You are on page 1of 39

1

*From PPT *Shaded portions: From Pointers ni Sir Cont. President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957).
*From Audio Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) Created the Land
*From Codal Tenure Administration(LTA)
*Included in Syllabus but not in both audio and powerpoint
Take note of this under Magsaysay, 1199, just for our consumption although it has
AGRARIAN REFORM been superseded.
I. History and Legal Basis
PRE-SPANISH PERIOD Before Magsaysay, the relationship was concentrated on share tenancy but during
Before the Spaniards came the Filipinos lived in villages or barangays this time there was another system that came out, and whats that? LEASEHOLD.
ruled by chiefs or datus. If before share tenancy was about sharing 50/50, then 70/30, and now share
Everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. tenancy is kelangan ikaw land owner imung ipa eject you should follow the reasons
DAR did not elaborate on this one. But what I can surmise is that to eject.
probably no one was concerned about ownership. Gamay rag tao at
that time. I think the keyword there is access. Walay limitation ba. No arbitrary ejectment those are the concerns during Magsaysay but here
comes another concern and that is LEASEHOLD and in fact under the law the
SPANISH PERIOD tenant has the option, why the option?

When the Spaniards came the concept of encomienda (Royal Land Because this was changed in the time of Macapagal under R.A. 3844. Under
Grants) was introduced. Macapagal there is no more option, no more share tenancy, we will only adopt
- haciendas (wealthy chinese families) leasehold

1st PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC Whats the difference between share tenancy and leasehold? You will note in share
First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo tenancy, the concerns are sharing and ejectment.
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large
estate. - but his regime was short lived. What are in share tenancy that is not in leasehold?

Aguinaldos plan was never implemented. If a tenant dies under share tenancy the children of the deceased cannot succeed
but under leasehold the descendants automatically become tenants as well. Once a
AMERICAN PERIOD tenant, father or mother dies, a land owner cannot say since I cannot eject
Philippine Bill of 1902 Set the ceilings: 16 has for private individuals you tenant I will just sell this land. Under leasehold, the transferee or the
and 1,024 has for corporations. purchaser of the land is bound by the relationship. In short, the Land owner has no
Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) registration of land titles escape. This was the option before during the time of Macapagal. With this law
under the Torrens system. That means, ownership continued to be the R.A.3344, share tenancy was abolished and it was only leasehold. Macapagal was
concern starting way back from the spanish period. even called the father of Agrarian Reform.
Public Land Act of 1903 introduced the homestead system.
Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) regulated relationships President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)
between landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay.
cane lands. -limited President Diosdado Macapagal(1961-1965):
Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8,1963 Abolished shared tenancy,
COMMONWEALTH PERIOD institutionalized leasehold.
President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the Social Justice program. President Ferdinand Marcos(1965-1986):
1935 Constitution- The promotion of social justice to ensure the well- Republic Act No.6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971
being and economic security of all people should be the concern of the Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform
State Special Account Fund.
Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy - Provides automatic conversion of share tenancy to leasehold.
ActNo.4045) -Certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships
Commonwealth Act. No.461, 1937 Specified reasons for the dismissal Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26,1972 Declared the country under
of tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the land reform program.
Department of Justice. You will note again, the relationship bet. Presidential Decree No.27,October 21,1972 Restricted land reform scope to
Landlord and tenant has proliferated and the government was just tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares.
giving restrictions. Meaning, the landlord cant just unilaterally eject the
tenants, there has to be justifiable reasons. President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)
Rural Program Administration, created March 2,1939- purchase and Section 21 under Article II The State shall promote comprehensive
lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants. rural development and agrarian reform.
signed into law Republic Act No. 6657
JAPANESE OCCUPATION became effective on June 15,1988
peasants and workers organizations grew strength.
peasants took up arms E.O 405, during the time of Aquino, vested in the LBP to determine land valuation.
Anti- Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa In the acquisition, the landowner can voluntarily give up the land and AGREE on
Hapon) the land valuation to be determined by Land Bank. If the landowner does not agree
not much during this time with the acquisition, the government will have to do the compulsory acquisition.
And then, after that, you will have the valuation of the land bank of the Phil. If the
PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC land owner does not agree with the valuation, the land owner will usually go to the
After Philippine Independence in 1964 , problems of land tenure Civil Court.
remained .
President Manuel Roxas (1946-1948): Who has jurisdiction? Regional trial court acting as Special Agrarian Court
Republic Act No. 34 -- 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating
share-tenancy contracts. It used to be 50-50, now it is 70-30. President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998):
Republic Act No.55 more effective safeguard against arbitrary His administration committed to the vision Fairer, faster and more
ejectment of tenants. meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.
Republic Act No.7881,1995 Amended certain provisions of RA 6657
PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC and exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.
President Elpidio Quirino (1948-1953) Republic Act 8532,1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) additionalPhp50
Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23,1950 -- Replaced the billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years.
National Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development - You have the additional fund and extending the implementation for
Corporation (LASEDECO) another 10 years. Why was there an extension?
- Because R.A.6657 was to be implemented for a period of 10 years.
President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957) - Why extended it? Well that would be an admission that the program
Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established has not been fully implemented. After this in 1998 it was extended for
the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) another 10 years so it went to 2008.
Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) (note) - What was the latest amendment under CARP?
-relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy It was CARPER R.A.9700 passed on 2009
and leasehold system. - So what happened when CARP expired on 2008 and before CARPER
-tenant has option to elect either share tenancy or leasehold was enacted into law? Do you know what the congress did?
-it also created the Court of Agrarian Relations. - Congress merely passed a Resolution, Both houses, they passed a

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


2

resolution extending the coverage of CARP. SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
Question: Is that Valid? daw (valid nalang) founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless,
- If the Land of your client between 2008 and 2009 can you question the to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the
acquisition, Saying that there was no law supporting to that acquisition?
State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
(naa ni sa later part, basta gipa.retroact nila ang law to include the
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
period nga walay law kay nalangay ug approve.) Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
President Joseph E. Estrada(1998-2000)ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing.
launched the Magkabalikat Para sa Kaunlarang Agraryo or MAGKASAKA.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2000-present): Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform
Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8,
Kung manag-iya na sila sa yuta, nganung naa pa may leasehold? 1963, in line with the above-stated principles. This was substantially superseded
almost a decade later by P.D. No. 27, which was promulgated on October 21, 1972,
- Because the constitution or the law provides merely a right, a farmer may
along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands
not opt to avail of that right. Ingon sila a di mi motoo ana inyung for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for
programa oie, Pabilin lang mi diri arlese unta padayun lang mig tenant landowners.
but they will not be governed by share tenancy, wala na abolished
naman to, but they will be governed by leasehold operations.
On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full
- Nganu man ang government is concerned for farmers who are lessees land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the
even though they dont want to own parcels of land? Because dili sila valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of
ganahan nga naa napuy INEQUALITY. their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No.
131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No.
How does the government protect the interest of the farmers? Leasehold contract. 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation.
And, if you are the farmer in leasehold, you should have that leasehold annotated
at the back of the title of the land. Subsequently, the revived Congress of the Philippines took over legislative power
from the President and started its own deliberations, including extensive public
Land Tenure Improvement/Provision of Support Services hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The result, after almost a
Why is there a need for improvement? And Why is there a need for support? year of spirited debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino signed
- Remember, equalization of social and economic forces. That means the Law itself
on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned
recognizes that the mere giving of this parcels of Land to the farmers is not enactments, nevertheless gives them supplementary effect insofar as they are not
enough. They need credit assistance (para sa tanom and all) inconsistent with its provisions.

Agri-Agra Law under the law there is a specific provision that rural banks must
The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his powers
have a portfolio for credit assistance to be extended by way of loan to farmers.
under martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella. As for the
Sa ato pa RESERVE daan. (wa na gi.apil sa syllabus kay motaas na daw) power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229,
the same was authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Infrastructure Project/ KALAHI ARZone Constitution.
- Agrarian reform Zone, once there is an area composed of ARBs,
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries, They are a community, butangan sila og ARTICLE II
skwelahan, butangan sila multi-purpose hall, that part of assistance of DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
the state and they are called AR zone.
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure
Agrarian Justice (2 PHASES) the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty
1. Agrarian Legal Assistance executive (DAR will provide lawyers to farmers) through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a
2. Adjudication of Cases. rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
*If you are the lawyer of the Land Owner, inyung papahawa.on ang nagpuyo sa
yuta sa inyung client. Muadto kag DAR for assistance? You may not be granted. Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
Why? Who will decide, DAR dba? Who will assist? DAR And besides, if you are the development.
lawyer of the Landowner, you will not be tempted to get inside the system. Why?
The moment you get inside the system, the element needed so that DAR can Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian
adjudicate the case is RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TENANTS. Now, would you reform.
admit that there is Landowner and Tenant Relationship? Dili! Kansi kaayo ang
landowner ana. Ngano man? If you admit that, there are certain RESTRICTIONS! ARTICLE XII
And ofcourse, that is against the interest of your client land owner. NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
- Asa man cla mangadto? Sa civil courts na! Mao nang mufile sila ug
forcible entry, unlawful detainer, or accion publiciana. Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods
CARPER and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an
expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the
under-privileged.
Importance of Land Reform and its Constitutionality*
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary, 175 SCRA 343 agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full
and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in
both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino
"Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the
enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
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 dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the
their place in the sun. country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be
Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.
justice to "insure the well-being and economic security of all the people, especially
the less privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal adding Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or
specifically that "the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain
and disposition of private property and equitably diffuse property ownership and may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
profits." Significantly, there was also the specific injunction to "formulate and
devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.
implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the
Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
bondage of the soil."
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable
for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these sentiments, area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
it also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social Justice and Human
acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Rights, containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere provisions for the uplift of the
common people. These include a call in the following words for the adoption by the
State of an agrarian reform program: Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development,
and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine,

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


3

by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component
held, or leased and the conditions therefor. elements of society, through the maintenance of proper economic and
social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, and
ARTICLE XIII extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the
existence of all government on time-honored principle of salus populi est
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS suprema lex.

Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures The constitutional provisions on agrarian reform
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce (5) Specific provision on agrarian and natural resources reform. Article XIII:
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to
of property and its increments. receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded sharing.
on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly
or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a Article XIII, Sec.4- This was already complied. The mandate that a law should be
just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and passed that will undertake an agrarian reform program. How was it manifested?
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and You have RA 6657. The law was passed in 1988, during the time of Aquino. The
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account Constitution itself mandates that the program is founded on the right of FARMERS
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of and REGULAR FARM WORKERS, and OTHER FARM WORKER.
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land- Rights if you are a Farmer, Regular Farm Worker? Your right is to own the lands
sharing. you till. You can either put it in (1)your name, or it can be the (2)name of the
cooperative on which you are a member. Okay?

Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and Was this complied under CARL? Not necessarily. Why? Because under CARL, you
landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations can own an agricultural land EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT A TILLER of the said land.
to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and Nobody questioned this in the SC. Nobody said that hey SC, why should my land
shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, be awarded to somebody who is not a tiller of my land when the Constitution says
and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. To own the lands they till. How will the SC solve this question if this is raised in
the future? Anyway, thats not the issue now.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other How about OTHER FARM WORKERS? Do they have the right to own the lands they
natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession till? NO because the constitution just said that they have the right to receive a just
suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, share of the fruits. Was this complied under CARL? My opinion is it was not. Why?
and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. There are different classes of farmers. We have Regular Farmworkers, Seasonal
Farmworkers, and the catch-all Other Farmworkers. You are an Other
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural Farmworker if you do not fall under the 2 preceding categories. Those classes of
estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. farmers: (1)Farmworkers and (2)Other Farmworkers they qualify to own parcels
of land under the law. Is the law consistent with the Constitution? I dont think so.
Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of
local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing Take note of this, what is the meaning of Landless? Does it mean technically that
resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen the person does not own any amount of land? That is usually our impression. But
through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and under CARL, you are landless as long as you dont own an agricultural land
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and exceeding 3 hectares. Is that the purpose of an agrarian reform program? I believe
conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of the purpose is really for those who are truly landless because that is the very
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just essence of social legislation: Equalization of Forces. If you own a parcel of land,
share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. why the need of having another parcel of land?

Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds Another issue is this: RETENTION LIMITS. Ill give you an overview so that at least
of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, you will understand when we talk about agrarian reform. Agrarian Reform program
and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as is basically taking away parcels of land by the state from those owners of the
payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. agricultural lands. If you own 60 hectares, you wont own anymore 60 hectares.
You will only be able to retain a certain number of hectares. Who determines the
ARTICLE XVIII number? CONGRESS. Under CARL, landowners can retain up to 5 hectares. So, if
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS you own 60 hectares, you will retain 5 hectares. That is agrarian reform; that is
Section 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall expropriate idle or equalization of forces. Why? Because you have landowners who own parcels of
abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the land and you have tenants who till the land but dont own any parcels of land. How
beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program. will they become equal? The government will take away parcels of land and give it
to the land owners.

MEANING OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION But, that does not end there because that TAKING is what you call Expropriation of
Eminent Domain. Thats why in Sec. 4, there is a provision there subject to the
Laws that seek to promote the common good, generally by protecting and assisting Payment of Just Compensation. This is not simple because if you own vast hectares
the weaker members of society. of land, you dont have to give it away and receive a compensation nga ang
mu.valuate kay ang government kay normally gagmay. Pero, base rapud na sa
Lets talk about Social Justice. Why? Because what will follow are the provisions of imong sayop. Ngano man? Under Sec. 17, one of the factors that will affect the
the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article XIII, that talks about Social Justice. computation of just compensation is the Assessed Value. And ang landowner nga
gusto makasave, dili mudeclare sa sakto na assessed value. Ang ideclare sa tax
Just take note of the underlined words SOCIAL JUSTICE IS THE HUMANIZATION declaration, gamay ra kaayo kay aron gamay rag bayran nga real property tax.
OF THE LAWS. Personification of the laws. Meaning, the thrust of the law is TO Without knowing, ang iyang yuta kuhaon diay to sa gobyerno unya ang iyang yuta,
PROTECT PERSONS. And you have Equalization of Social and Economic Forces. bayran ra base sa botbot niya na assessed value.
Another important phrase: Measures calculated to ensure economic stability.
Sec 4 talks about retention limits. It qualifies retention limits. Reasonable retention
Meaning of social justice limits. That has not been questioned, so right now the limit is fixed at 5 hectares.
Social Justice is neither communism nor despotism, nor atomism, nor Children of landowners will also retain, subject to this 2 qualifications:
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 1. At least 15 yrs. Old
secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the 2. (a)Personally Cultivating the land or, (b)Directing managing the land
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by government of

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


4

Kasagarang anak, dili jud nay mu.uma. So anhi ni nila pasiguon sa ikaduha. There is a contribution of the land owner and that contribution is in the form of a
Directly managing the land. Naa bana? Wala! Nagpahayahay rana. So what is the land. The contribution of the tenant or lessee is labor. And the tenant/lessee is
implication here? It is prone to corruption and abuse. Ngano man? Pwede raman supposed to plant, cultivate, harvest and when there is production, divide the
daw sabotsaboton ang MARO. What is MARO? Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. share. The same concept share tenancy and leasehold.
He is the representative of 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 But why is it that leasehold is preferred over share tenancy?
PARO. So that is the framework of this agrarian reform program.
Why leasehold?

Sec. 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and - Protects tenurial and economic status
landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers organizations
to participate in the planning organization, and management of the program, and - ECONOMIC STATUS It is the upliftment of the life of the tenant.
shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, But what about tenurial? It has something to do with tenure. [Im
and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. sure in your favorite subject LABOR LAW, you remembered security of
Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, tenure] Security of tenure is provided by law not withstanding
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other any contract. So if you have a contract that says you are only there
natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession for a period of 10 months for example but under the law you are
suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, considered to be regularly employed because you are performing work
and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. directly for the company then you are considered a regular not
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own withstanding any contract. The same concept is true with respect to
agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by agrarian reform. That means if you are a tenant or a lessee the
law. LO cannot just dispossess, remove or eject you from the land
w/o apparent reason there has to be a ground, it should be
Take note of Sec. 6, still in the constitution. While the framework is: Acquisition based on the ground. And the grounds are provided by law.
subject to payment of just compensation, the program must respect (1)prior rights,
(2)homestead rights, and (3)the rights of indigenous communinities. So if you are a - Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and management
holder of homestead patent, your land is not covered by the agrarian reform
program. But, there is a BUT. Here, in sec. 6, there is no qualification. It just - Assures continuity of relations
mentioned subject to prior rights, homestead rights. But you know what
happened to the law? The law qualifies it. Qualifies it in a sense that if you are a - In case of death of the tenant or the lessee, the relationship
grantee of a homestead patent, gitagaan kag yuta sa DENR para naa kay ikabalay, CONTINUES. It continues with the immediate family. Thats
but wala ka nagpuyo or actually till sa yuta, the law says that you are not qualified why theres protection of the tenurial status.
for the exemption. But, section 6 does not qualify.
- In case lessor sells or alienates the legal possession, transferee shall be
Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of lessor. - -
especially of local communities; to the preferential use of the communal marine
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such - The transferee/the purchaser is subrogated but not
fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, subrogated in the positive sense of the word. He has
production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also to assume the rights and obligations of the lessor.
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to The transferee cannot say that I am innocent, I dont know,
offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. I am not aware that there was this relationship between
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine tenant and LO because if that is the case that that can be
and fishing resources. an excuse then futile ang balaod.
Sec. 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of
the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, Agricultural leasehold? (read Sec 4-38 for more info :p)
and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as
payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. A juridical tie between lessor and lessee

- Abolished shared tenancy. Now leasehold tenancy.


RA 3844 - Why is it that leasehold relationship was preferred?
a. Tenurial Security under Agrarian Land Reform relationship can
BENEFICIARIES exist even if there is death of the lessee or lessor, sale , transfer
or conveyance of agricultural land.
Tenant Farmers - The transferee of the agriland, the vendee is bound by the leasehold
relationship
Agricultural wage-earners or farm workers - Should it be annotated? No. Not necessary. The law provides for that.
- Leasehold relationship will remain. To protect the lessee from possible
Settlers including migrant workers ejectment or disposition of property.
- Refers to 2 parties
Owner-cultivators of less than family-size farms - It is referred as agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee
- Lease somebody must pay rental
LANDS COVERED BY THE CODE - Can the lessor eject the tenant?
Yes, the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the tenant.
Tenanted Areas Unless the ground for ejectment is not enumerated in 3844, the lessee
cannot be ejected.
Landed Estates
Po vs Dampal
Old Settlements
- talks about redemption, the right of the lessee to redeem a property that was
Proposed Settlements foreclosed by the bank. But the law even mentions about the right of pre-emption
if ibaligya gani sa tag-iya ang yuta dunay katungod nga e.offer ngadto
COMPOSITION OF THE CODE sa lessee ang yuta.

An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy Sec. 12 on legal redemption Farm lots foreclosed by the bank due non-payment
systems in agriculture. of a loan. Po is the highest bidder in the auction. The previous owner, the
mortgagor and the tenant filed a Civil Case against the bank for annulment of
During the Time of Diosdado Macapagal and it was this law that ABOLISHED mortgage. Meanwhile the tenant filed a complaint for legal redemption with DAR.
SHARE TENANCY and UPHELD LEASE HOLD. Before this was RA 1199 where
the tenant is given the choice whether the tenant would love to go to share Subject of this case is the case of legal redemption not the annulment of mortgage.
tenancy or lease hold. If you have read 1199 the meaning or the concept of share Because Dampal wants to redeem the land from the bank. But PO said you have no
tenancy and lease hold are the same. right of redemption because it is already beyond the period as provided under sec.
12. Sec 12 provides 180 days from notice in writing.
With respect to parties: Parties are the land owner and the tenant although in the
case of leasehold the tenant is technically called lessee. DARAB said no more right to redeem because it has prescribed. But you have to
know under sec. 12, it provides for a reckoning point, and the reckoning point is a

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


5

NOTICE IN WRITING. Who shall give the notice? It is the vendee, kuha.a sa LO. That means there was no willful and deliberate non-payment
supposed to be the bank that shall serve notice on all the lessees of the rentals due.
including Private Respondent Dampal because he is affected by the sale.
Not only the lessees but also including DAR. Sec. 37 talks about dispossess. There is a difference between extinguishment
of the relation as against dispossession.
-There was no notice served. So SC said, the lack of written notice does not start - DISPOSSESSION there has to be a court order. Dili ni order referring to
the running of the prescriptive period. civil court on the aspect of Civil law relationship, it is in the context of
the Department of agrarian reform.
- Contention of PO, the highest bidder Dampal, when you filed an action against - There is an ejectment under civil law, there is also an ejectment under
the bank for nullity of mortgage you were aware that there was non-payment of agrarian reform. The jurisdiction for one is different from the other.
the loan and the bank is to foreclose the property. It was foreclosed that is why - Im sure youve heard cases about LO filing cases on ejectment against
you are seeking the nullity of the mortgage. Therefore you are considered to have occupants. Normally from squatters, in a parcel of land. And its normal
a constructive knowledge. SC said, this contention fails because of the express for lawyers to file the case under the civil law concept. Not agrarian
requirement under the law that it has to be in WRITING. law. WHY? Its hard ang agrarian and its difficult to the part of
the LO. Why? If you file ejectment under agrarian law you are
One of the important provisions of the law is w/ respect to grounds to dispossess. bound by whatever rights of the occupants may have on the
Take note: dispossess here means removal/ejectment from the land. So parcel of land. Bound ka especially under RA 3844 that means you
you will note among the grounds that has been listed, dili pwede cannot eject unless your ground falls under any of those grounds and
ma.rakrakan ang tenant ug pusil. The land owner still has to comply with this. unsa may kasagaran mahitabo sa yuta? Diba naa sa yuta mo.kalit
This law still applies. (on grounds for ejectment) nalang ug turok ang mga tawo bisag wa gitanum? Wa mo kabantay
ana? Murag mushroom diba? Tan.aw nimu nag.tulda lng, pagkahuman
SIR: Under the current law, CARL, there is no provision on ejectment! So which ni balay na, nya nipa hut, nya nag.scene na jud. so you dont file it
one will you consult? This law (RA 3844). There is no provision under CARL normally at the agrarian court. Why? Unsa man imu e.ground? and
regarding the rights and obligations, you have to consult this law. Thats why this besides if you file it there, you recognize that there is
one is still very applicable with respect to leasehold. relationship of LO and Lessee. Remember TENURIAL STATUS. Bisag
mamatay na na cya di ghapon na nimu mapahawa kay naa may
Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS nag.sunod. So what LO would do is to file it under the civil
concept mao na nga nay rule 70. Forcible entry and unlawful
a. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement detainer. Of course it may not fall under forcible entry, WHY? One
b. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that year mana from the time of entry, normally wa man ka diha. So imu
agreed upon buhaton ngadto ka sa unlawful detainer and the allegation normally
c. Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land was that there was TOLERANCE. You tolerate ang ila occupation
d. Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage with the understanding nga hoy ug pahawaon gani moh, hawa
e. Non-payment of rental when due na. That is the civil law concept.
- Jurisdiction is different, civil law concept you file to civil court, agrarian
- One of the Important ground is this non-payment of the rental ejectment you file ari sa agrarian Court /PARAD. So when we mention
when due. Going back to the relationship, LO provides the land, lessee here about court order we are referring to the order coming from the
labor and when there is production they are supposed to divide the agrarian court and the offense is premised on the grounds under the
produce. The produce there to be given by the lessee to the lessor/LO law.
is the rental. The rental is FIXED by law. The rental shall not exceed - Whereas if it is an extinguishment, normally it is a voluntary act.
25% of the average normal harvest. D pwede patas.an. Nganu Kung e. abandon, mopahawa sila sa yuta. Hinaot wala pamusila kay
man? Maalkansi ang lessee. Kung magsabot sila ug 50-50,unsaon aron mahadlok that is an extinguishment or there is an act of God,
pagka.uplift sa economic status sa lessee?! Pwede paubsan? Pwede. basig gbaha.an cguro nya wala mo.hubas ang baha.

f. Employed a sublessee
- Normally the grounds are last two grounds, under 3844, there is an Can relation be terminated by death?
express provision that the lessee will allow a sublessee.
- If they are agricultural workers under RA 3844, they are under Bill Of No, continue between lessor and members of lessees immediate farm
Rights, they are entitled to minimum wage law, among others. household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death:
- Agricultural lessee vs Civil lessee
To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and under Agrarian Law If lessor cannot choose, the law provides this order of assumption: 1.
1. Grounds to eject - AL 3844 while CL Civil Code surviving spouse; 2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; 3. next
2. Where will you file the ejectment case agri lessee DAR while eldest descendants in the order of their age.
civil lessee in regular courts
- Lessee has substantial rights, you dont have to allege , you have to Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization?
support.
- Allegation only is not sufficient -Fine or imprisonment

Extinguishment of relation vs dispossession -Damages suffered


a. Extinguishment no court approval, voluntary act (abandonment
of land without knowledge of lessor or voluntary surrender by -Attorneys fees
lessee) or an act of God
b. Dispossession with court order, premise of lessee -Remuneration for last income

Sta. Anna vs Carpo, the issue is non-payment of the rentals. You will note there That means that there must be a complaint filed before the PARAD to
are different rulings of the DAR. be able to lawfully eject a tenant. So, it is also provided for under the law.

ABBREVIATIONS USED: PARAD is the provincial adjudicator. Provincial Agrarian Lease rental
Reform Adjudicator PARAD. The DARAB is the central office in Manila. So any
decision of the PARAD goes to DARAB and from the DARAB being a quasi-judicial Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal
agency under the rules of Court, goes to CA. harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date
of leasehold after deducting amount used for the seeds and costs of
Now SC discusses first about BURDEN OF PROOF. NOTE: According to the SC harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing.
under sec. 37 the burden of proof to show the existence of a cause of
rejectment is upon petitioner land owner. That means we are talking about - NOTE: EQUIVALENT: because it is not necessary that the payment of
all the grounds to dispossess. It is the LO who has the burden to prove the ground. the lease rental is the produce. It can be the produce, the money or
can be both depending upon the agreement of the parties.
SC qualified that non-payment must be willful and deliberate. That means di - BUT, the lease rental cannot exceed 25%.
lang failure, it could be failure but if there was negligence on the part of the lessee
to pay that may not be taken against the lessee, because it has to be WILLFUL and WHAT IS THE MEANING HERE OF AGRICULTURAL YEAR?
DELIBERATE non-payment.
- The planting up to the harvest cycle, that constitutes agricultural year.
So according to the court the lessee executed an affidavit that the LO refused to It is not referring to the calendar year. So probably in one year, there is
receive the respective lease rentals and for another year the lessee wrote two a cycle of 2 agricultural years depending on the crop/crops planted.
notices to the LO informing him of the availability of the lease rentals pero wa

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


6

Bill of Rights for Agricultural Labor SECTION 48.Exceptions to Preceding Section. The preceding Sections of this
Chapter, except Sections forty, forty-one, forty-two and forty-three shall not
SECTION 39.Rights for Agricultural Labor. To enable the farm workers to
apply to farm enterprises comprising not more than twelve hectares
enjoy the same rights and opportunities in life as industrial workers, they shall
enjoy the following: SUPPLETORY EFFECT (nothing sa slides or sa records, but apil sa syllabus, idk asa
sa law dapit enlighten meeee) wala pud ang Reyes vs. Reyes GR 140164 (read
- (1)Right to self-organization; case nalang)
- (2)Right to engage in concerted activities; - IMO: This law has suppletory effect on CARL based on the grounds to
- (3)Right to minimum wage; dispossess/eject since wala man dawn na sa CARL (believe at your own
- (4)Right to work for not more than eight hours; risk!!)
- (5)Right to claim for damages for death or injuries sustained
while at work; TENANTS EMANCIPATION DECREE
- (6)Right to compensation for personal injuries, death or
(Pres. Decree no.27.) Marcos decree
illness; and
- (7)Right against suspension or lay-off. BENEFICIARIES

Beneficiaries of the Decree are the bona fide tenant farmers of private
SECTION 40.Right to Self-Organization. The farm workers shall have the right
agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-
to self-organization and to form, join or assist farm workers' organizations of
their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through crop or lease tenancy (not farm labor), whether classified as landed estate
representatives of their own choosing: Provided, That this right shall be or not
exercised in a manner as will not unduly interfere with the normal farm
operations. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for The tenant farmer- whether in land classified as landed estate (i.e., with an area
membership in farm workers' organizations under their supervision but may of 24 hectares or above) or not, shall be deemed owner (subject to certain
form separate organizations of their own.
requirements and conditions) of a portion constituting a family size of five (5)
SECTION 41.Right to Engage in Concerted Activities. The farm workers shall hectares, if not irrigated and three (3)hectares, if irrigated. Lands transferred to
also have the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective tenant-farmers under the Decree will revert to the government and not to the
bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. landowners in case where the tenant abandons his tillage or refuses to take
For the purpose of this and the preceding Section, it shall be the duty of the advantage of his rights under the laws.
farm employer or manager to allow the farm workers, labor leaders, organizers,
advisers and helpers complete freedom to enter and leave the farm, plantation Note that the Decree does not apply to lands owned by the government or
or compound at the portion of the same where said farm workers live or stay government-owned corporation.
permanently or temporarily.
SECTION 42.Right to Minimum Wage. Notwithstanding any provision of law or
contract to the contrary, farm workers in farm enterprises shall be entitled to at DIFFERENCE:
least P3.50 a day for eight hours' work: Provided, That this wage may, however,
be increased by the Minimum Wage Board as provided for in Republic Act Difference between PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree) and RA 6657
Numbered Six hundred and two. (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
SECTION 43.Right to Eight Hours' Work. Notwithstanding the provision of
existing laws to the contrary, farm workers shall not be required to work for PD 27 RA 6657
more than eight hours daily. When the work is not continuous, the time during
Purpose Abolish leasehold in Main purpose is to provide
which the farm worker is not working and can leave his working place and can
tenanted lands. It land for the landless
rest completely shall not be counted.
made the tiller of through acquiring and
Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or the land the distribution of lands and
impending emergencies caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, amortizing owner providing support facilities
epidemic, or other disaster or calamity, or in case of urgent work to be of the land he tills. and system for the benefit
performed on farm machines, equipment or installations in order to avoid a of the farmers.
serious loss which the farm employer or manager would otherwise suffer, or Land Private lands which Covers all public and private
some other just cause of a similar nature, but in all such cases the farm workers Covered are devoted to rice agricultural lands including
shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work performed at the and corn ONLY. other lands of public domain
same rate as their regular wages, plus at least twenty-five per suitable for agriculture
centum additional, based on their daily wages. regardless of tenurial
arrangement and
No farm employer or manager shall compel a farm worker to work during
commodity produced.
Sundays and legal holidays: Provided, however, That should the farm worker
Effect in With the passage Main governing law of
agree to work on said days, he shall be paid an additional sum of at least
Implement of RA 6657, it is Agrarian Land Reform here
twenty-five per centum of his regular compensation; Provided, further, That the
ing Land only a suppletory in the Philippines.
farm employer or manager shall not be held liable for any claim for overtime
Reform law. This means, it
work which he had not previously authorized, except if the work rendered was
Program will be applicable
to avoid damages to crops, produce, work animals or implements, buildings or
only to those
the like.
matters not
Any agreement or contract between the farm employer or manager and the covered by RA
farm worker contrary to the provisions of this Section shall be null and void. 6657.
Number of Makes a distinction: Note: not beneficiaries:
SECTION 44.Right of Action for Damages. Notwithstanding the provisions of hectares - If irrigated: 3 this is referring to the
existing laws to the contrary, Act Numbered Eighteen hundred and seventy-four, that a - If not irrigated:
as amended, entitled "An Act to extend and regulate the responsibility of tenants (because naa sad
tenant or 5
employers for personal injuries and death suffered by their employees while at baya beneficiaries na
farmer can
work", shall apply to farm workers insofar as it may be applicable. children under CARL)
own
o The beneficiaries,
SECTION 45.Right to Compensation for Personal Injuries, Death, or Illness.
Notwithstanding the provisions of existing laws to the contrary, Act Numbered meaning the ARBs
Thirty-four hundred and twenty-eight, as amended, entitled "An Act prescribing (agrarian reform
the compensation to be received by employees for personal injuries, death or beneficiaries) can be
illness contracted in the performance of their duties", shall apply to farm awarded not exceeding
workers insofar as it may be applicable. 3 hectares
SECTION 46.Right Against Suspension or Lay-Off. The landowner, farm Ownership 7 hectares if the retention is 5
employer or farm manager shall not suspend, lay-off or dismiss any farm worker of the land personally hectares regardless of
without just cause from the time a farm workers' organization or group of farm that can cultivated by the whether the landowner is
workers has presented to the landowner a petition or complaint regarding any landowner OR will
be tilling the land or not.
matter likely to cause a strike or lockout and a copy thereof furnished with the cultivate
retained o Children of the
Department of Labor, or while an agricultural dispute is pending before the
Court of Agrarian Relations. If it is proved during the said period that a worker landowner not
has been suspended or dismissed without just cause, the Court may direct the exceeding 3 hectares
reinstatement and the payment of his wage during the time of his suspension or each, subject to 2
dismissal, or of any sum he should have received had he not been suspended or conditions:
dismissed, without prejudice to any criminal liability of the landowner, farm 1. 15 years old and above
employer or farm manager as prescribed by Section twenty-four of
2. Personally cultivating or
Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred and three, as amended. cdasia
directly managing
SECTION 47.Other Applicable Provisions. All other existing laws applicable to
non-agricultural workers in private enterprises which are not inconsistent with
this Code shall likewise apply to farm workers, farm labor organizations and PD 27 rice & corn land
agrarian disputes as defined in this Code, as well as to relations between farm RA 6657 all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain).
management and farm labor and the functions of the Department of Labor and
other agencies.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


7

Sigre vs. CA, G.R. No. 109568, August 8, 2002 the law, effect any transfer except back to the government or, by hereditary
succession, to their successors.11
The Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates Furthermore, this Court has always ruled that agrarian laws must be interpreted
distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and private agricultural liberally in favor of the grantees in order to give full force and effect to the clear
land including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture as intent of such laws: "to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers"; and to
provided for in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; while, make them "more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source
P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides for of genuine strength in our democratic society."12
the mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically states:
"Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to Neither are we convinced that an award under PD 27 may be transferred to
rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. x x x" It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, another in case the grantee abandons it. The law is explicit.
that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever No Abandonment
provisions of P.D. 27 that are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to
the latter, and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained For abandonment to exist, the following requisites must be proven: (a) a clear and
even with the passage of R.A. 6657. absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property and
(b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. There
must be an actual, not merely a projected, relinquishment; otherwise, the right or
Sigre v. CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates separately from RA 6657.
claim is not vacated or waived and, thus, susceptible of being appropriated by
another. In the present case, no such "willful failure" has been demonstrated. Quite
Can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to another
the contrary, respondent has continued to claim dominion over the land.
qualified beneficiary?
No Valid Reallocation
Estolas vs. Mabalot, G.R. No. 133706, May 7, 2002
Furthermore, even if respondent did indeed abandon his right to possess and
cultivate the subject land, any transfer of the property may only be made in favor
Facts: of the government. In Corpuz v. Grospe,19 the Court held that there was a valid
transfer of the land after the farmer-grantee had signed his concurrence to the
A Certificate of Land Transfer (hereinafter referred to as Samahang Nayon Resolution surrendering his possession of the landholding. This
CLT) was issued in favor of respondent over a 5,000 square meter lot voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon constituted a surrender or transfer to
(hereinafter referred to as subject land). Needing money for medical the government itself.
treatment, respondent passed on the subject land to the petitioner.
In the present case, there was no valid transfer in favor of the government. It was
According to respondent, there was only a verbal mortgage; while
petitioner himself who requested the DAR to cancel respondents CLT and to issue
according to petitioner, a sale had taken place.
another one in his favor.21 Unlike in the above-cited case, respondents land was
Respondent filed a Complaint against the petitioner before not turned over to the government or to any entity authorized by the government
the Barangay Lupon in Pangasinan for the purpose of redeeming the to reallocate the farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become
subject land. When no amicable settlement was reached, the case was beneficiaries of PD 27. Petitioner cannot, by himself, take over a farmer-
referred to the DAR regional office beneficiarys landholding, allegedly on the ground that it was abandoned. The
. DARs District Office found that respondent merely gave the subject proper procedure for reallocation must be followed to ensure that there was indeed
land to petitioner as guarantee for the payment of a loan he had abandonment, and that the subsequent beneficiary is a qualified farmer-tenant as
incurred from the latter; and recommending that the CLT remain in the provided by law.
name of respondent and that the money loan be returned to petitioner. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED
Petitioner insisted that the subject land had been sold to
him by respondent and requested the DAR to cancel the CLT in
respondents name. Another investigation was conducted on the matter Estolas v. Mabalot : Land may only be transferred either by succession or to
which led to the issuance of an Order issued by DAR Regional Director. government.
In the said Order, the DAR found the act of respondent in surrendering DAR cannot transfer directly to a qualified beneficiary.
the subject land in favor of petitioner as constituting abandonment
thereof, and denied respondents prayer for redemption of the subject Land Bank of the Phil. vs. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, G.R. No. 175175,
land. Respondents request for reinvestigation was denied in a September 29, 2008
Resolution. Facts:
Case is regarding the valuation to the land of the respondents of which the area
Thus, respondent appealed the case to the DAR Central was placed by the government under the coverage of the operation land transfer
Office which an order was issued reversing the assailed Order of DAR program under PD 27.
Regional Director and ordering the petitioner to return the subject land The LBP, petitioners herein, valued the land in accordance with the guidelines set
to respondent. Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied. forth under PD 27 and EO No. 228 and pegged the value of the land amounting to
P106,935.76 per hectare. Respondents rejected petitioners valuation and insist on
claiming that the said land is worth between P150,00 to P200,000 per hectare.
Issues: The Cagayan Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) however valued the
land at P80,000 following the factors set under RA 6557 (CARL) and of which such
value, as just compensation to the respondent, was approve by the lower court
A. Whether or not there is a valid abandonment made by Respondent Mabalot. (RTC) setting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC).
B. Whether the act of Respondent Mabalot in conveying to petitioner the right to
possess and cultivate the disputed parcel of land constitutes a valid abandonment Issue:
thereby rendering the property available for transfer to other bonafide farmers. Whether or not PD 27 or RA 6557 is the applicable law in determining the value of
the land which was taken under PD 27 or before RA 6557 was enacted.
C. Whether the issuance of an emancipation patent and thereafter a transfer Held:
certificate of title in the name of petitioner has validated and legitimized possession The Court laid down in Paris v. Alfeche the applicability of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No.
and ownership over the disputed property." 228 in relation to R.A. No. 6657 in the matter of the payment of just compensation.
There the Court explained that while under P.D. No. 27 tenant farmers are already
deemed owners of the land they till, they are still required to pay the cost of the
Held: land before the title is transferred to them and that pending the payment of just
Main Issue: compensation, actual title to the tenanted land remains with the landowner.
Abandonment 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. No. 6657 before its
The subject property was awarded to respondent by virtue of PD 27. A CLT was
completion, the process should now be completed under R.A. No. 6657,
issued in his favor. PD 27 specifically provides that when private agricultural land --
with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 applying only suppletorily.
whether classified as landed estate or not is primarily devoted to rice and corn
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the
under a system of sharecrop or lease tenancy, the tenant farmers thereof shall be
guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to
deemed owners of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if
determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
not irrigated, and three (3) hectares if irrigated.
compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or
Petitioner avers that respondent neither protested when the former had the subject EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the
land surveyed and planted with 40 mango trees, nor attempted to return the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator,
money he had borrowed from petitioner in 1976. Because the lot has been the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
abandoned by respondent, the beneficiary, and because PD 27 does not prohibit The land therefore should be valued under RA 6657 following the guidelines set in
the transfer of properties acquired under it, petitioner theorizes that the DAR AO no. 5, series of 1998 and not under PD 27.
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) may award the land to another qualified
farmer-grantee. Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz:
-The determination of just compensation should be based on RA 6657
Non-transferability of Land Awarded Under PD 27
for lands covered under PD 27. PD 27 applies only suppletorily.
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 government shall not be Although this was not discussed in any of the case: ngano nindot man ang under
transferable except to the grantees heirs by hereditary succession, or back to the 6657 and not under PD 27? Just by analysis. There are more factors under 6657.
government by other legal means. The law is clear and leaves no room for
So the factors are more reasonable and just insofar as the owner and the
interpretation.
government is concerned.
Upon the promulgation of PD 27, their emancipation gave them the rights to
possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for themselves. These rights were
One of the factors considered under just compensation is the tax declaration.
granted by the government to them as the tillers and to no other. Thus, to insure
What can you find under the tax declaration?
their continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, they could not, under

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


8

Assessed value. Upon whose declaration? The OWNERs Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion If you want to
declaration. If gamay ra imo ideclare then gamay ra sad change classification of your land from agricultural to residential or commercial or
imo just compensation. industrial it is governed by another policy not this admin order.
Other factor is the zonal value.
Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the
*LBP vs. Sps. Rokaya GR 180804: not in records/ppt but according to the syllabus: rights of ARBs due to unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent
SAME PRINCIPLE with LBP vs. HEIRS OF CRUZ declaration of areas used for cattle purposes.
Why? (Just a possibility daw) It may have happened that DAR may not
Abandonment: be able to inspect all lands that are covered under CARP in fact if Im
not mistaken, up to now, only 63% has been achieved insofar as
GUAN vs. QUIRINO implementation of the Law is concerned.

Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private


- The awardee here abandoned the land for 11 years.
agricultural lands actually, exclusively and directly used for cattle raising
- The SC said that under this admin order that if the awardee/beneficiary as of 15 June 1988.
fails to cultivate, till or develop or to use the land for any economic
purpose continuously for a period of 2 calendar years that is DAR actually has a ratio for that admin order no. 9 in the succeeding case: one
abandonment. NOTE: the law use CALENDER years, not agricultural. So animal is entitled to 1 hectare of land, 1 cattle. And then 1.7 something hectares
calendar year is favorable to the tenant. thats good for 21 heads insofar as infrastructure is concerned.

Those that will exceed or portions which will not be covered by this will have to be
covered under CARP, the purpose should be for the growth of cattle industry but if
PRESENT LAW (CARPER) RA 6657 the filing of the exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage, DAR shall deny
due course if the application is filed 60 days after date of receipt of notice. That
CHAPTER 1 means you have to be fast do not wait for DAR to be able to send you a notice of
Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?Yes. CARP coverage. Before DAR should serve that, you have to already apply for a
Sec.2 (RA 6657) petition for exclusion. Only exclusion petitions fully supported shall be accepted.
sound rural development and industrialization
to promote industrialization Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow.
Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture (fertilizers, Policies:
insecticides, hybrid seeds, irrigation systems, tractors) (1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be
excluded (exclusion to be granted only upon proof and continuously
Can private corporation acquire ownership of alienable lands of public utilized up to time of application);
domain? (2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion
Chavez v. PEA: No, only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs. Renewable not more (3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for
than 25yrs. And not to exceed 1,000 hectares cattle raising shall be excluded; all other areas shall be covered.
(4) Encourage growth of cattle industry
(CONST., Art. XII, Sec.3) (5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage, DAR
shall deny due course if application is filed 60 days after date of receipt
DEFINITIONS: Agriculture, enterprise, agricultural activity. of notice.
(6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents shall be
One section that uses the word agriculture is Section 4. COVERAGE. The law says: accepted

DAR v. Sutton: (leading case due to nullification of AO no. 9)


This law covers all public/private agricultural lands including other lands of
the public domain suitable for agriculture. Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil
(VOS - due to Luz Farms - withdraw VOS)
SEC 3(B) defines agriculture or agricultural activity. - Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993 (prescribing a maximum retention
limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising);
- SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed definition of agricultural
Sec. 3 (b) Agriculture or Agricultural Activity
activity by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted
- Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising
to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising. Congress
of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm products, and
clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with
other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such
the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude
farming operations done by person whether natural or juridical.
livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform.
Question: Ngano man puwa mana ang raising of livestock, poultry or fish?
Now what is the implication of Luz farms case and the amendment made by
o Originally, that was placed by law. But in the case of Luz Farms versus congress per RA 7881?
Secretary of DAR (1990), the SC struck down that phrase for being - Supreme court and congress are saying that lands devoted to live stock
unconstitutional. are not to be covered under CARP.

Luz Farms v. Sec. Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional What did DAR do after the Luz Farms case?
(raising of livestock, poultry and swine per SC) - DAR issued AO #9 series 1993. Remember the Luz farms case was in
- use of land is incidental and not the principal factor 1990 and AO #9 is in 1993, that is why in this case, originally the land
RA 7881 (effective May 1995) owner filed a VOS; voluntary offer to sell meaning he is surrendering to
- amended Sec.3(b) and removed the raising of livestock, poultry or the government the land for purposes of CARP but here comes Luz
fish Farms. (Im not sure how many months after the filing of the VOS did
raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree the supreme court come out with the ruling in Luz Farms case)
farming. - In Luz Farms supreme court said, lands devoted to live stock are not
Industrial, not agricultural activity. covered so they are saying well we have parcels of land devoted to
Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of livestock so we have to withdraw our VOS and questioned AO #9
industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, saying under the constitution, Luz Farm, and congress, DAR cannot
drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, regulate the raising of livestock because in this particular AO, DAR
conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities stated that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the
for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and raising of livestock poultry or swine shall be excluded.
digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells,
elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological *There is a constitutional basis for saying that live stock raising is not included
appurtenances under CARP because it was found in the deliberations of the CON-COM particularly
commissioner Tadeo, the one representing the tenant, (and he was asked in
SIR: Mao na akong kasagaran binuang ani wala kay baboy na itanom, baktin na Filipino of course) whether the farm workers include those person who are working
mahimong baboy hehehe. in livestock, poultry and swine. And his answer was that they are NOT included.
- So taking a cue from that deliberation the supreme court, in the case of
- DAR Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (RULES & REGULATIONS Luz Farms deleted that phrase raising of live stock etc. from the
GOVERNING THE EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED definition of agricultural activity.
FOR CATTLE RAISING FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARP)
SC: DAR you have no power to regulate. What you did, using the AO was trying to
- Livestock and poultry do not sprout from the land. regulate live stock farming but you have no power because that is not within your
5 years pa after nakarealize ang congress, so it was eventually removed from jurisdiction, it is not part of CARP coverage. This has been exempted by the
sec3(B). constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform.

Governs the exclusion of agri lands used for cattle raising from coverage of CARP. Because DAR lost in the Sutton case when supreme court nullified AO #9, DAR
issued an admin order #7. This time DAR learned its lesson, we will not regulate
If you have an application for exclusion, you file it with DAR to be excluded from
livestock because that is outside of our authority but what we will do is we will
CARP, you should prove that the land is actually, exclusively and directly (ADE) classify lands those devoted to livestock and those not devoted to livestock to their
used for cattle raising. So it was the policy that if the land is ADE for cattle raising guidelines.
as of June 15, 1988 then it shall be excluded but of course you have to wait for the
ruling of DAR with respect to application for exclusion. Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


9

Policy guidelines: There are 2 basic functions of DAR in relation to CARP,


Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and 1. Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI): who are involved in
continuously used shall be excluded; conversely, those not ADE are implementation? From the bottom you have the MARO going up you
subject to CARP if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1) have the PARO(provincial), RARO (regional), Secretary of Agrarian
there is agricultural activity in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil, planting Reform and from that office of the president, CA then SC, thats the 1 st
of crops, growing of trees including harvesting); (2) land is suitable for basic function in so far as implementation.
agriculture and occupied and tilled by farmers. 2. Decision making(quasi-judicial): the MARO has no function but in quasi
In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official judicial from the bottom you have PARAB(provincial adjudicator),
functions, all processes by DAR per AO No. 9 are valid. RARAB(regional), DARAB based in manila the central office from DARAB
- But this one surprises me, despite the fact that AO #9 was to CA to SC.
nullified, DAR said in line with the principle of regularity of
the performance of official functions all processes of DAR But you have to note in the implementation aspect it is possible nga from the
for AO number 9 are valid. Anyway nobody questioned it! MARO etc., there is a delineation along the way but only on two aspects meaning
Sec. 3 (c) Agricultural land land devoted to agricultural activity & not (especially on the coverage on the land) it is possible that the trial court will
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. intervene somewhere, what aspects?
1. Just compensation
2. criminal offenses
Republic vs Salvador Lopez Agri-business It is only on two aspects that the civil court has jurisdiction. Im referring to RTC.

Facts CASE: There are 2 lands here. You have the Lopez land and the 2nd one is the
Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of Limoc Lands. You have here the finding of MARO of several heads of cattle, some
160.1161 hectares registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business covered by several certificates. There were structures used for livestock business,
Corporation.
the existence of the cattle prior to the enactment of CARL positively affirmed, farm
On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga
issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the aforementioned workers and overseers interviewed by the MARO.
landholdings which were subsequently placed under Compulsory Acquisition
pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). SC: Lopez lands you are devoted to livestock raising therefore not included under
CARL.
On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office
(PARO), Davao Oriental, an Application for Exemption of the lots covered by TCT
DAR argued: SC the tax declaration characterized the lopez land as agricultural.
No. T-12637 and T-12639 from CARP coverage. It alleged that pursuant to the case
of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary said parcels of land are exempted from coverage as
the said parcels of land with a total area of 110.5455 hectares are used for grazing SIR: In a tax dec, you will find there the classification of the land, and
and habitat of petitioner's 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads of pinakapermero ana nga table agricultural sa ubos either residential commercial or
goats and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian industrial ug agri imu classification barato imu bayaran nga real property tax but
Reform Law (CARL). the moment nga mahimo nag siyag commercial(?) or industrial, it goes higher.

On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, the MARO conducted an onsite
So DAR is saying: therefore the fact that it is agri, this detracted from the claim
investigation on the two parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock as
enumerated. that they were used for livestock purposes

On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was cancelled but SC said: there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that land classification in a
and a new one issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP T- tax dec is conclusive in filing. That means you may not rely solely on the tax dec.,
16356. On February 7, 1994, petitioner through its President, Salvador N. Lopez, you can base it on another evidence, and what is that evidence? Here in the Lopez
Jr., executed a letter-affidavit addressed to the respondent-Secretary requesting for
case you have the findings of the MARO, which findings stated the lands were used
the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that
they needed the additional area for its livestock business. On March 28, 1995, for livestock raising.
petitioner filed before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an application for
the exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 stating that it has SIR: But Im not saying you cannot use tax dec as a basis but you cannot rely on it
been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15, 1988 and that the said two (2) solely. You can also rely on other evidence specially on MAROs findings which
lots form an integral part of its grazing land. according to our jurisprudence is entitled to respect by the SC.

The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order dated
What about Limot Lands, what is the finding? The report says the entire limot lands
March 5, 1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on
the ground that it was not clearly shown that the same were actually, directly and were devoted to coconut and rubber so the question was: where the limot lands
exclusively used for livestock raising since in its application, petitioner itself ADE devoted? NO! why? Because the entire limot lands were planted with coconuts
admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. The application for and rubber. So verily the limot lands were ADE used for agricultural plantations
exemption, however of the other two (2) parcels of land was approved. which makes them subjects to CARL. The corporation SNL-ABC argued that there is
a misapprehension of facts and requested an exemption on the ground that the
Issue:
corporation needed the additional area for the livestock business. So what is the
Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL
logic there? Needed the additional area that will happen in the future which is
Held: proof that the land is not yet being actually used for livestock business.
In contrast, the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to coconut
trees and rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP coverage.
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
In the Report dated 06 April 1994, the team that conducted the inspection found
that the entire Limot lands were devoted to coconuts (41.5706 hectares) and Facts:
rubber (8.000 hectares) and recommended the denial of the application for Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) was incorporated with the Securities
exemption. 30 Verily, the Limot lands were actually, directly and exclusively used and Exchange Commission on January 8, 1960. 4 Among its pertinent secondary
for agricultural activities, a fact that necessarily makes them subject to the CARP. purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; to
These findings of the inspection team were given credence by the DAR Regional acquire lands by purchase or lease, which may be needed for this purpose; and to
Director who denied the application, and were even subsequently affirmed by the sell and otherwise dispose of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock and their produce
DAR Secretary and the Court of Appeals. when advisable and beneficial to the corporation; (2) to breed, raise, and sell
poultry; to purchase or acquire and sell, or otherwise dispose of the supplies,
In the 07 February 1994 Letter-Affidavit addressed to the DAR Secretary, SNLABC stocks, equipment, accessories, appurtenances, products, and by-products of said
requested the exemption of the Limot lands on the ground that the corporation business; and (3) to import cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and animal food
needed the additional area for its livestock business. As pointed out by the DAR necessary for the raising of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock as may be
Regional Director, this Letter-Affidavit is a clear indication that the Limot lands were authorized by law. 5
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." On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657,
Unfortunately, the semantics of the declarations of SNLABC in its application for otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took effect,
exemption are corroborated by the other attendant factual circumstances and which included the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. However,
indicate its treatment of the subject properties as non-livestock. on December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary of
the Department of Agrarian Reform 6 that agricultural lands devoted to livestock,
Verily, the MARO itself, in the Investigation Report cited by no less than SNLABC, poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian
found that the livestock were only moved to the Limot lands sporadically and were Reform Program (CARP).
not permanently designated there. The DAR Secretary even described SNLABC's
use of the area as a "seasonal extension of the applicant's 'grazing lands' during Thus, in May 1993, petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion of its 316.0422-
the summer." Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have been actually, hectare property, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (T-410434) M-15750,
directly and exclusively used for SNLABC's livestock business, especially since these (T-486101) M-7307, (T-486102) M-7308, (T-274129) M-15751, (T-486103) M-
were only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing areas. The said lands are 7309, (T-486104) M-7310, (T-332694) M-15755, (T-486105) M-7311, (T-486106)
more suitable and are in fact actually, directly and exclusively being used for M-7312, M-8791, (T-486107) M-7313, (T-486108) M-7314, M-8796, (T-486109) M-
agricultural purposes. 7315, (T-486110) M-9508, and M-6013, and located in Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, from
the coverage of the CARL, pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this Court in
Luz Farms.
Tax declaration classified as agricultural land (one way to prove)- it is
not conclusive. Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
issued Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 (DAR A.O. No. 9), setting forth

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


10

rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for 2 elements:
livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage. Thus, on January 10, - Devoted to agricultural activity
1994, petitioner re-documented its application pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9. 7 - Not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial

Acting on the said application, the DAR's Land Use Conversion and Exemption Who classifies the land as mineral forest? DENR
Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted an ocular inspection on petitioner's The other one, residential, commercial, industrial? Local government units to be
property and arrived at the following findings: approved by HLURB. So in our context we have a zoning ordinance, the zoning
ordinance is a classification.
[T]he actual land utilization for livestock, swine and poultry is 258.8422 hectares;
the area which served as infrastructure is 42.0000 hectares; ten (10) hectares are The zoning ordinance delineates which part of the city is under residential
planted to corn and the remaining five (5) hectares are devoted to fish culture; that classification, which part is under commercial, which part is industrial. And the LGU
the livestock population are 371 heads of cow, 20 heads of horses, 5,678 heads of will submit the zoning ordinance to HLURB for approval.
swine and 788 heads of cocks; that the area being applied for exclusion is far
below the required or ideal area which is 563 hectares for the total livestock Take note: there is a cut-off date (June 15, 1988) in passing a zoning ordinance
population; that the approximate area not directly used for livestock purposes with (changing the classification from agricultural). Sec 4 of CARP covers all private and
an area of 15 hectares, more or less, is likewise far below the allowable 10% public lands so you need to present proof that there was classification
variance; and, though not directly used for livestock purposes, the ten (10)
hectares planted to sweet corn and the five (5) hectares devoted to fishpond could Natalia Realty v. DAR 1979 (Leading case)
be considered supportive to livestock production.
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the
On January 21, 1997, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao (Secretary Garilao) Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb
issued an Order exempting from CARP only 240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod
hectares previously exempted by Director Dalugdug, and declaring 75.0646 Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the areas
hectares of the property to be covered by CARP. 14 proclaimed as townsite reservation. NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo
Secretary Garilao opined that, for private agricultural lands to be excluded from Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA
CARP, they must already be devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising as of immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage
June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect. He found that the Certificates of
Ownership of Large Cattle submitted by petitioner showed that only 86 heads of SC:
cattle were registered in the name of petitioner's president, Misael Vera, Jr., prior They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation. Lands
to June 15, 1988; 133 were subsequently bought in 1990, while 204 were previously converted by government agencies, other than DAR, to non-agricultural
registered from 1992 to 1995. Secretary Garilao gave more weight to the uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL were outside the coverage of that law.
certificates rather than to the headcount because "the same explicitly provide for Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite reservations,
the number of cattle owned by petitioner as of June 15, 1988. but applied also to real estate converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of the CARL.
Issue:
Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL NOTE:
DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 and the case of Natalia Realty, Inc
Held: opine that with respect to the conversion of agricultural land covered by R.A. No.
With the procedural issue disposed of, we find that petitioner's arguments fail to 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR to approve such conversion
persuade. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. In Sutton, we held: may be exercised from the date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands
that are already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before June 15,
In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.
Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not
coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands covered by PD 27, which
ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show have been vested prior to June 15, 1988.
a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine In order to implement the intent and purpose of the provisions of the
and poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine aforecited laws, the DAR has issued guidelines through AO No. 4, Series of 2003.
and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of (Please refer to the attached files together with this reviewer The important
"agriculture" or "agricultural activity." The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is provisions there are only the DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION, APPROVING
different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A AUTHORITIES, EFFECT ON PRE-EXISTING CARP COVERAGE and PROTESTS).
great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed
assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and There was already a presidential proclamation reserving lands (for squatters) in
blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, antipolo, san mateo and montalban as townsite areas, the areas proclaimed as
extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution townsite reservation. (Relate this case with Alangilan case below)
equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete
ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption) - all lands already classified as commercial,
technological appurtenances. TaDSHC industrial or residential before June 15,1988 no longer need conversion clearance
Requirements: Sworn application, copy of title, certification from
Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been HLURB (zoning or classification, citing zoning ordinance), among others.
exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has Public notice. Disturbance compensation.
exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O.
Conversion clearance is a requirement before you can change the classification
Petitioner's admission that, since 2001, it leased another ranch for its own livestock of your land from agricultural to residential, commercial, or industrial. (And
is fatal to its cause. 64 While petitioner advances a defense that it leased this ranch probably this is also where corruption).
because the occupants of the subject property harmed its cattle, like the CA, we
find it surprising that not even a single police and/or barangay report was filed by
petitioner to amplify its indignation over these alleged illegal acts. Moreover, we Public notice, sa land mismo mag notify ka na there is an application for
accord respect to the CA's keen observation that the assailed MARO reports and exemption and disturbance compensation.
the Investigating Team's Report do not actually contradict one another, finding that
the 43 cows, while owned by petitioner, were actually pastured outside the subject Disturbance compensation is money to be paid to occupants of the property,
property. normally, Tenants of the property.

Adjacent property is not covered.


Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999
SIR: Upon the report of the MARO there was no livestock farming but in the Facts:
adjacent property there were 43 heads of cattle, in the area adjacent. The area is This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner
Roxas & Co., Inc and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the
not owned by the land owner of the subject property because the land owner
leased the area from another person. government under RA No. 6657.
Petitioner is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner with TCTs and Tax
The contention of the land owner: he did not use the subject property for this 43
head of cattle because according to him there were occupants of the said property Declarations of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway,
who harmed the 43 head of cattle. Thats why he allegedly transferred the cattle to all located in Nasugbu, Batangas.
Issue:
the area adjacent and leased the adjacent area from another person. That means
in the subject property, there is no livestock found. The subject property was not Whether or not the petitioners landholdings are subject to coverage under the
CARL, in view of the undisputed fact that petitioners landholdings have been
devoted to livestock raising.
converted to non-agricultural uses by Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 which
SC: The fact that you are leasing another ranch for raising of your own livestock, declared the Municipality of Nasugbu as a tourist zone, and the zoning ordinance of
the said Municipality re-classifying certain portions of the petitioners landholdings
that is fatal to your cause. Even if you have alleged that the occupants of the
subject property harmed its cattle, you did not submit a police or a barangay report as non-agricultural or at the very least entitle the petitioner to apply for conversion
as conceded by respondent DAR.
to amplify your argument and the supreme court accorded respect to the
inspection of MARO that the 43 cows while owned by petitioner were actually
Held:
pastured outside of the subject property. So what is the implication if there was no
devotion to the subject property to live stock raising? The property is not excluded Respondent DARs failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioners
from CARP coverage. landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over
petitioners application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-
Agricultural Land (Section 3 c) agricultural. The agency charged for conversion is the DAR.
The petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three
Sec. 3 (c) Agricultural land land devoted to agricultural activity & not haciendas are nullified for respondent DARs failure to observe due process therein.
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. In and the applicable administrative procedure, the case is hereby remanded to the

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


11

respondent DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and determination of of the said land in favor of the Remman Enterprise Inc. who decided to develop it
petitioners application for conversion. in to a residential subdivision.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court issue a decision on the petition for review filed by
Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent the petitioner Velasquez affirming the decision of the IAC stating that the case had
SC: . DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of become moot and academic with regards the claim of the petitioner against the
petitioners' landholdings does not ipso facto give the Supreme Court DMC considering that the property had been foreclose by the PNB declaring
the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for conversion of however that the petitioner may redeem the property from the PNB and its
its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural. The power to transferee. The record was remanded to the PARAD or the Provincial Agrarian
determine whether Hacienda Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non- Adjudication for the petitioner to exercise there right of redemption but since the
agricultural which exempts from the coverage of the CARL lies with the case had become moot and academic, the PARAD denied the action of the
DAR, not with the Supreme Court. Case was remanded to DAR for petitioner to recover the property against the DMC since the land in question is now
proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's a residential land. The right of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee was
application for conversion terminated and the property was now in the possession of the Remman Enterprise,
Inc. The petitioner filed a motion before the DARAB or the Department of
Roxas and Company: sir is disappointed in this case why? Agrarian Adjudication Board who reverses the decision of the PARAD stating that
- in Natalia diba the SC decided whether Natalia Landholdings is excluded the land in question is an agricultural land and uphold the right of the petitioner as
or included. Alangilan the SC decided. Alarde the SC decided. But in this an agricultural lessee to recover the said land .The Remman Enterprise filed an
appeal before the CA who reverses the decision of the DARAB because the land in
case the SC did not. According to the SC that power belongs to DAR not
question was already reclassified as residential land as early as 1981 converting it
with the SC. So iyang gi uli to DAR to determine whether the
from agricultural land in to non-agricultural land. The petitioner filed a motion to
application for conversion should be granted. the Supreme Court.
- Dissenting opinion by Ynares Santiago: there are already pieces of Issue:
evidence submitted in this case. (1) certification from DENR. Na ang Whether or not the land was an agricultural land or a residential land.
yuta dili na feasible, economically sound for farm and agricultural Held:
development (2) you have a resolution of the sangguniang bayan According to the Supreme Court, agricultural land was defined under RA. 6657 as
those land devoted to agricultural activities and not classified as forest, minerals,
panlalawigan letter of MPDC man ciguro ni siya, advising that the
residential and industrial land.
municipality had no objection to the conversion of the lands to non The records show that as early as 1981, the landholding was reclassified as a low
agricultural purposes. So it was raised by Justice Santiago, why refer it density zone under Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, Series of 1981
back when it can be decided on the basis of these pieces of evidence. before Rep. Act No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1998. It has been considered as
early as that time for residential purposes thus not within the ambit of CAR.
One of the issues here is about notice of coverage. It was wrongfully sent. Roxas
and Company is a corporation and just like remedial law, civil procedure, a
SC: Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the
corporation may authorize persons to receive notices i.e. President, general
Metro Manila Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of Rep.
manager, corporate secretary, in-house counsel. In this case ang gi tagaan Act No. 6657, there was no need for the private respondent to secure
administrator of the land, so it was wrongfully sent. SC also remanded it to DAR for any post facto approval thereof from the DAR
proper acquisition proceedings.
Jose Junio, et., al vs Garilao
NHA vs. Allarde, G.R. No. 106593, November 16, 1999 Facts:
Facts: "In a Complaint dated February 12, 1994, filed with the [Department of Agrarian
Lots 836 and 839, registered in the of the Republic of the Philippines, and covered Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)] by complainants (some of whom are herein
by the TCT No. 34624 and No. 34627, respectively, were acquired by the Republic petitioners), identified as 'Potential CARP Beneficiaries' per Certification of OIC
on April 2, 1938 from Philippine Trust Company. They form part of the Tala Estate [Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)] dated November 21, 1991 . . ., it is
in Bagong Silang, Kalookan City, which, on April 26, 1971, was reserved by prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the registered owners
Proclamation No. 843 for, among others, the housing programs of the National of a certain parcel of agricultural land consisting of 71 hectares, more or less,
housing Authority. known as Lot No. 835-B of Bacolod Cadastre, Brgy. Pahanocoy, Bacolod City,
According to private respondent Rufino Mateo, he had lived in the disputed lots covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-79622. Petitioners claim that . . . Sta.
since his birth in 1928. In 1959, he started farming and working on six-hectare Lucia Realty Corporation and the Estate of Guillermo Villasor, represented by Irving
portion of said lots, after the death of his father who had cultivated a 13 hectare Villasor, are bulldozing and leveling the subject property for the purpose of
portion of the same lots. converting it into a residential subdivision; that as prospective CARP beneficiaries of
In 1989, Mateo filed with the DAR the petition for the award to them of subject the land in question, 'being former laborers, actual occupants and permanent
disputed lots under CARP. residents of Barangay Pahanocoy,' their rights will be prejudiced by the illegal
On March 18, 1992, the respondent spouses Mateo, relying on their claim that the conversion of the land into a residential subdivision . . . .
subject lots are agricultural land within the coverage of the CARP, brought before
the respondent RTC a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary "On April 13, 1994, the DARAB OIC Executive Director forwarded the complaint to
injunction, to enjoin the NHA from bulldozing further and making constructions on [Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)], DAR, Region VI, Bacolod City for
the lots under controversy. appropriate action . . . . Before any hearing could be conducted thereon, the
RTC Judge Allarde issued the injunction against NHA. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform issued an Order dated September
Held: 13, 1994 in 'RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE PURSUANT
As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (included the disputed lots) was resrved, TO DOJ OPINION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990, IRVING P. VILLASOR, et al., Rep. by
inter alia, under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the Atty. Angel Lobaton, Jr., Petitioners,' portions of which read as follows:
NHA, the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural
activity 'After a careful study of the facts of the case and the evidences presented by the
parties, this Office finds the petition for exemption to be well founded. Under DOJ
Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, it provides that lands which has already been
SC: As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (including the disputed classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial and industrial areas, prior to
lots) was reserved under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from CARP coverage. To this, it is an [i]nescapable
housing program of the National Housing Authority, the same has been conclusion that the subject property is exempted from CARP coverage considering
categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity the fact that the same was classified as residential as evidenced by the Resolution
contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore, No. 5153-A, Series of 1976 of the City Council of Bacolod and as approved by the
outside the coverage of the CARL. Verily, the assailed Orders of the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB) in its Resolution dated
respondent Court declaring the lots under controversy as "agricultural September 24, 1980 as per Certification dated June 22, 1994 issued by the said
land" and restraining the petitioner from involving the same in its Commission. The Certification of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) dated
housing project thereon, are evidently bereft of any sustainable basis June 9, 1994 stated that the subject land is not irrigable or is outside the service
area of the irrigation system in the locality. In effect the said application had
Presidential proclamation reserving the disputed lands for housing programs by the conformed to the requirements of the law on exemption. In accord thereto, the
state. Although nakalahi lang puro presidential proclamation. Ang usa, local stand of Mr. Espanola that the portion, which he planted to trees and developed
government unit. into mini-forest should be covered by CARP[,] is beyond recognition as the program
does not apply to those which are already classified as residential lands prior to the
Advincula-Velasquez vs. CA,et al., G.R. No. 111387, June 8,2004 effectivity of CARL on June 15, 1988. Instead, it is confined only to agricultural
The petitioners were the agricultural lessees of a Riceland located in Paraaque lands, which under R.A. 6657, Sec. 3(c), it defines agricultural lands as lands
Metro Manila. devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral,
In 1978, Sps. Nery and the Lorenzo sold the property to the Delta Motors forest, residential or industrial land. With the above stated definition, it is beyond
Corporation (DMC). Petitioner Velasquez, in his capacity as leaseholder reason that the placing of the said portion under CARP coverage (1.5 hectare) is
agricultural tenant, filed an action for the redemption of the said property before devoid of legal and factual basis.'"
the Court of Agrarian Relation. The CAR dismiss the petition for lack on the part
of the petitioner to redeem the property in its acquisition price in the amount of Issue:
2,319,210 pesos but directing the defendant to maintain the petitioner as Whether the respondent DAR secretary had the inherent authority or power to
agricultural lessee to the land in question. exclude or exempt at will from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Petitioner Velasquez and the defendants appealed the decision of the CAR to the Program (CARP) the subject agricultural land which was already automatically
Intermediate Appellate Court who affirmed the decision of the CAR. Petitioner covered by the CARL (RA 6657) upon its effectivity on June 15, 1988 without
Velasquez filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court who issued a temporary affording due process to herein petitioners and without the necessity of Congress
restraining order enjoining the CARs decision pending the out come of the petition. having first to amend Section 4 of the said law authorizing such exemption or
In 1981, the land in question was reclassified as residential zone under the exclusion from CARP coverage.
ordinance issued by the city of Manila. Later, the land in question was mortgage by
the DMC to the PNB as a security for its obligation who later foreclose it because of Held:
the failure of the DMC to pay its account. The PNB in 1986 executed a deed of sale

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


12

Section 3(c) of the CARL defines agricultural land as that which is "devoted to of the finding of the CA, we cannot now hold differently, for we are bound by the
agricultural activity . . . and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial finding of fact of the CA. Verily, the insufficiency of the number of heads of cattle
or industrial land." found during the semestral survey did not automatically mean that the
landholdings were not devoted to the raising of livestock. We concur with the CA
The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL was explained further by that there could be several reasons to explain why the number of cattle was below
the DAR in its Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, 12 entitled "Revised the ratio prescribed under DAO No. 9 at the time of the survey, including
Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Land to Non- pestilence, cattle rustling, or sale of the cattle.
Agricultural Uses," issued pursuant to Section 49 of CARL, which we quote:
Resolution No. 5, passed on March 12, 1981 by the Sangguniang Bayan of
". . . . Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in Sorsogon, Sorsogon, showed that the limits of the poblacion area of the
R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment municipality included Barangay Bibincahan, where the respondents' landholdings
and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in were situated.
town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June There is no dispute that as early as 1981, the respondents' landholdings have been
1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use." part of the poblacion of Sorsogon, Sorsogon. Consistent with Hilario and Natalia,
holding that the respondents' landholdings were non-agricultural, and,
Prior to this Order, Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 dated March 16, 1990, consequently, outside the coverage of the CARL, was fully warranted. In fact, the
which was addressed to then DAR Secretary Florencio Abad, recognized the fact excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of Sorsogon, Sorsogon showed
that before the date of the law's effectivity on June 15, 1988, the reclassification or that Barangay Bibincahan was within the Central Business District of the
conversion of lands was not exclusively done by the DAR. 13 Rather, it was a municipality.
"coordinated effort" of all concerned agencies; namely, the Department of Local
Governments and Community Development, the Human Settlements Commission Actually involving same fact and ruling in so far as classification is concerned but
and the DAR. this one gives us a principle that DAR has to establish that the land holdings were
agricultural. It is incumbent upon DAR to establish.
It is thus settled that with respect to areas classified and identified as zonal areas
not for agricultural uses, like those approved by the HSRC before the effectivity of
RA 6657 on June 15, 1988, the DAR's clearance is no longer necessary for Alangilan v. Office of President
conversion. SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as
agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as
DAR vs. Berenguer residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the
Facts: term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land
The respondents were the registered owners of several residential and industrial from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR
lands with a total area of 58.0649 hectares located in Barangay Bibincahan, Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended
Sorsogon. land use. It does not denote that the property has already been
reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is
In April 1998, the respondents received from the DAR notices of coverage of their not a land classification category. Indubitably, at the time of the
said landholdings by the Government's Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still
(CARP) pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang
or CARL). They protested the notices of coverage, filing on October 5, 1998, in the Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the
office of DAR Regional Director Percival Dalugdug (Regional Director Dalugdug) in landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the landholding had already
Legaspi City, their application for exclusion of their landholdings from CARP been earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then
coverage, and praying for the lifting of the notices of coverage. there would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994
In October and November 1998, the DAR Secretary, without acting on the Ordinance.
respondents' application for exclusion, cancelled their titles and issued certificates
of land ownership awards (CLOAs), covering their landholdings, to the members of Petitioner Alangilan filed an application for exclusion from CARP. DAR denied it
the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (Baribag), not saying the term reserved denotes it is not yet classified. So what is the proof of
to the respondents' workers on the landholdings, although Baribag was not petitioner for asking exclusion and exemption?
impleaded in the respondents' application for exclusion. - 1982: you have an ordinance from the sangguniang bayan of batangas
that the subject landholding is reserved for residential under zoning
In support of their claim that their landholdings were already classified as
which was approved by HSRC, the predecessor of HLURB.
residential and industrial, the respondents submitted the following documents,
namely: 8 - 1994: provincial ordinance of the city zoning map and comprehensive
zoning reclassifying the landholding as residential land.
a.The certification dated May 18, 1999 issued by HLURB, stating, among others,
that the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Sorsogon, Sorsogon (classifying Barangay Remember even prior to 1988, in this case, 1982 pa, naanay zoning approved by
Bibincalan, * where the respondents' properties were located, as a residential and HLURB. But what is contested by DAR is the use of the word reserved.
commercial area), was approved by HLURB (then Human Settlements
Commission/Human Settlements Regulatory Commission);
SC said the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural reserved by DAR
b.An excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Municipality of contrary to petitioners assertion that the term reserved for residential does not
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, showing that Barangay Bibincalan * was part of the Central change the nature of the land from agri to non agri. The term reserve simply
Business District; hence, the respondents' landholdings in Bibincalan * were reflects the intended the land used. It does not denote the property has already
classified as residential and industrial; been reclassified.

c.Resolution No. 5 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon, series of 1981,


SIR: I dont agree with the court.
expanding the area of the poblacion to include Barangay Bibincalan, * among
others; 1. The reasoning there that the term reserve does not change the
nature of the land from agri to none agri, SC was talking about nature
d.The certification dated August 27, 1997 issued by the Office of the Zoning of the land, agricultural to non agricultural. But the question is: isnt it a
Administrator, Office of the Mayor, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, signed by Deputized fact that there are (2) elements for agri land: devoted to agri activity
Zoning Administrator Raul Jalmanzar, declaring that the respondents' landholdings and not classified as mineral, forest, etc. This issue answers the first
were situated in Barangay Bibincalan * within the Poblacion area of the Municipality element not the second element.
of Sorsogon; and
2. Second the law uses the word classified. If we are to abide by the
e.Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, stating that a parcel of ruling of the court, is the court saying that before a zoning ordinance is
land was considered non-agricultural, and, therefore, beyond the coverage of the passed there is already actual use of the land by the people residing in
CARP, if it had been classified as residential, commercial, or industrial in the City or the city or conducting business? Not necessarily, because a city or an
Municipality Land Use Plan or Zoning Ordinance approved by HLURB before the LGU can have a projection. It can project. (It can say na oi kini na yuta
effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on June 15, 1988. bare 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 an ordinance
Issue:
classifying this as industrial even in the absence of actual use. It can be
Whether or not the land is covered under RA 6657
classified already. But the SC was referring to the nature of the land
Held: from agri to non agri. For me you can still make a classification even if
the intended land used is not yet to be.
In ruling that the respondents' landholdings were not devoted to cattle raising, the
DAR relied on DAR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 9, series of 1993, which Did that case (Alangilan) overturn the other (Natalia)? No. There was no issue.
required that properties should be considered excluded from the coverage of the
What Alangilan should have done is to raise that issue in Natalia and other cases
CARL only if it was established that as of June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of
the law, there existed the minimum ratio of one head of cattle to one hectare of (because it is not only in Natalia) that the word reserved was used.
land, and one head of cattle to 1.7815 hectares of infrastructure.
Heirs of Deleste vs Leviste
According to the DAR, only 15 heads of cattle were found within the 58 hectares
sought to be excluded based on the semestral survey conducted in Sorsogon by Facts:
the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics in the period from 1988 to 1992, which was in
contravention of DAO No. 9, series of 1993.
The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the
The CA found, however, that heads of cattle were really being raised in the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan City, consisting of
landholdings of the respondents. This finding was not disputed by the DAR. In view 34.7 hectares (subject property). Said spouses were childless, but Gregorio had a

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


13

son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. Virgilio had been raised We agree with petitioners that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is
by the couple since he was two years old. Gregorio also had two daughters, outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment by
Esperanza and Caridad, by still another woman. 3 the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance, City Ordinance No. 1313.

When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject property. It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural
4 On February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property to Dr. Jose into non-agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, 45
Deleste (Deleste) for PhP16,000. 5 The deed of sale was notarized on February 17, this Court held that pursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending
1954 and registered on March 2, 1954. Also, the tax declaration in the name of the Local Government Code, municipal and/or city councils are empowered to
Virgilio was canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste. "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the
The arrears in the payment of taxes from 1952 had been updated by Deleste and National Planning Commission." It was also emphasized therein that "[t]he power
from then on, he paid the taxes on the property. 6 of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to non-
agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject to the approval of
On May 15, 1954, Hilaria died. 7 Gregorio's brother, Juan Nanaman, was appointed the [DAR]."
as special administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. Subsequently,
Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the regular administrator of the joint estate. Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which was enacted by
the City of Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject property into a
On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of the commercial/residential area.
deceased spouses, filed before the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Lanao del
Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject property, However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to
docketed as Civil Case No. 698. 9 Said case went up to this Court in Noel v. CA, divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree
where We rendered a Decision 10 on January 11, 1995, affirming the ruling of the (PD) No. 27, which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988.
CA that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses
Gregorio and Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of 1975: You have a zoning ordinance approved by the HLURB so the land is outside
the subject property to Deleste. As a result, Deleste, who died in 1992, and the of CARP.
intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the subject property,
each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it. 11 Rom vs Roxas & co.

Notably, while Civil Case No. 698 was still pending before the CFI, particularly on Facts:
October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates
that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer On September 30, 1997, respondent sought the exemption of 27 parcels of land
(OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property located in Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas, having an aggregate area of 21.1236
was placed under the said program. 12 However, only the heirs of Gregorio were hectares and constituting portions of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of
identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners. Title .
Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to the coverage were sent to
these heirs. 13 Respondent asserted that Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) covers only
agricultural land 5 which is defined under Section 3 (c) thereof as "land devoted to
In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the "Zoning agricultural activity . . . and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial
Regulation of Iligan City," reclassifying the subject property as or industrial land." Respondent claimed that prior to the effectivity of the CARL on
commercial/residential. 14 June 15, 1988, the lands subject of its application were already re-classified as part
of the Residential Cluster Area specified in Zone A VII of the Nasugbu Municipal
Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, which zoning ordinance was approved by
in favor of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC [now the Housing and Land
subject property. 15 The CLTs were registered on July 15, 1986. Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)]) under HSRC Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983.
Respondent cited DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) which provides that lands already
In 1991, the subject property was surveyed. 17 The survey of a portion of the land classified by a valid zoning ordinance for commercial, industrial or residential use,
consisting of 20.2611 hectares, designated as Lot No. 1407, was approved on which ordinance was approved prior to the effectivity of the CARL, no longer need
January 8, 1999. 18 The claim folder for Lot No. 1407 was submitted to the LBP conversion clearance from the DAR.
which issued a Memorandum of Valuation and a Certificate of Cash Deposit on May
21, 2001 and September 12, 2001, respectively. Thereafter, Emancipation Patents In its Order 11 of November 6, 2002, the DAR granted the application in this wise:
(EPs) and Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued on August 1, 2001 and
October 1, 2001, respectively, in favor of private respondents over their respective WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Application for Exemption Clearance from
portions of Lot No. 1407. CARP coverage filed by Roxas & Company, Inc., involving twenty-seven (27)
parcels of land, specifically described in pages 1 and 2 of this Order,[12] being
On February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with the portions of TCT No. T-44664, with an aggregate area of 21.1236 hectares located
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to [in] Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas is hereby GRANTED, subject to the
nullify private respondents' EPs. 21 This was docketed as Reg. Case No. X-471-LN- following conditions:
2002.
1.The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in their
On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until a final
Decision 22 declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending issues determination has been made on the amount of disturbance compensation due and
of ownership, the subsequent reclassification of the subject property into a entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the PARAD of Batangas.
residential/commercial land, and the violation of petitioners' constitutional right to
due process of law. 2.No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land until the
appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer-occupants who
Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486, reversed the ruling of the are determined by the PARAD to be entitled thereto. Proof of payment of
PARAD in its Decision 25 dated March 15, 2004. It held, among others, that the EPs disturbance compensation shall be submitted to this Office within ten (10) days
were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste who should have informed the DAR of the from such payment; and
pendency of Civil Case No. 698 at the time the subject property was placed under
the coverage of the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a party to the said 3.The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject of
case. Further, it stated that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas.
ordinance has been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB), as mandated by DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and ISSUE:
held that whether the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT Program is
an administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the Whether the land is covered under CARL.
DAR Secretary or the latter's authorized representative. Petitioners' motion for
reconsideration was likewise denied by the DARAB in its Resolution 26 dated July 8, Held:
2004.
Having established through said documents that the 27 parcels of land are within
Issue: the coverage of the said (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, the DAR
declared as well that respondent substantially complied with the requirements of
Whether the land is covered under agrarian reform DAR AO No. 6, series of 1994 in DAR ADM Case No. A-9999-014-98. The DAR thus
granted the application in an Order of the same date and of exactly the same
Held: tenor.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


14

The Court recognized the power of a local government unit to classify and convert GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC.vs RUBEN ALCAIDE
land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL and
thus upheld the validity of said zoning ordinance. Facts:

You have the zoning ordinance (1982) and you have an approval HLURB on 1983. Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. is the registered owner of 14 parcels of
land.
LBP vs Estate of Araneta
Facts: n April 14, 1998, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of
Coverage over the subject landholding informing petitioner that the subject
On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283, carving out a properties were being considered for distribution under the government's agrarian
wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the reform program. 4 Thereafter, on November 15, 1998, the corresponding Notice of
segregated area for townsite purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be." Valuation and Acquisition 5 was issued informing petitioner that a 37.7353-hectare
portion of its property is subject to immediate acquisition and distribution to
Then came the amendatory issuance, Proclamation 1637 dated April 18, 1977, qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries and that the government is offering
thereby increasing the size of the reservation, designated as "Lungsod Silangan P7,071,988.80 as compensation for the said property.
Townsite" (LS Townsite), by 20.312 hectares and revising its technical description
so as to include, within its coverage, other lands in the municipalities of San Mateo Petitioner then filed a Petition 6 before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
and Montalban, Rizal to absorb "the population overspill in Greater Manila Area," wherein it argued that the properties were bought from their previous owners in
but again "subject to private rights, if any there be," good faith; that the same remains uncultivated, unoccupied, and untenanted up to
the present; and, that the subject landholdings were classified as industrial, thus,
Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased, acquired exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of court litigation. A little over Petitioner prayed, among other things, that the Notice of Coverage and Notice of
a week later, he had OCT No. 7924 canceled and secured the issuance of Transfer Acquisition be lifted and that the properties be declared exempt from the coverage
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-70860 in his name. of CARP.

On July 22, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131 Respondents 8 on their part countered, among other things, that the classification
instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Thereafter, then of the land as industrial did not exempt it from the coverage of the CARP
DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina, in a memorandum of March 10, 1988, ordered considering that it was made only in 1997; the HLURB 9 certification that the
the Regional Director of DAR Region IV to proceed with the OLT coverage and final Municipality of Bian, Laguna does not have any approved plan/zoning ordinance
survey of the Doronilla property. 12 Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known to date; that they are not among those farmer-beneficiaries who executed the
as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) 13 of 1988, was then enacted, waivers or voluntary surrender; and, that the subject landholdings were planted
and took effect on June 15, 1988 with palay.

On December 12, 1989, DAR issued a "Notice of Acquisition" addressed to On June 8, 2001, then DAR Secretary Hernani A. Braganza, issued an Order 11 in
Doronilla, covering 7.53 hectares of the land now covered by TCT No. 216746 and favor of the respondent declaring that the subject properties are agricultural land.
offering compensation at a valuation stated in the notice. 15 Alarmed by the turn of
events whereby DAR was having its property, or a portion of it, surveyed, incidental Issue:
to effecting compulsory land acquisition, the Araneta Estate addressed a letter 16
to DAR dated June 27, 1990, formally protesting the series of land surveys being Whether or not the land is exempted.
conducted by the Bureau of Lands on what is now its property. It claimed that the
CARL does not cover the said property, being part of the LS Townsite reservation, Held:
apart from being mountainous, with a slope of more than 70 degrees and
containing commercial quantities of marble deposit. The Araneta Estate followed its As aptly found by the Office of the President, the importance of conducting an
protest letter with two (2) more letters dated June 20, 1990 and May 28, 1991, in ocular inspection cannot be understated, since it is one of the steps designed to
which it reiterated its request for conversion, citing, for the purpose, Department of comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The Office of the
Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 181, Series of 1990. President stressed this in its Decision, to wit:

Issue: In other words, before the MARO sends a Notice of Coverage to the landowner
concerned, he must first conduct a preliminary ocular inspection to determine
Whether or not CA erred in gave retroactive effect or application to Proclamation whether or not the property may be covered under CARP. The foregoing
Nos. 1283 & 1637 resulting in the negation of "full land ownership to qualified undertaking is reiterated in the latest DAR AO No. 01, s. of 2003, entitled "2003
farmer-beneficiaries covered by P.D. No. 27 Rules Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition of Agricultural
Lands Under RA 6657." Section 1 [1.1] thereof provides that:
Held:
"1.1Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) After
Several basic premises should be made clear at the outset. Immediately prior to determining that a landholding is coverable under the CARP, and upon
the promulgation of PD 27 in October 1972, the 1,645-hectare Doronilla property, accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, the MARO shall prepare the
or a large portion of it, was indisputably agricultural, some parts devoted to rice NOC (CARP Form No. 5-1)." (NOC stands for Notice of Coverage)
and/or corn production tilled by Doronilla's tenants. Doronilla, in fact, provided
concerned government agencies with a list of seventy-nine (79) 30 names he Found on the records of this case is a ready-made form Preliminary Ocular
considered bona fide "planters" of his land. These planters, who may reasonably be Inspection Report (undated) signed by the concerned MARO. Interestingly,
considered tenant-farmers, had purposely, so it seems, organized themselves into however, the check box allotted for the all-important items "Land
Samahang Nayon(s) so that the DAR could start processing their applications under Condition/Suitability to Agriculture" and "Land Use" was not filled up. There is no
the PD 27 OLT program. CLTs were eventually generated covering 73 hectares, separate report on the record detailing the result of the ocular inspection
with about 75 CLTs actually distributed to the tenant-beneficiaries. However, upon conducted. These circumstances cast serious doubts on whether the MARO actually
the issuance of Proclamation 1637, "all activities related to the OLT were stopped." conducted an on-site ocular inspection of the subject land. Without an ocular
inspection, there is no factual basis for the MARO to declare that the subject land is
To restate a basic postulate, the provisions of RA 6657 apply only to agricultural devoted to or suitable for agricultural purposes, more so, issue Notice of Coverage
lands under which category the Doronilla property, during the period material, no and Notice of Acquisition.
longer falls, having been effectively classified as residential by force of
Proclamation 1637. It ceased, following Natalia Realty, Inc., to be agricultural land The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated. In the
upon approval of its inclusion in the LS Townsite Reservation pursuant to the said event that a piece of land sought to be placed from CARP coverage is later found
reclassifying presidential issuance. In this regard, the Court cites with approval the unsuitable for agricultural purposes, the landowner concerned is entitled to, and
following excerpts from the appealed CA decision: the DAR is duty bound to issue, a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 34, s. of 1997, entitled "Issuance of Certificate of
The above [Natalia Realty, Inc.] ruling was reiterated in National Housing Authority Exemption for Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory
vs. Allarde where the Supreme Court held that lands reserved for, converted to, Acquisition (CA) Found Unsuitable for Agricultural Purposes."
non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the [DAR], prior to the
effectivity of [RA] 6657 . . . are not considered and treated as agricultural lands More importantly, the need to conduct ocular inspection to determine initially
and therefore, outside the ambit of said law. The High Court declared that since whether or not the property may be covered under the CARP is one of the steps
the Tala Estate as early as April 26, 1971 was reserved, inter alia, under designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The CARP
Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the [NHA], the same was not intended to take away property without due process of law (Development
has been categorized as not being devoted to agricultural activity contemplated by Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 245. [1996]). The exercise
Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657, and therefore outside the coverage of CARL. of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the
taking of private property. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


15

[1999], the Supreme Court nullified the CARP acquisition proceedings because of allegation of tenancy relationship, that allegation will not take away the jurisdiction
the DAR's failure to comply with administrative due process of sending Notice of of the court. But read section 50-A, which states that if there is any allegation from
Coverage and Notice of Acquisition of the landowner concerned. any of the parties, that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a
farmer, farm worker, or tenant, the case shall automatically be referred by the
Considering the claim of appellant that the subject land is not agricultural because judge or the prosecutor to DAR which shall determine and certify within 15 days
it is unoccupied and uncultivated, and no agricultural activity is being undertaken from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists.
thereon, there is a need for the DAR to ascertain whether or not the same may be
placed under CARP coverage. 47** AcICHD Where can you find an allegation? In an answer, not in the complaint. So if there is
an action for unlawful detainer filed by a landowner against a tenant, the tenant
Thus, the question of whether or not petitioner's properties could be covered by will make a defense in his answer that there is a tenancy relationship. What will the
the CARP has not yet been resolved. Until such determination, it follows that judge do? Pursuant to section 50, the judge will automatically refer to DAR.
petitioner's landholdings cannot be the proper subject of acquisition and eventual
distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. However, these involve factual If DAR will certify that the action is agrarian in nature, what will the judge do?
controversies, which are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. Verily, the review Section 50 does not provide what the judge will do, but if you were the judge, you
of factual matters is not the province of this Court. The Supreme Court is not a trier would have to rely on the certification by DAR because DAR is supposed to have
of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and substantiation of exclusive jurisdiction.
factual issues.
But we have here a scenario that if the judge will rely on the determination of DAR,
Puyat and sons vs. Alcaide is about ocular inspection. Its about the first element, that judge is now saying i have no jurisdiction based on an allegation from an
whether it is devoted to agricultural purposes. answer and based on the confirmation by DAR. 1st issue, what happens now to the
principle that jurisdiction is determined on the allegations of a complaint. second,
You have a preliminary ocular inspection report form signed by the MARO but the you have a case where a court loses jurisdiction, based on mere allegation, there is
checkbox for this one land condition suitability to agriculture, land use was not no hearing, because if you are the lawyer for the tenant, you allege in your answer
filled. So according to the SC it is not clear whether there was an ocular inspection, that as one of your defenses that there is tenancy relationship, under rule 16 of
so it was remanded to DAR for the conduct of ocular inspection. Why important? rules of procedure you will have to ask for a hearing of your affirmative defenses.
Because you cannot find if the land is suitable or unsuitable for agricultural In the hearing you present evidence about tenancy relationship. That is the process
purposes in the absence of an ocular inspection. prior to this, but under section 50, allegation and certification from DAR, the court
may now lose jurisdiction. The court will have to dismiss the case and the
AGRARIAN DISPUTE [Section 3(d)] aggrieved party will have to appeal. If the court will not dismiss, and the tenant is
any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, aggrieved, the tenant will file a petition for certiorari, or grave abuse of discretion
stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture using section 50. 2nd point, section 50 A, does not only apply to court, it also
any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL applies to the prosecutors office.
and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership.
tenancy relationship
SUPLICO v. CA
Different sections where the words agrarian dispute is used: Sec 47, 53, 54
Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Private respondent was allowed by
Suplico to till the land while Suplico will provide the farm implements
BARC Barangay agrarian reform committee
and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans from the palay by way of
rental. Years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the
If you are familiar with katarungang pambarangay, before you can file a case
property, so private respondent filed an action for damages against
generally you need to secure certificate to file action. Generally under DAR you
Suplico in CAR. Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the
need to secure a certification from BARC before you can file a case before DAR. Of
absence of contractual relationship. Trial court declared private
course there are exceptions
respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.
SC:
ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS
- SC found no reasons to disturb findings
1. Private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a
1) Parties (landowner & tenants)
farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would.
2) Subject matter is agricultural land
2. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding
3) Consent of parties
and harvesting.
4) Purpose is agricultural production
3. Management was left entirely to private respondent
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
4. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.
6) Sharing of harvest between parties
Let me just tell you in advance that agrarian disputes are a question of evidence.
All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.
In the case of suplico, suplico is a lessee and the private respondent was allowed
SIR: When you read the cases involving agrarian dispute take note that parties by suplico to till the land; suplico receiving the sharing. When suplico threatened
are related to consent because I think they are inseparable. Another issue is this the respondent to eject, the respondent filed an action for damages. Based on the
subject matter is agri land. facts, there is no consent from the owner, that is why the owner intervened in the
case and alleged absence of relationship. The trial court declared the respondent
Isidro v. CA as agri lessee confirmed by the CA. Check on the ruling of the court. Actual
- Private resp is owner of land. Sister of private respondent allowed
possession, cultivation, harvest, but the SC did not discuss the other requirements
Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon
demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro. specially on the consent requirement. Probably petitioner in this case did not raise
RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural and so agrarian. as issue the other requirements and the SC relied on the findings of the lower
SC: court.
Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of
complaint. Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy MONSANTO v. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established verbally or
relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is shown, the court writing
should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Case involving agri land does not Sps. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of coconuts
automatically make such case agrarian. Six requisites were not present. owned by petitioner. They were acquitted but required Zerna to return
There was no contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto did not consent to
claim that he was paying rent for use of land. harvest of coconut. Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra sale.
This falls under DARAB
In this case, it was an action for unlawful detainer, but the court dismissed it There is Agrarian dispute:
because the land is agricultural and concluded that it is agrarian. This is an error on 1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts
the reasoning of the court, because the dismissal was based only on one element 2. Private respondents were overseers at the time of taking by virtue of
and not on the 6 requisites. Agreement .

tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing, expressly


So the SC mentioned that when it comes to jurisdiction over the subject matter, it or impliedly
is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the court does not lose - here there was agreement which contradicts petitioners contention
jurisdiction by a defence of tenancy relationship. That a case involving agri land, that private respondents are mere overseers. Being overseers does not
does not automatically make the case agrarian reform. foreclose their being tenants. Petitioner allowed respondent to plant
coconut, etc. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent. Petitioner
In actual practice, most landowners whose agri land is occupied by persons whom is claiming the amount of P1,100 as balance from proceeds of copra
they want to be ejected from the land, the normal remedy is to file for an action for sale. Private respondents contend that this P1,100 is their
compensation pursuant to tenurial arrangements. Since this amount is
recovery of possession, you have a summary action normally an unlawful detainer
intertwined with the resolution of agra dispute, CA correctly ruled that
case. Or another action which is accion publiciana. You have this principle that DARAB has jurisdiction. RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it
jurisdiction is to be determined from allegations of the complaint. This is a new acted beyond when it ruled that agri tenancy between parties. This
innovation, section 19 was introduced by RA 9700. belongs to DARAB.

Taking a cue from Isidro and other cases, what will determine jurisdiction would be To harass the tenants, gikiha ang tenants sa landowners ug qualified theft.
the allegations of the complaint. If there is an answer filed and there is an Qualified theft kay allegedly they were taking coconuts.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


16

The issue is whether there is an agrarian dispute. No. The issue was about
In the fiscals office, the respondent is supposed to file a counter affidavit when a ownership so it is beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute. There was no juridical tie.
subpoena is issued. In the counter affidavit, the tenancy relationship must be
alleged by the lawyer of the tenant so that under section 50-A the fiscals office will
refer it to DAR. DAR will issue a certification and will inform the fiscal and the fiscal PASONG BAYABAS v. CA : no evidence
Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as
may be constrained to dismiss the case.
approved by DAR. Petitioners, claimed they are actual tillers of land,
they filed a complaint for damages alleging surreptitious conversion;
The question is, isnt it that in the fiscals office, the function is to find probable priv resp denied cultivation & waiver of rights was executed by some.
cause? And when there is an allegation in the counter affidavit made by the
respondent which may be evidentiary in nature, the fiscal normally will say that if SC : no tenancy
there is evidence, it is to be proven in court. But this time, because of a mere no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants; waiver
allegation, the fiscal will say that he has no jurisdiction and the parties should go to of rights constitutes abandonment. No substantial evidence that private
respondent is landlord. Possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner.
DAR. If the case is dismissed, the remedy there is you go to a higher fiscal DOJ,
Cultivation / possession not proven. As to the remaining twenty and
Office of the President, etc. more other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown
that their cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim
If you apply the context of Isidro vs. CA case about allegations in a complaint to till have been by authority of a valid contract of agricultural tenancy.
which will establish jurisdiction of a court, walay remedy ang landowner. The On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of them have
landowner cannot say that the case should not be referred because the tenant simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage
must first establish that he is a tenant. It may create a clash between law and being primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives
court procedure. Remember, court procedure are promulgated by the supreme
There was no difficulty on the part of the supreme court here, why? In the
court. We have a provision of the law where there is an automatic referral, all
complaint there was no allegation of tenancy. So how can the court acquire
those silent on what the court will do, if there is certification from DAR.
jurisdiction over the complaint? There was no substantial evidence, private
respondent was landlord, there was no possession or entry without knowledge of
BEJASA v. CA
the owner that was alleged in the complaint. Again, just to reiterate, tenancy
FACTS:
Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to Malabanan. Malabanan relationship is a question of evidence, same here in Escariz vs Revilleza.
hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it, with all the expenses shouldered
by Malabanan. Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give any ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : tenancy is not presumed
consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent. Petitioner is
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas claiming tenancy. DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed
SC: SC: Tenancy is not presumed. There was no evidence to prove consent of parties
Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There was and sharing of harvest. SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to
no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Candelaria never prove the existence of the following elements: (a) the consent of the parties and
gave her consent to the Bejasas stay on the land . There was no proof that the (b) the sharing of harvests.
Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question.
Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case. There was no proof of
sharing in harvest. While Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasas word was presented HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA
to prove this. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa FACTS:
testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owners share, yet at one time, Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before
he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner. Moreover, DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery possession; on appeal, DARAB
landowners never gave consent, citing Chico vs. CA , 284 534 self serving upheld but CA reversed.
statement are inadequate, proof must be adhered. Even assuming that
landowner agreed to lease it for P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. The taking of property violated due
tenancy . Consideration should be harvest sharing. process (CA was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due
process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform
Candelaria is the owner, malabanan is the lessee. It was malabanan who hired coverage to the proper party); no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding
Bejasa. Very obvious, no consent from the owner. There was no proof that investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot
malabanan and Bejasa shared the harvest. Candelaria never gave consent to that he was a tenant of the property. By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due
Bejasa. There was no consent, and so there was no tenancy relationship. The point
process. No concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except for
is, if there are occupants in the property claiming to be tenants, the land is their self-serving statements. Independent evidence, aside from self-serving
agricultural, they are cultivating, they allege sharing of the harvest, but the owner statements, is needed. Plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and
proves there was no consent, then the occupants cannot claim tenancy migrated to US and returned only in 1998, wife and daughter were residents of
relationship. The tenants can be ejected. How do you prove sharing? There has to California. Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning
be a receipt, or any other similar evidence. Is it possible? No because the receipt ordinance. Coverage Section 4: All alienable and disposable public lands. All private
lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation Sec. 5
can be used against the owner. Normally, in the absence of receipt, the evidence of
The distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten
the tenant can be an affidavit because the proceedings before is submission of
years from effectivity hereof. Sec. 63: The initial amount needed to implement
position paper. You attach affidavits. Can you submit your own affidavit if you are a this Act for the period of ten years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the
tenant? Yes, but the court will normally say that it is self-serving. You have to Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No.
prove through independent evidence affidavits of neighbours or other tenants. 299. xxx.. RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: The amount needed to
implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund.
VALENCIA v. CA RA 9700, Sec. 21:
FACTS: The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in
- Valencia is the owner of land, she leased the property for five this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No.
(5)years to Fr. Andres Flores under a civil law lease concept; lease 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and
with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land without other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos
Valencias written consent. During the period of his lease, private (P150,000,000,000.00)
respondents were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia.
After lease, Valencia demanded vacate but refused; Private
respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they filed application Normally it is the tenant who will file a case because when the landowner sends a
with DAR; CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA. demand letter to the occupant to vacate, the occupant or the tenant would
normally file an action before DAR.
Valencia is the owner, Flores is the lessee, it was flores who allowed the private
respondents. No tenancy, again no consent. Tenancy relationship cannot be This one is different, Jugalbot was granted a title emancipation patent. He was
presumed. The lessee did not have the authority to sublease because there was a granted a title because of his claim that he is a tenant. The title was challenged by
prohibition to sublease. the heirs of the landowner, so the heirs filed and sought the cancellation of the title
of jugalbot and wanting recovery of possession. The issue: is jugalbot really a
ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership) tenant and therefore entitled to the emancipation patent? There was no proof of
Facts:
cultivation and per findings of CA, jugalbot was a soldier of the US army, he
Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown to
Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to investigation migrated to the US and returned only in 1998. Kanus-a gi-issue ang title? It was in
report that Almuete was unknown and waived his rights; Andres also 1997, so he was not here in pinas. His wife and daughter were residents of
represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone California plus the land was residential. Meaning there was no tenancy relationship
set and that Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600. Almuete filed between jugalbot and the landowner, so the title was cancelled.
an action for recovery of possession and reconveyance before trial
court. Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has better right to NICORP case (found it in the later part go go)
property.
SC: SPOUSES JESUS FAJARDO and EMER FAJARDO, vs. ANITA R. FLORES
This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so, beyond the ambit of
agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged Facts:
between petitioners and respondent. RTC was competent to try the case. Leopoldo delos Reyes owned a parcel of land located in Barangay Sumandig in
Hacienda Buenavista, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. In 1963, he allowed petitioner Jesus
Fajardo to cultivate said land. The net harvests were divided equally between the

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


17

two until 1975 when the relationship was converted to leasehold tenancy. Per
Order 2 from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Regional Office, Region VICENTE ADRIANO vs. ALICE TANCO
III, San Fernando, Pampanga, rent was provisionally fixed at 27.42 cavans per
year, which Jesus Fajardo religiously complied with. From the time petitioner Facts:
cultivated the land, he was allowed by Leopoldo delos Reyes to erect a house for On December 18, 1975, respondent Alice Tanco (Alice) purchased a parcel of land
his family on the stony part of the land, which is the subject of controversy. consisting of 28.4692 hectares located in Norzagaray, Bulacan. The land was
devoted to mango plantation. Later on, it was partitioned among the respondents.
On January 26, 1988, Leopoldo delos Reyes died. His daughter and sole heir,
herein respondent Anita Flores, inherited the property. On June 28, 1991, Anita Controversy arose when Alice sent to Vicente a letter 6 dated January 16, 1995
Flores and Jesus Fajardo executed an agreement, denominated as "KASUNDUAN informing him that subject landholding is not covered by the Comprehensive
NG PAGHAHATI NG LUPA AT PAGTATALAGA NG DAAN UKOL SA MAGKABILANG Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). She asked him to vacate the property as soon as
PANIG." 3 This was followed by another agreement, "KASUNDUAN SA HATIAN SA possible.
LUPA," executed on July 10, 1991, wherein the parties agreed to deduct from Lot
No. 2351 an area of 10,923 sq m, allotting the same to petitioner. Apparently, Seeing the letter of Alice as a threat to his peaceful possession of subject farmland
there was a conflict of claims in the interpretation of the Kasunduan between Anita which might impair his security of tenure as a tenant, Vicente filed before the
Flores and Jesus Fajardo, which was referred to the DAR, Provincial Agrarian regional office of DARAB in Region III a Complaint for Maintenance of Peaceful
Reform Office, Baliuag, Bulacan. 4 In the Report and Recommendation dated May Possession with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
3, 2000, the Legal Officer advised the parties to ventilate their claims and Injunction. He averred that in 1970, Arsenio Tanco (Arsenio), the husband of Alice,
counterclaims with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board instituted him as tenant-caretaker of the entire mango plantation. Since then, he
(DARAB), Malolos, Bulacan. has been performing all phases of farm works, such as clearing, pruning,
smudging, and spraying of the mango trees. The fruits were then divided equally
On December 22, 2000, a complaint for ejectment was filed by herein respondent between them. He also alleged that he was allowed to improve and establish his
Anita Flores, assisted by her husband Bienvenido Flores, against petitioners with home at the old building left by Ang Tibay Shoes located at the middle of the
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Ildefonso, Bulacan. In the complaint, she plantation. Presently, he is in actual possession of and continues to cultivate the
alleged that, as the sole heir of the late Leopoldo delos Reyes, she inherited a land.
parcel of land consisting of stony land, not devoted to agriculture, and land suitable
and devoted to agriculture located in Barangay Sumandig, San Ildefonso, Bulacan; In their Answer, respondents denied having instituted any tenant on their property.
that, sometime in the 1960s, during the lifetime of Leopoldo delos Reyes, Jesus They stressed that Vicente never worked and has no employer-employee
Fajardo requested the former to allow him to work and cultivate that portion of relationship with Geraldine, Ronald, and Patrick. Insofar as Alice is concerned,
land devoted to agriculture; that Jesus Fajardo was then allowed to erect a house respondents asserted that Vicente is not a tenant but a mere regular farm worker.
on the stony part of the land, and that the use and occupation of the stony part of
the land was by mere tolerance only; and that the land, which was divided equally Issue:
between the two parties, excluded the stony portion. In February 1999, respondent WHETHER or not VICENTE IS A BONA FIDE tenant.
approached petitioners and verbally informed them of her intention to repossess
the stony portion, but petitioners refused to heed the request. Held:
Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner and a
Issue: tenant once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation
Whether or not MTC or the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the case. of a land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which relationship the tenant
acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land. 23
Held:
An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. 24 For tenancy
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or relationship to exist, the following essential requisites must be present: (1) the
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural
to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any land; (3) there is consent between the parties; (4) the purpose is agricultural
controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and, (6) there is sharing
terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers, of the harvests between the parties. 25 All the requisites must concur in order to
tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in establish the existence of tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more
the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or requisites is fatal.
lessor and lessee. It relates to any controversy relating to, inter alia, tenancy over
lands devoted to agriculture. After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case, we affirm the findings of
the CA that the essential requisites of consent and sharing are lacking.
Undeniably, the instant case involves a controversy regarding tenurial
arrangements. The contention that the Kasunduans, which allegedly terminated the The essential element of consent is sorely missing because there is no proof that
tenancy relationship between the parties and, therefore, removed the case from the landowners recognized Vicente, or that they hired him, as their legitimate
the ambit of R.A. No. 6657, is untenable. There still exists an agrarian dispute tenant. And, although Vicente claims that he is a tenant of respondents' agricultural
because the controversy involves the home lot of petitioners, an incident arising lot in Norzagaray, Bulacan, and that he has continuously cultivated and openly
from the landlord-tenant relationship. occupied it, no evidence was presented to establish the presence of consent other
than his self-serving statements. These cannot suffice because independent and
"Indeed, section 21 of the Republic Act No. 1199, provides that 'all cases involving concrete evidence is needed to prove consent of the landowner.
the dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the
settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord and Likewise, the essential requisite of sharing of harvests is lacking. Independent
tenant . . . shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of evidence, such as receipts, must be presented to show that there was sharing of
Agrarian Relations.' This jurisdiction does not require the continuance of the the harvest between the landowner and the tenant. 28 Self-serving statements are
relationship of landlord and tenant at the time of the dispute. The same may not sufficient.
have arisen, and often times arises, precisely from the previous termination of such
relationship. If the same existed immediately, or shortly, before the controversy Here, there was no evidence presented to show sharing of harvest in the context of
and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not said relationship has been lawfully a tenancy relationship between Vicente and the respondents. The only evidence
terminated, or if the dispute springs or originates from the relationship of landlord submitted to establish the purported sharing of harvests were the allegations of
and tenant, the litigation is (then) cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations . . Vicente which, as discussed above, were self-serving and have no evidentiary
." value. Moreover, petitioner's allegations of continued possession and cultivation do
not support his cause. It is settled that mere occupation or cultivation of an
In the case at bar, petitioners' claim that the tenancy relationship has been agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farm worker into an
terminated by the Kasulatan is of no moment. As long as the subject matter of the agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws. 30 It is essential that, together
dispute is the legality of the termination of the relationship, or if the dispute with the other requisites of tenancy relationship, the agricultural tenant must prove
originates from such relationship, the case is cognizable by the DAR, through the that he transmitted the landowner's share of the harvest.
DARAB. The severance of the tenurial arrangement will not render the action
beyond the ambit of an agrarian dispute. Neither can we agree with the DARAB's theory of implied tenancy because the
landowner never acquiesced to Vicente's cultivating the land. Besides, for implied
This one will disturb landowners. If you are a landowner and you dont want the tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be
court to pass upon your relationship assuming you recognize that person occupying present.
as a tenant, landowners may want to pay money to their tenants and let them
Again a question of evidence. The court reiterating that independent evidence
work, or possible, what happened is this, the tenant was given a portion of the
include RECEIPTS that must be presented.
land. There was an agreement 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 Labor law: in illegal dismissal cases, it is the employer who has the burden.
that is why there was a conflict of claims in the interpretation. The landowner is Agrarian: it is the person claiming to be the tenant who has the burden to prove his
saying that the tenants house is erected on the owners lot while the tenant is allegation of tenancy. He who alleges has the burden to prove. Not only that,
saying it is on the land that was given to him. The court said there is agrarian Respondent-landowner has no obligation to prove exception or defects.
dispute. As long as the subject matter is the legality of the termination, if the
ESTATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON vs. MERCEDES R. SUSANO
dispute originates from such relationship that is tenancy relationship. Example, you
have a waiver executed by a tenant saying that out of financial grant of the Facts:
landowner or from person A, he no longer has a right over the land and he has Pastor M. Samson (Pastor) owned a 1.0138-hectare parcel of land known as Lot
waived it etc. If the tenant will question it and say that he was not fully apprised of 1108 of the Tala Estate Subdivision located in Bagumbong, Caloocan City.
his right with respect to that and probably was not able to read. It has something
to do with that relationship, then the landowner will have a problem. If the dispute Pastor was approached by his friend Macario Susano (Macario) who asked for
originates from such relationship, it is a tenancy relationship. permission to occupy a portion of Lot 1108 to build a house for his family. Since
Pastor was godfather to one of Macario's children, Pastor acceded to Macario's

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


18

request. Macario and his family occupied 620 square meters of Lot 1108 and Represented by Celso Rabang, respondent filed a petition for recovery of
devoted the rest of the land to palay cultivation. Herein respondents, Macario's wife possession, ejectment and payment of rentals before the Department of Agrarian
Mercedes R. Susano and their son Norberto R. Susano, insist that while no Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case No. 9378. Rabang
agricultural leasehold contract was executed by Pastor and Macario, Macario claimed that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave
religiously paid 15 cavans of palay per agricultural year to Pastor, which rent was nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for the use of the
reduced by Pastor in 1986 to 8 cavans of palay per agricultural year. land. Rabang also claimed that petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who
allegedly possesses the land.
Pastor subdivided Lot 1108 into three portions of which he sold portions of it
without Macario's knowledge. Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant
Pastor sold 2,552 square meters of Lot 1108-A to spouses Felix Pacheco and entitled to security of tenure. The Adjudicator said substantial evidence prove the
Juanita Clamor, allegedly also without Macario's knowledge and consent. tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent. The Adjudicator noted the
certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) that petitioner is the
According to respondents, no written notice was sent by Pastor to Macario prior to registered farmer of the land; that Barangay Tanods said that petitioner is the
the sale to Chan of Lot 1108-C comprising an area of 6,696 square meters. They tenant of the land; that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioner's possession and
aver that Macario came to know of the transaction only after Chan visited the cultivation of the land; that Allingag also stated that petitioner hired him only as
property sometime in October 1990 accompanied by an employee from the city farm helper; and that respondent's own witness, Cesar Andres, said that petitioner
government. is a farmer of the land.

Issue: 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
Whether or not there was a tenancy relation between Pastor Samson and Macario failure to prove his payment of rentals by appropriate receipts, and said that the
Susano and in binding herein petitioner. affidavits of Allingag, Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are self-serving and are
not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. The DARAB
Held: added that respondent's intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as
We find in favor of petitioners. Applying our pronouncement in Levardo v. Yatco, 51 implied tenancy for such lending was without consideration.
we rule that the subject land cannot be subject to the OLT program of P.D. No. 27
for two reasons: first, the subject land is less than seven hectares; and second, Issue:
respondents failed to show that Pastor owned other agricultural lands in excess of Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship
seven hectares or urban land from which he derived adequate income, as required
by Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474. 52 Held:
The matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondent's admission that she
Moreover, the DAR Memorandum on the "Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small receives rentals from petitioner. To recall, respondent's complaint in Barangay Case
Landowners" dated July 10, 1975 is explicit: No. 99-6 was that the rental or 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
5.Tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7) hectares or less shall not be covered respondent and was even attached as Annex "D" of her DARAB petition.
by Operation Land Transfer. The relation of the land owner and tenant-farmers in Consequently, we are thus unable to agree with DARAB's ruling that the affidavits
these areas shall be leasehold . . . 53 16 of 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 nonpayment of
However, while the disputed landholding which had an original aggregate area of rentals. Indeed, respondent's admission confirms their statement that rentals are in
only 1.0138 hectares is not covered by the OLT program, the same may still be fact being paid. Such admission belies the claim of respondent's representative,
covered by P.D. No. 27, albeit under its Operation Land Leasehold (OLL) program. Celso Rabang, that petitioner paid nothing for the use of the land.
The OLL program placed landowners and tenants of agricultural land devoted to
rice and corn into a leasehold relationship as of October 21, 1972. 54 But the fact Respondent's act of allowing the petitioner to cultivate her land and receiving
that Macario, respondents' predecessor-in-interest, was a de jure tenant must be rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten tenancy agreement.
established. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit provisions of a
written contract alone. Section 5 18 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise
In the case at bar, while the RARAD, DARAB and the CA are unanimous in their known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural
conclusion that an implied tenancy relationship existed between Pastor Samson and leasehold relation may exist upon an oral agreement.
Macario Susano, no specific evidence was cited to support such conclusion other
than their observation that Pastor failed to protest Macario's possession and Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present.
cultivation over the subject land for more than 30 years. Contrary to what is Respondent is the landowner; petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of their
required by law, however, no independent and concrete evidence were adduced by relationship is agricultural land, a farm land. 19 They mutually agreed to the
respondents to prove that there was indeed consent and sharing of harvests cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the harvest. The purpose of their
between Pastor and Macario. relationship is clearly to bring about agricultural production. After the harvest,
petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondent's
It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land motion 20 to supervise harvesting and threshing, processes in palay farming,
will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. Independent and concrete evidence further confirms the purpose of their agreement. Lastly, petitioner's personal
is necessary to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the cultivation of the land 21 is conceded by respondent who likewise never denied the
landowner. Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing cannot fact that they share in the harvest.
be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence; there must be concrete evidence on
record adequate to prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a One of a kind case!!! (LO was very honest)
receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented, because self-serving
statements are inadequate. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the Landowner filed a complaint at the barangay because she would want the occupant
elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by to vacate the property. Reason: gigamyan sa renta the rent was insignificant,
conjectures. Leasehold relationship is not brought about by the mere congruence she wants to recover the land to farm it on her own so that she can gain more
of facts but, being a legal relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that profits.
relationship should be primordial. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that
all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present. SC used her own admission that she received rentals from the petitioner. This is a
confirmation that indeed rentals were paid and that this is an agrarian dispute.
The affidavits executed by three of respondents' neighbors are insufficient to
establish a finding of tenancy relationship between Pastor and Macario. SUTTON VS. LIM

Principle: affidavits of the tenant or persons claiming to be a tenant are self- FACTS: On December 7, 1993, private respondents applied for the issuance of a
serving. CLOA over a parcel of land before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Secretary. Upon the recommendation of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
This case deals with affidavits executed by the neighbors of the occupants. SC
(MARO), the application was granted and they were issued CLOA. Subsequently, on
considered the affidavits as insufficient because of lack of details.
January 31, 1994, the Register of Deeds of Masbate issued the corresponding OCT.
Lesson: you can use affidavits of neighbors for as long as it has the specific details
which are: On November 23, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of the said
- how the agreement was implemented CLOA and title before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
- how much was given (PARAD), assailing the validity of the said issuances on the ground that the subject
- when and where the payments were made parcel of land is a private land devoted to cattle raising which she inherited from
- whether they have a witness when the landowner is receiving the
her deceased father, Samuel Sutton, who, in turn, previously bought the subject
share.
parcel of land from Romanito P. Lim and his wife. Petitioner also claimed to have
JUAN GALOPE vs. CRESENCIA BUGARIN been denied due process for not receiving any notice of private respondents'
application proceedings for CLOA. The petition was amended to include the MARO,
Facts: PARO and the Register of Deeds of Masbate as additional respondents.

Respondent owns a parcel of land. Petitioner farms the land.


Private respondents averred that, being the actual occupants and qualified
In Barangay Case No. 99-6, respondent complained that she lent the land to
petitioner in 1992 without an agreement, that what she receives in return from beneficiaries of the subject lot which formed part of the alienable and disposable
petitioner is insignificant, and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on her portion of the public domain, the DAR Secretary correctly issued the CLOA in their
own. Petitioner countered that respondent cannot recover the land yet for he had favor. While admitting having sold a lot in favor of Samuel Sutton from whom
been farming it for a long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to petitioner purportedly inherited the subject parcel of land, they asserted that the lot
P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. The case was not settled. 5 sold was different from Lot No. 1493. Moreover, they interposed the defense of

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


19

prescription since the petition for cancellation was filed after the subject title Consequently, the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the herein
became indefeasible. controversy, rendering its decision null and void. Jurisdiction lies with the Office of
the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of classification of landholdings for
On the other hand, the MARO and PARO, in their Answer with Motion to coverage (whether the subject property is a private or government owned land),
Dismiss, invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official and identification of qualified beneficiaries.
functions in issuing the CLOA. They also clarified that the subject parcel of land has
been classified as Government Owned Land (GOL) or Kilusang Kabuhayan at LADANO VS. NERI
Kaunlaran (KKK) areas pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 2282, hence,
subject to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program's immediate coverage FACTS: Complaint by petitioner Luciano Ladano (Ladano) before the DARAB
(CARP coverage). Moreover, petitioner was not able to prove that she is the Provincial Adjudicator against respondents Felino Neri (Neri), Edwin Soto, Adan
registered owner of the subject parcel of land and that it is exempt from the CARP Espanola and Ernesto Blanco. Ladano alleged that on May 7, 2003, the
coverage. respondents forcibly entered the two-hectare land, located in Manalite
I,Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City, which he and his family have been
The CA Ruling: CA denied the petition on jurisdictional grounds and dismissed the peaceably occupying and cultivating since 1970. The said respondents informed
case without prejudice to its re-filing. It held that the DARAB does not have him that the property belongs to Neri and that he should vacate the same
jurisdiction over the instant controversy due to the absence of a landlord-tenant immediately. Not too long afterwards, the respondents fenced the property and
relationship or any agrarian relations between the parties. It also ruled that since destroyed some of the trees and kawayan planted thereon. Ladano prayed that
the issuance of the subject CLOA was made in the exercise of the DAR Secretary's he be declared the rightful "occupant/tiller" of the property, with the right to
administrative powers and function to implement agrarian reform laws, the security of tenure thereon. In the alternative that the judgment is in the
jurisdiction over the petition for its cancellation lies with the Office of the DAR respondents' favor, he prayed that the respondents compensate him for the
Secretary. improvements that he introduced in the property.

Issue: WON there is tenancy relationship? Respondents countered that Ladano's Complaint should be dismissed for lack of
merit. 11 He is not entitled to the reliefs he sought because he does not have,
HELD: The petition is without merit. While the DARAB may entertain petitions for as he did not even allege having, a leasehold arrangement with Neri, the
cancellation of CLOAs, as in this case, its jurisdiction is, however, confined only to supposed owner of the land he is occupying. 12
agrarian disputes. For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must
relate to an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in whose favor Instead of arguing that he has a right to remain on the property as its bona
CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the fide tenant, Ladano maintained that he has been its possessor in good faith for
issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the more than 30 years. He believed then that the property was part of the "public
administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and land and [was] open to anybody." 13 As a possessor and builder in good faith,
regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are he cannot be removed from the subject property without being compensated for
within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB. the improvements that he had introduced. 14 He prayed for an award of
P100,000.00 as disturbance compensation. 15
Thus, it is not sufficient that the controversy involves the cancellation of a CLOA
already registered with the Land Registration Authority. What is of primordial On June 23, 2004, the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed Ladano's
consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties. Complaint. 16 She determined that the two-hectare property, while agricultural,
is not covered by RA No. 6657, as amended, 17 which only covers agricultural
As defined in Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657, an agrarian dispute relates to "any properties beyond five hectares. Presidential Decree No. 27, as
controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, amended, 19 does not apply either because the property was not planted with
stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes rice and corn. Neither is it covered by other agrarian tenancy laws because
concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, Ladano had not presented any evidence of his tenancy relationship with the
fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such landowner.
tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of
lands acquired under the said Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of The DARAB determined that the only issue to be resolved is whether Ladano is a
ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform tenant on the subject landholding. 25 If he is a tenant, he is entitled to security
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm of tenure and cannot be removed from the property. The DARAB held that
operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee." Ladano's 30-year occupation and cultivation of the land could not have possibly
escaped the landowner's notice. Since the landowner must have known about,
Verily, an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement and acquiesced to, Ladano's actions, an implied tenancy is deemed to exist
over lands devoted to agriculture. 18 Tenurial arrangements pertain to agreements between them. 27 The landowner, who denied the existence of a tenancy
which set out the rights between a landowner and a tenant, lessee, farm worker or relationship, has the burden of proving that the occupant of the land is a mere
other agrarian reform beneficiary involving agricultural land. Traditionally, tenurial intruder thereon. 28 In the instant case, respondents failed to discharge such
arrangements are in the form of tenancy 19 or leasehold burden.
arrangements. 20 However, other forms such as a joint production agreement to
effect the implementation of CARP have been recognized as a valid tenurial Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. They assailed the DARAB's
arrangement. 21 finding of a tenancy relationship as having no factual basis. Ladano himself
never claimed sharing his harvests with, or paying rentals to, the landowner.
To be sure, the tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations referred to may be Without such an arrangement, no tenancy relationship can exist between
established with the concurrence of the following: 1) the parties are the landowner them 32 and Ladano cannot claim rights under the agrarian laws.
and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an
agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the Contrary to the DARAB's ruling, the CA held that the burden lies on the person
purpose of the agricultural relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) who is asserting the existence of a tenancy relationship to prove that all the
there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) elements necessary for its existence are present (6 requisites).
the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
The CA concluded that there is no evidence supporting the DARAB's conclusion
In this case, a punctilious examination reveals that petitioner's allegations are that a tenancy relationship exists between Ladano and Neri. 38 In fact, Ladano
solely hinged on the erroneous grant by the DAR Secretary of CLOA No. 00122354 himself admitted that he entered and tilled the subject property without the
to private respondents on the grounds that she is the lawful owner and possessor knowledge and consent of the landowner. Such admission negates the requisites
of the subject lot and that it is exempt from the CARP coverage. In this regard, of consent and of an agreement to share harvests. 39
petitioner has not alleged any tenurial arrangement between the parties, negating
the existence of any agrarian dispute and consequently, the jurisdiction of the In seeking a reconsideration 41 of the CA Decision Ladano alleged, for the first
DARAB. Indisputably, the controversy between the parties is not agrarian in nature time, that he indeed shared a portion of his harvest with the landowner's
and merely involves the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform caretaker.
program which is cognizable by the DAR Secretary. Section 1, Rule II of the 1994
DARAB Rules of Procedure clearly provides that "matters involving strictly the Issues Whether petitioner is an agricultural tenant on the subject property.
administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, and other agrarian reform laws
and pertinent rules, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the DAR Our Ruling: Petitioner is not a tenant on the land and is not entitled to security
Secretary." of tenure nor to disturbance compensation. His Complaint was properly
dismissed for lack of merit.
Furthermore, it bears to emphasize that under the new law, R.A. No.
9700, 24 which took effect on July 1, 2009, all cases involving the cancellation of The Department of Agrarian Reform and its adjudication boards have no
CLOAs and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are now within jurisdiction over Ladano's Complaint. "For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. (Section 9) the case, there must exist a tenancy [relationship] between the parties." 70 But
a careful reading of Ladano's Complaint shows that Ladano did not claim to be a
leasehold tenant on the land.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


20

Petitioner never alleged that he had any agreement with the landowner of the days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5)
subject property. Indeed Ladano's Complaint did not assert any right that arises hectares.
from agrarian laws. He asserted his rights based on his prior physical possession
Purpose of Homestead: Given to the citizens of the Philippines for cultivation and
of the two-hectare property and on his cultivation of the same in good faith. The for residence
issues that he wanted resolved are who between himself and the respondents
have a better right to possess the property, and whether he has a right to be Maximum number of hectares that can be given to citizens is 12 hectares
compensated for the improvements he introduced on the property. Clearly, the
nature of the case he filed is one for forcible entry 72 and for Homestead is also a title which you will learn in Land Titles and Deeds
indemnification, 73neither of which is cognizable by the DARAB, but by the *More or less similar with Free Patent but they differ in the requisites
*Title given by DENR and normally there is a prohibition of conveyance within a
regular courts. While neither of the parties challenged the jurisdiction of the
period of 5 years
DARAB, the Court can consider the issue of jurisdiction motu proprio.
SIR: Mao na ang uban mu.ingon nga we might as well suffer the 5 yr prohibition
Still a question about evidence. under free patent or homestead than go through with the judicial process of titling
which may take several years
In Isidro, the pronouncement of the SC that even if the land was agri, that does Qualifications under Sec. 6 (Take note):
1. original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
not automatically become an agrarian dispute.
2. who still own the homestead
3. as long as they continue to cultivate (most important)
In the same manner, even if the person is occupying and cultivating, that does
not ipso facto make that person a tenant. 6 requisites must be satisfied. Even if
there is harvest or cultivation, but there is no consent, there is no agrarian HOMESTEAD PATENT A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public
dispute. domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.
filed at CENRO where land being applied is located.
who are qualified - citizens of Philippines over 18 years
old & not an owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art
Chapter II (Coverage) XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-
Recap on difference between PD 27 and CARL: destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such
PD 27: rice and corn benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
CARL: everything is covered subject to certain exceptions (prawn farming, homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of
fishpond, livestock, etc., under sec. 10) but generally all land, public and private the patent. After that five-year period the law impliedly permits
lands. alienation of the homestead, but in line with the primordial purpose to
Common denominator: devoted to or suitable to agriculture favor with the homesteader and his family the statute provides that
- Why is there such an element? such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the
- These lands are supposed to be acquired by the government to be right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirs.
given to farmer beneficiaries. Purpose: they will improve, (to cultivate
the land and for the land to be developed) CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec.6,)
expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII, Constitution
Actual cases: LO will allege that lands are suitable for ECOTOURISM so that it will
not be suitable for agriculture. SECOND ASPECT
- Proof needed to show ecotourism suitability: certification from
Retention right of the landowner: xxx but in no case shall retention by the
department of agriculture.
landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
- What is the meaning of that? A landowner, for ex., who has 20
(there was an issue on Roxas application for exemption) but SC said that this issue
has to be determined by DAR, not us. hectares, at the effectivity of the law will now be able to retain only 5
Dissenting opinion of Ynares Santiago in Roxas and Company: There was a hectares. 15 hectares will be acquired by the government subject to
certification from DA certifying that the land is not suitable for agriculture. So why payment of just compensation.
should we refer this to DAR when there is already a certificate? - Why retention? That is a right of the landowner to hold on to 5
hectares without any condition or qualification.
HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec.6) Very important Meaning: WON the landowner is personally cultivating, that is
not required by law. That is an absolute right of the landowner
FIRST ASPECT of section 6 is about homestead. (Underlined provision) Although later on, we will later on discover that there is an
admin order issued by DAR setting limitations landowner has
to apply with DAR to be able to exercise retention, there is a
SECTION 6.Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, period within which to exercise and if there is a failure to
no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private exercise within the period given then there is a possible waiver
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing of that right.
a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, But the landowner, if aggrieved by the MARO (for ex. because it
is the MARO who normally handles the application at the lower
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian
level) can go the Sec. of DAR on appeal.
Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention
by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be THIRD ASPECT
awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject
qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of
that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm
farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by
Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally Take note that the word used by law with respect to the children or child of the
retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead landowner is NOT retention but AWARD.
grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original - Meaning: for a child to be awarded by the government with 3 hectares,
homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas he HAS to COMPLY with these qualifications
as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. - Who normally examines the qualifications? MARO
SIR: and with due respect with MAROs, it is also possible that it
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be is in the appreciation of these qualifications that corruption can
compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, come in, with or without consideration
That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted,
the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a FOURTH ASPECT: Retained area of the landowner (second par. of Sec. 6)
- Who has the right to choose? LANDOWNER
beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
- What if in the chosen area, there are tenants? What would happen to
comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained
the tenants? Law gives them (tenant) two options:
area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a 1. You can be a qualified beneficiaries of other portions of the
beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in land of the landowner or on agricultural lands owned by other
another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land persons
retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a 2. You can remain on the retained area. If he chooses to remain
period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of on the retained area:
the area for retention. The tenant loses his right to become a qualified
beneficiary
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers There is now a leasehold relation between the
on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected. landowner-lessor and the tenant on the retained area.
Tenant will not acquire any parcel of land but he
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, continues to be a tenant on the retained area and to be
management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by governed by Chapter 3 of the law.
the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and
void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid 2 CASES UNDER HOMESTEAD:
only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3)
months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds Alita vs. CA, 170 SCRA 706
shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) Facts:

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


21

Two parcels of land in Tungawan, Zamboanga del Norte were clearly not cultivating them, nor will she personally cultivate any part thereof.
acquired by private respondents predecessors-in-interest through homestead Undoubtedly, therefore, she has no right to retain any portion of her landholdings.
patent under the provisions C.A. No. 141. Even under the current primary law on agrarian reform, Republic Act
Private respondents/owners Enrique Reyes, et al. herein are desirous (RA) No. 6657, to which the application of PD 27 is suppletory, petitioner's lands
of personally cultivating these lands, but petitioners/tenants Gabino Alita refuse to are subject to land reform. The said Act lays down the rights of homestead
vacate, relying n the provisions of PD 27 and PD 316 and appurtenant regulations grantees under Sec. 6 thereof.
issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
Indisputably, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and
Held: retain the original homesteads, only for "as long as they continue to cultivate"
We agree with the petitioners in saying that PD 27 decreeing the them. That parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not automatically
emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them exempt them from the operation of land reform. It is the fact of continued
ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation, a remedial measure cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs that shall
promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution. However, exempt their lands from land reform coverage.
such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of Neither petitioner nor her heirs are personally cultivating the subject
the Public Land Act or CA No. 141. Thus, homesteads. The DAR and the CA found that respondents were the ones who had
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection been cultivating their respective portions of the disputed properties.
of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a However, petitioner can retain five (5) hectares in accordance with
modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence Section 6 of RA 6657, which requires no qualifying condition for the landowner to
and for the satisfaction of lifes other needs.xxx be entitled to retain such area.
Both the Philippine constitution and the CARL respect the superiority Petitioner's heirs, however, are not entitled to awards of three (3)
of the homesteaders right over the right of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian hectares each, since they are not actually tilling the parcels or directly managing
Reform Statute. the farm.

In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001)
homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of 13
Reform statute. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine hectares. She admitted that land is fully tenanted by private
Constitution which provides: respondents Alfeche,et al.
Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original
The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever homestead grantee, she is entitled to retain the lands to the exclusion
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural of tenants.
resources, including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to
agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the SC :
rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. Petitioners contention is w/o legal basis. PD applies to all tenanted
private agriculture lands primarily devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere
Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive does it appear that lots obtained by homestead patents are exempted
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso from its operation. Under RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are
supporting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like provided but with condition: only for as long as they continue to
those of the property in question, reading, cultivate them. That parcels of land are covered by homestead will not
Section 6. Retention Limits. xxxx... Provided further, That original homestead automatically exempt them from operation of land reform. It is the fact
grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs
the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they that shall exempt their lands. Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares
continue to cultivate said homestead. which require no qualifying condition (Sec.6)

ALITA v. CA: (1989) DIFFERENCE between Alita and Paris:


private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired - Alita: had the desire to personally cultivate granted
2 parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur thru homestead - Paris: no desire to cultivate denied
patent
petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27 RETENTION RIGHTS
SC: NCC: conjugal total is 5; capital/paraphernal not more than 5 each but not
PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and exceed 10
transferring to them ownership of land they till. FC (Aug.3,1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2, s. 2003:
However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA capital/paraphernal - not to exceed 5 provided with judicial separation
141 (Public Land Act) absolute (presumed) not to exceed 5
Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteaders rights and
CARL also. *Even if you have two spouses, the two is considered to be one! Therefore, they
Sec. 6: shall only have 5 hectares depending of course on the relation.
Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval SIR: This is what is actually happening but do not do this. (with respect to
of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said retention limit
homestead.
*illegal: A has 5 hectares of agri land, and wants to buy the 5 hectares of B. If A
will buy the land and will change the document of B with As name, As land holding
Paris vs. Alfeche, 364 SCRA 110
Facts: will exceed 5 hectares (that is not allowed under the law because the buyer is
Petitioner Florencia Paris is the owner of 10.6146 hectare of land in supposed to execute an affidavit of the transferee saying that the acquisition will
Paitan,Bukidnon. The said parcels are fully tenanted by private respondents not exceed the landholding provided by law). Limitation applies throughout the
Dionisio Alfeche, et al. who are recipients of Emancipation Patents in their names Philippines.
pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under PD 27 notwitstanding the fact What would A do? A will pay B with the consideration but A will not
that neither the tenants nor the Land Bank [has] paid a single centavo for the said
cause the transfer of Bs name on the land. Ipabilin ang name sa yuta in the name
land.
Petitioner contends that since she is entitled to a retention of 7 of B to avoid perjury. But there will be complications
hectares under PD 27 and/or 5 hectares and 3 hectares each for her children under *legal:
CARL., the tenants are not supposed to acquire the subject land and the - Before buying the land, change the classification in tax declaration from
Emancipation Patents precipitately issued to them are null and void for being agricultural to residential or commercial or industrial.
contrary to law. Petitioner further alleged that she owns the subject property as - Disadvantage: Real property taxes
original homestead grantee who still owned the same when RA 6657 was - Be careful: Republic vs. CA (under Sec. 10 on exemptions): There is no law or
approved, thus she is entitled to retain the area to the exclusion of her tenants.
jurisprudence that says that the classification under tax declaration is the absolute
As regards to the land, petitioner has applied for retention of 7
hectares contending that the lands subject of the instant petition are covered by standard.
Homestead Patents, and as decided by the Supreme Court in Patricio vs. Bayug and - tax dec vs. MARO's findings (land is agri) ,SC upheld MAROs findings
Alita vs. CA, the homesteaders and their heirs have the right to cultivate their
homesteads personally, which is a superior right over that of tenant-farmers. LANDOWNERs RETENTION RIGHTS
Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs?
Held:
Petitioners contention is without legal basis. PD 27, under which the How CLOA is issued to farmer beneficiaries:
EP sought to be canceled here were issued to respondents, applies to all tenanted - Under Sec. 16 on acquisition by the government, there are different
private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of schemes under the reform:
share-crop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not. The law Land transfer schemes: 2 aspects voluntary and compulsory
makes no exceptions whatsoever in its coverage. Nowhere therein does it appear Voluntary the landowner will volunteer to convey the
that the lots obtained by homestead patents are exempt from it operation. land to the government, agree on the price and then
Petitioners claimed entitlement to retain 7 hectares is also untenable. execute the deed of conveyance
PD 27, which provides the retention limit, states: Compulsory if the landowner refuses the notice of
In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than 7 hectares if such acquisition and notice of coverage. Gov. will have to
landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it. expropriate. This time is a different expropriation. WHY?
Clearly, the right to retain an area of 7 hectares is not absolute. It is Even without the title (2 copies: owners title and
premised on the condition that the landowner is cultivating the area sought to be the RDs title), if the government has already
retained or will actually cultivate it upon effectivity of the law. deposited the amount with LBP, registry of deeds
In the case at bar, neither of the conditions for retention is present. As can already cancel the title of the owner and issue
admitted by petitioner herself, the subject parcels are fully tenanted; thus, she is a new title in favor of the government. The
government can now issue different titles to farmer

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


22

beneficiaries. It is now called CLOA Certificate of There is an allowable accommodation for religion under
Land Ownership Award. CERTAIN circumstances this is part of the accommodation
- Last part is: lands with 18 degrees slope and over bakilid au
Even if the farmer beneficiary is given the CLOA, he still has to pay the government (exempted) WHY? Because of possible soil erosion
30 annual amortizations with interest. (that is how long the farmer pays the
government for the just compensation) DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 06-06

DAEZ v. CA SECTION 3. Qualifications of Children-Awardees. The child of a landowner


Issuance of EPs/CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar whose landholding is subject of acquisition and distribution under the CARP may be
landowner from retaining the area. In fact, EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land awarded and given preference in the distribution of said lands if he/she meets all of
covered in later found to be part of landowners retained area. In this case, CLTs of the following criteria: DaCTcA
private respondent were leased w/o according Daez her right of choice. So DAR
was ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec.6 of RA 6657. 3.1 Filipino citizen;
Retention by landowner: 5 hectares
Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided: 3.2 At least fifteen (15) years of age; and
1. at least 15 years of age; and
2. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm 3.3 Actual tillers or one directly managing the farm as of June 15, 1988 up
to the time of the conduct of field investigation of the landholding under CARP.
DAR Adm. Order # 2, S.2003 Direct management shall refer to the cultivation of the land through personal
Who may apply for retention supervision under the system of labor administration. It shall be interpreted along
Period to exercise right of retention the lines of farm management (this one is more difficult) as an actual major
Where to file activity being performed by the landowner's child from which he/she derives
Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of his/her primary source of income.
retention
Operating produces : MARO PARO REG. DIRECTOR- Sec. (Appeal) SECTION 4. Rights and Obligations. The children-awardees shall have the
following rights and obligations:
RA 9700, Sec 3 amended Sec 4.
That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below 4.1 All children-awardees shall exercise diligence in the use, cultivation and
shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. (RA maintenance of the land including the improvements thereon. Unauthorized sale of
9700, Sec. 3) the land, or negligence or misuse of the land and support extended to children-
awardees, and other violations under existing guidelines shall be grounds for the
Kini kataw.anan kay (hmm), Sec 5 is about schedule of implementation. The law forfeiture of their right as such;
says, the distribution shall be implemented within 10 yrs from effectivity. So when
CARL took effect, June 15, 1988, it was effected for 10 years. Why is it that we are 4.2 Lands awarded to qualified children of landowners may not be sold,
still implementing CARL till now? Because the law was amended. transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to the
government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten
How was the law amended? Sec. 5 was not the one amended but SEC 63 which is (10) years; Provided, however, that the children or the spouse of the transferor
about funding. So legislators should have amended Sec 5!!! RA 8542 amended Sec shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or the LBP within a
63 extending implementation for another 10 years. How was it worded? period of two (2) years from the date of transfer; and
the amount needed xxx until 2008 (Dec 31) 4.3 The children-awardees may avail of any support services being provided
by the government in agrarian reform areas.
Worse, when CARL expired on 2008, it was amended extending it further to June
30, 2009. How? Joint Resolution which was easier. Exemptions from coverage (Section 10)

RA 9700 approved Aug 7 2009 but given retroactive effect. Why? Na.late pag Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL
approve sa Congress. (a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish
sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves (exempt);
6657: 10 years upto 1998 (b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt)
8542: upto 2008 interpreted up to Dec. 31 (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites
Joint Resolution: From Dec. 31, 2008 to June 30, 2009 and campuses including experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings research,
9700: approved Aug but they reckoned July 1, 2009 ang effectivity up to June 15, church sites and convents, mosque sites, communal burial grounds and cemeteries,
2014 (5 yr period) penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt)

Next time, you amend correctly!!! May have question on legality!!! CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB
What is the good point of these amendments? Congress was consistent of its error! The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly &
exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus,
SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. - Provincial, city and municipal including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for
government, units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other establishing seed and seeding research
modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of
such as roads and bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a
government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent with university in years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a school
the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for vast tract of
(5)-hectare retention limit under this Section xxx. (RA 9700, Sec. 4) agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious.
While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del
SIR: That means if you have an agricultural land, the landowner will choose an Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly connected to
area which the LGU will use for public purposes, the landowner cannot use his right the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational institution
of retention to prevent the LGU from exercising its right to expropriate. As to determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary
- REASON: Public purposes such as road, bridges, public market, school for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve & answer the
sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and question. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless it is manifest
barangay plazas or squares that CMU has no real need for land.
- So what the landowner can do is choose another area. That is if it is
consistent with the comprehensive land use of the LGU. - one part used for school and campus site
- another part not used, part is leased to Del Monte Phil. Packing Co.
Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL - Central Mindanao is an agricultural school
(a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish
- SC: did not use the phrase found to be necessary, but impliedly it
sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves
was referring to it. Because even if that portion of land was not used, if
(exempt);
- You will note, jurisdiction here lies with DENR it was found to be necessary for future expansion, it is to be exempted
- Example: agricultural lands all the way to balamban (watershed area), from coverage.
exempted from CARP because it is for a different purpose - QUESTION: who will determine/decide when and what lands are found
(b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) to be necessary? SC: it is the school and the only exception is if it is
- You have RA 7881, that exempts it from the coverage during the time manifest that CMU has no real need for the land. (but who will admit
of Ramos
that??)
(c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense,
school sites and campuses including experimental farm
stations, seeds and seedlings research, church sites and Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Secretary of DAR, 274 SCRA 30
convents, mosque sites, communal burial grounds and Facts:
cemeteries, penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% Petitioners are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds
slope and over (exempt) and prawn farms. They question Sections 3[b], 11, 13, 6[d], 17 and 32 of RA 6657
- Very interesting (daw), Why? (a) and (b), you have the qualifying as unconstitutional because they extend the agrarian reform to aquaculture lands
words ADE, which is used under letter (b) and which is also used under even as Sec. 4, Art. 13 of the Constitution limits agrarian reform only to agricultural
letter (c) BUT, there is an additional phrase: found to be necessary. lands.
And this was tested in the case of Central Mindanao. WHY? (go to Held:
Central Mindanao Case) The Court ruled that provisions of RA 7881 expressly states that fishpond and
- experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings research why prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. Thus, petition to question
exempted? For agricultural production the constitutionality of some portion of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is
- church sites and convents, mosque sites freedom of religion moot and academic with the passage of RA 7881.
SIR: reminded me of Estrada vs. Escritor
Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


23

Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn TCT No. T-72669 in the name of Leoncia De Leon and Susana De Leon Loppacher
farms; challenged RA 6657 which coverage lands devoted to the (De Leon sisters), who were likewise impleaded as parties-defendants in the suit.
aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and prawn farms.
SC: Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land since
R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of the owners, who were her
excluded from the coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question sisters-in-law; that sometime in 2004, petitioners circulated rumors that they have
concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and purchased the property from the De Leon sisters; that petitioners ignored
academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881 respondent's requests to show proof of their alleged ownership; that on August 12,
2004, petitioners entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice planted on
the land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy equipment; that the
Sanchez v. Marin incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) which issued
Issue: a Cease and Desist Order 5 but to no avail.
Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government by Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy rights
virtue of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7881 to R.A. No. 6657 over the land; restore the land to its original condition and not to convert the same
to non-agricultural use; that any act of disposition of the land to any other person
SC: be declared null and void because as a tenant, she allegedly had a right of pre-
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic emption or redemption over the land.
Act No. 6657 by expressly exempting/excluding private lands actually, directly and
exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL. Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property under
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). He alleged that respondent
is a septuagenarian who is no longer physically capable of tilling the land; that the
Republic vs. CA, 342 SCRA 189 MARO issued a certification 7 that the land had no registered tenant; that
Facts: respondent could not be regarded as a landless tiller under the CARP because she
Parcels of land in Jala-Jala, Rizal was covered and has a tax owns and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired
declaration classifying the said land as agricultural. The DAR then issued a Notice through inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy 8 was executed by the De
of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition pursuant to Leon sisters when they sold the property to him. DTIaCS
Section 7, Chapter II of RA 6657.
Private respondent corporation filed with the DAR office an application for Moreover, Lim claimed that respondent and her family surreptitiously entered the
exemption of the land from agrarian reform but the same was denied. subject land and planted a few crops to pass themselves off as cultivators thereof;
The CA reversed the DAR orders declaring those portions of the land of the that respondent tried to negotiate with petitioner Lim for the sale of the land to
petitioner which are mountainous and residential to be exempt from the CARP. her, as the latter was interested in entering into a joint venture with another
DAR then appealed to SC contending and claiming that the subject properties have residential developer, which shows that respondent has sufficient resources and
already been classified as agricultural based on the tax declaration and therefore is cannot be a beneficiary under the CARP; that the land is no longer classified as
covered by CARL. agricultural and could not thus be covered by the CARP. Per certification issued by
the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Bacoor,
Held: Cavite, the land is classified as residential pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use
RA 6657 (CARL) covers all private and agricultural land. Agricultural lands are land Plan approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
devoted for agricultural activity and not classified as minerals, forest, residential
commercial or industrial Issue:
No law or jurisprudence holds that the land classification embodied in the tax Whether or not the land is exempted.
declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. The
DAR administrative order no.6 lists the other documents, aside from tax Held:
declaration, that must be submitted when applying for exception from CARP. The In the instant case, there is no substantial evidence to support the appellate court's
classification made by the Land Regulatory Board outweighed the classification conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on the subject property.
stated in the tax declaration. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above. It was not
shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy relationship with
respondent who was their sister-in-law; or that the De Leon sisters received any
REPUBLIC v. CA share in the harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a
Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. DAR issued notice of proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a tenancy
coverage & owner applied for exemption. Application was denied and on appeal the relationship.
Court of Appeals created a commission to conduct ocular inspection and survey the
land. Later, based on the report submitted by the commission, the Court of Appeals The affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a portion of
reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from CARL. Republic the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her sisters-in-law. The
contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or details of the alleged harvest
by mere ocular inspection. sharing; it merely stated that the affiants have known respondent to be the
SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax declaration is cultivator of the land since time immemorial. It cannot therefore be deemed as
conclusive; tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of classification of land. SC gave evidence of harvest sharing.
credence to commissions report. Based on their report, it was found that the land
use map submitted by private respondent was an appropriate document consistent That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without opposition, does not
with the existing land use. It was confirmed that the lands are not wholly mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold
agricultural as they consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope. The relation with respondent. Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not
CARL has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except those ipso facto make one a de jure tenant.
already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of CARL.
Finally, the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate Sections 65 33 and
Sta. Rosa Realty Devt Corp. vs. CA, 367 SCRA 175 73 34 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. There was no illegal conversion of the land because
Facts: Sec. 65 applies only to lands which were covered by the CARP, i.e., those lands
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the beyond the five-hectare retention limit allowed to landowners under the law, which
registered owner of two parcels of land at Cabuyao, Laguna. According to the were distributed to farmers-beneficiaries. In the instant case, it was not shown that
petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which provide clean potable water to the subject land was covered by the CARP. Neither was it shown that the sale was
the Canlubang community, and thet 90% light industries are now located in the made to circumvent the application of R.A. 6657 or aimed at dispossessing tenants
area. Thus, praying for the exemption of the said parcels of land for the of the land that they till
compulsory acquisition under CARP.
Held: The evidence that was mentioned by the SC was a letter. In this letter, it was
The disputed land is classified as PARK and subsequent studies and found that there was no tenancy relationship, because of the use of the word
survey showed that the parcel of land in question forms a vital part of a watershed. kasama. The word kasama would be taken in varying context, not necessarily in
Article 10 of RA 6657 expressly states that Lands actually, directly and exclusively
relation to agricultural leasehold agreement. It was not also clear the word kasama
used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
referred to the tenant.
grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this
Act.
Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the
DARAB hearing, petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of (Sec. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS
18% and over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. Commercial farms private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms,
6657, Section 10, provides: orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms and cacao, coffee and rubber plantations.
"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. xxx..and all lands with eighteen percent They are subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution after 10 years from
(18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from effectivity.
coverage of this Act."
Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the disputed SIR: I think Del Monte falls under this classification. Im not sure.
parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP
because of its very high slopes. LUZ FARMS
Sec. II which includes private agricultural land devoted to commercial
NICORP MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. LEONIDA livestock, poultry & swine raising in definition of commercial farms is
DE LEON invalid.
Facts:
On August 26, 2004, respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the Adm. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Region IV-Province of Cavite, land used for cattle raising from CARP. Citing Luz Farms case private agricultural
praying that petitioners Salvador R. Lim and/or NICORP Management and land or portions thereof actually, exclusively &directly used for cattle raising as of
Development Corporation (NICORP) be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over 15 June 1988 shall be excluded. Exclusion shall be granted only upon proof of AED
a parcel of land located in Barangay Mambog III, Bacoor, Cavite, registered under prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized for such purpose up to application.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


24

Any act to change or convert ; w/ intent to avoid CARP,shall be invalid. Only the DAR Adm. Order No. 7-2008
grazing area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary for cattle Policy Guidelines:
raising shall be considered for exclusion 1. Private agricultural lands or portions therof actually, directly or exclusively used
for livestock purposes other than agricultural like cattle raising as of june 15, 1988
Why is there special treatment to commercial farms? Because of possible effect to and continuously and exclusively utilized or devoted for such purpose up until the
company and distribution of lands to farmer beneficiaries, basin ug mawagtang and time of inventory shall be excluded from CARP coverage.
kanindot sa yuta na dili unta i-subdivide or i-distribute. Agricultural production can 2. Conversely, landholdings or any portions thereof not actually, directly and
be better if they are not distributed or are intact as a whole. exclusively used for livestock raising are subject to CARP coverage if one or more
of the following conditions apply:
For commercial farms, there is a suspension of 10 years sa pag-implement. And 2.1 if there is agricultural activity in the area, i.e cultivation of the soil, planting of
there are alternative methods available to commercial farms other than distribution crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such products, and other
of lands. farm activities and practices, whether done by a natural or juridical person and
regardless of the final use or destination of such agricultural products
DAR A.O #9, S of 1998 allows commercial farms certain options, subject to 2.2 the land is suitable for agriculture and it is presently occupied and tilled by
approval of DAR & workers: (aside from voluntary & compulsory coverage) farmer/s.
5. in case of any of the conditions under items 2.1 and 2.2 are evident, the PARO
CLOAs are issued - joint venture shall immediately proceed with the issuance of NOTICE of COVERAGE on the
in name of cooperative - growership agreement subject landholding or portions thereof
of workers - lease back 8. any act of the landowner to change or convert his agricultural land for livestock
- direct payment raising shall not affect the coverage of his landholdings under CARP. Any
diversification or change in the agricultural use of the landholdings, or shift from
Please note: in any of these methods, ang yuta ma.adto gihapon sa farmer crop production to livestock raising shall be subject to the existing guidelines on
beneficiaries, dili lang i-distribute. Intact ang yuta, but the former landowner can land use conversion.
participate in this method.
- For instance, joint venture: kinsa ang mag.joint venture? Ang farmer Adm. Order #7 (2008)
beneficiary and former landowner (Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising)
Beneficiaries will contribute the use of the land, the investor Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 &
furnishing the capital and technology. continuously devoted shall be excluded.
Note: there has to be approval from DAR Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided that the agricultural
- Lease-back: an owner of the land will now rent his own land from the activity in land is suitable for agriculture presently tilled by farmers
farmer beneficiary
Lease may not exceed 10 years. There is a least rental
Needs approval of DAR Chapter III (IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR RELATION)
- Growership arrangements: magsabot sila daan na ug mag.harvest na
gani, ako ang mu.palit sa inyohang products WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED FARMERS?
To be approved by DAR 1. Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16)
- Direct payment scheme: if they can agree na ang property will have to 2. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec.20)
be transferred to the farmer beneficiary and the farmer beneficiaries 3. Non-land transfer schemes stock distribution option(SDO);
will be paying the landowner for the land. production & profit sharing (PPS)- Sec. 13/32; leasehold
To be approved by DAR operation(Sec.12)
According to DAR, it requires that CLOA be issued collectively or
under co-ownership under the direct payment scheme In the case of Hacienda Luisita, CJ Corona was the only one who gave a dissenting
opinion because remember, in the decision of Hacienda Luisita, while the SC
*NOTE: Former landowner shall be given priority with respect to these methods. revoked the Stock Distribution Program, the SC used the Operative Fact Doctrine.
Contracts are reviewed by DAR Support Services to be submitted to the Provincial Even if the program is null and void, using that doctrine, we have the consult the
Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) and to be endorsed to PARC. farmers whether they would want to remain as stockholders or they would want
PARC is the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council headed by the President of the the land distributed.
Philippines. - CJ Corona dissented saying Sec 31 is void because with respect to
agrarian reform, it is only distribution, there are no other ways.
Please note: these are not the only methods under CARP. Another is the:
- Stock distribution option: referring to hacienda Luisita Leasehold Operation: (We can understand because) Under sec. 6, if the area
- For how many years, the SDO was perfectly managed, it was a good chosen by the landowner is tenanted, and the tenant chooses to remain on the
method until when the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council headed by land. That is a choice personal to the tenant
GMA revoked the SDO on the ground that among others, it failed to
alleviate the conditions of the farmer beneficiaries. And which SDO: different scheme. Thats why some authors are saying, the land reform of the
revocation was upheld by the SC. Philippines is very different:
- Right now, the lands are being distributed to farmer beneficiaries 1. Other asian countries only have 3 hectare retention limit, in the Phil,
consistent with the ruling of the Court. why 5?
2. Why do have an SDO as an option?
DAR vs. Sutton, et al., G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005 There is no evidence to prove that this is an accommodation in
DAR issued A.O. No. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be retained by a favor of Hacienda Luisita during the time of Aquino. At the same
landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and private agricultural lands time, there is no proof that the revocation by the PARC of the
under the coverage of agrarian reform. program of Hacienda Luisita headed by GMA was also as a
defense? (dili maklaro seri) against Aquino
Issue:
The constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993. Take note: VOS, there is a cut-off date under RA 9700. (Right now you cannot avail
of this)
Held: - Without any notice from DAR, the landowner proposes to the
Petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been government.
exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has
exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O. VLT is not anymore an option under the present law (RA 9700)
The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules - VLT is an option by the landowner that after receiving the notice of
and regulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not contravene the acquisition from DAR, the landowner offers.
provisions of the Constitution. The rule-making power of an administrative agency
may not be used to abridge the authority given to it by Congress or by the Under RA 9700, what will remain is COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.
Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency
beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with Note: That is consistent with the thrust of the government, that by 2014,
respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative everything should have been offered compulsorily, without waiting whether the
agencies and the scope of their regulations In the case at bar, we find that the landowner will offer or not.
impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought
to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform Under Sec 12, DAR is mandated to determine and fix the lease rentals. And this is
and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However the shown in Admin Order No. 02-06.
deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude,
inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry- raising. DAR Adm. Order No. 2-06
The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising
are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of agriculture or RA 6389 automatically converted share tenancy throughout the country into
agricultural activity. The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from agricultural leasehold relationship
crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. 1. abolition of share tenancy now covers all agricultural landholdings without
exceptions
DAR v. SUTTON : 2. the conversion of share tenancy into leasehold is mandated by law.
Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. Lands under VOS before CARP. 3. All share-crop tenants were automatically converted into agricultural lessees as
After CARP & Luz Farms case, Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS. DAR issued A.O #9 of june 15, 1988 whether or not a leasehold agreement has been executed
(1993) which provide that only portions of land used for raising of livestock, poultry 4. Leaseholders security of tenure shall be respected and guaranteed.
& swine shall be excluded. DAR partially exempted portion but ordered acquisition
the rest.
SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock , swine/poultry raising IV. GOVERNING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES
do not fall under agriculture & agricultural activity

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


25

Pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 6657, and in order to fully implement the Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of title. The lease expired in April,
provisions of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, on agricultural leasehold, the following 1994.
policies and principles are hereby issued: In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of
1. Agricultural leasehold shall be based on a tenancy relationship. Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory
The following are essential elements of agricultural tenancy: acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38 million. 4
1.1. The parties are the landholder and the tenant;
NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action. In February, 1992, it sought and
1.2. The object of the relationship is an agricultural land;
was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial
1.3. There is consent freely given either orally or in writing,
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case No. X-576, a writ of
express or implied;
prohibition with preliminary injunction which ordered the DAR Region X Director,
1.4. The purpose of the relationship is agricultural production;
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon, the Municipal Agrarian
1.5. There is personal cultivation;
Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao, Bukidnon, the Land Bank of the Philippines
1.6. There is consideration given to the lessor either in a form
(Land Bank), and their authorized representatives "to desist from pursuing any
of share of the harvest or payment of fixed amount in money or
activity or activities" concerning the subject land "until further orders." 5
produce to or both.
2. Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by mere On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the strikers'
expiration of the term of period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, protest by issuing the so-called "Win/Win" Resolution penned by then Deputy
alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the land. In case the Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona
agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the
In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution, the petitioners
landholding, purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the
claim that the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution
rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor as
"after a very well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda
provided for under Sec. 10, R.A. 3844, as amended.
Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office of the
xxx
President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the 'farmers,' by
4. The consideration for the lease shall not be more than the
reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared
equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest (ANH) during the three
final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997 .
(3) agricultural years immediately preceding the date the lease was
established. If the land has been cultivated for less than 3 years, the initial Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision
consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest of the dated March 29, 1996 can still be substantially modified by the "Win-Win"
preceding year/s when the land was actually cultivated. Resolution.

If we talk about leasehold, and there is a determination by DAR on the lease


rentals, the perfect scenario is: there has to be a document showing the agreement We rule in the negative.
on leasehold between the landowner and the lessee-tenant.
The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the
If you have a document, the tenant can have it annotated, registered with the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7
registry of deeds and the law itself provides this should be free from payment of all thereof provides:
fees and services. Sec. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the
- point of registration: protect the right of the lessee-tenant, so that any President shall, except as otherwise provided for by special
prospective buyer may be cautioned by simply looking at the title itself laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from
that there is a leasehold relationship involving that parcel of land. receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for
reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.
But even without the document, under AO 02-06, leasehold relation shall not be Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall
extinguished by expiration of term, by sale, in case of alienation, purchaser- be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally
transferee shall be subrogated to rights obligations of tenancy. meritorious cases. (Emphasis ours).
It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court shall
RA 6657 mandates Dar to determine the fix rentals within retained areas and areas apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable.
not yet acquired for agrarian reform
- Farmer has a right to elect whether to become a farmer beneficiary or a
leaseholder in the retention are of the landholder. When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring
the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed
Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within the a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-
retained areas and areas not yet acquired. open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of
the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for
Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect whether farmer-beneficiary reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became
OR leaseholds in retained area. the basis of 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 only one
Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title & documents required for (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March
implementation of CARP 29, 1996. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed
Pursuant to DARs mandate to protect the rights & improve tenurial & in "exceptionally meritorious cases," as provided in the second paragraph of
economic status of farmers in tenanted lands, DAR issued AO 02- Section 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not have been entertained
06(REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES GOVERNING LEASEHOLD considering that the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed,
IMPLEMENTATION IN TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS): thereby allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act
-Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6 requisites) of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its
-Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at term nor March 29, 1996 Decision which had already become final and executory, was in
by sale. In case of alienation, purchaser/transferee shall be subjugated gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to
to rights/obligation of lessor. administrative determinations.
- specific provision on the consideration to be given to the lessor which
can either be in a form of share of harvest or payment of money
-DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract. Why DARAB? Fortich vs. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so
- DARAB exercises quasi-judicial powers. With respect to intervened in case.
quasi-judicial powers, Leasehold contract involves rights, SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries, so they
obligations and others terms of the contract have no standing yet to intervene in the case.
-The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of average DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being bonafide
normal harvest during 3 agri years beneficiaries
-AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB.
lessor/lessee.
Concha vs. Rubio: Not a dispute between LO and tenant. Fight among tenants
- question: who among them should be considered qualified to become
CHAPTER IV REGISTRATION beneficiaries over a portion of land?
Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/ - who determines who is qualified? DAR specifically MARO
DAR. Purpose is to establish databank & identify actual famer-
- although SC said in this case that it is the Sec. of DAR through the authorized
beneficiaries.
offices
Insofar as beneficiaries are concerned, registration will determine if you have a - What was the finding of MARO?
standing to intervene in a case. Enunciated in the case of Fortich vs. Corona: - when he was talking about respondents, he was talking about the
parties who were not considered qualified. Why were they not qualified? According
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al., G.R. 131457, August 19, 1999 to the MARO they:
-refused to sign the form
This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao, -already given disturbance compensation
Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development
-Respondents: we returned the money to the landowners
Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. The property is covered by a
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371 3 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of -But MARO found that they used the money in building
Bukidnon. their houses in the lot given to them
-executed the document sinumpaang salaysay that they already
In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine
abandoned the landholding in question
Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), a multinational
-As a matter of principle, the finding of the MARO is to be accorded respect unless
corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower's
there is a showing of abuse of authority.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


26

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
CHAPTER V LAND ACQUISITION administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by requiring
the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to summit evidence as to the
just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the
Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for
and the root cause of peasant unrest. decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted
In order to hasten the implementation of the program, the Department for decision.
of Agrarian Reform has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode
of land acquisition. To the same end, the law provides for the steps in Notice in par. (e), par (d) would give you 30 days to respond. You have to inform
acquiring private lands through administrative instead of judicial DAR whether you accept or reject it.
proceedings. This procedure is allowed provided the requirements of
due process as to notice and hearing are complied with. (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of
Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory acquisition rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
of agricultural lands including facilities and improvements necessary for bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in
agricultural production, as may be appropriate, for distribution to accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
qualified beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation. shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title
The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory acquisition (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter
of private agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Along the various phases of the
CARP proceedings, the process stalls because of Land Owner (LO) How do we know the amount to be deposited? Should it be based on par. (d) after
resistance, most of whom invoke the ground of lack of notice or non- summary admin proceedings or par. (a) that is contained in the notice to acquire?
observance of due process in attacking the proceedings. CONFED CASE

Just to show us the amendment by RA 9700, the words added under section 16. In real scenario: transfer of title may happen before immediate possession. Why? It
AND DISTRIBUTION is possible that there is resistance here on the part of the landowner.
ex. Even if the title is already in the name of the Republic of the Philippines but
DAR cannot take possession because gibutangan ug guard ang agri land,
SECTION 6.The title of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is landowner still actually possesses the land while he is fighting for the acquisition in
hereby further amended to read as follows: court.
"SEC. 16.Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands. "
Take note here: in normal dealings (voluntary dealings), if you have a sale of land,
Why was this added? Because Sec. 16 doesnt only talk about acquisition, it also the seller will execute the Deed of Sale and give the original copy (owners
involves distribution of lands. duplicate copy) to the buyer, so that the buyer can go to RD, and be issued a new
title in favor of the purchaser. But here it is different.
LAND ACQUISITION
1. Under par. (e), Registry of Deeds can cancel the title of the LO on the
SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.- For purposes of acquisition of basis of the deposit, certification from land bank which will be
private lands, the following procedures shall be followed: annotated to the title and RD will issue a new title in favor of the
Republic of the Philippines.
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the 2. The title is cancelled even without the surrender of the owners copy
DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal 3. RDs copy of the LOs title is cancelled even if the owners copy is
delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the subsisting
municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Probable in case LO rejects offer or does not reply, he is still in
Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in possession of the title
accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent Advise: do not simply rely on the owners copy, you get a
provisions hereof. certified true copy from the RD.
4. RD can cancel and issue under CARL even if there is no payment of
But it was not clear in the law about how identification is determined this was taxes and transfer fees (provided in Sec 66 and 67 below)
filled up by DAR through an Admin Order.
- talks about notice to acquire: In the case of CONFED vs. DAR, SC talks about (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
two notices proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
1. Notice of coverage: More or less Preliminary: WHY?
- because while it notifies that the property shall be placed under Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land
CARP, the landowner is entitled to retention. Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e):
- notifies the landowner about the public hearing about the results of (1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance
field investigation, land evaluation and other pertinent matters (2) titles are cancelled w/o owners copy surrendered (in Torren's
- the landowner will be informed that the field investigation of his System, if there is refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file petition
landholding shall be conducted. After that comes the notice of in court
acquisition. (3) RD titles are cancelled while owners copy is subsisting
2. Notice of acquisition:
- the area subject of compulsory acquisition has to be stated. WHY? It Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer)
is based already on the field investigation
- plus the amount of just compensation offered by DAR Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required for
implementation of CARP)
How is the notice to be done? Personal delivery, registered mail and posting Sec. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, DAR can
request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowners
Note in the case of CONFED: Notice shall contain the offer of DAR protests valuation, distribution of land will proceed. CLOAs are issued upon land
- OFFER: offer of the government to the landowner as to how much the acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance
government will pay the landowner corresponding to the land to be acquired. of CLOA.
- Discuss this in relation to par. (e): It is the deposit that is the key to the
immediate possession and issuance of a title In Association of small land owners, SC did not say automatically. SC
said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past conversation.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall CONFED vs. DAR
inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. Facts:
Petitioners CONFED, NFSP, UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that their members own
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner or administer private agricultural lands devoted to sugarcane. They and their
the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers predecessors-in-interest have been planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly
a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title since time immemorial. While their petition is denominated as one for prohibition
and other muniments of title. and mandamus, the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs (d), (e) and (f)
of Section 16 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the
If landowner accepts no problem Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. In other words, their arguments, which will
If landowner rejects or fails to reply summary admin proceedings be discussed shortly, are anchored on the proposition that these provisions are
unconstitutional.
Take NOTE: the purpose of this is compensation. With respect to just
compensation, RTC has jurisdiction. They allege the following grounds in support of their petition:
Reiterate: there are only 2 instances where RTC has jurisdiction insofar as CARP is
concerned: It is the principal contention of the petitioners that, in the exercise by the State of
1. just compensation the power of eminent domain, which in the case of RA 6657 is the acquisition of
2. criminal offenses private lands for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries, expropriation proceedings, as
then why is it that the law in par. (d) talks about determination of just prescribed in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, must be strictly complied with. The
compensation? It was determined by the SC in CONFED, that this determination is petitioners rely on the case of Visayas Refining Company v. Camus and Paredes 7
only PRELIMINARY. Meaning that the landowner (as also shown in par. (f)) can still decided by the Court in 1919. In the said case, the Government of the Philippine
resort to court IF he disagrees with the decision referred in par. (d). Islands, through the Governor-General, instructed the Attorney-General to initiate
- So they bring the matter to court of proper jurisdiction for the condemnation proceedings for the purpose of expropriating a tract of land
FINAL determination of just compensation. containing an area of 1,100,463 square meters to be used for military and aviation
purposes. In compliance therewith, the Attorney-General filed a complaint with the
Court of First Instance (CFI) and among the defendants impleaded was Visayan
Refining Co. which owned a portion of the property intended to be expropriated.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


27

The CFI provisionally fixed the total value of the subject property at P600,000 and b)CARP CA Form 2 Summary Investigation Report of Findings and Evaluation
upon payment thereof as deposit, the CFI authorized that the Government be
placed in possession thereof. c)CARP CA Form 3 Applicant's Information Sheet

Paragraph (e) is assailed by the petitioners as it authorizes the DAR, by allegedly d)CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries Undertaking
merely causing the deposit with the Land Bank of the compensation, to
immediately take possession of the property and to direct the Register of Deeds to e)CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal Report to the PARO
cancel the certificate of title of the landowner without notice to and consent of the
latter. The petitioners contend that, in contrast, under the Civil Code, if the creditor The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned
or obligee refuses to accept the tender of payment, it is the duty of the debtor or forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and
obligor to make consignation of the thing or amount due. Under the Civil Code, correct. IEHTaA
there is no effective payment without valid tender of payment and consignation in
court. 15 The petitioners theorize that, in the same manner, the DAR cannot be 3.Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to
allowed to take possession of the property of a landowner, by mere deposit of the the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to
compensation that it has summarily fixed under paragraph (e), without having to the said conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-
go to court. beneficiaries, the BARC representative(s), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
representative and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of
Paragraph (f) is characterized by the petitioners as meaningless and useless to the the property. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the
landowner. It allegedly compels him to file a case, and in the process incur costs views, objection, agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. The
therefor, for the final determination of just compensation when, in the meantime, landowner shall also be asked to indicate his retention area. The minutes of the
he has already been deprived of possession of his property and his certificate of meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an
title cancelled. integral part of the CACF.

The Respondents' Counter-Arguments 4.Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).
The Land Bank urges the Court to dismiss the petition since the constitutionality of
RA 6657 had already been categorically upheld by the Court in Association of Small B.The PARO shall:
Landowners. Further, some of the grounds relied upon by the petitioners allege
matters that require factual determination. For example, the allegation that the 1.Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs.
DAR is subjecting the sugar lands to the coverage of RA 6657 without first
ascertaining whether there are regular farmworkers therein and whether they are 2.Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land in
interested to own, directly or collectively, the land they till, allegedly requires accordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and the
factual determination. Considering that the Court is not a trier of facts, the Land related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all the
Bank argues that these matters are better threshed out in a trial court. personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms. TCASIH

HELD: 3.In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular
DAR's compulsory acquisition procedure is based on Section 16 of RA 6657. It does inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection and verification
not, in any way, preclude judicial determination of just compensation shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds 500,000 per estate.

Contrary to the petitioners' submission that the compulsory acquisition procedure 4.Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with the
adopted by the DAR is without legal basis, it is actually based on Section 16 of RA duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the Central Office.
6657. Under the said law, there are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of
lands: compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for compulsory acquisition is that his report.
prescribed under Section 16 of RA 6657. TCDcSE

In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 41 the Court painstakingly outlined the C.DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
procedure for compulsory acquisition, including the administrative orders issued by Distribution (BLAD), shall: ECTHIA
the DAR in relation thereto, in this manner:
1.Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review, evaluate
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the case folder. A
the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by the
send a Notice of Acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the review and final
mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall valuation.
of the place where the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the
Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall 2.Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative,
inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. If the landowner a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the Notice
accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government to the landowner personally or through registered mail within three days from its
and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the approval. The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory
deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply,
the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just 3.Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare and
compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and other submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of
interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a
from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance
inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1989.
receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD
of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of
LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of Acquisition.
the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer 4.Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit
beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the
for final determination of just compensation. Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the
corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall
hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries." AEDCHc
(CARP). Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is
the identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the
law is silent on how the identification process must be made. To fill in this gap, the CONFED vs. DAR
DAR issued on July 26, 1989 Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989, which set Compulsory Acquisition
the operating procedure in the identification of such lands. The procedure is as Notice of Acquisition
follows: First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the
beneficiaries.
"II.OPERATING PROCEDURE Law is silent
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
A.The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, with the assistance of the pertinent Valid implementation , two notices
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall: EDATSI DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9,
Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series of 1993
1.Update the master list of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area
of responsibility. The master list shall include such information as required under Expropriation in Consti Law: two limitations:
the attached CARP Master List Form which shall include the name of the 1. Public use 2. Payment of just compensation
landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number. SC: In this case, there is no more need to prove public use because this has been
settled in the Constitution when it called for Agrarian Reform. So there is only one
2.Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or limitation remaining: just compensation.
landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the
landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land JUST COMPENSATION
acquisition. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms: 1. What are the factors which the court must rely upon to be able to
determine just compensation? (Sec. 17)
a)CARP CA Form 1 MARO Investigation Report 2. When shall we reckon the payment of the determination of just
compensation? Time of ACTUAL taking

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


28

But it is different in this case, while the SC has mentioned about notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for
date of taking, but it has been interpreted at the time of the decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted
issuance of the title which may different. for decision.
Actual scenario: actual taking may precede issuance or vice
versa (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of
3. Is the landowner entitled to claim interest? rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
Last issue is the application of Rule 67: accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
- sec. 58 and rule 67 talks about appointment of commissioners. When the case is shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title
filed in the RTC: in the law itself, it says MAY appoint, under rule 67, court SHALL (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter
appoint Commissioners for the determination of just compensation. proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
- who normally opposes commissioners? BIR, city assessor, provincial assessor
We find the foregoing as a strained interpretation of a simple and clear enough
(they are more or less knowledgeable on the aspect of just compensation)
provision on the procedure governing acquisition of lands under CARP, whether
under the compulsory acquisition or VOS scheme. Indeed, it would make no sense
LBP vs Trinidad to mention anything about the provisional deposit in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)
Facts: the landowner is sent a notice of valuation to which he should reply within a
Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land situated specified time, and in sub-paragraph (c) when the landowner accepts the offer
in Sampao, Kapalong, Davao del Norte with an approximate area of 37.1010 of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. Sub-paragraph (d) provides for the
hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49200, 14.999 hectares of consequence of the landowner's rejection of the initial valuation of his land, that is,
which was covered by RA No. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) the conduct of a summary administrative proceeding for a preliminary
scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). determination by the DARAB through the PARAD or RARAD, during which the LBP,
landowner and other interested parties are required to submit evidence to aid the
Private respondent offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the price DARAB/RARAD/PARAD in the valuation of the subject land. Sub-paragraph (e), on
of P2,000,000.00 per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP. the other hand, states the precondition for the State's taking of possession of the
landowner's property and the cancellation of the landowner's title, thus paving the
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just way for the eventual redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries: payment of
compensation for said 14.999 hectares the amount of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 the compensation (if the landowner already accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP) or
per hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent. deposit of the provisional compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond
to the offer of the DAR/LBP). Indeed, the CARP Law conditions the transfer of
In accordance with Section 16 of RA No. 6657, petitioner LBP deposited for the possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the
account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of the compensation in
compensation for the acquisition of the property. cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank.

Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional Adjudicator Question was on the correct amount of provisional compensation which LBP was
(RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative proceedings under required to deposit.
DARAB Case No. LV-XI-0330-DN-2002 to fix the just compensation. -is it the amount stated in par. (a) which is supposed to be contained in the notice
of acquisition?
On June 26, 2002, the DARAB rendered a decision fixing the compensation of the - or is it the amount based on par. (d) after the conduct of summary proceedings?
property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per hectare. - there is a difference there in actual practice

Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the same LBP: says that it is our offer under par. (a) which is P1M only.
was denied on September 4, 2002. Respondent: it is the amount after the summary admin proceeding to be
undertaken by PARAD, RARAD and DARAB which is P10M.
Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial determination SC: subpar. (e) should be related to subpar (a), (b), and (c) considering that the
of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court, Regional Trial Court, taking of possession by the state is the next step after DAR, and LBP supplied with
Branch 2, Tagum City, docketed as DAR Case No. 78-2002, which is the subject of
the notice requirements.
this petition.

Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition against DAR before In effect the SC is saying: it is the offer of the LBP that will determine that that is
the same Special Agrarian Court docketed as DAR Case No. 79-2002, to which the correct amount to be deposited not the amount after the determination of just
petitioner LBP filed its answer and moved for the dismissal of the petition for being compensation in a summary administrative proceeding
filed out of time. - reasoning: if the DAR will wait for the summary admin proceedings this
will hamper land redistribution process
Private respondent filed a Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that
petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of Note that: par (a) precedes over par. (d) on the determination of the correct
P10,294,721.00 in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in "Land Bank of the amount to be deposited.
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, Pedro L. Yap, Et Al., G.R. No. 118712, October 6,
1995". EAIcCS Reiterated in the case of Pagayatan.

Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the deposit should LBP vs Pagayatan
only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount of P1,145,806.06 and Facts:
not P10,294,721.00 as determined by the DARAB.
On October 21, 1972, the 3,682.0286-hectare Suntay Estate, consisting of
irrigated/unirrigated rice and corn lands covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
On December 12, 2002, public respondent rendered the assailed resolution
ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for release to the private respondent the DARAB T-31(1326) located in the Barangays of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, Sta. Lucia, and San
determined just compensation of P10,294,721.00. Nicolas in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, was subjected to the operation of
Presidential Decree No. 27, under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT), with the
On December 13, 2002, petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the said farmer-beneficiaries declared as owners of the property. However, a 300-hectare
order to deposit. portion of the land was subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) instead of the OLT. Thus, Certificates of Landownership Award were issued
On December 17, 2002, private respondent filed a motion to cite Romeo Fernando to the farmer-beneficiaries in possession of the land. 5 Such application of the
Y. Cabanal and Atty. Isagani Cembrano, manager of petitioner LBP's Agrarian CARP to the 300-hectare land was later the subject of a case before the
Operations Office in Region XI and its handling lawyer, respectively, for contempt Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB), which ruled that the
for failure to comply with the order to deposit. subject land should have been the subject of OLT instead of CARP. The landowner
admitted before the PARAD that said case was pending with this Court and
After the filing of private respondent's comment to the motion for reconsideration docketed as G.R. No. 108920, entitled Federico Suntay v. Court of Appeals.
and petitioner LBP's explanation and memorandum to the motion for
reconsideration, public respondent rendered the assailed resolution dated February Meanwhile, the owner of the land remained unpaid for the property. Thus, Josefina
17, 2003, denying petitioner LBP's motion for reconsideration. S. Lubrica, in her capacity as assignee of the owner of the property, Federico
Suntay, filed a Petition for Summary Determination of Just Compensation with the
PARAD, docketed as Case No. DCN-0405-0022-2002. Thereafter, the PARAD issued
Petitioner LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for reconsideration which
still remains unacted upon by public respondent. its Decision dated March 21, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads: ECSHID

ISSUE: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:


The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional
1.Fixing the preliminary just compensation for 431.1407 hectare property at
compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the landowner if
the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. Petitioner maintains it should be its initial P166,150.00 per hectare or a total of P71,634,027.30.
valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while respondent
claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary 2.Directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to immediately pay the aforestated
administrative proceeding pending final determination by the courts. amount to the Petitioner.

HELD: 3.Directing the DAR to immediately comply with all applicable requirements so that
Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 reads: the subject property may be formally distributed and turned over to the farmer
beneficiaries thereof, in accordance with the Decision of the DARAB Central in
(d)In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary DARAB Case No. 2846.
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring
the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the The LBP then filed a Petition dated March 4, 2004 with the RTC docketed as
Agrarian Case No. 1390, appealing the PARAD Decision. In the Petition, the LBP
just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


29

argued that because G.R. No. 108920 was pending with this Court in relation to the
300-hectare land subject of the instant case, the Petition for Summary ISSUE:
Determination of Just Compensation filed before the PARAD was premature. The Whether the opening of trust accounts for payment of just compensation is valid.
LBP argued further that the PARAD could only make an award of up to PhP5 million
only. The PARAD, therefore, could not award an amount of PhP71,634,027.30. The HELD:
LBP also contended that it could not satisfy the demand for payment of Lubrica, The contention is untenable. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows:
considering that the documents necessary for it to undertake a preliminary
valuation of the property were still with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). "SECTION 16.Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. . . .

ISSUE: (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
What is the proper amount to be deposited under Section 16 of Republic Act No. rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
6657? Is it the PARAD/DARAB determined valuation or the preliminary valuation as bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
determined by the DAR/LBP? accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title
HELD: (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
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 price offered by the DAR in It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP
its notice of acquisition of the land that must be deposited in an accessible bank in bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be
the name of the landowner before taking possession of the land, not the valuation made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among
of the PARAD. the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at least,
qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a
The Court agrees with the LBP. "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA
6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit."
Conspicuously, there is no mention of the PARAD in the foregoing Sec. 16 (e) when
it speaks of "the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the LBP vs Honeycomb
compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act." Moreover, it is Facts:
only after the DAR has made its final determination of the initial valuation of the Honeycomb Farms Corporation (Honeycomb Farms) was the registered owner of
land that the landowner may resort to the judicial determination of the just two parcels of agricultural land in Cataingan, Masbate.
compensation for the land. Clearly, therefore, it is the initial valuation made by the The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), as the agency vested with the
DAR and LBP that is contained in the letter-offer to the landowner under Sec. 16 responsibility of determining the land valuation and compensation for parcels of
(a), said valuation of which must be deposited and released to the landowner prior land acquired pursuant to the CARL, 6 and using the guidelines set forth in DAR
to taking possession of the property. Administrative Order (AO) No. 17, series of 1989, as amended by DAR AO No. 3,
series of 1991, fixed the value of these parcels of land.
It is clear from Sec. 16 of RA 6657 that it is the initial valuation made by the DAR
and the LBP that must be released to the landowner in order for DAR to take When Honeycomb Farms rejected this valuation for being too low, the Voluntary
possession of the property. Otherwise stated, Sec. 16 of RA 6657 does not Offer to Sell was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board, Region V, Legaspi City,
authorize the release of the PARAD's determination of just compensation for the for a summary determination of the market value of the properties.
land which has not yet become final and executory.
HELD:
As a final point, we have not failed to notice that the LBP in this case made use of
Compensation in cash or in LBP bonds (Section 16) trust accounts to pay Honeycomb Farms. In Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA, 29 this
Court struck down as void DAR Administrative Circular No. 9, Series of 1990,
Payment of cash and bonds otherwise the government will go bankrupt if all in providing for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in bonds
cash. contemplated in Section 16 (e) of RA 6657. We said: CSDcTH
Bonds to give the government time to appropriate in the future when the bonds
will mature 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 inferred that the
VOS (Voluntary offer to sell): under the law, if you make VOS, landowner is entitled deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust
to 5% payment in cash, additional than that provided by law. account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express,
or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly
Land Bank v. CA deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section
Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit."
permitting the opening of trust account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in
cash or in LBP bonds. xxx xxx xxx
SC:
Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in cash or in LBP bonds; In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to enact
Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis
made in any other form like a trust account; in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as
There was no basis for issuance of order. compensation for his property because, as heretofore discussed, Section 16(e) of
RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP
WHY? Because the trust account is under the control of the trustee. The bonds." In the same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and
beneficiary-landowner cannot properly use or control the funds when the funds is 54 because these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of
supposed to be given due for land owner. not sanctioned by law the law. Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking down
Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void.
SIR: ila baya ng yuta, gikuha ra sa gobyerno, di pa jud nimo bayaran ang just
compensation niya?
Compulsory acquisition and notice requirements (Section 16)
The same with the case of Honeycomb.
DLR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04-05
Land Bank v. CA
Facts PROCEDURES
Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR
and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the 1. Commencement
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL, Republic Act No. 6657). Aggrieved by
the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation and 1.1. Commencement by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO)
payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions of RA 6657, After determination by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of the
private respondents filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus agricultural landholdings coverable under CARP in his area of jurisdiction, he shall
with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. Private respondents questioned submit the list of these agricultural landholdings to the PARO who shall prepare and
the validity of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 6 and DAR send, through the MARO, the NOC (CARP-LA Form No. 7) to the concerned LO.
Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, 7 and sought to compel the DAR to
expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the 1.2. Commencement by a party Any person may commence the
just compensation of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and proceedings herein by filing a petition for coverage before the Department of Land
bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked," "reserved" and "deposited in trust Reform (DLR) Central Office (DLRCO), DLR Regional Office (DLRRO), DLR
accounts" for private respondents, and to allow them to withdraw the same. Provincial Office (DLRPO) or DLR Municipal Office (DLRMO) of the region/province
or municipality where the subject landholding is located. The DLR office which
Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 was received the petition for coverage shall transmit or forward the same to the PARO
issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits of the province where the subject landholding is located. The DLRPO, through the
the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or MARO, shall validate the petition and shall issue the NOC, if warranted. In the
bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the compensation for the land event that the result of the validation/evaluation by the DLRMO/DLRPO is such that
before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA an NOC is not warranted, the DLRPO shall forward its findings or that of the
6657. 9 Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank DLRMO to the DLRRO for evaluation and issuance of an Order, treating the petition
merely "earmarked," "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their as an Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case.
names as landowners despite the clear mandate that before taking possession of
the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds. 10 2. Posting of the NOC

Petitioner DAR, however, maintained that Administrative Order No. 9 is a valid The MARO shall post copies of the NOC for at least seven (7) days in
exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. 11 Moreover, the bulletin boards or any conspicuous places in the municipality/city and the
the DAR maintained that the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the barangay where the property is located and thereafter issue the corresponding
Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657. Certification of Posting Compliance (CARP-LA Form No. 5).

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


30

which have been served with the process and name of the person who received the
3. By Whom the NOC is served same.
6.2 Proof of service by registered mail If service is made by registered
3.1. Upon receipt of a copy of the NOC and upon instruction by the PARO mail, proof may be made by the affidavit of the DLR personnel effecting the mail
(CARP-LA Form No. 8), the MARO where the subject landholding is located or any and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall
DLR personnel officially authorized by the PARO shall cause the service of the NOC be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender or in lieu thereof the unclaimed
to the LO in accordance with these rules. letter marked "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped by then post office concerned or
together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to
3.2. If the LO's residence is outside the Philippines or unknown, the MARO of the addressee.
the place where the subject landholding is located shall submit a report of such fact
or failure to notify the LO through the regular mode of service to the PARO, and 6.3 Proof of service by publication If the service has been made by
shall request the latter to cause the publication of the NOC in a newspaper of publication, service may be proved by the following: 1) the unclaimed or
general circulation. returned/unopened envelope referred to in paragraph 5.4 hereof; and 2) an
affidavit of publication by the publisher or authorized official together with a copy
4. Service of the NOC of the newspaper where the NOC appeared.

4.1. General rule The NOC shall be addressed to and received by the LO. 7. Voluntary appearance The LO's voluntary appearance in the
proceedings shall be equivalent to service of NOC.
4.2. Service upon co-owners In case of co-ownership, the NOC shall be
served upon each and every co-owner, unless one is specifically authorized to 8. Notice of Field Investigation
receive for the other co-owners. AHEDaI
Upon proof of service of the issuance of NOC, the MARO sends to the
4.3. Service upon minors or incompetents When the LO is a minor, insane LO an invitation letter for the conduct of field investigation (CARP-LA Form No. 10).
or otherwise incompetent, service shall be made upon him personally and to his
legal guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem whose Assoc. of Small Landowners:
appointment shall be applied for by the DLR. In the case of a minor, service may Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private
also be made on his father and/or mother. agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation). Section 16(e) of the
CARP Law provides that: Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding
4.4. Service upon entity without juridical personality When the LOs who payment, or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the
are persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in
name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate
upon all the LOs by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a
the Office or place of business maintained in such name. Such service shall not Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
notice, been severed before the proceeding was brought. beneficiaries
Sec. 16, RA 6657
4.5. Service upon domestic private juridical entity When the LO is a The title of the section states: Procedure for Acquisition of Private
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines Lands.
with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing Section 6, RA 9700
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, in-house counsel or The title was amended: "SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and
administrator. Distribution of Private Lands."
Confed v. DAR
4.6. Service upon LO whose identity or whereabouts is unknown In any Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory
proceeding where the LO is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the
inquiry, service may be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general identification process must be made.
circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order. Identification process in Sec. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap
(AO #12, s. 989)
4.7. Extraterritorial service When the LO does not reside and is not found
in the Philippines, or when the LO ordinarily resides within the Philippines but is Situation: Violation on the procedure of compulsory acquisition proceedings
temporarily out of the country, service may be made by publication in a newspaper
of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order. Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given chance to
validate (correct) proceedings.
5. Modes of Service: -the violation does not give the court the power to nullify CLOA already issued

5.1. Personal Service This is made by handing a copy of the NOC to the LO Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of law.
in person, or if the LO refuses to receive and sign the NOC for whatever reason, by
tendering the same to him/her. SIRs opinion: ROXAS should be controlling because the issue and the ruling are in
point. Fortich, in my opinion, is an obiter dictum because there was already a
5.2. Substituted Service If personal service of the NOC cannot be served judgment that became final and executor and this was challenged before the SC.
directly to the LO within a reasonable time, service may be made by leaving copies They have already reached a win-win resolution and because of that, there was
of the NOC at the LO's: just one or two sentences that talked about cancelling the illegal CLOA. But this
conclusion was pursuant to that final judgment.
5.2.1. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein;
or Notice of Coverage:
5.2.2. office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and
thereof. that he is entitled to exercise his retention right;
5.3. Service by Registered Mail if personal or substituted service is not Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and
practicable, service by registered mail will be made to the last known address of representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to
the LO. The registered mail envelope shall be marked "DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and
ONLY" and "RETURN TO SENDER" if addressee has: MOVED OUT, UNKNOWN other pertinent matters.
ADDRESS, REFUSED TO ACCEPT OR INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding
5.4. Service by publication If any of the preceding three (3) modes of shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be
service fails, the NOC will be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. present.
A "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped on the mailing envelope will serve as proof that
the NOC was not received by the LO. The publication need not state the entire Notice of Acquisition:
contents of the NOC but only the following essential particulars: The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory
acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
5.4.1. Complete name/s of the LO/all LOs and last known address, if available; Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the Bureau of
5.4.2. Address or location of the subject landholding (barangay, municipality/city, Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and submit to
province); the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of
5.4.3. The number of the Original or Transfer Certificate of Title (OCT or TCT) or rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall
latest Tax Declaration (TD) covering the subject landholding; conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just
5.4.4. A declaration that the Republic of the Philippines shall cover the subject compensation.
landholding under CARP;
5.4.5. A reasonable period of thirty (30) days from publication date within which Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just
the LO must file a response to the NOC, with a warning that failure to do so within compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for
the period shall mean waiver of the right/privilege to: apply for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
exemption/exclusion or choose the retention area; nominate child/ren as preferred Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or
beneficiaries or submit evidence for determining just compensation. upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or
6. Proof of Service non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent
Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of
6.1 Personal or substituted service The proof of service of the NOC shall Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the
consist of: property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take
possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
6.1.1. Written admission of the LO served, or; RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation
6.1.2. Official Return of the MARO or affidavit of the DLR personnel serving, affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever
stating the following: the date, place and manner of service, the papers, if any, kind as long in excess of max retention limits;

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


31

intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small -Spouses Gregorio and Hilaria, childless. But the husband had a son name Virgilio
segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all by another woman but was raised by the couple. Gregorio also had two daughters,
levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted Esperanza and Caridad by still another woman. Gregorio died. Hilaria and Virgilio
owner;
sold the land to Jose Deleste. Sale was notarized, registered, declaration was
does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond
cancelled and tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste.
in time to the foreseeable future;
Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just -DAR notified the heirs of Gregorio meaning that Deleste was not notified.
distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the
prison of their dreams and deliverance SC: it was incumbent upon DAR to notify Deleste, he was the landowner, sale was
Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657, registered and tax declaration was already in the name of Deleste.
however, the chief limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent - petitioners right to due process was indeed violated, DAR failed to notify them.
domain, namely: (1) public use; and (2) payment of just compensation,
- There can be no valid transfer of title should the CLTs are void, cancellation of
are embodied therein as well as in the Constitution.
With respect to "public use, in Association of Small Landowners TCTs and OCTs are clearly warranted.
declared that the requirement of public use had already been settled by
the Constitution itself as it "calls for agrarian reform, which is the There was also another case where SC sanctioned the cancellation of the title for
reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, violating Sec. 16.
subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. 1
On just compensation, judicial determination is expressly prescribed in CHAPTER VI COMPENSATION
Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original Just Compensation:
and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by expropriation
compensation to landowners. It bears stressing that the determination (Assoc. of Small Landowners). The word "just" is used to intensify the
of just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the
Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only, court can review. equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, ample.
Section 16 (f) clearly provides:
(f)Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to Sec. 7, RA 9700:
the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation "SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the standing
Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court? crop, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
Rules of Court, including Rule 67 thereof, is not completely disregarded sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, the assessment made by
in the implementation of RA 6657 since the Special Agrarian Courts, in government assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of
resolving petitions for the determination of just compensation, are the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by
enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court. the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final decision of the proper court. The
Section 58 of RA 6657, like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, provides for social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and
the appointment of commissioners by the Special Agrarian Courts. by the Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans
Sec. 58: may; motu proprio or instance of party secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be
Rule 67: shall considered as additional factors to determine its valuation."

Santos v. LBP : Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. Secretary


Facts:
RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land taken JUST COMPENSATION; DEFINED. Just compensation is defined as the full and
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, to be made in cash and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.
bonds. According to petitioner, said order illegally amended the judgment rendered
which directs payment of compensation to be made "in the manner provided in RA LBP v. Dumlao
6657. Facts:
Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27;
SC: Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR, so
Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation in the they filed complaint with RTC for determination.
manner provided by RA 6657 is not illegally amended but is merely clarified by an SC:
order issued during execution proc that such amount shall be paid in cash and if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No.
bonds. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, although
property was acquired under PD No. 27;
It is a matter of terminology because payment in cash and in bond are the SAME in the determination made by the trial court, which relied solely on the
the manner provided by law. formula prescribed by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, is grossly erroneous.
The amount of P6,912.50 per hectare, which is based on the DAR
Heirs of Deleste vs LBP valuation of the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s",
HELD: does not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from respondents;
On the violation of petitioners' right to due process of law CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00
would have been a valid exercise of this judicial function, had it
Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject followed the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No. 6657. However,
property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program; hence, their right to the appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified
due process of law was violated. by the commissioner as basis for determining just compensation,
namely: (a) P109,000.00 per hectare as the market value of first class
We agree with petitioners. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde; and (b) P60.00
property under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated, as non- per square meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays in
compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements of Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because it does not adhere to the
administrative due process of law. formula provided by RA No. 6657.
It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be given to
It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the landowner of the the owner cannot be assumed and must be determined with certainty.
subject property. It should be noted that the deed of sale executed by Hilaria in Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through AO No. 6,
favor of Deleste was registered on March 2, 1954, and such registration serves as a Series of 1992, as amended by AO No. 11, Series of 1994:
constructive notice to the whole world that the subject property was already owned Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory Acquisition]
by Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale. In Naval v. CA, this Court held: regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Applying the law, we held in Bautista v. Fule that the registration of an instrument Where:
involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates constructive notice and LV = Land Value
binds third person who may subsequently deal with the same property. CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration is "to notify other MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present,
entered into." 64 There was, therefore, no reason for DAR to feign ignorance of the relevant and applicable.
transfer of ownership over the subject property. Note:
1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;
Moreover, that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste, and not to the RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.
Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio 2. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been
was already canceled and a new one issued in the name of Deleste. Although tax determined at the time of passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO 228
declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of have only suppletory effect.
ownership, they are nonetheless "good indicia of possession in the concept of an
owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, assessed
in his actual or, at least, constructive possession." value at the time of the taking, location (i.e., along highway) and the volume
and value of its produce, like:
Petitioners' right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when the DAR failed (a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas;
to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the (b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to
agrarian reform program. augment and increase agricultural production;
(c) available comparable sales in the area;
Failure to notify owners violating section 16. (d) average harvests per hectare.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


32

The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just precisely filled in the details of Section 17, R. A. No. 6657 by providing a basic
compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. This
emancipation patents. formula has to be considered by the SAC in tandem with all the factors referred to
Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a in Section 17 of the law. The administrative order provides:
Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. It is from the A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or
issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the CA:
vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of
just compensation to the landowner. LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial court
should determine the date of issuance of these emancipation patents in Where:
order to ascertain the date of taking and proceed to compute the just LV = Land Value
compensation due to respondents. CNI = Capitalized Net Income
Petitioners argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending CS = Comparable Sales
determination by DAR is specious. MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and
delay in processing is to violate the elementary rule that payment of The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present, relevant, and
just compensation must be within a reasonable period from the taking applicable.
of property;
Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation means not only the correct A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the formula
determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but shall be:
also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for
the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being A2. When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, the formula
immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade shall be:
or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
his loss
A3. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable, the
PRINCIPLE: If an agri land is acquired under PD 27 but just compensation has not formula shall be:
been paid until RA 6657 took effect, just compensation will be computed on the LV = MV x 2
basis of the present law, NOT under PD 27.
In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the lowest
REASON: It is inequitable that just compensation should be determined under PD value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the same
27 because just compensation is defined as the full and ample value of the land to barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from
be given to the LO. receipt of claimfolder.

Under PD 27: only ONE factor in determining just compensation: average crop ---
harvest
Where:
Under the Present law: FACTORS (Section 17) CNI=
1. cost of acquisition (AGPxSP) - CO
- Under Tax Law: basis either selling price or zonal evaluation whichever is .12
higher
2. current value of like properties AGP= Average Gross Production corresponding to the latest available 12 months
- case of Dumlao: factors were reduced into a formula by DAR. Formula upheld gross production immediately preceding the date of FI (field investigation)
by SC as valid
- value described in comparable sales SP= Selling Price (the average of the latest available 12 months selling prices prior
3. actual use & income & nature; to the date of receipt of the CF (claim folder) by LBP for processing, such prices to
4. sworn valuation by owner; be secured from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other appropriate
5. tax declaration; regulatory bodies or, in their absence, from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. If
- assessed value, market value, and classification of land possible, SP data shall be gathered for the barangay or municipality where the
6. assessment made by Government assessors. property is located. In the absence thereof, SP may be secured within the province
or region.
Additional factors under Sec. 17 because of the amendment:
1. Value of the standing crop CO = Cost of Operations
2. Additional 70% of the zonal valuation of the BIR
Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or verified, an assumed net
Other additional factors under the Nable Case: income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. Landholdings planted to coconut which
1. Farming experience are productive at the time of FI shall continue to use the assumed NIR of 70 %.
2. Thumb method DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry studies to establish the
applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP.
EFFECT if just compensation is not based on the factors: NOT VALID
- Even if the findings are based on the factors but not based on any 0.12 = Capitalization rate
evidence in relation to the factors: evaluation is without basis
The Court finds that the factors required by the law and enforced by
You have decision from PARAD, do you need to go to RARAD or DARAB before you the DAR Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted
can file a case with RTC? NO wholeheartedly the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report. The Court
- Sec. 57: Special Jurisdiction. The Special Agrarian Courts shall repremands the case to the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court for the
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of Republic Act
determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution No. 6657.
of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to
all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by Sps. Lee v. LBP
this Act. If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid .
- SAC refers to RTC (Note that in this case, there was admission that valuation was not
- Determination of DAR is only preliminary based on factors under CARL: a representative of the company admitted that it did
- Sec 16 (f): the final determination of just compensation is vested on not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable).
the Special Agrarian Courts Case remanded.

Sps. Lee, vs. Land Bank of the Philippines,


Land Bank of the Phils. vs. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,
Facts: Facts:
Petitioner were notified that their land holdings is covered by Gov't Landholding of the respondents was placed under the coverage of the
Action Scheme pursuant to CARP. They received a notice of Land valuation from land transfer program of P.D. 27. Petitioner pegged the value of the acquired
DAR which offers P315, 307 for 3.195 hec. DAR Adjudication Board affirmed the landholding at P106,935.76 based on the guidelines set forth under P.D. No. 27
compensation and valuation and declared that LBP fully complied with the criteria and E.O. 228. Respondents petitioned for valuation and determination of just
set forth by CARP. Petitioners sought reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner compensation before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator which fixed it to
filed a petition for determination of Just Compensation before RTC. RTC acting as P80,000.00 per hectare. Motion for Reconsideration was denied so the Petitioner
Special Agrarian Court (SAC), citing appraisal report decided P7,978,750.00 as petition for the determination of just compensation before the RTC acting as SAC
just compensation and ordered LBP to pay. 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 is guided by the various
Petition for review by LBP to CA and found that the SAC made a factors enumerated in Section 17of R.A. No. 6657 in determining just
wholesale adoption of the valuation of the appraisal company and did not consider compensation. It disregarded respondents' claim that the valuation should be
the other factors set forth in R.A. No. 6657 even though the appraisal company based on the current market value of the landholding since no evidence was
admitted that it did not consider as applicable the CARP valuation of the property. adduced in support of the claim and also did not accept petitioner's valuation as it
Hence, this petition. was based on P.D. No. 27, in which just compensation was determined at the time
Held: of the taking of the property. CA rendered the assailed decision partly granting
petitioner's appeal but affirmed the SAC decision fixing just compensation at
The Court took note: P80,000.00 per hec. Reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant petition,
These factors have already been incorporated in a basic formula by the DAR arguing that the formula set forth in P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 should be applied in
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. AO No. 5 fixing just compensation since respondents' landholding was acquired under P.D.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


33

No. 27 in cognizance to a settled rule that just compensation is the value of the The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. Following Section 17 of
property at the time of the taking, on 21 October 1972. Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 17, series of 1989,
11 as amended by Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1991, 12 the LBP set the
Held: price at P3.21 per square meter or a total of P827,943.48 for 26 hectares. Livioco
The Court citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, It would was then promptly informed of the valuation 14 and that the cash portion of the
certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline claim proceeds have been "kept in trust pending [his] submission of the [ownership
provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the documentary] requirements." 15 It appears however that Livioco did not act upon
just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should the notice given to him by both government agencies. On September 20, 1991, LBP
be determined in accordancewithRA6657,and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked
imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent the amount of P827,943.48 as compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares.
of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real,
substantial, full and ample. It was only two years later 17 that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the
The Court remanded the determination of just compensation to RTC compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it
acting as SAC. was first offered for sale. 18 The request was denied by Regional Director Antonio
Nuesa on the ground that there was already a perfected sale.
LBP v. Heirs of Cruz
Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an
If valuation is not based on any evidence, it is w/o basis, so outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco finally filed a petition for judicial
determination be remanded. determination of just compensation against DAR, LBP, and the CLOA holders.
In this case, decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence, so case
was remanded. In this Petition before us, LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of Livioco's
Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for determination of JC may be property as a residential land. It maintains that it is not the State's policy to
filed? purchase residential land. Since the property was acquired under the CARP, it had
No: to be valued as an agricultural land.
(a) because DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the
pendency of protest; Issue
(b) Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has orig and exclusive
jurisdiction. Was the compensation for respondent's property determined in accordance with
Content and Manner (Section 18) law?
Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits or LBP bonds.
Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash? HELD:
No, because revolutionary kind. For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated
Parties involved (Section 18) property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. 68 There
are three important concepts in this definition the character of the property, its
LBP vs. Jocson and sons price, and the time of actual taking.
Facts:
The property was placed under the coverage of the government's Operation Land The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property has
Transfer 2 (OLT) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 3 and awarded to changed from agricultural to residential, because there is no allegation or proof
the tenant-beneficiaries by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which that the property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR. It is the DAR
valued the compensation therefor in the total amount of P250,563.80 following the that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions 73 so as
formula prescribed in P.D. No. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228. 4 to prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. Even reclassification
74 and plans for expropriation 75 by local government units (LGUs) will not ipso
The valuation was later increased to P903,637.03 after computing the 6% annual facto convert an agricultural property to residential, industrial or commercial. Thus,
interest increment 5 due on the property per DAR Administrative Order No. 13, in the absence of any DAR approval for the conversion of respondent's property or
series of 1994, which amount respondent withdrew in 1997, without prejudice to an actual expropriation by an LGU, it cannot be said that the character or use of
the outcome of the case it had filed hereunder to fix just compensation. said property changed from agricultural to residential. Respondent's property
remains agricultural and should be valued as such. Hence, the CA and the trial
Finding the DAR's offer of compensation for the property to be grossly inadequate, court had no legal basis for considering the subject property's value as residential.
respondent filed a complaint 6 on July 18, 1997 before the Regional Trial Court of
Bacolod City, Br. 46, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), against the Land Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property (which the
Bank (petitioner), 7 the DAR, and the tenant-beneficiaries, for "Determination and lower courts found to be preponderant) could, at most, refer to the potential use of
Fixing of Just Compensation for the Acquisition of Land and Payment of Rentals". the property. While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes
considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of
In their respective Answers, petitioner and the DAR claimed that the property was the expropriated property, it should never control the determination of just
acquired by the government under its OLT program and their valuation thereof compensation (which appears to be what the lower courts have erroneously done).
constituted just compensation, having been made pursuant to the guidelines set by The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining
E.O. No. 228 and P.D. No. 27. just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair
market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its
In arriving at the just compensation, the SAC adopted a higher valuation price at the time of taking, not its potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the
(P93,657.00/hectare) which the DAR had applied to a similar landholding belonging property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, not the ultimate
to one Pablo Estacion adjacent to respondent's. in determining just compensation." 77

Issue: The proper approach should have been to value respondent's property as an
Whether the SAC erred in the valuation the land agricultural land, which value may be adjusted in light of the improvements in the
Municipality of Mabalacat. Valuing the property as a residential land (as the lower
HELD: courts have done) is not the correct approach, for reasons explained above. It
In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Chico, 27 the Court declared would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform, which is to free the
in no uncertain terms that R.A. No. 6657 is the relevant law for determining just tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil without delivering them to the new
compensation after noting several decided cases where the Court found it more oppression of exorbitant land valuations. Note that in lands acquired under RA
equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of the property at the 6657, it is the farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the valuations paid to
time of payment. This was a clear departure from the Court's earlier stance in the former land owners (LBP merely advances the payment). 78 If the farmer-
Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines where it declared that the reckoning period beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as residential lands (the valuation
for the determination of just compensation is the time when the land was taken for which is substantially higher than the valuation for agricultural lands), it is not
applying P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. unlikely that such 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
P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 vis a vis R.A. No. 6657 was applied to cases involving property to other parties. This may just bring the State right back to the starting
lands placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 where payment of line where the landless remain landless and the rich acquire more landholdings
just compensation had not been completed. When in the interim R.A. No. 6657 was from desperate farmers.
passed before the full payment of just compensation, as in the case at bar, the
provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on just compensation control. LO tried to prove that lot was residential not agricultural for higher just
compensation. There were several evidences presented by owner; certification
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the from the municipal planning office, zoning, HLURB, etc.
guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine
the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation SC: No clearance from DAR. No allegation or proof that there was a conversion
should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is clearance from agri to residential. That means that the land has to be valued as
especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair agricultural land, NOT residential.
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent
being real, substantial, full and ample. DISCUSSION: Do you need conversion clearance? SIR: IMO, no more.
- You need conversion clearance for purposes of real property tax in LGU
LBP vs Livioco - Or assurance from DAR that your land is not covered under DAR
Facts: because the use is not anymore for agricultural activity
Respondent Enrique Livioco (Livioco) was the owner of 30.6329 hectares of - Under sec. 17, no factor of conversion but actual use of the land
sugarland 6 located in Dapdap, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Sometime between 1987
and 1988, 7 Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform LBP vs Honeycomb
(DAR) for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per square meter, for a total of HELD: We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable
P9,189,870.00. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form 8 he submitted to the DAR DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim, 24 Land
indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, 25 and Land Bank of the
international paper mill. Philippines v. Barrido. 26 In Barrido, we were explicit in stating that:

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


34

While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function


vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his SC invalidated LBPs practice of opening trust accounts in favor of the landowner.
discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by
law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard In case the amount has already been deposited, even if the landowner questions
the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an the accuracy or the validity of the amount deposited and will thereafter file with the
administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The RTC for determination of just compensation, the LO can withdraw the amount
courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by deposited. Part of his right to just compensation
the DAR for the determination of just compensation.
It should be deposited in the name of the landowner, not trust accounts (trust
Valuation and Payment (Section 18) accounts not expressly stated in Sec. 18)
FORMS OF PAYMENT

SEC. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. - The LBP shall compensate the Heirs of Lorenzo vs. LBP
landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR - Petitioner are owners of land; first valuation was rejected but upon re-
and LBP or as may be finally determined by the court as just compensation for the computation and order of RRAD, the revaluation was accepted by owners LBP filed
land. MR but denied, LBP filed an opposition for determination of JC with the RTC
- Petitioner submit that LBP has no legal personality
The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes at the option of the - SEC 18, clearly states there should be a consensus among
landowner: - LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedings under RA
6657 and thus has the legal personality to question the determination.
(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions:
(a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is There are cases where LBP is the plaintiff of an RTC Case.
concerned - Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in government
financial instruments negotiable at any time. FACTS: LBP did not agree with the computation of RARAD. Landbank filed the case
in RTC. Challenged by the petitioners that LBP has no legal personality to institute
(b) For lands above twenty-four hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares - Thirty the agrarian case.
percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments
negotiable at any time. Is it possible that LBP and DAR cannot agree with the evaluation? YES
- WHY? Implementation of the program is with DAR in the EXECUTIVE
(c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below - Thirty-five percent (35%) cash, aspect. There is another aspect of DAR which is quasi-judicial.
the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time. - Probably, LBP coordinates with DAR in the implementation aspect but
LBP cannot dictate the quasi-judicial aspect
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP
preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with SC: these are the parties involving just compensation under Sec. 18.: Landowner,
guidelines set by the PARC; DAR, and LBP. LBP is not merely a nominal party but is indispensable, independent
of DAR.
(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;

(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features: DAR vs Heirs of Domingo
Facts:
(a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent (10%) The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a 70.3420-hectare
of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance rice land situated at Macapabellag, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer
until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose to forego Certificate of Title No. NT-97157.
the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid correspondingly in LBP
bonds; On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 2 (P.D. No. 27) was issued,
(b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to rice
landowner, his successors-in-interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face and corn were deemed as full owners of the land they till. The land transfer
value for any of the following: program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently implemented by Executive Order No.
228.
(i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including assets
under the Assets Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by government On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba,
financial institution in the same province or region where the lands for which the Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation
bonds were paid are situated; against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR.

(ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or controlled corporations Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just compensation for
or shares or stock owned by the government in private corporations; the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under Republic
Act No. 6657 4 (R.A. No. 6657).
(iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused
persons, or for performance bonds; The LBP and DAR disputed Domingo's valuation and claimed that the determination
of just compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D. No. 27 in
(iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the relation to E.O. No. 228.
proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a
small and medium-scale industry, in the same province or region as the land for ISSUE:
which the bonds are paid; Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation of just
compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken by the government
(v) Payment for various taxes and fees to the government: Provided, That the use under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
of these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the
outstanding balance of the financial instrument: Provided, further, That the PARC HELD:
shall determine the percentages mentioned above; Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still
incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be
(vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the
government universities, colleges, trade schools and other institutions; completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the
process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with
(vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in
government hospitals; and Paris v. Alfeche.

(viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow. xxx xxx xxx
In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate
measures to protect the economy. It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the
guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine
LO can withdraw the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation
should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is
LBP vs Darab especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
- the valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the landowners, After equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent
re-computation upon order of PARAD, a revaluated amount was made but Los still being real, substantial, full and ample.
found it low. Los appealed to DARAB,. Pending resolution of their appeal Los
interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation seeking the release to tem of Same Principle with Dumlao Case: Based on RA 6657 not PD 27: Basis: Equity
the amount representing the difference between the initial value.
Content and manner of compensation
SC- the need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the amount
deposited in their behalf, pending final determination of what is just compensation Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits, or LBP bonds
for their land
- it is a an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not allow Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash?
withdraw - No, because revolutionary kind and also practicality (Gov. will go
- it is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation bankrupt if we rely on the ordinary expropriation which is all in cash)
under Section 16 (e) and final compensation under Section 18 for the purposes of - Cash usually only 25-30%
exercising the landowners right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in - LBP bonds usually spreads/matures in 10 years. (gives the Gov time)
other situations in the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and possession
of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. Sec.

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


35

compensation at P165,484.47/hectare, that is, P86,900,925.88, for AFC, and


We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. P164,478,178.14, for HPI. The valuation was rejected, however, prompting Land
This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively Bank, upon the advice of DAR, to open deposit accounts in the names of the
limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and petitioners, and to credit in said accounts the sums of P26,409,549.86 (AFC) and
perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of P45,481,706.76 (HPI). Both petitioners withdrew the amounts in cash from the
expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands accounts, but afterwards, on February 14, 1997, they filed separate complaints for
whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not
mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous. When DARAB did not act on their complaints for determination of just
compensation after more than three years, the petitioners filed complaints for
The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option, are determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagum
also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, City, Branch 2, acting as a special agrarian court (SAC), docketed as Agrarian Cases
other properties or assets, tax credits, and other things of value equivalent to the No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000. Summonses were served on May 23, 2000 to Land
amount of just compensation. Bank and DAR, which respectively filed their answers on July 26, 2000 and August
18, 2000. The RTC conducted a pre-trial, and appointed persons it considered
Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always required to be made competent, qualified and disinterested as commissioners to determine the proper
fully in money. valuation of the properties.

Parties Involved (Section 18) The RTC rendered its decision:

Land Bank v. CA: DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
The parties are DAR, landowner and LBP. The law does not mention thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners' fees
the participation of farmer-beneficiary. herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules
So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing proper of Civil Procedure, equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half (2 1/2)
compensation. percent of the determined and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and just
Voluntary offer (Section 19) compensation of plaintiffs' land and standing crops plus interest equivalent to the
Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash payment if LO voluntarily interest of the 91-Day Treasury Bills from date of taking until full payment;
offers land for sale.
Voluntary land transfer (Secs. 20 and 21) ISSUE:
Whether or not the interest was validly imposed.
How is VLT made?
Sec. 20 LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for direct transfer to qualified HELD:
beneficiaries but subject to guidelines (i.e., all notices for VLT be submitted to DAR It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA, by filing a
within 1st year of implementation of CARP, terms and conditions shall not be less notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in March 2003 its petition for certiorari in
favorable to transferee). the CA only because the RTC did not give due course to its appeal. Any intervening
delay thereby entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank, however, considering
Sec. 21 direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under terms that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy afforded by law
mutually agreed and which shall be binding upon registration and approval by DAR. to every losing party, who cannot thus be considered to act in bad faith or in an
Sec. 44 (2) provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC the unreasonable manner as to make such party guilty of unjustified delay. As stated in
adoption of direct payment scheme. So, AO #2, s. 1995 was issued: Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation: 18 HAcaCS
Beneficiaries are determined by DAR;
Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area which The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals
the govt would otherwise acquire; does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation to
CLOAs should bear proper annotations. KPCI. . . . It may disagree with DAR and the landowner as to the amount of just
compensation to be paid to the latter and may also disagree with them and bring
END OF MIDTERM (But take note of SEC. 27 on page 37 apil sa exam) the matter to court for judicial determination. This makes LBP an indispensable
party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the Agrarian
Room 405 Reform Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such cases that are
- Except no. 3 LBP vs. Nable unfavorable to it. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case, LBP cannot
- Not including payment of interest (3 cases) be penalized by making it pay for interest.
- Nable not included
- Sec. 27 (Carper) transferability, how many years is the prohibited period? 4
exceptions? It is explicit from LBP v. Wycoco that interest on the just compensation is imposed
- agricultural activity, agrarian dispute, agricultural land (read all the cases) only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established.
concentrate here Given the foregoing, we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just
- ra 3844: focus on in case of death of lessee, who will assume cultivation; grounds compensation is not justified and should therefore be deleted.
to dispossess lessee; 2 cases (Po and Sta. Ana cases)
- sec. 10 (c) exceptions and exemptions; esp. Central Mindanao Case It must be emphasized that "pertinent amounts were deposited in favor of AFC and
- association of small landowners: revolutionary kind of expro: justification of the HPI within fourteen months after the filing by the latter of the Complaint for
SC determination of just compensation before the RTC". It is likewise true that AFC
- sec. 16: procedure on compulsory acquisition (heirs of Trinidad: correct payment and HPI already collected P149.6 and P262 million, respectively, representing just
of deposit) compensation for the subject properties. Clearly, there is no unreasonable delay in
- Livioco: Landowner tried to prove that land is residential. There were several the payment of just compensation which should warrant the award of 12% interest
evidences, etc SC: no clearance from DAR. Land is valued as Agricultural land. per annum in AFC and HPI's favor.
- sec. 6 homestead (note the important qualifications) (cases: Alita and Paris vs.
Alfeche) APO: GR: When it comes to just compensation, there is no interest to be imposed.
- Dumlao case: just compensation PD RA 6657: computed on the basis of the EX: in case of delay on the basis of Art. 2209
present law - How do you appreciate delay? Depending on the FACTS
- landbank of the phil: whether it has legal personality to file a case before RTC
involving just compensation? Apo: Rate of interest is 12%. in relation to damages (2209) as in forbearance of
- Ways of distribution of lands to qualified beneficiaries (Chapter 3): voluntary offer money
(sec.20), compulsory (Sec. 16), non-land transfer schemes (SDO, Leasehold - Already amended from 12%- 6% per annum (July 2013)
operation- sec.12) - But per jurisprudence, 12% per annum
- type: 60 (mcq) -40
Soriano: rate of interest is 6%
Additional from Francis - Based on admin order issued by DAR: that the rates of interest to be
imposed on lands acquired under PD 27 is 6%
- Confed vs. DAR (2 chief limitations) - Not the issue in the case but is the reckoning point (from where 6%
- 6 requisites of agrarian dispute (know different principles of the case) should be imposed)
- definition of agricultural land (Alangilan case) - LBP: reckoned from the date of taking (advantageous to government)
- Sec. 16: (heirs of deleste): correct amount to be deposited by landbank - SC: NO! should be reckoned from the payment of just compensation.
- preliminary determination of just compensation by DAR vs. RTC as special
agrarian court LBP vs Soriano
- sec. 16: notice of acquisition (who is to be notified): heirs of Trinidad case
Facts:
Domingo and Mamerto Soriano (respondents) are the registered owners of several
parcels of rice land situated in Oas, Albay. Out of the 18.9163 hectares of land 3
owned by the respondents, 18.2820 hectares were placed under the Operations
Payment in interest in just compensation Land Transfer and the CARP pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 4 and Republic
Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. 5
Apo Fruits corp. vs CA
The LBP 6 pegged the value of 18.0491 hectares of land at P482,363.95 7
Facts: (P133,751.65 as land value plus P348,612.30 incremental interest), while the
On October 12, 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the lands subject of remaining 0.2329 hectare was computed at P8,238.94. 8 Not satisfied with the
this case pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, valuation, respondents, on 23 November 2000, instituted a Complaint 9 for judicial
or CARL). The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) referred their voluntary-offer- determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City,
to-sell (VOS) applications to Land Bank for initial valuation. Land Bank fixed the just 10 sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC). Respondents alleged that they are
entitled to an amount of not less than P4,500,000.00 as just compensation. 11

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


36

On 21 February 2005, the SAC rendered a judgment, ordering LBP to pay the NOTE: Under CARPER, there is no more voluntary offer. Only compulsory
respondents P894,584.94. The dispositive portion reads: acquisition

ACCORDINGLY, the just compensation of the 18.0491 hectares of irrigated riceland Voluntary Transfer (Section 20 and 21)
is P133,751.79, plus increment of 6% per annum computed annually beginning
October 21, 1972, until the value is fully paid, and of the 0.2329 hectare of rain fed SEC. 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. - Landowners of agricultural lands subject to
riceland is P8,238.94 plus 12% interest per annum, beginning August 17, 1998, acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct
until the value is fully paid or a total of P894,584.94 as of this date. Land Bank is transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines:
ordered to pay the landowners Domingo Soriano and Mamerto Soriano said (a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the
amount/land value in accordance with law. first year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners
and qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain
Both parties disagreed with the trial court's valuation, prompting them to file their unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall instead
respective appeals with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however, be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act.
affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It also upheld the award of compounded (b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the
interest, thus: transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the
landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and are
In the case at bar, the subject lands were taken under PD 27 and were covered by fully known to both parties.
Operation Land Transfer, making the aforecited Administrative Order applicable. (c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either
party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.
HELD:
SEC. 21. Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary Land
In the instant case, while the subject lands were acquired under Presidential Transfer.- Direct payment in cash or in kind may be made by the farmer-
Decree No. 27, the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the beneficiary to the landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both
court on 23 November 2000 or long after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 in parties, which shall be binding upon them, upon registration with and approval by
1988. Therefore, Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 should be the principal basis the DAR. Said approval shall be considered given, unless notice of disapproval is
of the computation for just compensation. As a matter of fact, the factors received by the farmer-beneficiary within 30 days from the date of registration. In
enumerated therein had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR the event they cannot agree on the price of the land, the procedure for compulsory
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657. acquisition as provided in Section 16 shall apply. The LBP shall extend financing to
the beneficiaries for purposes of acquiring the land.
The award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to ensure prompt
payment. Moreover, respondents claim that the date LBP approves the payment of Chapter VII
the land transfer claim and deposits the proceeds in the name of the landowner is
not tantamount to actual payment because on said date, the release of the amount Distribution of lands to landless residents (will not be included in the Midterms)
is conditioned on certain requirements. - Defined under Sec. 2: Landless resident does not necessarily mean
that a person does not own a land. One can be considered landless for
Note: RA 6657 12% purposes of CARP if that person does not own more than 3 hectares of
PD 27 6% land.

LBP vs Rivera QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES


(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to
Facts: landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless
The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land embraced by residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
Original Certificate of Title No. P-082, and later transferred in their names under (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-95690 that was placed under the coverage of (b) regular farmworkers;
Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972. Only (c) seasonal farmworkers;
18.8704 hectares of the total area of 20.5254 hectares were subject of the (d) other farmworkers;
coverage. (e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment, LBP approved (g) others directly working on the land;
the payment of P265,494.20, exclusive of the advance payments made in the form
of lease rental amounting to P75,415.88 but inclusive of 6% increment of Previous law: there is no provision that (a) and (b) should be prioritized
P191,876.99 pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994. Amendment: they are prioritized of that same landholding up to a maximum of 3
hectares each.
On 1 December 1994, the respondents instituted Civil Case No. 94-03 for
determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court. (2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the
distribution of the land of their parents.
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 accordance with the (3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed
provisions of Executive Order No. 228 8 as implemented by DAR Administrative therefrom.
Order No. 2, Series of 1987 and other statutes and administrative issuances; that
the administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and (4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably sold, disposed
Executive Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm; of, or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries under the
that the funds that LBP would use to pay compensation were public funds to be Program.
disbursed only in accordance with existing laws and regulations; that the
supporting documents were not yet received by LBP; and that the constitutionality (5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and
of Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 was already settled. ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.

In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 19 we affirmed the award of 12% interest on just Presupposing that the beneficiary has registered with the department.
compensation due to the landowner. The court decreed:
(6) If, due to the landowners retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees,
The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of
equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution
fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action under the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
and competition or the fair value of 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. (8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural
Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited land. (Sec. 23)
with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation
must include interest on its just value to be computed from the time the Beneficiaries to be awarded with the land of Polo Coconut were questioned by Polo
property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or Coconut.
deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of the property and Polo: these beneficiaries are not tenants of our land thus not qualified.
the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in
a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before SC: it is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries.
the taking occurred.
Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interest on the landowners. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse of
zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of PCPCI (DAR
condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September 1969. This vs. Polo Coconut Plantation Co., In., et al., G.R. 168787, September 3,
allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property as of the 2008).
time of the taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12% per annum
should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value
of the currency over time. Award Ceiling Limit (Section 23)

SEC. 23. Distribution Limit. - No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3)
Voluntary Offer for Sale (Section 19) hectares of agricultural land.

SEC. 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. - Landowners other than banks AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
and other financial institutions who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land
entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment. Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


37

provided for in the Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Trece Martires City, Cavite, an
concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (Sec. 24) action 6 for the cancellation of the TCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola and the
issuance of another for the one-half portion of the lot in Lebrudo's favor.
Same principle of indefeasibility and imprescriptibility after one year from
registration due to the amendment (RA 9700) In a Decision 7 dated 18 December 1995, the PARAD dismissed the case without
prejudice on the ground that the case was filed prematurely. On 11 March 1996,
If there is certification of deposit, it is the ministerial duty of the RD. Lebrudo re-filed the same action. 8

Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate Lebrudo alleged that he was approached by Loyola sometime in 1989 to redeem
When certificate issued. Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the the lot, which was mortgaged by Loyola's mother, Cristina Hugo, to Trinidad
rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the Barreto. After Lebrudo redeemed the lot for P250.00 and a cavan of palay, Loyola
time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be again sought Lebrudo's help in obtaining title to the lot in her name by shouldering
completed within 180 days from the time the DAR takes actual all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from her mother, Cristina
possession of the land. Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall Hugo. In exchange, Loyola promised to give Lebrudo the one-half portion of the
be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land lot. Thereafter, TCT/CLOA No. 998 was issued in favor of Loyola. Loyola then
Ownership Award (CLOA), which shall contain the restrictions, and allegedly executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay 9 dated 28 December 1989, waiving
conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in the Register and transferring her rights over the one-half portion of the lot in favor of Lebrudo.
of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. To reiterate her commitment, Loyola allegedly executed two more Sinumpaang
Salaysay 10 dated 1 December 1992 and 3 December 1992, committing herself to
remove her house constructed on the corresponding one-half portion to be allotted
If there is no CLOA yet (for any reason), beneficiary will be issued CARP Beneficiary to Lebrudo.
Certificate.
Thereafter, Lebrudo asked Loyola to comply with her promise. However, Loyola
Beneficiaries are required to pay LBP in 30 annual amortizations with 6% interest refused. Lebrudo sought the assistance of the Sangguniang Barangay of Milagrosa,
per annum. Carmona, Cavite; the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Carmona, Cavite; and the
Department of Agrarian Reform to mediate. However, despite steps taken to
In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued amicably settle the issue, as evidenced by certifications from the PNP and the
pending the fulfillment of certain legal and administrative requirements. Examples barangay, there was no amicable settlement. Thus, Lebrudo filed an action against
of these are: Loyola.
(a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in
the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 76742, 14,July In her Answer, Loyola maintained that Lebrudo was the one who approached her
1989.) that title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only and offered to redeem the lot and the release of the CLOA. Loyola denied
upon full payment of compensation to their respective landowners; promising one-half portion of the lot as payment for the transfer, titling and
registration of the lot. Loyola explained that the lot was her only property and it
(b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being was already being occupied by her children and their families.
awarded through the EP or CLOA.
Cont. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1) ISSUE:
Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the identified The main issue is whether Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot
beneficiaries may already be in possession of the land but still have no covered by RA 6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of rights embodied in
EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, the DAR shall first issue a CARP the two Sinumpaang Salaysay.
Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the would-be beneficiaries, an
intermediate document to evidence that they have been identified and HELD:
have qualified as agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP.
Moreover, aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the identified A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of
beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof, the CBC issued the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, and contains the
shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP. restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws.
Section 27 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700, 20 which provides for the
PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES transferability of awarded lands, states:
(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 per annum subject to the SEC. 27.Transferability of Awarded Lands. Lands acquired by beneficiaries
following rules: under this ACT may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary
(a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries
reduced amounts as established by the PARC. for a period of ten (10) years.
(b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the
value of the annual gross production as established by the DAR. It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the
(c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold, transferred or
of the annual gross production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due to conveyed for a period of 10 years. The law enumerate four exceptions: (1)
the beneficiarys fault, the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal through hereditary succession; (2) to the government; 3) to the Land Bank of the
obligation to make the repayment affordable. Philippines (LBP); or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. In short, during the
prohibitory 10-year period, any sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform rights is
(2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on the land void, except as allowed by law, in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian
awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for reform laws.
non-payment of an aggregate of three(3) annual amortization. The LBP shall advice
the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited In the present case, Lebrudo insists that he is entitled to one-half portion of the lot
landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land has been awarded to Loyola under the CARP as payment for shouldering all the expenses for
foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary the transfer of the title of the lot from Loyola's mother, Cristina Hugo, to Loyola's
under the Act. (Sec. 26.) name. Lebrudo used the two Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola alloting to
him the one-half portion of the lot as basis for his claim.

TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS (Sec. 27) Lebrudo's assertion must fail. The law expressly prohibits any sale, transfer or
(1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold, conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land reform rights within 10 years from
transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the the grant by the DAR. The law provides for four exceptions and Lebrudo does not
government, or to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten fall under any of the exceptions. In Maylem v. Ellano, 21 we held that the waiver of
(10) years. However, the children of the spouse of the transferor shall have a rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for
right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two being violative of agrarian reform laws. Clearly, the waiver and transfer of rights to
(2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the lot as embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola is void for
the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the falling under the 10-year prohibitory period specified in RA 6657.
land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM) shall, in turn, be given the due notice thereof by the BARC. NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES
(1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners retained
Land titles: one year repurchase from registration; here, it is two years areas or lands not yet due for distribution are placed under leasehold to
ensure farmers security over the land they till and pre-empt their
(2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land;
may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the (2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim measure
beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or while the lands owned or operated by agricultural entities await
conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. coverage under the CARP. There entities are companies mostly involved
in the commercial production of rubber, banana, and pineapple;
Lebrudo vs Loyola (3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the farmers
are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits and are also
Facts: assured of at least a representatives at the Board of Directors,
Respondent Remedios Loyola (Loyola) owns a parcel of land located in Barangay management or executive committee to protect the rights and interest
Milagrosa, Carmona, Cavite, awarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of shareholders; and
under Republic Act No. 6657 4 (RA 6657) or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform (4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). This scheme provides corporate
Law of 1988. This lot is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership 5 (CLOA) No. landowners of newly-established commercial plantations enough time to
20210 issued in favor of Loyola on 27 December 1990 and duly registered on 14 recover their investment before such agricultural lands are covered by
March 1991 under Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT)/CLOA No. 998. CARP. The deferment period was up to 1998. Pending final land
transfer, however, these corporations shall implement a production and
On 27 June 1995, petitioner Julian S. Lebrudo (Lebrudo), now deceased and profit-sharing scheme in their farms.
represented by his son, petitioner Reynaldo L. Lebrudo, filed with the Office of the

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


38

The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has HLI ARGUES THAT PARC IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REVOKE THE STOCK
not been given much priority, as there has been greater pressure for them to DISTRIBUTION PLAN (SDP). THE LAW GIVES PARC THE POWER TO APPROVDE
deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets. SDP. BUT THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT IT CAN DISAPPROVE THE SDP. IS
HLIS ARGUMENT CORRECT?
LEBRUDO: There was a violation of the prohibited period (sold within the
prohibitory period). There was a waiver, signed by the owner. Subject is the NO. IF PARC WAS GIVEN POWER TO APPROVE SDP, IT HAS THE POWER TO
validity of the waiver REVOKE IT BY THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION. OTHERWISE PARC
WOULD BE A TOOTHLESS AGENCY.
SC: Waiver is void. It violated the law.
On the postulate that the subject jurisdiction is conferred by law, HLI maintains
that PARC is without authority to revoke an SDP, for neither RA 6657 nor EO 229
expressly vests PARC with such authority. While, as HLI argued, EO 229 empowers
Chapter VIII (Corporate Farms) PARC to approve the plan for stock distribution in appropriate cases, the
empowerment only includes the power to disapprove, but not to recall its previous
SEC. 31. Corporate Landowners. - Corporate landowners may voluntarily approval of the SDP after it has been implemented by the parties.[13][93] To
transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the Republic of the HLI, it is the court which has jurisdiction and authority to order the revocation or
Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified beneficiaries, under such rescission of the PARC-approved SDP.
terms and conditions consistent with this Act, as they may agree upon, subject to
confirmation by the DAR. HELD
Upon certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may give We disagree.
their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve
stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC.
activities, bears in relation to the company's total assets, under such terms and However, contrary to petitioner HLIs posture, PARC also has the power to revoke
conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no case shall the compensation the SDP which it previously approved. It may be, as urged, that RA 6657 or other
received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are distributed be executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the PARC with the
reduced. The same principle shall be applied to associations, with respect to their power to revoke/recall an approved SDP. Such power or authority, however, is
equity or participation. deemed possessed 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
Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital expressed.[14][94]
stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified We have explained that every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all
beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to
provisions of this Act: Provided, That the following condition are complied with: make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all
such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred
(a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to from its terms.[15][95] Further, every statutory grant of power, right or privilege
dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the corporation or association is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege.[16][96]
shall be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants chosen by the
beneficiaries; Gordon v. Veridiano II is instructive:
(b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association, the The power to approve a license includes by implication, even if not expressly
beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the board of granted, the power to revoke it. By extension, the power to revoke is limited by the
directors, or in a management or executive committee, if one exists, of the authority to grant the license, from which it is derived in the first place. Thus, if the
corporation or association; FDA grants a license upon its finding that the applicant drug store has complied
(c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same with the requirements of the general laws and the implementing administrative
rights and features as all other shares; and rules and regulations, it is only for their violation that the FDA may revoke the said
(d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void ab license. By the same token, having granted the permit upon his ascertainment that
initio UNLESS said transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered beneficiary the conditions thereof as applied x x x have been complied with, it is only for the
within the same corporation. violation of such conditions that the mayor may revoke the said permit.[17][97]
(Emphasis supplied.)
If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer
envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution
approved by the PARC within the same period, the agricultural land of the Following the doctrine of necessary implication, it may be stated that the
corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of this conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the
Act. agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or
recall the approval of the plan.
HLI vs PRAC
As public respondents aptly observe, to deny PARC such revocatory power would
BASIC Facts: reduce it into a toothless agency of CARP, because the very same agency tasked to
THE HACIENDA COMPRISED 6,443 HAS. IN 1957 TABACALERA SOLD THE LAND ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved SDP would be
TO TADECO OWNED BY THE COJUANCOS. GSIS FINANCED THE PURCHASE ON without authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance with it.[18][98] With
CONDITION THAT THE LAND WILL ULTIMATELY BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD TO the view We take of the case, only PARC can effect such revocation. The DAR
THE TENANTS. Secretary, by his own authority as such, cannot plausibly do so, as the acceptance
and/or approval of the SDP sought to be taken back or undone is the act of PARC
IN 1980 GOVT FILED AT RTC MANILA CASE AGAINST TADECO FOR IT TO whose official composition includes, no less, the President as chair, the DAR
SURRENDER THE HACIENDA TO MAR (NOW DAR) SO THE LAND WILL BE Secretary as vice-chair, and at least eleven (11) other department heads.[19][99]
DISTRIBUTED TO FARMERS. MANILA RTC RULED AGAINST TADECO. TADECO
APPEALED TO CA. IN 1988 CA DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUBJECT TO REVIVAL IF Hacienda Luisita CASE: (binalik na discussion from Chapter 3)
TADECO FAILS TO GET APPROVAL OF FARMERS OF STOCK DISTRIBUTION
OPTION (SDO) AND IF OPTED BY FARMERS TADECO FAILS TO IMPLEMENT SDO. Hacienda Luisita Inc (HLI) was not the original corporation owning the Hacienda
Luisita Estate. But under SDO, one of the requirements is that there has to be a
IN 1988 TADECO CREATED HACIENDA LUISITA INC (HLI) AND TADECO BOUGHT corporation they will have to make a new corporation consisting of the old
SHARES OF HLI IN EXCHANGE OF THE HACIENDA LAND. THE TOTAL SHARES corporation plus the farmer tenants as stockholders.
WERE 400,000,000 WITH PAR VALUE OF P400,000,000.00. 150,000,000 SHARES
WERE FOR FARMERS AND 250,000,000 SHARES FOR OTHER STOCKHOLDERS. There was a program approved by PARC headed by the President of the
FARMERS AND HLI ENTERED INTO STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION AGREEMENT Philippines. For a period of time it was valid especially from Aquino, Ramos and
(SDOA) WHICH PROVIDES THAT FARMERS AGREE BECAUSE SUCH SDO WILL Estrada. Time of Arroyo, there was a complaint that the standard of living has not
IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND THEY WILL GET GREATER BENEFITS. DAR APPROVED improved and there were violations of the program. Investigated and allegations
SDOA. found to be true, the program/agreement was cancelled by PARC headed by
Arroyo. No improvement of lives and a violation on the giving of homelots (yuta
IN 1995 HLI APPLIED TO CONVERT 500 HAS TO INDUSTRIAL USE. CONVERSION para sa balay). HLI did not present any proof that they complied.
WS APPROVED. THEN IT TRANSFERRED THE 500 HAS TO CENTENNARY
HOLDINGS INC WHICH TRANSFERRED IT TO LUISTA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORP OR SC: annulment or revocation of the program is valid
LIPCO. LIPCO CONVEYED SOME LANDS TO RCBC AS PAYMENT FOR LOANS. IN
ADDITION TO THE 500 HAS SOLD TO LIPCO, 80.51 HAS WAS EXPROPRIATED FOR Confronted with the issue: Previously it was legal but now it was revoked. What
USE OF SCTEX. shall we do now? Used Operative fact doctrine: let tenants choose.
- Plebescite: to remain as stockholders of HLI or distribute lands
IN 2003 FARMER GROUPS FILED CASE AT DAR FOR EITHER RENEGOTIATION OF - Chose for distribution of lands
SDOA OR ITS REVOCATION ON GROUND THAT THEIR LIVES DID NOT IMPROVE - Right now, DAR is implementing distribution of lands to 6000 farmer
AND THEY DID NOT GET FAIR SHARES IN THE SALE OF LANDS TO LIPCO AND beneficiaries
FOR SCTEX USE. DAR CREATED TASK FORCE WHICH RECOMMENDED TO PARC
(PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUCIL) THAT THE PREVIOUS ORDER Dissenting of CORONA: Provision on SDO is Unconstitutional. When we speak of
APPROVING THE SDO BE REVOKED. agrarian reform, it is always distribution of lands.

IN 2005 PARC REVOKED THE SDO AND ORDERED THE COMPULSORY Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ACQUISITION OF THE HACIENDA FOR DISTRIBUTION TO FARMERS. HLI WENT
TO THE SC AND ASKED FOR TRO TO STOP IMPLEMENTATION OF PARK ORDER.
IN 2006 SC ISSUED TRO. HENCE THE CASE. WHAT IS THIS DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

ISSUE: WHAT IS IMPLIED IN A STATUTE IS AS MUCH A PART OF IT AS THAT WHICH IS


EXPRESSED.[20][94] EVERY STATUTE IS UNDERSTOOD, BY IMPLICATION, TO

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS


39

CONTAIN ALL SUCH PROVISIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE ITS that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality; to justify its
OBJECT AND PURPOSE, OR TO MAKE EFFECTIVE RIGHTS, POWERS, PRIVILEGES nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and
OR JURISDICTION WHICH IT GRANTS, INCLUDING ALL SUCH COLLATERAL AND not one that is doubtful, speculative, or argumentative.[39][112] (Italics in the
SUBSIDIARY CONSEQUENCES AS MAY BE FAIRLY AND LOGICALLY INFERRED original.)
FROM ITS TERMS.[21][95]FURTHER, EVERY STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER, The lis mota in this case, proceeding from the basic positions originally taken by
RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL INCIDENTAL POWER, RIGHT AMBALA (to which the FARM members previously belonged) and the Supervisory
OR PRIVILEGE 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
ISSUE 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,
RESPONDENT FARM ARGUES THAT SEC 31 OF RA 6657 WHICH ALLOWS STOCK offends certain constitutional and statutory provisions. To be sure, any of these key
DISTRIBUTION INSTEAD OF LAND DISTRIBUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT issues may be resolved without plunging into the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA
CONTRAVENES SECTION 4, ART. X111 OF THE CONSTITUTION. IS THIS 6657. Moreover, looking deeply into the underlying petitions of AMBALA, et al., it is
ARGUMENT CORRECT? 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.
NO. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A
LAW ARE NOT ALL COMPLIED WITH. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE: (1) THERE IS
AN ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY; (2) THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
IS RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY BY A PROPER PARTY OR
ONE WITH LOCUS STANDI; AND (3) THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
MUST BE THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE CASE.[32][108]

THE FARMERS QUESTIONED THE CONSITUTIONALITY OF R.A. 6657 ONLY AFTER


14 YEARS SINCE THE SDP WAS DRAWN AND IMPLEMENTED. IT IS TOO LATE.
ALSO, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUE REGARDING THE SDP WAS NOT THE LIST
MOTA. IT WAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SDP.

FARM asks for the invalidation of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, insofar as it affords the
corporation, as a mode of CARP compliance, to resort to stock distribution, an
arrangement which, to FARM, impairs the fundamental right of farmers and
farmworkers under Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution.[33][106]
To a more specific, but direct point, FARM argues that Sec. 31 of RA 6657 permits
stock transfer in lieu of outright agricultural land transfer; in fine, there is stock
certificate ownership of the farmers or farmworkers instead of them owning the
land, as envisaged in the Constitution. For FARM, this modality of distribution is an
anomaly to be annulled for being inconsistent with the basic concept of agrarian
reform ingrained in Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution.[34][107]
Reacting, HLI insists that agrarian reform is not only about transfer of land
ownership to farmers and other qualified beneficiaries. It draws attention in this
regard to Sec. 3(a) of RA 6657 on the concept and scope of the term agrarian
reform. The constitutionality of a law, HLI added, cannot, as here, be attacked
collaterally.
The instant challenge on the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 and necessarily
its counterpart provision in EO 229 must fail as explained below.
When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review over, and
pass upon the constitutionality of, acts of the executive or legislative departments,
it does so only when the following essential requirements are first met, to wit:
(1) there is an actual case or controversy;

(2) that the constitutional question is raised at the earliest possible


opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standi; and

(3) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case.[35][108]

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 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 received benefits from the SDP without so much of
a protest. It was only on December 4, 2003 or 14 years after approval of the SDP
via PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 dated November 21, 1989 that said plan and
approving resolution were sought to be revoked, but not, to stress, by FARM or any
of its members, but by petitioner AMBALA. Furthermore, the AMBALA petition did
NOT question the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but concentrated on the
purported flaws and gaps in the subsequent implementation of the SDP. Even the
public respondents, as represented by the Solicitor General, did not question the
constitutionality of the provision. On the other hand, FARM, whose 27 members
formerly belonged to AMBALA, raised the constitutionality of 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 November 21, 1989 before it challenged the
constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 which is quite too late in the day. The
FARM members slept on their rights and even accepted benefits from the SDP with
nary a complaint on the alleged unconstitutionality of Sec. 31 upon which the
benefits were derived. The Court cannot now be goaded into resolving a
constitutional issue that FARM failed to assail after the lapse of a long period of
time and the occurrence of numerous events and activities which resulted from the
application of an alleged unconstitutional legal provision.
It has been emphasized in a number of cases that the question of constitutionality
will not be passed upon by the Court unless it is properly raised and presented in
an appropriate case at the first opportunity.[36][109] FARM is, therefore, remiss
in belatedly questioning the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657. The second
requirement that the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest
possible opportunity is clearly wanting.
The last but the most important requisite that the constitutional issue must be the
very lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. The lis mota aspect is not
present, the constitutional issue tendered not being critical to the resolution of the
case. The unyielding rule has been to avoid, whenever plausible, an issue assailing
the constitutionality of a statute or governmental act.[37][110] If some other
grounds exist by which judgment can be made without touching the
constitutionality of a law, such recourse is favored.[38][111] Garcia v. Executive
Secretary explains why:
Lis Mota the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will undertake
judicial review means that the Court will not pass upon a question of
unconstitutionality, although properly presented, if the case can be disposed of on
some other ground, such as the application of the statute or the general law. The
petitioner must be able to show that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the
constitutional question raised is determined. This requirement is based on the rule

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS