Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agrarian Reform Cases
Agrarian Reform Cases
which had already been duly executed upon the authority of a writ issued on May 6, 2003. They also insisted that
both notices of appeal were infirm for failure to state the grounds for an appeal and for containing forged
signatures) Ruled in favor of respondents stating that the appeal was a product of forgery and thus had no legal
effect. It also found that the other appeals were mere scraps of paper as it failed to comply with 1997 DARAB
New Rules of Procedure.
Issues$$$:
1. WON the Notice of Appeal were mere scraps of paper for failure to state the grounds relied on for appeal.
2. WON the NOA were null and void for containing two falsified signatures.
Held:
1.NO. There is nothing sacred about the forms of pleadings or processes, their sole purpose being to facilitate the
application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules should
be construed liberally. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical grounds is frowned upon because rules of
procedure should not be applied to override substantial justice.
2. NO. Given the foregoing circumstances, we conclude that the unfortunate matter of signing the decedents
names in the Notice of Appeal is an innocent and harmless error on the part of the heirs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED and the Notices of Appeal filed by the
private respondents before the public respondent are hereby decreed without legal effect.
The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Romanita Concha, et al. vs. Paulino Rubio, et al.,
G.R. No. 162446 (March 29, 2010), citing Department of Agrarian Reform v. Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, held that the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries
are matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, it behooves the
courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue, unless
there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative agency.
Honeycomb Farms Corp. (HFC) voluntarily offered their two parcels of land to the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) for P 10,480,000.00 or P 21,165.00. The Landbank of the Philippines (LBP) used the
guidelines set forth in DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 17 series of 1989 as amended by DAR AO No. 3
series of 1991 to fix the value of these lands. HFC rejected the valuation. The voluntary offer to sell was referred
to the DAR adjudication Board. The Regional adjudicator fixed the value of landholdings at P 5,324,529.00.
HFC filed a case with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)of Masbate acting as Special Agrarian Court against the
DAR Secretary and LBP, praying to compensate HFC for its landholdings amounting to P 12,440,000.00. In its
amended complaint, HFC increased the valuation P 20,000,000.00. LBP, on the other hand, revalued the land
under TCT No. T-2872 at P 1,373,244.78, which was formerly fixed at P 2,527,749.60; and TCT No. T-2549 at P
1,513,097.57, which was previously fixed at P 2,796,800.00. The RTC made its own valuation when the Board of
Commissioners could not agree on the common valuation. The RTC took judicial notice of the fact that a
portion of 10 hectares of that land is a commercial land because it is near the commercial district of Cataingan,
Masbate.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). HFC argued that the government illegally failed to
pay just compensation pursuant when LBP opened trust account in its behalf which is contrary to existing
jurisprudence. LBP on the other hand argued that the RTC erred when it disregarded the formula set forth in
DAR AO No. 6 series of 1992 as amended by DAR AO No. 11 series of 1994 and in declaring the 10 hectares
of that land as a commercial land. The CA decided in favor of HFC. CA held that the lower courts are not
bound by the factors enumerated in Section 17 of RA 6657 which are mere guide in determining just
compensation. Also, the valuation by LBP based on the formula was too low and, therefore, confiscatory. LBP
argued that the CA erred in not applying the formula based on law and that the land taken pursuant to the States
agrarian reform program involves both the exercise of the States power of eminent domain and the police
power of the State. Consequently, the just compensation for land taken for agrarian reform should be less than
the just compensation given in the ordinary exercise of eminent domain. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the RTC erred when it made its own valuation and disregarded the DAR formula/ Whether
application of DARs formula is mandatory in determining Just Compensation, hence the RTC and CA
erred when both disregarded the same;
2.
Whether the compensation to be paid should be less than the market value of the property because the
taking was not done in LBPs traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain;
3.
Whether a hearing is necessary before the RTC can take judicial notice of the nature of the land; and
4.
Held:
Issue:
Held:
Private respondent Roberto J. Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 816-A and
covered by TCT No. 1084, containing an area of 81.6117 hectares, situated in Brgy. Haguimit, La Carlota City and
devoted principally to the planting of sugar cane.
On 21 September 1999, Noe Fortunado, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of La Carlota City issued and
sent a NOTICE OF COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca placing the above-described landholding under the
compulsory coverage of R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
On 29 September 1999, private respondent Cuenca filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, La Carlota City,
a complaint against Noe Fortunado and Land Bank of the Philippines for 'Annulment of Notice of Coverage and
Declaration of Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405, Series of 1990, With Preliminary Injunction and Restraining
Order.'
Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be declared null and void ab initio and Executive
Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 be declared unconstitutional.
MARO Noe Fortunado filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court a quo has no jurisdiction
over the nature and subject matter of the action, pursuant to R.A. 6657.
The respondent Judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order directing MARO and LBP to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of Coverage. In the same order, the respondent Judge set the hearing on the application for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on January 17 and 18, 2000.
In an order dated 16 February 2000, the respondent Judge denied MARO Noe Fortunado's motion to dismiss and
issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and desist
from implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with the determination of the value of the
subject land.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) thereafter filed before the CA a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error by not taking into cognizance that the issues raised in the
complaint filed by the private respondent, which seeks to exclude his land from the coverage of the CARP, is an
agrarian reform matter and within the jurisdiction of the DAR, not with the trial court.
The Honorable Court of Appeals, with due respect, gravely abused its discretion by sustaining the writ of injunction
issued by the trial court, which is a violation of Sections 55 and 68 of Republic Act No. 6657.
The Petition has merit. The issue involves the implementation of agrarian reform, a matter over which the DAR has
original and exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 50 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No.
6657)
All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even though they raise questions that are also legal or
constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and
original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it follows that the RTC of La Carlota City
(Branch 63) was devoid of authority to issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction. That Writ must perforce be
stricken down as a nullity. Such nullity is particularly true in the light of the express prohibitory provisions of the
CARP and this Court's Administrative Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002. These Circulars enjoin all trial judges to
strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads:
"Section 68.
Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. No injunction, restraining order,
prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the
Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department
of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program."