IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY.

CAPANAS - 2015

June 16, 2015

History of Agrarian Law
Spanish Era
1. Everyone had access to the fruit of the soil
2. Spaniards came with the concept of encomienda (Royal Land Grants, for qualified Filipinos only)
3. Haciends were owned by wealthy chinese families
1st Philippine Republic
1. Declared in the malolos constitution to confiscate large estates
Americans
1. Philippine bill of 1902
2. Land registration act of 1902 (act no 496) - registration f land titles under the torrens system
3. Public land act of 1903 - introduced the homestead system (homestead is exempted from CARL)
Homestead is granted by sec of DENR; involves agricultural lands
REQS exemption to CARL:
1. Homestead must be owned by the original grantee
2. Continues to cultivate the land (or mere intent will sufice)
4. Tenancy act of 1933 (act bo 4054 ad 4113) - regulated relationships between landowners and tenants involving rice and
sugarcane lands (50-50 sharing, as consideration to the owner)
* farmer is not a tenant, he should be an owner or a tenant of the land
Commonwealth
1. Pres manuel quezon imposed social justice program
2. Commonwealth act no 178, no 461, 1937
Japanese Occupation
2nd Philippine Republic
1. Roxas - sharing is now 70owner-30tenant (as of today, minimum lease rental is 25%)
2. Magsaysay - RA 1199 (inapplicable today); share-tenancy and leasehold system; created Court of Agrarian Relations
* DARAB --- RARAD ---- PARAD
3. Diosdado Macapagal - father of agrarian reform; enacted RA 3844 - abolished shared tenancy and leasehold system
is institutionalized
* shared tenancy/share cropping - rel bet land owner and tenant, tenant cultivates
* leasehold - lessee enjoys security of tenure, relationship doe not die with his/her death (up to 3 persons can succeed); in
case of sale/conveyance/disposition the transferee is bound by the relationship
4. Marcos - RA 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reform); PD 27 - restricted land reform scope to tenanted rice and corn lands
and retention limit is at 7 as opposed to 5 in CARL
5. Aquino - RA 6657 CARL; EO 405 vested LBP the responsibility to determine land valuation and compensation for
land covered by CARP
6. Ramos - RA 8532 extending the CARP for 10 years
7. PGMA - CARPExtension&Reforms RA9700 (passed august 2009,but expiration was on july so it was retroacted by
congress) - extending implementation for 5 years, from 2009-2014 June 30
8. Aquino - Pending law to extend CARP (ost likely to be given retroactive effect to 2014)
- Land acquisition and distribution and leasehold operations (RA3844)
* DAR will send notice of coverage - landowner may contest - DAR will deposit money with LBP - DAR will go to RD
with the certification from LBP that payment was deposited to an account under the name of the landowner - RD must
cancel the title to old landowner and new title in favor of the Rep Phil
*agri lands as of june 15 1988, covered under CARP
* buying agri lands requires you to execute an affidavit that you will not exceed the the 5ha limit
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----June 23, 2015
RA 3844

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

1. Grounds to disposses a lessee: (Sec. 36)

a) Failure to substantially comply with terms and conditions unless by fortuitous event
b) Planting of crops or use of land for other purpose than that agreed
* filing a case using these grounds is tantamount to acknowledging that there is a lessor-lessee relationship
* lessor has the burden to prove the ground for dispossession
* grounds a and b are when the parties agreed to a contract, either verbal or writing (especially if registered in
RD)
c) Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land
* lessor has to prove that there is a proven farm practice to evict lessee
d) Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage
e) Does not pay rental when due; but if it is due to fortuitous event, it is not a ground
* Case: Sta. Ana v. Carpo
* Why file to PARAD and not to Regional Director? Agrarian Law Implementation. Because it is to
adjudicate who has a right and who violated a right.
* SC: It is not merely simple failure to pay but the non-payment must be willful and deliberate.
* Burden of proof rests upon the lessor.
* Case: Natividad v. Mariano
* Owner of land purchased land and verbally demanded payment from the lessees.
* SC: Only for the specifically the enumerated causes can one dispossess a lessee and the owner has the
burden of proof.
* (1) WON there was verbal demand [no evidence was presented, not even affidavit]; (2) WON failure to pay
was deliberate and willful [read sec 2 of P.D. 816, the alleged non-payment did not last two years because
owner cant prove that there was demand]; (3) WON payment to previous owner was valid [payment was
valid since owner cant prove demand and lessee believed that the old owners were still the owners
* PD 816 covers rice and corn, not rice or corn; it can be assumed though because of the words crop year
* there is no Trial in Agra, just submission of position paper and evidences
* Case: Nieves v. Duldulao
* owner sought to eject lessee for non-payment
* defense: fortuitous event
* SC: defense cant prove the fortuitous event (but SC should have noted that non-payment was not willful
and deliberate); cited Antonio v. Manahan (owner refuse to accept payment) and Roxas v. Cabatuando (lessee
had serious doubts as to the legality of the contract)
* SC: land owner did not reject payment and were there doubts in the legality of the contract. Since
circumstances in Antonio v. Manahan and Roxas v. Cabatuando are not present, then there was willful and
deliberate non-payment
* (1) Is it not that the owners have the burden of proof?
* (2) PD 816 can be used as a basis in the case at bar which would justify the ejectment of the lessee.
f) Employed a sublessee
* contract must stipulate that the lessee is prohibited from sublessee-ing
2. Difference between extinguishment of relation and dispossession
a) Extinguishment- needs no court approval; voluntary act or act of God
i. Abandonment
ii. Voluntary
iii. Absence of persons to succeed
1. Surviving spouse
2. Eldest descendant
b) Dispossession- with court order; premised on offense by lesse
3. Liability off owner if he ejects tenant:
a) Fine or imprisonment (because it is a criminal offense; just like with CARL)
b) Damages suffered
c) Attorneys fees
d) Remuneration for last income
4. Lease rental
a) Shall not be more than 25% of the average normal harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceeding
the date of leasehhold after deducting amount used for seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling
and processing.
----- END OF DISCUSSION -----

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

June 25, 2015

PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree)
1. Relevance:
a) Because some lands were acquired pursuant to this law and they were not paid just compensation.
2. Beneficiaries:
a) Bona fide tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and con whether classified as
landed estate or not.
3. Differences between PD 27 and RA 6657:
a) PD 27: rice and corn land; tenant-farmer is deemed owner of five hectares if not irrigated and 3 hectare if irrigated
b) RA 6657: all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain); beneficiaries (it is not automatic that you
will be awarded since you have to register with DAR) will be awarded not exceeding 3 hectares.
c) PD 27, just compensation: average normal factor as basis
d) CARL, just compensantion: BIR zonal value, assessed values of tax declaration, market value (look at adjacent
properties)
e) In PD 27, of valid transfer of land: there are only two grounds: succession or revert to government
f) In CARL, there are 4: succession, revert to government, through LBP (if LBP forecloses the CLOA), through
other beneficiaries
* Sigre v. CA
- clarified by SC that PD 27 was not repealed or superseded by CARL
- Sigre was tenant who was paying rental to private respondent and instead paid to the LBP
* If the land is acquired under PD 27 and payment is done after CARL is enacted, CARL will be the governing law. It is
only in this sense that PD 27 is inconsistent with CARL.
* Estolas v. Mabalot
- can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to another qualified beneficiary?
- If land was acquired under PD 27, then CARL was enacted, then DAR transferred it, is the transfer valid? No,
because PD 27 states that there can be no transfer of land to another beneficiary.
* Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz; LBP v. Sps Rokaya
- determination of just compensation should be based on RA 6657 even for lands covered under PD 27
RA 6657
1. Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?
2. Can private corp acquire ownership of alienable lands of public domain?
a) Chavez v. PEA
i. No, only through lease not exceeding 25 years renewable not more than 25 yrs and not to exceed 1000 HA
b) private corp can still be subjected to CARL because ownership is not an issue of the law but to distribute agri lands
of owners who exceeds 3 hectares of agri land
3. Definition of terms:
a) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise, Agricultural Activity:
i. Sec 3, paragraph b
ii. Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR (1990)
iii. Excludes raising of livestock, poultry or fish
iv. DAR released rules and regulations governing the exclusion of agricultural lands use for cattle raising from
coverage of CARP
v. What if coconut land has cattle?
1. Still under CARP because it has to be exclusively used for cattle raising to be exempted.
2. Cattle raising must be existing before June 15, 1988
3. Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising, all the rest is under
CARP
4. Actually Directly, Exclusively

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

5.
6.
7.

DAR v. Sutton
Milestone Farms v. CA
Republic v. Lopez (tax dec is not the sole determinant as to land classification)
----- END OF DISCUSSION -----

June 30, 2015

b)

Agricultural Land: land devoted to agricultural activity

i. Sec 3, paragraph c
ii. (1) Land devoted to agricultural activity and (2) not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial
1. The law does not define what is classification.
2. Classification vs reclassification is only important as LGU is concerned but not under CARL, because
what is only needed in CARL is that there is classification.
3. Two agencies involved in classifying lands:
a) DENR:
i. Mineral, Forest/timberland
b) LGU (legislative branch):
i. Mayor cannot classify, it must be by virtue of an ordinance
ii. Refers to classification of mineral, forest/timberland, residential, commercial or industrial
lands
iii. Requires approval by the HLURB for approval, zoning ordinances of the city
iv. Natalia Realty v. DAR
v. Basis: Sec 215 of RA 7160
vi. Roxas and Co.v. CA
vii. NHA v. Allarde
viii. Davao New Town v. Sps. Saliga
ix. Puyat and Sons v. Alcaide
x. Holy Trinity v. Dela Cruz: Sangguniang Bayan of Malolos classified land as residential; look
at the land use, tax declaration and ordinance...all of which point that the land is residential
----- END OF DISCUSSION -----

July 2, 2015
c)

Agrarian Dispute: Agriland is one of the elements in agri dispute

i. Defined in Sec 3 (d)
ii. Sec 47 - (BARC) Barangay Agrarian Reconciliation Committee
iii. Sec 54 - Certiorari of decisions from DAR are appealable to the CA
iv. Essential Requisites for a dispute to become Agrarian:
1. Parties: (1) Land Owner and (2) Tenants
2. Subject Matter: Agricultural Land
3. Consent of Parties: (1) Express or (2) Implied - Tolerance is equivalent to consent.
a) Independent evidence is necessary
4. Purpose: Agricultural Production
5. Personal Cultivation by Tenant
6. Sharing of Harvest Between Parties: (1) Express or (2) Implied
a) Independent evidence is necessary e.g. receipts
* All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.
* If a person claims to be a tenant, he has the burden of proof.
* Self-serving testimony is not allowed.
* If all six requisites are present, jurisdiction is exclusive with DAR; Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

* Isidro v. CA : requisites are not present

- RTC dismissed the case because it is an agrarian dispute because the subject land is agrarian land. ERRONEOUS.
Case involving agri land does not automatically make such case agrarian.
- There was no contract to cultivate.
- Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing, that if tenancy is shown,
the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

* Sec. 50-A: if there is a criminal/civil case filed against a tenant and there is allegation from tenant that this is an agrarian
case, the (fiscal) case will automatically be referred to DAR. DAR will then certify if it is agrarian or not and send the
report to Fiscal. Judge will then decide whether or not to dismiss the case.
* Suplico v. CA
- Suplico is a tenant who leased the land to another person
- 2nd renter filed damages against Suplico
- Missing in the case is the consent of the owner for the 2nd renter to rent land.
- Why there was no tenancy (1 st requisite: Lessee-lessee not owner-lessee; 2 nd consent: no consent from owner; 3 rd no
sharing of harvest because sharing was between Suplico and owner)
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 7, 2015
* Monsanto v. Zerna (tenancy relationship established)
- Criminal case file by Monsanto for qualified theft against Sps Zerna
- RTC: Zerna must return the 1000 because Monsanto di not consent to the harvest of coconut
- Issue: WON the court had the authority to require the return of the 1000.
- SC: This is an agrarian dispute because priv respondents were overseers at the time of the taking
- Tenancy relationship may be verbally, writing, expressly or impliedly established.
- Since the amount is intertwined with the resolution of agrarian dispute, DARAB has jurisdiction.
- RTC only has jurisdiction over the criminal case, it acted beyond its jurisdiction when it ruled on the tenancy
issues of the parties.
* Bejasa v. CA (tenancy not established)
- There was no consent coming from the landowner.
- Candelaria owned land and leased it to Malabanan; Malabanan then hired Bejasa to plant on the land and clear
it, with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan.
- Bejasa continued to stay on the land and did not give....
- SC: There was no proof that Malabanan and Bejasa shared the profit and Candelaria never gave consent to the
Bejasa
- Main point: there was no proof of sharing of the harvest. Which must be proven by independent evidence i.e.
Receipt or any other similar evidence.
* Valencia v. CA (tenancy not established)
- Valencia leased land to Fr. Flores for 5 years with a prohibition against subleasing.
- During period of lease, private respondents were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia.
- SC:
- The fact that an agricultural tenant tilled the land, does not make the case an agrarian dispute.
- Tenancy-relationship cannot be presumed.
*Almuete v. Andres (about ownership)
- Almuete possessed land but Andres was given the homestead patent.
- Who has better right?
- SC:
- Since this is an ownership case, this is not an agrarian dispute.
- RTCs jurisdiction is upheld.
* Pasong Bayabas v. CA (tenancy not established)
- Petitioners claimed to be tillers of the land but private respondent denied that petitioners cultivated the land and
presented a waiver from the group of their rights.
- SC:
- No tenancy - no evidence
- no allegation in complaint that petitioners are tenants.
- no evidence that private respondent was a landlord
- no proof about cultivation
* Escariz v. Revilleza (tenancy not established)
- Escariz was a tenant of the silingan and not a tenant of Revilleza
- SC:

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

- Tenancy is not presumed

- No consent
- No sharing of harvest
* Heirs if Jugalbot v. CA (tenancy not established)
- Jugalbot was given title on the premise that he was a tenant of the land.
-SC:
- There was no tenancy relationship between the parties.
- No tenancy because there was not evidence of cultivation
- Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning ordinance.
* Nicorp Management
- word kasama in the letter does not prove leasehold agreement and is not sufficient to prove tenancy.
* Fajardo v. Flores
- Parties executed a Kasunduan where it was admitted that Fajardo was the tiller of the land.
- There was a conflict as to what portion of the land was given.
- SC:
- RTC has jurisdiction to hear the case to determine the true intent of the Kasunduan.
- There was a previous owner-tenant relationship but was terminated by the Kasunduan.
- BUT if the dispute originates as from an owner-tenant relationship, jurisdiction is with DAR.
* Adriano v. Tanco (tenancy not established)
- Owner wants occupant to vacate.
- Occupant then filed complaint with DAR claiming that he was instituted as a tenant.
- Consent was not proved. AGAIN, independent and concrete evidence is needed.
- Mere occupation and cultivation does not automatically convert the tiller to an agricultural tenant.

SC:

* Estate of Pastor Samson v. Susano

- de jure tenant is illegal tenant as opposed to de facto tenant which is legal tenant
- affidavit of neighbors are not enough because the details are lacking, i.e. How much, when the share was given
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 9, 2015
* Galope v. Bugarin (tenancy established)
- Bugarin owns land and Galope is the one farming the land
- Land was lent without an agreement and that she receives a share which is insignificant. (there was admission
that there was sharing of harvest.)
- Bugarin wants to recover the land to farm it on her own
- SC:
- Receipts is not an issue due to the admission of Bugarin that she receives rentals from Galope.
- Only issue of rentals was resolved by the SC since it was the only issue elevated to them.
* Ladano v. Neri (tenancy not established)
- SC:
- ones occupancy and cultivate does not automatically make a person a de jure tenant.
- Petitioner did not even allege in his complaint that he is a tenant of the landowner. Neither did he allege that
he shared his harvests with the landowner.
- What determines jurisdiction is the allegations in the complaint; allege the essential requisites that will
make out a case that is under the jurisdiction of the court.
* Heirs of Quilo v. DBP
- Quilo are tenants of landowner and DBP is mortgagee
- Quilo claims they have a right to redeem being tenants.
- DARAB and RARAD favored heirs of Quilo
- CA reversed the case since tenancy relationship was not established.
- SC:
- petitioners failed to prove consent and sharing of harvest.

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

- independent and concrete evidence is needed to prove consent of the landowner.

- mere occupation and cultivation, no matter how long, does not ripen into a tenancy relationship.
- affidavit as to sharing is still not sufficient; what is required is the receipt or any other evidence.
- deposit cannot prove the existence of a sharing agreement.
* Davao New Town v. Sps. Saliga
- the subject land is no longer agricultural by virtue of reclassification.
* Jopson v. Mendez, Jr.
- Jopson alleges he his a tenant-farmer of the parcel of land subject of the sale between DBP and Mendez
- SC:
- there is no complete proof about the relationship.
- DBP: Jopson is not a tenant but a mere caretaker.
- Subject lan is not an agricultural land but a commercial land.
- there is no proof as to consent.
* Reyes v. Heirs of Floro
- A person (Reyes) claims to a tenant but his basis is that he obtained it from a certain Zenaida Reyes (sister) and
that land was sold to Zenaida and that Reyes was alegedly one of the tenant-lease of the seller.
- Bautista (seller) attested that Reyes is a tenant of the subject land.
- Reyes relies on the certification from MARO and Bautista.
- SC:
- MARO certification is merely preliminary and does not bind the courts as conclusive evidence.
- Administrative certifications are merely provisional and not conclusive (this is so because the certification
is merely a conclusion of the law instead of being factual)
- Reyes picture of his hut does not prove tenancy or cultivation.
- Certification from Bautista has little evidentiary value since it was not notarized and Bautista was not even
presented as a witness. (Notarized document, based on rules of evidence, doesnt need to be backed by a
witness since it is already notarized; if un-notarized, it must be supported by a witness.)
- one claiming to be a tenant needs to prove by substantial evidence.
QUANTUM OF PROOF
** criminal - proof beyond reasonable doubt
** civil - preponderance of evidence
** administrative - substantial
* Quintos v. DARAB
- Quintos used to be major stockholder of GCFI.
- GCFI obtained loaned from banks
- sorry, a lost ko.
- SC:
- the opposite party is under no obligation to prove his exception or his defense
- right to hire tenant is a personal right of the landowner
- APT was not authorized by GCFI to hire tenants; APT was only a legal possessor in the case and not
owner of the properties.
- Sec 6 of RA844

the

* Automat Realty v. Sps. Cruz

- Automat is a lessor.
- Automat received rentals but good thing the land is not agricultural.
- When asked to leave, Sps. Cruz demands payment of damages.
- Two MARO certifications stated that there was and there wasnt a tenancy relationship.
- SC:
- MARO certification is only provisional and not binding.
- Automat never denied giving consent (contrary to rule that defendant need not prove exclusion; supposedly
it is the burden of the one claiming to be a tenant to show evidence)
SECTION 4
- about coverage of type of lands.
- what lands are covered:

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

- all public (natl and local govt, GOCC) and private agricultural lands regardless of commodity produce
- all alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture
- all other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agricultural
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 14, 2015
Sec 4 was amended by RA 9700,
- that landholdings of landowners with a total area of 5 hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and
distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
- Implementation will be until June 30, 2014 with a funding of at least one hundred fifty billion pesos
- DAR will issue a certificate that states that your land is less than 5 hectares.
- Landholdings covers the entire country, so 5 hectares only throughout the Philippines.
Schedule of Implementation:
- Sec. 5
- Sec. 63
* RA 8542
- Amended sec 63, not sec 5.
- Interpreted to be up to December 31, 2008.
- Joint Resolution No. 19 of Senate and House extending implementation to June 30, 2009.
* What happens after June 30, 2014?
- DAR reiterates that it will be business as usual and they can still distribute land even after June 30, 2014.
- They can no longer acquire pending passage of a new law to extend CARL, but they can still distribute.
- Those lands without NOCs cannot be distributed.
CHAPTER II
Homestead Grantees (Sec. 6, CARL)
Homestead Patent
- Mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon acual
cultivation and residence
- Filed at CENRO where land being applied is located
- Who are qualified:
- Citizens of Philippines
- over 18 years old
- not owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
- Homestead has 5 year prohibitive period as opposed to DARs 10 years
- That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of
the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
* ALITA v. CA (1989)
- Alita was desirous of personally cultivating the homestead, thus court upheld right of homestead owners.
- Whos right will prevail as between homestead grantees and tenants under PD 27?
- PD 27 cannot be invoked to defeat the purpose of this public land act (CA 141).
- The rights of the original grantees shall prevail over other rights.
* PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001)
- Paris owns 10 ha in Bukidnon and another 13 ha. She admits that the land is fully tenanted by private respondents
Alfeche, et al.
- Paris claims she is entitled to retention under CARL and as original homestead grantee she has the right to retain the
land to the exclusion of Alfeche, et al.
- SC:
- RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are provided with condition: only for as long as they continue to cultivate
them.
- Parcels of land are covered by homestead will not automatically exempt them from the operation of the land
referom. It is the fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or their direct heirs.

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

- Case was resolved against Paris.

- Since land was tenanted, Paris and children could not have cultivated the land themselves.
- Paris did not cultivate the land and have not expressed any desire to cultivate the land.
- But it doesnt mean that the entire 23 hectares will be acquired by the Government.
- Under CARL, Paris is allowed to retain 5 hectares, since the children of Paris cannot acquire 3 hectares
each since they are not involved in tilling the lands or managing the farmland.
* ALMERO v. Heirs of Pacquing (GR NO 199008)
- SC:
- in order for the homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs to retain or keep their homestead, the
following conditions must first be satisfied: (a) they must still be the owners of the original homestead at the time
of the CARLs effectivity, and (b) they must continue to cultivate the homestead land;
- In this case, Linda, the direct compulsory heir is no longer cultivating the subject homestead land. The Office of
the Pres misinterpreted the ruling that the desire to continue or to start anew with the cultivation of the land
would suffice to exempt the subject homestead from CARL.
- It is the continued cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their
lands from land reform coverage.
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 16, 2015
NCC:
Conjugal - total is 5;
Capital/paraphernal - not more than 5 each but not to exceed 10
Sec 6. Retention Limits
- 3 hectares awarded to each child of landowner, if:
- At least 15 y.o.
- Actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm
- Retention is the term used to refer to original landowners while award is for their children.
DAR A.O. 2, s. 2003
- Who may apply for retention
- Period to exercise right of retention
- Where to file
- Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of retention
- Operating procedure: MARO - PARO - REGIONAL DIRECTOR - SECRETARY
* DAEZ v. CA
- Issuance of EPs/CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar landowner from retaining the area.
Sec. 6-A. Exeception to Retention Limits
- Provincial city and municipal government units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes
of acquisition to be use for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes...consistent with the approved local
comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five-hectare retention limit.
- This does not exempt public utilities though.
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 21, 2015 - NO LAPTOP
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 23, 2015
* Alternative methods available to commercial farms other than distribution of lands:
- Joint venture
- Lease-back
- Growership arrangements
- Direct payment scheme

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

* These are aside from usual Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and compulsory coverage
JOINT VENTURE
- The beneficiaries contribute use of land (individually or in common) and the facilities and improvements if any.
- The investor furnished capital and technology for production, processing and marketing of agricultural goods.
- Must be approved by AR (DAR may consider this where the workers enjoy the same or better wages and benefits that
those in....
LEASE CONTRACT
- The beneficiaries bind themselves to give the investor the enjoyment or use of their lan for a certain price and for a
definite period
- Lease may not exceed 10 years subject to extension by mutual agreement
GROWERSHIP
- workers farm the land and agree to pre-sell their produce individually or collectively to any party including the
former landowner who may have all the equipment and processing plant
- e.g. Banana and pineapple plantation in Davao
DIRECT PAYMENT
- DAR allows the landonwer and workers to negotiate the sale of the land and/or equipment
- DAR futher requires that the CLOA be issued collectively or under co-ownership
A.O. No. 9 s of 1998
- allows commercial farms certain options subject to approval of DAR and workers (aside from voluntary and
compulsory coverage)
- CLOAs are issued in name of cooperative workers
CHAPTER III OF CARL - IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL AND LABOR RELATION
Ways in distributing lands to qualified farmers?
- compulsory acquisition (Sec. 16)
- Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary lan transfer (Sec. 20)
- Non-land transfer schemes - Stock Distribution Option (SDO)
- Production and Profit Sharing (PPS)
- Leasehold Operation
- Sec 12 od RA 6657 mandates DAR to determine and fix the lease rentals within the retained areas and areas not yet
acquired.
- Sec. 6 of RA 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect either of the following:
- as farmer-beneficiary
- leasehold in retained area
- Sec 67 of RA 6657 directs RD to register, free from payment of all fees and charges, patents, title and documents
required for implementation of CARP
* CABALLES v. DAR
- WON private respondent is an agricultural tenant
- DAR found that the private respondent shared the produce of the land wih the former owner, Andrea Millenes. This
ed, or misled, the public respondents to conclude that a tenancy relationship existed between the petitioner and private
respondent.
- sharing alone is not sufficient to establish tenancy relationship
* GELOS v. CA
- WON a person involved in this case is a tenant or a worker
- Kasunduan ng Upahang Araw
- Part of the agreement
- the second party (farmworker) desires to lease his services at the rate of 5php per day and that the second party
makes it known that he is not a farm tenant but only a hired laborer who is paid for every day f work on the said
farm.
- SC:
- based on the terms of the contract, it is a contract of employment.
- Hired laborer is not tantamount to a tenancy relationship

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

* GABRIEL v. PANGILINAN
- landowner filed civil ejectment case against the claimed tenant
- WON person sought to be ejected is a tenant or a mere lessee
- SC:
- In order that leasehold tenancy under the Agricultural Tenancy Act (old law), there are 5 requisites as compared
to 6 of CARL
* DAR A.O. No. 02-06
- agricultural leasehold is preliminary to ownership
- security of tenure shall be respected and guaranteed
- Coverage:
1. Retained Lands
2. Tenanted Lands - Lands which are tenanted but not yet acquired by the government
- Cultivation is not limited to plowing the land
- Consideration for the lease shall not be more than 25% of the average normal harvest (ANH) during the 3 agri years
immediately preceding the date the lease was established
- Homelot, the products shall accrue to the tenant exclusively
- Tenancy is indivisible and dual tenancy/co-tenancy is not allowed ( You cannot be a tenant to two different farms)
- DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract.
CHAPTER IV - REGISTRATION
Who

will

register?

- DAR
What is the importance of registration with DAR?
- FORTICH v. CORONA
- DAR said that there is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries, so they have no standing yet to
intervene in the case.
* CONCHA v. RUBIO
- Who between petitioners are qualified to become beneficiaries over a portion of land?
- MAROs decision did not include respondents as beneficiaries, SC accorded respect to MAROs decision
- MARO: respondents were included in the list but they refused to sign
Respondents employed fraud
After respondents build their houses on the lot, they already abandoned the landholding in question
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 28, 2015
Chapter V - LAND ACQUISITION
Sec 16 RA 6657
- The reason why the word distributed was included in the title was because distribution was part of the process
- Sub Par. A
- notice to acquire is to be served to owners of landowners in compliance with due process
- DAR is tasked to give notice, specifically the MARO
- Most important part of notice is the offer of DAR (compensation for the land)
- Once the landowner receives the notice, within 30 days from receipt, landowner may accept or reject the offer or
even ignore the offer.
- Sub Par. B
- If after 30 days, the landowner doesnt communicate with DAR, this subpar will not be followed, but apply
subpar e
- Sub Par. C
- If landowner accepts offer, LBP shall pay the owner the purchase price of the land and landowner
- Sub Par. D
- If landowner rejects or fails to reply, DAR shall conduct administrative summary proceedings to determine the
compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as
to the just compensation for the land, within 15 days from the receipt of notice. After the expiration of the above
period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. (this is performed by PARAD)

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

- Sub Par. E
- DAR will deposit, in cash or LBP Bonds, which allows DAR to immediately acquire land and RD to cancel old
title and issue new title in favor of the Republic of the Philippines
- RD has no discretion to determine whether or not land is CARPAble or not; but only RDs copy is canceled
since the owners copy is with the landowner
- DAR can also conduct summary administrative proceedings under subpar d to determine just compensation
- This is performed by MARO
- Sub Par. F
- Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation.
CONFED v. DAR
- Initial step is identification of landowners. Land and the beneficiaries; MARO performs this
- There should be two notices:
1. Notice of Coverage
2. Notice of Acquisition
- RA 6657 is revolutionary kind of expropriation
- affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as in excess of maximum
retention limits
- intended for the benefits not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the
entire Filipino nation.
- Just compensation is a judicial determination and is expressly provided in Sec 57. (RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian
Court)
- Determination of just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of Sec 16 of RA 6657 is
preliminary only, court may still review it.
- Rule 67 of Rules of Court
- Governs just compensation
- Appointment of commissioners in determining the just compensation; If a petition is filed for just compensation,
the court may appoint commissioners (normally from, assessors office, BIR, and choice of petitioner and/or
respondent sometimes the Clerk of Court)
- The court may adopt or disregard the recommendation of the commissioners it appointed.
- SC already upheld the provisions of Sec 16
LBP v. HEIRS OF TRINIDAD
- What is the just compensation if the owner rejects the offer?
- LBP contends it is the initial valuation.
- Petitioner contends that it should be the initial valuation of the land by PARAD/RARAD.
- CA:
- there is no reference to deposit;
- reference to deposit means the amount of deposit should be based on the DARAB decision or the summary
admin proceeding.
- SC:
- Sub par e should be related to sub pars a, b, and c
LBP v. HON. PAGAYATAN
- Compensation in cash or LBP Bonds and the opening of a trust account by the LBP is not allowed.
- SC:
- Sec 16 is explicit that deposit be inn cash or in LBP bonds
- Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form like a trust account
- There was no basis for issuance of order.
What if there is a violation of due process?
* Roxas Case:
- CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given chance to validate proceedings.
- Despite a finding that there was a violation f due process, CLOAs should not be cancelled. DAR should be given the
chance to validate proceedings.
- Court has no power to nullify CLOA already issued.
* Fortich case:
- CLOA was illegal and should be cancelled for being in violation of law

IYAN NOTES - UNEDITED - AGRARIAN LAW - ATTY. CAPANAS - 2015

* HEIRS OF DELESTE v. LBP:

- Cancellation of the EPs and OCTs were declared warranted for violation of due process.
*****CHOOSE AMONG THE THREE WHICH IS FAVORABLE TO YOUR CLIENT...?? HAHA*****
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----July 30, 22015
Late...:)
* LBP v. DUMLAO
- commissioner presented two values and the court chose the lowest value, SC said it is not correct for the judge should
follow the formula provided.
- Formula was promulgated in AO No. 6 s. 1992
* But there is now a new formula which considers the 70% zonal valuation of BIR and value of standing crops
- the date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the
issuance dates of the emancipation patents.
* But there are other cases decided by SC that the date of taking was the date of payment of just compensation.
Sec 17
Factors:
- cost of acquisition (can be found in genuine Deed of Sale)
- current value of like properties (look at adjacent properties)
- actual use and income and nature
- sworn valuation by owner
- tax declaration
- assessment made by Government assessors
+ value of the standing crop
+ zonal valuation of the BIR
* PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration; RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.
* SPS LEE v. LBP
- If valuation is not based on the factors, then it is not valid.
* LBP v. HEIRS OF CRUZ
- If valuation s not base on any evidence, it is without basis, so determination be remanded.
- In this case, decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence, so case was remanded.
* LBP v. JOCSON
* LBP v. LIVIOCO
- property is agricultural but Livioco wants to prove that it is residential (para mas mahal ang bayad)
- since there was no conversion order from DAR, the classification to residential is not valid
- but this will only apply if it is for just compensation proceedings
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----August 18, 2015
MIDTERM: __/100 p. 75
Discussed midterm exam.
Next meeting, defend paper.
----- END OF DISCUSSION ----August 20, 2015