distribute requirements are first met, to wit:
lands (1) there is an actual case or controversy;
- Chose for distribution of lands
- Right now, DAR is implementing distribution of lands to 6000 (2) that the constitutional question is raised at the earliest
farmer beneficiaries possible opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standi; and
Dissenting of CORONA: Provision on SDO is Unconstitutional. When we (3) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
speak of agrarian reform, it is always distribution of lands. case.[35][108]
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Not all the foregoing requirements are satisfied in the case at bar.
While there is indeed an actual case or controversy, intervenor FARM,
composed of a small minority of 27 farmers, has yet to explain its failure
WHAT IS THIS DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION? to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 3l of RA 6657, since as early as
November 21, l989 when PARC approved the SDP of Hacienda Luisita or
at least within a reasonable time thereafter and why its members
WHAT IS IMPLIED IN A STATUTE IS AS MUCH A PART OF IT AS THAT received benefits from the SDP without so much of a protest. It was only
WHICH IS EXPRESSED.[20][94] EVERY STATUTE IS UNDERSTOOD, BY on December 4, 2003 or 14 years after approval of the SDP via PARC
IMPLICATION, TO CONTAIN ALL SUCH PROVISIONS AS MAY BE Resolution No. 89-12-2 dated November 21, 1989 that said plan and
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE ITS OBJECT AND PURPOSE, OR TO MAKE approving resolution were sought to be revoked, but not, to stress, by
EFFECTIVE RIGHTS, POWERS, PRIVILEGES OR JURISDICTION WHICH FARM or any of its members, but by petitioner AMBALA. Furthermore,
IT GRANTS, INCLUDING ALL SUCH COLLATERAL AND SUBSIDIARY the AMBALA petition did NOT question the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of
CONSEQUENCES AS MAY BE FAIRLY AND LOGICALLY INFERRED FROM RA 6657, but concentrated on the purported flaws and gaps in the
ITS TERMS.”[21][95]FURTHER, “EVERY STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER, subsequent implementation of the SDP. Even the public respondents, as
RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL INCIDENTAL represented by the Solicitor General, did not question the
POWER, RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE constitutionality of the provision. On the other hand, FARM, whose 27
members formerly belonged to AMBALA, raised the constitutionality of
ISSUE Sec. 31 only on May 3, 2007 when it filed its Supplemental Comment
with the Court. Thus, it took FARM some eighteen (18) years from
RESPONDENT FARM ARGUES THAT SEC 31 OF RA 6657 WHICH ALLOWS November 21, 1989 before it challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 31
STOCK DISTRIBUTION INSTEAD OF LAND DISTRIBUTION IS of RA 6657 which is quite too late in the day. The FARM members slept
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT CONTRAVENES SECTION 4, ART. X111 OF on their rights and even accepted benefits from the SDP with nary a
THE CONSTITUTION. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT? complaint on the alleged unconstitutionality of Sec. 31 upon which the
benefits were derived. The Court cannot now be goaded into resolving
NO. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUESTIONING THE a constitutional issue that FARM failed to assail after the lapse of a long
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW ARE NOT ALL COMPLIED WITH. THESE period of time and the occurrence of numerous events and activities
REQUIREMENTS ARE: (1) THERE IS AN ACTUAL CASE OR which resulted from the application of an alleged unconstitutional legal
CONTROVERSY; (2) THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS RAISED provision.
AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY BY A PROPER PARTY OR It has been emphasized in a number of cases that the question of
ONE WITH LOCUS STANDI; AND (3) THE ISSUE OF constitutionality will not be passed upon by the Court unless it is properly
CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE raised and presented in an appropriate case at the first
CASE.[32][108] opportunity.[36][109] FARM is, therefore, remiss in belatedly
questioning the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657. The second
THE FARMERS QUESTIONED THE CONSITUTIONALITY OF R.A. 6657 requirement that the constitutional question should be raised at the
ONLY AFTER 14 YEARS SINCE THE SDP WAS DRAWN AND earliest possible opportunity is clearly wanting.
IMPLEMENTED. IT IS TOO LATE. ALSO, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY The last but the most important requisite that the constitutional issue
ISSUE REGARDING THE SDP WAS NOT THE LIST MOTA. IT WAS THE must be the very lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. The lis
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SDP. mota aspect is not present, the constitutional issue tendered not being
critical to the resolution of the case. The unyielding rule has been to
FARM asks for the invalidation of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, insofar as it affords avoid, whenever plausible, an issue assailing the constitutionality of a
the corporation, as a mode of CARP compliance, to resort to stock statute or governmental act.[37][110] If some other grounds exist by
distribution, an arrangement which, to FARM, impairs the fundamental which judgment can be made without touching the constitutionality of a
right of farmers and farmworkers under Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the law, such recourse is favored.[38][111] Garcia v. Executive Secretary
Constitution.[33][106] explains why:
To a more specific, but direct point, FARM argues that Sec. 31 of RA Lis Mota — the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will
6657 permits stock transfer in lieu of outright agricultural land transfer; undertake judicial review — means that the Court will not pass upon a
in fine, there is stock certificate ownership of the farmers or farmworkers question of unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the case
instead of them owning the land, as envisaged in the Constitution. For can be disposed of on some other ground, such as the application of the
FARM, this modality of distribution is an anomaly to be annulled for statute or the general law. The petitioner must be able to show that the
being inconsistent with the basic concept of agrarian reform ingrained in case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional question raised
Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution.[34][107] is determined. This requirement is based on the rule that every law has
Reacting, HLI insists that agrarian reform is not only about transfer of in its favor the presumption of constitutionality; to justify its nullification,
land ownership to farmers and other qualified beneficiaries. It draws there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and
attention in this regard to Sec. 3(a) of RA 6657 on the concept and

60
not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.[39][112] (Italics

in the original.)
The lis mota in this case, proceeding from the basic positions originally
taken by AMBALA (to which the FARM members previously belonged)
and the Supervisory Group, is the alleged non-compliance by HLI with
the conditions of the SDP to support a plea for its revocation. And before
the Court, the lis mota is whether or not PARC acted in grave abuse of
discretion when it ordered the recall of the SDP for such non-compliance
and the fact that the SDP, as couched and implemented, offends certain
constitutional and statutory provisions. To be sure, any of these key
issues may be resolved without plunging into the constitutionality of Sec.
31 of RA 6657. Moreover, looking deeply into the underlying petitions of
AMBALA, et al., it is not the said section per se that is invalid, but rather
it is the alleged application of the said provision in the SDP that is
flawed.

AGRARIAN Midterms With Recording PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRARIAN Midterms With Recording PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRARIAN Midterms With Recording PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

AGRARIAN REFORM PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

BENEFICIARIES - Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and management

Tenant Farmers - Assures continuity of relations

- ECONOMIC STATUS It is the upliftment of the life of Po vs Dampal

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Facts: We do not agree. PD 27 specifically provides that title to land acquired

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008 Held:

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Held: Thus, the question of whether or not petitioner's properties could be

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Held: JUAN GALOPE vs. CRESENCIA BUGARIN

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

(there was an issue on Roxas’ application for exemption) but SC said

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Held: RETENTION RIGHTS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB SC:

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

 According to DAR, it requires that CLOA be issued

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS

HELD: Reiterated in the case of Pagayatan.