You are on page 1of 69

AGRARIAN REFORM • 1935 Constitution- “The promotion of social justice to ensure the well

-
I. History and Legal Basis being and economic security of all people should be the concern of the
PRE-SPANISH PERIOD State”
• Before the Spaniards came the Filipinos lived in villages or barangays • Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy
ruled by chiefs or datus. ActNo.4045) -Certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships
• Everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. • Commonwealth Act. No.461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal
of tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the
SPANISH PERIOD Department of Justice.
• Rural Program Administration, created March 2,1939- purchase and
• When the Spaniards came the concept of encomienda (Royal Land lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.
Grants) was introduced.
- “haciendas” (wealthy chinese families)
JAPANESE OCCUPATION
1st PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC • peasants and workers organizations grew strength.
• First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo • peasants took up arms
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large • Anti- Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa
estates. Hapon)

• Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented. PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
 After Philippine Independence in 1964 , problems of land tenure
AMERICAN PERIOD remained .
• Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings: 16 has for private individuals President Manuel Roxas (1946-1948):
and 1,024 has for corporations. • Republic Act No. 34 -- 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating
• Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) –registration of land titles share-tenancy contracts.
under the Torrens system. • Republic Act No.55 – more effective safeguard against arbitrary
• Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system. ejectment of tenants.
• Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships
between landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
lands. President Elpidio Quirino (1948-1953)
• Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23,1950 -- Replaced the
COMMONWEALTH PERIOD National Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development
President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the “Social Justice” program. Corporation (LASEDECO)

President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957)

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS Page 1

• Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and
established the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998):
(NARRA)  His administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and more
• Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954)– meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.
-relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share- • Republic Act No.7881,1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657
tenancy and leasehold system. and exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.
-tenant has option to elect either share tenancy or leasehold • Republic Act 8532,1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – additionalPhp50
-it also created the Court of Agrarian Relations. billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years.

Cont. President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957)….
• Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – Created the Land President Joseph E. Estrada(1998-2000)“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP”
Tenure Administration(LTA)
• President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)  launched the Magkabalikat Para sa Kaunlarang Agraryo or MAGKASAKA.
• Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2000-present):
• President Diosdado Macapagal(1961-1965): • Land Tenure Improvement/Provision of Support Services
• Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8,1963– Abolished shared tenancy, • Infrastructure Project/ KALAHI ARZone
institutionalized leasehold. • Agrarian Justice
• President Ferdinand Marcos(1965-1986): • CARPER
• Republic Act No.6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971
– Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform
Special Account Fund. Importance of Land Reform and its Constitutionality*
- Provides automatic conversion of share tenancy to leasehold.
Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary, 175 SCRA 343
Cont. President Marcos (1965-1986):…..
• Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26,1972 – Declared the country "Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the
under land reform program. distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is more than a
• Presidential Decree No.27,October 21,1972– Restricted land reform 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
scope to tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7
as their place in the sun.
hectares.
President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)
Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social
 Section 21 under Article II – “The State shall promote comprehensive justice to "insure the well-being and economic security of all the people,”
rural development and agrarian reform.” especially the less privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal
 signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 adding specifically that "the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use,
 became effective on June 15,1988 enjoyment and disposition of private property and equitably diffuse property
ownership and profits." Significantly, there was also the specific injunction to

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS Page 2

"formulate and implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating almost a year of spirited debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise
the tenant from the bondage of the soil." known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President
Aquino signed on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing the
The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them supplementary effect
sentiments, it also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social Justice insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions.
and Human Rights, containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere provisions for
the uplift of the common people. These include a call in the following words for The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his
the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program: powers under martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella. As
for the power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228
SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program and 229, the same was authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, of the 1987 Constitution.
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 ARTICLE II
State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land- poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full
sharing. employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.

Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8, development.
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, Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and
1972, along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private
agrarian reform.
lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention
limits for landowners.
ARTICLE XII
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full
land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the
valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods
No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an
No. 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation. expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially
the under-privileged.
Subsequently, the revived Congress of the Philippines took over legislative
power from the President and started its own deliberations, including extensive
public hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The result, after

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS Page 3

own directly or collectively the lands they till or. the Congress other support services. The State the public domain except by lease. taking into account ecological. renewable for not more than twenty-five years. and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate Taking into account the requirements of conservation. forest or shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands. and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. in the case of other farmworkers. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship. Private enterprises. and agricultural development and agrarian reform. In the pursuit of these goals. homestead rights of small settlers. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of retention limits. To this end. subject to prior rights. or grant. The State shall recognize the right of farmers. the State shall respect the right of small landowners. all sectors of the economy and all regions of the AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. and other independent farmers' purchase. the State shall regulate the acquisition. and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform. and subject to the payment of just compensation. and development. and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. ecology. the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS Section 1. the State shall protect Filipino Section 2. in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources. or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof. use. economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. as well as cooperatives. organization. or equity devoted. In determining lands. homestead. by law. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. economic. Agricultural lands of the public domain subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be prescribe. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural. Section 4. and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. or leased and the conditions therefor. held.The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound To this end. to be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership. reduce estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. social. the State Section 3. ownership. by landowners. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five Section 5. undertake an agrarian reform program including corporations. and adequate financial. developed. organizations to participate in the planning. shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Section 6. including lands of the public domain under lease or ARTICLE XIII concession suitable to agriculture. marketing. and political inequalities. The State shall. shall founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural considerations. and technology and research. mineral lands and national parks. and hundred hectares. and similar collective organizations.AMaWS Page 4 . and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. developmental. and management of the program. production. whenever applicable in accordance with law. However. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity. by law. timber.Atty. to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. and efficient use of human and natural resources. cooperatives. shall determine. through industries that make full disposition of property and its increments. for a period not exceeding twenty-five years. farmworkers. Capanas .

to proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization.AMaWS Page 5 . the State shall respect the right of small landowners. production. At the earliest possible time. generally by protecting and other support services. to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community. Sec. as well as cooperatives. and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. and through appropriate technology and research. and Laws that seek to promote the common good. taking into account ecological. economic forces by the state so that justice in its National and objectively “The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own secular conception may at least be approximated. through the maintenance of proper economic and of local communities. developmental. 6. both inland and offshore. The protection shall extend to offshore suprema lex. and landowners. measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. who are landless. The State Section 22. The State shall. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers. farmworkers. (5) Specific provision on agrarian and natural resources reform. especially elements of society. resources. through the exercise of powers underlying the and marketing assistance. the State instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands.Section 7. the adoption by government of law. marketing. and subject to the payment of just compensation. extra-constitutionally. by law. In determining TRANSITORY PROVISIONS retention limits. and other independent farmers’ organizations to participate in the planning organization. in the disposition or utilization of Meaning of social justice other natural resources. subject to prior rights. in the case of other employment creation.Atty. and adequate financial. and conserve such resources. The State shall recognize the right of farmers. whenever applicable in accordance with law. The State shall also protect. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship. adequate financial. production. existence of all government on time-honored principle of salus populi est develop. own directly or collectively the lands they till or. Financial farmworkers. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing The constitutional provisions on agrarian reform resources. the Government shall expropriate idle shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Sec. including lands of the public domain under lease or • Social Justice – is neither communism nor despotism. Capanas . 4. Social justice means the agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by promotion of the welfare of all the people. nor concession suitable to agriculture. nor atomism. Article XIII: Sec. To this end. undertake an agrarian reform program Section 8. for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program. enterprises of their choice. and privatization of public sector enterprises. and management of MEANING OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION the program. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen. 5. homestead rights of anarchy. subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe. and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research. through the adoption of measures legally justifiable. or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law. assisting the weaker members of society. It shall provide support to such fishermen constitutionally. and other services. but the humanization of the laws and the equalization of social and small settlers. fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. or equity ARTICLE XVIII considerations.

• Settlers including migrant workers . 7. to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources. employment . The State shall also • An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy protect. Guarantees physical possession. Should it be annotated? No. both inland and offshore. production. Abolished shared tenancy. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their . In case lessor sells or alienates the legal possession. Old Settlements Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .AMaWS Page 6 . Why leasehold? Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. It shall provide support to such COMPOSITION OF THE CODE fishermen through appropriate technology and research. Proposed Settlements especially of local communities. and conserve such resources. and other services. sale . The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization. LANDS COVERED BY THE CODE . The law provides for that. . adequate financial. transfer or conveyance of agricultural land. . Assures continuity of relations choice. offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. The protection shall extend to systems in agriculture. Why is it that leasehold relationship was preferred? • Owner-cultivators of less than family-size farms a. and marketing assistance. Protects tenurial and economic status Sec. transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of lessor RA 3844 Agricultural leasehold? BENEFICIARIES A juridical tie between lessor and lessee • Tenant Farmers • Agricultural wage-earners or farm workers . 8. Capanas . The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen.Atty. enjoyment and management creation. and privatization of public sector enterprises. develop. Now leasehold tenancy. the vendee is bound by the leasehold Tenanted Areas relationship Landed Estates .Sec. Tenurial Security under Agrarian Land Reform – relationship can exist even if there is death of the lessee or lessor. The transferee of the agriland. Not necessary.

Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land d. To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and under Agrarian Law . Lease – somebody must pay rental lessee – in regular courts . Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage Can relation be terminated by death? e. you don’t have to allege . Where will you file the ejectment case – agri lessee – DAR while civil . Unless the ground for ejectment is not enumerated in 3844.AL – 3844 while CL – Civil Code . Capanas . Employed a sublessee surviving spouse. under 3844. voluntary act (abandonment of a. Normally the grounds are last two grounds. . continue between lessor and members of lessee’s immediate farm household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death: 1. among others. premise of lessee c.AMaWS Page 7 . they are under Bill Of -Fine or imprisonment Rights.Atty. To protect the lessee from possible . Lessee has substantial rights. Yes. the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the tenant. you have to support. Can the lessor eject the tenant? . Allegation only is not sufficient cannot be ejected. they are entitled to minimum wage law. Grounds to eject . It is referred as agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee 2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity. If they are agricultural workers under RA 3844. Dispossession – with court order. . Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization? . Refers to 2 parties 1. the lessee . Leasehold relationship will remain. Extinguishment of relation vs dispossession Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS a. Extinguishment – no court approval. 2. f. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that agreed upon b. Agricultural lessee vs Civil lessee ejectment or disposition of property. -Damages suffered Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . next eldest descendants in the order of their age. 3. Non-payment of rental when due  No. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement land without knowledge of lessor or voluntary surrender by lessee) or an act of God b. there is an express provision that the lessee will allow a sublessee.

it will be applicable only to those The tenant farmer. No.. Note that the Decree does not apply to lands owned by the government or government-owned corporation. if irrigated.27. It made provide land for the harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date the tiller of the land the landless through of leasehold after deducting amount used for the seeds and costs of amortizing owner of the acquiring and harvesting. August 8. requirements and conditions) of a portion constituting a family size of five (5) hectares. Effect in Implementing With the passage of RA Main governing law of estate or not.whether in land classified as landed estate (i. if not irrigated and three (3)hectares. This here in the Philippines. RA 6657 – all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain).AMaWS Page 8 .) devoted to rice and corn private agricultural lands ONLY. land he tills.-Attorney’s fees DIFFERENCE: -Remuneration for last income Difference between PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree) and RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) Lease rental PD 27 RA 6657 Purpose Abolish leasehold in Main purpose is to Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal tenanted lands. it is only a Agrarian Land Reform suppletory law. hauling and processing. loading. shall be deemed owner (subject to certain RA 6657. CA. TENANTS EMANCIPATION DECREE Land Covered Private lands which are Covers all public and (Pres. means.e. G.Atty. including other lands of BENEFICIARIES public domain suitable for agriculture regardless • Beneficiaries of the Decree are the bona fide tenant farmers of of tenurial arrangement private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system and commodity of share-crop or lease tenancy (not farm labor). Land Reform Program 6657. threshing. whether classified as landed produced. Sigre vs. 2002 Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Capanas .R. Lands transferred to tenant-farmers under the Decree will revert to the government and not to the landowners in case where the tenant abandons his tillage or refuses to take PD 27 – rice & corn land advantage of his rights under the laws. with an matters not covered by area of 24 hectares or above) or not. distribution of lands and providing support facilities and system for the benefit of the farmers. 109568. Decree no.

6657 did not repeal Issues: or supersede. it. in any way. 229. 131 and Executive order was issued reversing the assailed Order of DAR Regional Director and Order No. 27 are retained even with the passage A. x x x" It cannot be gainsaid.A.whether classified subject land to the petitioner.A. Capanas . nor attempted to return the money he had petitioner as guarantee for the payment of a loan he had incurred from the latter. 27. Because the lot has been abandoned by respondent. 27 covers rice and corn lands. When no irrigated. the and recommending that the CLT remain in the name of respondent and that the beneficiary. while according to petitioner. the tenant farmers thereof shall be deemed owners of a portion Respondent filed a Complaint against the petitioner before the Barangay constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated. 2002 Held: Facts: Main Issue: A Certificate of Land Transfer (hereinafter referred to as CLT) was issued Abandonment in favor of respondent over a 5. 27. Needing money for medical treatment. According to respondent.A. ordering the petitioner to return the subject land to respondent. and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P. and three (3) hectares if Lupon in Pangasinan for the purpose of redeeming the subject land. On this score.R. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter. Non-transferability of Land Awarded Under PD 27 Another investigation was conducted on the matter which led to the issuance of an We do not agree.A. or lease tenancy.AMaWS Page 9 . DAR’s District Office found that respondent merely gave the subject land to surveyed and planted with 40 mango trees. and denied respondent’s prayer for redemption of the operates distinctly from P. 6657 covers all public and private subject land. The Court need not belabor the fact that R. Petitioner’s Motion E. covered thereunder. and because PD 27 does not prohibit the transfer of properties acquired under money loan be returned to petitioner. 6657 or the CARP Law abandonment thereof. the case was referred to the DAR regional office Petitioner avers that respondent neither protested when the former had the subject land . In the said Order. shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands. May 7. PD 27 specifically provides that title to land acquired pursuant to its Order issued by DAR Regional Director. as amended.D. Mabalot. A CLT was issued in subject land). CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates separately from RA 6657. C.D.000 square meter lot (hereinafter referred to as The subject property was awarded to respondent by virtue of PD 27.Atty. petitioner theorizes that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) may award the land to another qualified farmer-grantee. 27. 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 thereby rendering Sigre v. And whatever provisions of P.A. amicable settlement was reached. which provides for the mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian for Reconsideration was denied. borrowed from petitioner in 1976. B.D.D. Petitioner insisted that the subject land had been sold to him by respondent and requested the DAR to cancel the CLT in respondent’s name. 133706.O. that R.D. P. the property available for transfer to other bonafide farmers. 6657. respondent passed on the his favor. G. specifically states: "Presidential Decree No. 27 that are not inconsistent with R.36 while. Whether or not there is a valid abandonment made by Respondent Mabalot. agricultural land including other lands of the public domain suitable for Thus. Whether the issuance of an emancipation patent and thereafter a transfer certificate of Can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to another qualified title in the name of petitioner has validated and legitimized possession and ownership over beneficiary? the disputed property. therefore. PD 27 specifically provides that when private agricultural land -. Respondent’s request for reinvestigation was denied in a Resolution. 229. of R. respondent appealed the case to the DAR Central Office which an agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No. the DAR found the act mandate or to that of the Land Reform Program of the government shall not be transferable of respondent in surrendering the subject land in favor of petitioner as constituting Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . R. Reform Program." Estolas vs. a sale had taken place. No. there was only a verbal as landed estate or not – is primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop mortgage. P.

Furthermore. possession and enjoyment of the property. there was no valid transfer in favor of the government. by hereditary succession. cultivate and enjoy the landholding for themselves. No. set forth under PD 27 and EO No. 6657.19 the Court held that there was a valid transfer of the land after the The Court laid down in Paris v. by himself. effect any transfer DAR cannot transfer directly to a qualified beneficiary. the right or claim is not vacated or waived such value. relinquishment. the following requisites must be proven: (a) a clear and absolute P200. except back to the government or. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz. Case is regarding the valuation to the land of the respondents of which the area self-reliant and responsible citizens. 228 and pegged the value of the land No Abandonment amounting to P106. It was petitioner pending the payment of just compensation. they are still required to pay the cost of the land before the title is transferred to them and that In the present case. the process should now be completed under R. the Petition is hereby DENIED legal means. There must be an actual. subject land.21 Unlike in the above-cited case. they could not. The proper procedure for reallocation must be followed to ensure that there was indeed It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the abandonment. respondent has continued to claim dominion over the land. or back to the government by other WHEREFORE. failure" has been demonstrated. actual title to the tenanted land himself who requested the DAR to cancel respondent’s CLT and to issue another one in his remains with the landowner. take over a farmer-beneficiary’s landholding. favor. Issue: No Valid Reallocation Whether or not PD 27 or RA 6557 is the applicable law in determining the value Furthermore. No. 2008 favor of the grantees in order to give full force and effect to the clear intent of such laws: "to Facts: achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers". with P. petitioners herein.000 following the factors set under RA 6557 (CARL) and of which merely a projected. G. thus. In the present case. their emancipation gave them the rights to possess. farmer-grantee had signed his concurrence to the Samahang Nayon Resolution No. In Held: Corpuz v. No. The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till. This voluntary surrender to the Samahang compensation. intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property and (b) an external act The Cagayan Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) however valued by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. to their successors. No. No. That just Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 27 and E. susceptible of being appropriated by another. Thus.935. and that the subsequent beneficiary is a qualified farmer-tenant as provided guideline provided by PD No. otherwise. Capanas .A.O.D. 27 and E.A. 27 tenant Nayon constituted a surrender or transfer to the government itself.Atty. vs.000 per hectare. allegedly on the ground that it was abandoned. Quite the contrary. 6657 before tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27. Mabalot : Land may only be transferred either by succession or to government to them as the tillers and to no other. any transfer of the property may only be made in favor of the government. 228 in relation to R.D. The law is explicit.O. determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. Grospe. the application of the process of agrarian reform was still incomplete government or to any entity authorized by the government to reallocate the farmholdings of thus. the Court held therein that with the passage of R. Neither are we convinced that an award under PD 27 may be transferred to another in case The LBP. this Court has always ruled that agrarian laws must be interpreted liberally in September 29. no such "willful court (RTC) setting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC). Petitioner cannot.AMaWS Page 10 . its completion. No.A. 175175. under the law. and to make them "more independent. as just compensation to the respondent. was approve by the lower and. These rights were granted by the Estolas v. and a source of genuine strength in our democratic was placed by the government under the coverage of the operation land transfer society.except to the grantee’s heirs by hereditary succession. There the Court explained that while under P. valued the land in accordance with the guidelines the grantee abandons it.00 to For abandonment to exist. respondent’s land was not turned over to the In Paris. Alfeche the applicability of P.76 per hectare."12 program under PD 27. Upon the promulgation of PD 27. not the land at P80. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure to by law. No.11 Land Bank of the Phil. 6657 in the matter of the payment of just surrendering his possession of the landholding. 228 applying only suppletorily. No.R. Respondents rejected petitioner’s valuation and insist on claiming that the said land is worth between P150. even if respondent did indeed abandon his right to possess and cultivate the of the land which was taken under PD 27 or before RA 6557 was enacted. to insure their continuous government.D.

amended Sec. irrigation systems. mixers. elevated water tanks. growing of fruit trees. swine and poultry is different from crop or tree the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the farming. juridical.Atty. domain?  Policies: Chavez v.compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657. (4) Encourage growth of cattle industry raising of livestock. (fertilizers. Sec. . expropriator. poultry and swine” per SC) DAR v. the equivalent being real. XII. only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs. (CONST.  Industrial. Order No. – Sec. all other areas shall be covered. feedmill with grinders. DAR products. DAR Admin. extensive warehousing facilities for -The determination of just compensation should be based on RA 6657 feeds and other supplies. series of 1998 and not under PD 27. digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds. S. hybrid seeds. bull.  Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private tractors) agricultural lands actually. waterers and blowers.2 (RA 6657) GOVERNING THE EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED FOR  “…sound rural development and CATTLE RAISING FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARP) industrialization”  Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the rights  “…to promote industrialization” of ARBs due to unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent  Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture declaration of areas used for cattle purposes. exhausts and generators. 2004 (RULES & REGULATIONS  Sec. is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be  raising of livestock.3) (2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion (3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for Sec. “use of land is incidental and not the principal factor” (VOS . deepwells.3 (b) unconstitutional (“raising of livestock. PD 27 applies only suppletorily. substantial. not agricultural activity. Heirs of Cruz: conveyors.000 hectares excluded (exclusion to be granted only upon proof and continuously utilized up to time of application). Renewable not (1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be more than 25yrs. 5. • Can private corporation acquire ownership of alienable lands of public  Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family). and other technological appurtenances CHAPTER 1 • Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?Yes. insecticides. Sutton: Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil . drainage. industrial fixed assets.Means the cultivation of the soil. Capanas . sprayers. pumphouses. Land Bank v. poultry or fish” or EO 228. And not to exceed 1. anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and for lands covered under PD 27.AMaWS Page 11 . planting of crops. Sec. The land therefore should be valued under RA 6657 following the guidelines set  Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of in DAR AO no. PEA: No. exclusively and directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988. cow. poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm (5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage. (6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents shall be accepted Luz Farms v. such as: animal housing structures and facilities.due to Luz Farms .. and not PD 27 . 01.withdraw VOS)  RA 7881 (effective May 1995) Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .3(b) and removed “the raising of livestock. Art. and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in shall deny due course if application is filed 60 days after date of receipt conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or of notice. 3 (b) “Agriculture” or “Agricultural Activity” cattle raising shall be excluded. calf. full and ample.

TCT No. Capanas .1161 hectares registered in the name of Salvador N.5706 hectares) and by TCT No. after inspecting the properties. poultry and swine-raising. 1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454-A and classified as mineral. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was cancelled Admin. issued an Order  Sec. forest. however of the other two (2) parcels of land was Facts approved. Davao Oriental.Atty. 9. SC nullified AO. an Application for Exemption of the lots covered that the entire Limot lands were devoted to coconuts (41. 1991. the team that conducted the inspection found Office (PARO). 3 (c) “Agricultural land” land devoted to agricultural activity & not dated March 5. 5 carabaos. Salvador N. conversely. On March 28. On December 10. 9 heads of goats and 18 heads of swine. those not ADE are that they needed the additional area for its livestock business. 1992. that the said two (2) lots form an integral part of its grazing land. growing of trees including harvesting). 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly shown that the same were actually. 1992 and March 1.  In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official functions. petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform In the Report dated 06 April 1994.e. The application for exemption. On June 24. commercial or industrial land. . as enumerated. are used for grazing and habitat of petitioner's 105 heads of cattle. 07. . the Limot lands were actually. residential. 2008 and a new one issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP T- 16356. directly and exclusively used for livestock raising since in its application. prior to the effectivity of the activity“ by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).. the MARO conducted an onsite the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude investigation on the two parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform. Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 160. 1993. to commercial livestock. Policy guidelines: Jr.AMaWS Page 12 . planting application for the exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 of crops. Salga issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the Held: aforementioned landholdings which were subsequently placed under In contrast. petitioner through its President. On February 7. Republic vs Slavador Lopez Agri-business petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. 1994. cultivation of soil. executed a letter-affidavit addressed to the respondent-Secretary requesting  Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and for the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground continuously used shall be excluded. 1993 (prescribing a maximum retention from coverage as the said parcels of land with a total area of 110.000 hectares) and recommended the denial of the application for to the case of Luz Farms v. The DAR Regional Director. T-12637 and T-12639 from CARP coverage. S.5455 hectares limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising). directly and exclusively Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with On December 13. (2) land is suitable for stating that it has been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15. 1993.A. Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL On August 2. Lopez Agri-Business Issue: Corporation. all processes by DAR per AO No. Order No. subject to CARP if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1) 1995. coverage. Constitutionality of AO No. 30 Verily. DAR Secretary said parcels of land are exempted exemption. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform coconut trees and rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP Law). 9 are valid. the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R. It alleged that pursuant rubber (8. petitioner filed before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an there is agricultural activity in the area (i. RA 7881 changed definition of “agricultural 11 horses. 1988 and agriculture and occupied and tilled by farmers. Lopez.. S.

5 In the 07 February 1994 Letter-Affidavit addressed to the DAR Secretary. Acting on the said application. corporation needed the additional area for its livestock business. on December 27. that the livestock population are 371 heads of cow. which may be needed for this purpose. poultry. and located in lands' during the summer.) No. and swine in its coverage. M-8791.it is not conclusive. and by- Regional Director who denied the application. 20 heads of acquire lands by purchase or lease. poultry. These findings of the inspection team were given credence by the DAR supplies. Thus. this Letter-Affidavit is a clear indication that the effect. a new agrarian reform law. pursuant to the have been actually. The DAR Secretary even described 7311. animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle. Baras. Limot lands were not directly. on January 10. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (2) to breed. on December 4. Inc. the MARO itself.0422-hectare property. raise. business. petitioner re-documented its application pursuant to DAR A. pigs. the area which served as infrastructure is 42. from the coverage of the CARL. ten (10) and Exchange Commission on January 8. 6657. to fish culture. (T-486110) M-9508. (petitioner) was incorporated with the Securities hectares. pigs. in the Investigation Report cited by no less than SNLABC. that the approximate area not Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . a fact that necessarily makes them subject to the and sell poultry. Republic Act (R. (T-486108) M-7314. products. stocks. that the area being to sell and otherwise dispose of said cattle. and other livestock. 9.678 heads of swine and 788 heads of cocks. or otherwise dispose of the CARP. 4 Among its pertinent secondary hectares are planted to corn and the remaining five (5) hectares are devoted to purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle. 9. SNLABC requested the exemption of the Limot lands on the ground that the On June 10. the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directly and exclusively being used — for agricultural purposes. 1994. accessories. and affirmed by the DAR Secretary and the Court of Appeals. equipment. Series of 1993 (DAR A.AMaWS Page 13 . 7 • Tax declaration classified as agricultural land (one way to prove). this Court. and swine raising from CARP coverage. petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion of its 316. and M-6013. 1960. (T-486101) M-7307. hectares for the total livestock population. pigs. ruled in Luz Farms v. and other livestock. (T-486104) M-7310. appurtenances. Inc. and horses. setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock. sitting en banc. the DAR's Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted an ocular inspection on petitioner's Milestone Farms. 9). No. Meanwhile. 1990. (T- Verily.O. and (3) to import cattle. (T-332694) M-15755. (T-486106) M-7312.8422 Petitioner Milestone Farms. No. which included the raising of livestock. However. (T-486107) M-7313. especially since these were only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing areas. 1993. the Limot lands cannot be claimed to Pinugay. pigs. and/or swine raising are excluded from the its application for exemption are corroborated by the other attendant factual Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). in May 1993. circumstances and indicate its treatment of the subject properties as non- livestock. issued Administrative Order No.O. 410434) M-15750. poultry. swine and poultry is 258. directly and exclusively used for SNLABC's livestock aforementioned ruling of this Court in Luz Farms. Capanas . Thus. (T-486105) M- were not permanently designated there. 1988. actually and exclusively used for livestock raising. SNLABC casually dismisses the clear import of their Letter-Affidavit as a "poor Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform 6 that agricultural lands choice of words. and other livestock and their applied for exclusion is far below the required or ideal area which is 563 produce when advisable and beneficial to the corporation. found that the livestock were only moved to the Limot lands sporadically and (T-486103) M-7309. and were even subsequently products of said business.Atty. Rizal. (T-274129) M-15751. (T-486109) M-7315. Office of the President property and arrived at the following findings: Facts: [T]he actual land utilization for livestock. vs. took by the DAR Regional Director.used for agricultural activities. to purchase or acquire and sell. As pointed out otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). 5. and other livestock as may be authorized by law.A." Unfortunately." Therefore. (T-486102) M-7308. M- SNLABC's use of the area as a "seasonal extension of the applicant's 'grazing 8796. The said lands are more suitable — and are in fact actually.0000 hectares. the semantics of the declarations of SNLABC in devoted to livestock.

Secretary Garilao gave more weight to the petitioner. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the devoted to livestock. when the CARL took effect. since 2001. deepwells. the ten (10) hectares planted to sweet corn and the five (5) plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds. though not directly used for feeds and other supplies. It is SC: an industrial. the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. pumphouses. more or less.Atty.O. He found that the Certificates of barangay report was filed by petitioner to amplify its indignation over these Ownership of Large Cattle submitted by petitioner showed that only 86 heads of alleged illegal acts. 1988.312 hectares of land located in In the case at bar. Jr.AMaWS Page 14 . it leased another ranch for its own livestock is fatal to its cause. sprayers. swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. feedmill with grinders.O. • Adjacent property is not covered.0646 hectares of the property to be covered by CARP. waterers and blowers. 1637 set aside 20. Garilao (Secretary Garilao) been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. In Sutton. The Court clarified in the Luz Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90. and declaring 75. is invalid as it contravenes the Municipalities of Antipolo. exhausts and generators. anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester livestock purposes. 14 Petitioner's admission that. Issue: Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL Agricultural Land (Section 3 c) Held: With the procedural issue disposed of. poultry.directly used for livestock purposes with an area of 15 hectares. hectares previously exempted by Director Dalugdug. Lands this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets. other than DAR. we find it surprising that not even a single police and/or June 15. while 204 were actually contradict one another. 64 While petitioner advances a defense that it Secretary Garilao opined that." The raising of livestock. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. The NATALIA properties are situated within the for their ownership. petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have On January 21. while owned by registered from 1992 to 1995. finding that the 43 cows. certificates rather than to the headcount because "the same explicitly provide for the number of cattle owned by petitioner as of June 15. all lands exclusively Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Misael Vera. A great portion of the investment in “ They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation”. 133 were subsequently bought in 1990. conveyors. 1988. and other technological appurtenances. swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage do not fall within the definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural activity. San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to the Constitution. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit Lungsod Silangan Townsite. like the CA. NATALIA properties later became the Commission show a clear intent to exclude. DAR – 1979 persuade. extensive warehousing facilities for likewise far below the allowable 10% variance. then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. not an agricultural. It has issued an Order exempting from CARP only 240. prior that the assailed MARO reports and the Investigating Team's Report do not to June 15. and. Moreover.3307 hectares.. Clearly. we held: Presidential Proclamation No. activity. we find that petitioner's arguments fail to Natalia Realty v. 1988. TaDSHC production. Capanas . such as: animal housing previously converted by government agencies. NATALIA Farms case that livestock. is mixers. for private agricultural lands to be excluded from leased this ranch because the occupants of the subject property harmed its CARP.O. swine and poultry-raising.9776 hectares of the 316. they must already be devoted to livestock. However. to non- structures and facilities. were actually pastured outside the subject property. drainage.0422 exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A. inter alia. The A. 1997. and swine raising as of cattle. we find that the impugned A. we accord respect to the CA's keen observation cattle were registered in the name of petitioner's president. elevated water hectares devoted to fishpond could be considered supportive to livestock tanks. agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL were outside the coverage of Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .

December 17. 34624 and No. the housing programs of Caylaway. Issue: According to private respondent Rufino Mateo. 1999 NHA vs. They form part of Petitioner is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner with TCTs and the Tala Estate in Bagong Silang. Respondent DAR’s failure to observe due process in the acquisition of 6657 to non-agricultural uses. he had lived in the disputed lots Whether or not the petitioner’s landholdings are subject to coverage under the since his birth in 1928. namely. 1988. the authority of the DAR to approve such petitioner’s landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity. he started farming and working on six-hectare CARL. copy of title. not conversion clearance” with the Supreme Court. Inc. on June 15. Inc Held: opine that with respect to the conversion of agricultural land covered by R. were acquired by by the government under RA No. the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR’s failure to observe due process operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands covered by PD 27. 843 for. registered in the of the Republic of the Philippines. certification from acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's application for HLURB (zoning or classification. all located in Nasugbu. Case was remanded to DAR for proper  Requirements: Sworn application. citing zoning ordinance). EFFECT ON PRE-EXISTING CARP COVERAGE and PROTESTS).“all lands already classified as whether Hacienda Palico. and the zoning ordinance reservations. NOTE: DOJ Opinion No. respectively. (Please refer to the attached files together with this reviewer… The important  Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent provisions there are only the DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION. but applied also to real estate converted to non-agricultural uses of the said Municipality re-classifying certain portions of the petitioner’s prior to the effectivity of the CARL. in view of the undisputed fact that petitioner’s landholdings have been portion of said lots. was Tax Declarations of three haciendas. Banilad and reserved by Proclamation No.Atty. November 16. vs. which. among others. G. before June 15. In and the applicable administrative procedure. Batangas owned by Lots 836 and 839. DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of AUTHORITIES. petitioners' landholdings does not ipso facto give the Supreme Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural. Roxas & Co. Capanas . on April 26. therein. adjudicate over petitioner’s application for conversion of its haciendas from Thus. 4. Batangas. No. Disturbance compensation. 4 (Rules on exemption) .R. 1971. 6657. The agency charged for conversion is the DAR. Series of 2003. landholdings as non-agricultural or at the very least entitle the petitioner to apply for conversion as conceded by respondent DAR. industrial or residential before June 15. conversion Public notice. Haciendas Palico. 1999 Facts: Facts: This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu. 106593.AMaWS Page 15 . aforecited laws. The power to determine DAR AO No. Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite declared the Municipality of Nasugbu as a tourist zone. among others. Allarde. Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural commercial. CA. The petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three However. No. 44. the National housing Authority.R.1988 no longer need which exempts from the coverage of the CARL lies with the DAR. the case is hereby which have been vested prior to June 15. after the death of his father who had cultivated a 13 hectare converted to non-agricultural uses by Presidential Proclamation No.A. In 1959. 127876. Series of 1990 and the case of Natalia Realty. Inc and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas covered by the TCT No. 1988. 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance. 34627. No. the Republic on April 2. and petitioner Roxas & Co. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . remanded to the respondent DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and In order to implement the intent and purpose of the provisions of the determination of petitioner’s application for conversion. industrial or residential agricultural to non-agricultural. all lands that are already classified as commercial..that law. 1938 from Philippine Trust Company. Kalookan City.. the DAR has issued guidelines through AO No. 1520 which portion of the same lots. G. APPROVING  SC: .

of the petitioner to redeem the property in its acquisition price in the amount of The records show that as early as 1981. Enterprise. 843. Intermediate Appellate Court who affirmed the decision of the CAR. 111387. the same has been now a residential land. The petitioners were the agricultural lessees of a Riceland located in Parañaque Issue: Metro Manila. 1998. decided to develop it in to a residential subdivision.Atty. 1971. the PARAD denied the action of the lots) was reserved under Presidential Proclamation No. Capanas . inter alia. 1992. and is. the land in question was reclassified as residential zone under the the subject lots are agricultural land within the coverage of the CARP. for the housing had become moot and academic with regards the claim of the petitioner against program of the NHA. The CAR dismiss the petition for lack on the part minerals. 6657 took effect on June 15.A. agricultural land was defined under RA.AMaWS Page 16 . under Presidential Proclamation No. No. CA. filed an action for the redemption of the said property before as those land devoted to agricultural activities and not classified as forest. The record was remanded to the PARAD or the Provincial Agrarian Adjudication for the petitioner to exercise there right of redemption but since the  SC: As early as April 26. the landholding was reclassified as a 2.In 1989. who RTC Judge Allarde issued the injunction against NHA. The petitioner filed a motion before the DARAB or the outside the coverage of the CARL. the Tala Estate (included the disputed lots) was the petitioner Velasquez affirming the decision of the IAC stating that the case resrved. to enjoin the NHA from bulldozing further and making because of the failure of the DMC to pay its account. The petitioner filed a motion to the Supreme Court. Verily. Petitioner Velasquez. therefore.319. Nery and the Lorenzo sold the property to the Delta Motor’s Held: Corporation (DMC). Sps. the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the the DMC considering that the property had been foreclose by the PNB declaring agricultural activity however that the petitioner may redeem the property from the PNB and its transferee. No. residential and industrial land. a deed of sale of the said land in favor of the Remman Enterprise Inc.The housing project thereon. Mateo filed with the DAR the petition for the award to them of subject temporary restraining order enjoining the CAR’s decision pending the out come disputed lots under CARP. the respondent spouses Mateo. the Court of Agrarian Relation. Whether or not the land was an agricultural land or a residential land. In 1978. It has been considered as Petitioner Velasquez and the defendants appealed the decision of the CAR to the early as that time for residential purposes thus not within the ambit of CAR.R. 81-01. before Rep.et al. of the petition. On March 18. Inc. Later. in his capacity as leaseholder According to the Supreme Court. Series of 1981 agricultural lessee to the land in question. 843.. The PNB in 1986 executed constructions on the lots under controversy. The right of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee was categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity terminated and the property was now in the possession of the Remman contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R. June 8. G. relying on their claim that In 1981. Petitioner Velasquez filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court who issued a Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . the Tala Estate (including the disputed case had become moot and academic. 6657 agricultural tenant. 1971. the assailed Orders of the Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board who reverses the decision of the respondent Court declaring the lots under controversy as "agricultural PARAD stating that the land in question is an agricultural land and uphold the land" and restraining the petitioner from involving the same in its right of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee to recover the said land . 6657. brought ordinance issued by the city of Manila. are evidently bereft of any sustainable basis Remman Enterprise filed an appeal before the CA who reverses the decision of the DARAB because the land in question was already reclassified as residential land as early as 1981 converting it from agricultural land in to non-agricultural Advincula-Velasquez vs. for the petitioner to recover the property against the DMC since the land in question is housing program of the National Housing Authority. the Supreme Court issue a decision on the petition for review filed by As early as April 26. Act No.210 pesos but directing the defendant to maintain the petitioner as low density zone under Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No.2004 land. Held: Meanwhile. the land in question was mortgage before the respondent RTC a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of by the DMC to the PNB as a security for its obligation who later foreclose it preliminary injunction.

Sec. Series of 1990. Brgy. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.AMaWS Page 17 . 12 entitled "Revised parties. Held: the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform issued an Order dated Section 3(c) of the CARL defines agricultural land as that which is "devoted to September 13. In accord thereto. prejudiced by the illegal conversion of the land into a residential subdivision . Bacolod City for appropriate action .' portions of which read as follows: The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL was explained further by 'After a careful study of the facts of the case and the evidences presented by the the DAR in its Administrative Order No. forest. . more or reason that the placing of the said portion under CARP coverage (1. prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the registered residential or industrial land. Petitioners claim that . Instead. 1988. . 1994 in 'RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE agricultural activity . 1988 without affording due process to herein petitioners and without the necessity of Congress having first to amend Section 4 of the said law authorizing "On April 13. and not classified as mineral. 835-B of Bacolod Cadastre. identified as 'Potential CARP Beneficiaries' per Certification of OIC under R. Act National Irrigation Administration (NIA) dated June 9. 1. . the stand of Mr. it is beyond owners of a certain parcel of agricultural land consisting of 71 hectares.] is beyond recognition as the program does not apply to "In a Complaint dated February 12. et. Series of 1990. residential.. et al. PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION NO. Series of 1976 of the City Council of not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing Bacolod and as approved by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent (now HLURB) in its Resolution dated September 24. 44.. In effect the said application had conformed to the requirements of the law on exemption. . . that as prospective exclude or exempt at will from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian CARP beneficiaries of the land in question. With the above stated definition. 1994 issued by the said Commission. Issue: represented by Irving Villasor. 5153-A. which we quote: been classified as mineral. . 1988 shall be excluded from CARP coverage. Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined [i]nescapable conclusion that the subject property is exempted from CARP in R. by Atty. 'being former laborers. . . commercial or industrial use." Rep. . 1991 . there was no need for the private respondent to secure any subject land is not irrigable or is outside the service area of the irrigation system post facto approval thereof from the DAR in the locality. al vs Garilao portion.. 1994 stated that the No. . prior to June 15. DAR. Capanas . 3(c). IRVING P. which petitioners). the DARAB OIC Executive Director forwarded the complaint such exemption or exclusion from CARP coverage. SERIES OF 1990. VILLASOR. 1980 as per Certification authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential. . commercial and industrial areas. to [Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)].. it provides that lands which has already Agricultural Uses. T-79622.'" City. and evidenced by the Resolution No. it is confined only to agricultural lands. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of coverage considering the fact that the same was classified as residential as Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies.  SC: Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the dated June 22.Atty. forest. . Pahanocoy. which he planted to trees and developed into mini-forest should be Facts: covered by CARP[.A. . To this. Jr." issued pursuant to Section 49 of CARL.' their rights will be automatically covered by the CARL (RA 6657) upon its effectivity on June 15. 44. Lucia Realty Corporation and the Estate of Guillermo Villasor. Angel Lobaton. residential. 1994. Before any hearing could be conducted thereon. 6657.A. Bacolod devoid of legal and factual basis. . this Office finds the petition for exemption to be well founded. Region VI. commercial or industrial land. Petitioners. Espanola that the Jose Junio. 1994.5 hectare) is less. it is an ". 6657. it defines agricultural lands as lands devoted to [Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)] dated November 21. forest. known as Lot No. it is agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral. The Certification of the Metro Manila Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of Rep. Sta. ." Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . are bulldozing and leveling the subject property Whether the respondent DAR secretary had the inherent authority or power to for the purpose of converting it into a residential subdivision. Under Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Land to Non- DOJ Opinion No. filed with the [Department of Agrarian those which are already classified as residential lands prior to the effectivity of Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)] by complainants (some of whom are herein CARL on June 15. actual Reform Program (CARP) the subject agricultural land which was already occupants and permanent residents of Barangay Pahanocoy.

necessary for conversion. the respondents submitted the following documents. and. Berenguer Facts: d. "coordinated effort" of all concerned agencies. 1988. namely: 8 Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . filing on October the CARP. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian land was considered non-agricultural. Sorsogon. cancelled their titles and issued certificates of land ownership awards (CLOAs). recognized the fact Barangay Bibincalan. although Baribag was not impleaded in the respondents' application for the DAR relied on DAR Administrative Order (DAO) No.Atty. 9. not to the respondents' workers on the landholdings. was approved by HLURB (then Human or conversion of lands was not exclusively done by the DAR. covering their landholdings. 5 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon. 1988. a. 44. the DAR Secretary. They protested the notices of coverage. landholdings from CARP coverage. 1988.7815 hectares of infrastructure. and praying for the lifting of the notices of coverage. it was a Settlements Commission/Human Settlements Regulatory Commission).The certification dated August 27. therefore. stating. DAR vs.0649 hectares located in Barangay Bibincahan. the Department of Local Governments and Community Development. 1997 issued by the Office of the Zoning The respondents were the registered owners of several residential and industrial Administrator. stating that a parcel of Program (CARP) pursuant to Republic Act No. Sorsogon. No. as a that before the date of the law's effectivity on June 15. series of 1993.Department of Justice Opinion No. areas not for agricultural uses. Office of the Mayor.The certification dated May 18. 1988. and In April 1998. the respondents' landholdings in Bibincalan * were It is thus settled that with respect to areas classified and identified as zonal classified as residential and industrial. * where the respondents' properties were located. the reclassification residential and commercial area). the Human Settlements b. hence. among others. expanding the area of the poblacion to include Barangay Bibincalan. Department of Justice Opinion No. series of 1981. in the office of DAR Regional Director Percival Dalugdug (Regional City or Municipality Land Use Plan or Zoning Ordinance approved by HLURB Director Dalugdug) in Legaspi City. the respondents received from the DAR notices of coverage of their said landholdings by the Government's Comprehensive Agrarian Reform e. namely. beyond the coverage of Reform Law. series of 1990. required that properties should be considered excluded from the coverage of the CARL only if it was established that as of June 15.AMaWS Page 18 . Issue: In October and November 1998. 6657 on June 15. 1999 issued by HLURB. 1990. which exclusion. or industrial in the 5. Prior to this Order. or CARL). like those approved by the HSRC before the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15. 1998. Capanas . Sorsogon. without acting on the Whether or not the land is covered under RA 6657 respondents' application for exclusion. the date of effectivity of In support of their claim that their landholdings were already classified as the law.Resolution No. landholdings were situated in Barangay Bibincalan * within the Poblacion area of the Municipality of Sorsogon. declaring that the respondents' Sorsogon. Sorsogon.A. showing that Barangay Bibincalan * was part of the Central Business District. Zoning Administrator Raul Jalmanzar. 13 Rather. and one head of cattle to 1. signed by Deputized lands with a total area of 58. their application for exclusion of their before the effectivity of R. Sorsogon (classifying which was addressed to then DAR Secretary Florencio Abad. land. that the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Sorsogon. if it had been classified as residential. commercial. * among others. 44 dated March 16. there existed the minimum ratio of one head of cattle to one hectare of residential and industrial. to Held: the members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (Baribag). In ruling that the respondents' landholdings were not devoted to cattle raising. the DAR's clearance is no longer c.An excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Municipality of Commission and the DAR.

If. filed before the Court of First Instance. The CA found. 5. Verily. the the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of Sorsogon. Branch II. the insufficiency of the number of heads Facts: of cattle found during the semestral survey did not automatically mean that the landholdings were not devoted to the raising of livestock. 8 residential-1 in 1994. 1954. 4 On February 16. and was reclassified as of the joint estate. Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject property. showed that the limits of the poblacion area of the daughters. we cannot now hold differently. Consistent with Hilario and Natalia. which was earmarked for residential use in 1982. 1981 by the Sangguniang Bayan of had been raised by the couple since he was two years old. by still another woman. 7 Gregorio's brother. Capanas .Atty. cattle rustling.According to the DAR. or sale of the cattle. Sorsogon. at the time of the Noel v. docketed as Civil Case No. because the phrase reserved for residential is property. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP16. the landholding had already been the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics in the period from 1988 to 1992. but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. Sorsogon.000. In fact. he paid the taxes on the property. Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the regular administrator agricultural. was Alangilan v. the respondents' landholdings have to Dr. Said spouses were childless. 6 municipality. This finding was not disputed by the DAR.  SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as Subsequently. for we are bound by the finding of fact of the CA. the term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. Lanao del land use. Juan Nanaman. below the ratio prescribed under DAO No.AMaWS Page 19 . Also. holding that the respondents' landholdings were non-agricultural. and. 9 Said case went up to this Court in not a land classification category. It does not denote that the property has already been Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject reclassified as residential. 3 municipality included Barangay Bibincahan. as petitioner claims. Iligan City. As aptly explained by the DAR On April 30. where We rendered a Decision 10 on January 11. Gregorio also had two Sorsogon. 5 The deed of sale was notarized on been part of the poblacion of Sorsogon. In Heirs of Deleste vs Leviste view of the finding of the CA. CA. Hilaria died. Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property There is no dispute that as early as 1981. When Gregorio died in 1945. 1963. outside the coverage of the CARL. passed on March 12. would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance. Indubitably. Office of President appointed as special administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. contrary to petitioner's assertion. 9 at the time of the survey. Esperanza and Caridad. However. We concur with the CA The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were that there could be several reasons to explain why the number of cattle was the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo. indeed. Virgilio Resolution No.7 hectares (subject property). the subject landholding was still ruling of the CA that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late agricultural. was fully warranted. reclassifying the sought to be excluded based on the semestral survey conducted in Sorsogon by landholding as residential-1. 1954 and registered on March 2. 698. Sorsogon name of Deleste. that heads of cattle were really being raised in the landholdings of the respondents. only 15 heads of cattle were found within the 58 hectares Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994. The arrears in the payment of taxes from 1952 had been showed that Barangay Bibincahan was within the Central Business District of the updated by Deleste and from then on. Noel. affirming the effectivity of the CARL in 1988. 1954. including pestilence. 1995. consisting of 34. however. then there in contravention of DAO No. On May 15. where the respondents' landholdings were situated. reserved for residential in 1982. the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended deceased spouses. 9. series of 1993. 1954. as the administrator of the intestate estate of the Secretary. the tax declaration in consequently. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . February 17.

the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. (RA) 2264. On July 21. aSAHCE On February 28. the heirs of Deleste.AMaWS Page 20 . municipal and/or city councils are Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . the subject property. 15 The CLTs were registered on July 15. Concomitantly. It held. in DARAB Case No. petitioners herein. by the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance. 2004. October 21. v. 13 party to the said case. that the subject property was placed under the said program. 2001. 698 at the time the subject property was landowners. 698 was still pending before the CFI. respectively. in favor of private outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment respondents over their respective portions of Lot No. It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands. DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer representative. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Subsequently. Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued We agree with petitioners that the subject property. the subject property was surveyed. 2001.2611 hectares. among others. 01. X- 471-LN-2002. As a result. Presidential Decree No. Deleste. Capanas . Inc. 1407 was submitted to the LBP which issued a Memorandum of Valuation and a Certificate of Cash Deposit Held: on May 21. 1313. 1984. the notices and processes relative to the coverage placed under the coverage of the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a were sent to these heirs. 1407.Atty. 21 This was docketed as Reg. and held that whether the subject property is indeed exempt commercial/residential. it stated that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city ordinance has been approved by the Housing and Land Use In 1975. the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the subject Decision 22 declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending property." reclassifying the subject property as Series of 1990. 18 The claim folder for Lot No. respectively. 17 The survey of a portion of the land consisting of 20. the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the DAR Secretary or the latter's authorized Eventually. as mandated by DAR Administrative Order No. 1407. 1972. 1986. only the heirs EPs were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste who should have informed the DAR of Gregorio were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the of the pendency of Civil Case No. amending the Local Government Code. City Ordinance No. the subsequent reclassification of the subject property into a residential/commercial land. the PARAD in its Decision 25 dated March 15. Thus. 2004. was approved Whether the land is covered under agrarian reform on January 8. (PD) 27 was issued. 2002. CA. 2003. is on August 1. 3 of Republic Act No. who died in 1992. 11 issues of ownership. Thereafter. 2001 and October 1. each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it. known as the "Zoning Regulatory Board (HLURB). In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association. the DARAB. particularly Lot No. Regulation of Iligan City. 12486. 14 from the OLT Program is an administrative determination. while Civil Case No. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by (CLTs) in favor of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the DARAB in its Resolution 26 dated July 8. 2001 and September 12. filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify private respondents' EPs. 1313. on February 12. Further. particularly on right to due process of law. reversed the ruling of the Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. 1407. 45 this Court held that pursuant to Sec. designated as Lot No. 12 However. Issue: In 1991.share of the subject property to Deleste. 1999. and the violation of petitioners' constitutional Notably. Case No.

1236 hectares However. T-44664. which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988. the DAR granted the application in this not subject to the approval of the [DAR]. 3. (27) parcels of land. which zoning ordinance was approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Whether the land is covered under CARL. having an aggregate area of 2. which was enacted WHEREFORE. respondent sought the exemption of 27 parcels of land located in Barangay Aga. with an aggregate area of 21. the DAR declared as well that respondent substantially complied with the Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. involving twenty-seven commercial/residential area. premises considered. the lands subject of its application were already re-classified as part of the Residential Cluster Area specified in Zone A ISSUE: VII of the Nasugbu Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4. no longer need conversion consultation with the National Planning Commission. Respondent cited DOJ Opinion Held: No. specifically described in pages 1 and 2 of this Order. 1." wise: Likewise. Capanas . Nasugbu. 1313." Respondent claimed that prior to the of a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas. Nasugbu. 1997.1236 hectares and constituting portions of the land covered by Transfer the appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer- Certificate of Title . Series of 1982. forest. Commission (HSRC [now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)]) under HSRC Resolution No. 2002. . the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate located [in] Barangay Aga. Series of 1983. effectivity of the CARL on June 15.empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in approved prior to the effectivity of the CARL.. 1988. Batangas is hereby GRANTED. the Application for Exemption Clearance by the City of Iligan in 1975. 27. and only agricultural land 5 which is defined under Section 3 (c) thereof as "land devoted to agricultural activity . and not classified as mineral. 44 (1990) which provides that lands already classified by a valid zoning Having established through said documents that the 27 parcels of land are ordinance for commercial. their peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until a final determination has been made on the amount of disturbance Facts: compensation due and entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the PARAD of Batangas.AMaWS Page 21 . Proof of payment of disturbance compensation shall be submitted to this Office within Respondent asserted that Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) covers ten (10) days from such payment.The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject residential. Inc. On September 30.[12] being portions of TCT No.Atty. commercial or industrial land. Batangas." It was also emphasized clearance from the DAR. reclassified the subject property into a from CARP coverage filed by Roxas & Company.No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land until 21. 4. therein that "[t]he power of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is In its Order 11 of November 6. industrial or residential use.The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in Rom vs Roxas & co. 123. which ordinance was within the coverage of the said (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. . occupants who are determined by the PARAD to be entitled thereto. subject to to divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential the following conditions: Decree (PD) No.

who instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). for the purpose. otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) 13 of distributed to the tenant-beneficiaries. Proclamation 1637 dated April 18. and took effect on June 15. then DAR Undersecretary Jose C. or a large portion of it. 1283 & 1637 resulting in the negation of "full land ownership to qualified description so as to include. The DAR thus granted the application in an Order of the same date and of Doronilla. It claimed that the CARL does not cover the said property. or on March 15. N-70860 in his name. 6. 181.53 hectares of the land now covered by TCT No. DAR issued a "Notice of Acquisition" addressed to 98.312 hectares and revising its technical Nos. apart from being mountainous. may reasonably be considered tenant-farmers. of land surveys being conducted by the Bureau of Lands on what is now its property. thereby increasing the size of the reservation." but again "subject to private rights." Held: Earlier.requirements of DAR AO No. so it seems. if any 1990. These planters. by 20. had purposely. acquired Several basic premises should be made clear at the outset. Amado Araneta. Doronilla. now deceased. CLTs were coverage and final survey of the Doronilla property. Rizal to absorb "the population overspill in Greater Manila Area. 216746 exactly the same tenor. J. 1988 Proclamation 1637. No. Series of the segregated area for townsite purposes. 1989. and offering compensation at a valuation stated in the notice." Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . there be. some parts Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. designated as "Lungsod Silangan Whether or not CA erred in gave retroactive effect or application to Proclamation Townsite" (LS Townsite). 1987.D. However. 1990 and May 28. 1974. then President Corazon C. carving out June 20. upon the issuance of 1988. a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo. or a portion of it. On December 12. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131 30 names he considered bona fide "planters" of his land. surveyed. "subject to private rights. "all activities related to the OLT were stopped. formally protesting the series thus upheld the validity of said zoning ordinance. was indisputably agricultural.AMaWS Page 22 . in a memorandum of March 10." Issue: Then came the amendatory issuance. in fact. he Court recognized the power of a local government unit to classify and convert incidental to effecting compulsory land acquisition. 1991. 15 Alarmed by the turn of events whereby DAR was having its property. A-9999-014. Thereafter. the Araneta Estate land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL and addressed a letter 16 to DAR dated June 27. 1988. Rizal and reserving citing. (RA) eventually generated covering 73 hectares. The Araneta Estate followed its protest letter with two (2) more letters dated On June 21. other lands in the municipalities farmer-beneficiaries covered by P. the 1. in which it reiterated its request for conversion. devoted to rice and/or corn production tilled by Doronilla's tenants. provided concerned government agencies with a list of seventy-nine (79) On July 22. was then enacted. if any there be. 12 Republic Act No.645-hectare Doronilla over a week later.Atty. 7924 canceled and secured the issuance of property. with about 75 CLTs actually 6657. being part LBP vs Estate fof Araneta of the LS Townsite reservation. 27 of San Mateo and Montalban. covering 7. he had OCT No. series of 1994 in DAR ADM Case No. 1990. Medina. with a slope of Facts: more than 70 degrees and containing commercial quantities of marble deposit. 1983. Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. organized themselves into Samahang Nayon(s) so that the DAR could start ordered the Regional Director of DAR Region IV to proceed with the OLT processing their applications under the PD 27 OLT program. Immediately prior to ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of court litigation. A little the promulgation of PD 27 in October 1972. Capanas . 1977. within its coverage. then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283.

Petitioner prayed. INC. having been effectively classified as residential by force of owners in good faith. the importance of conducting an corresponding Notice of Valuation and Acquisition 5 was issued informing ocular inspection cannot be understated. n April 14. In this regard. to wit: the government is offering P7. Allarde where the Supreme Court held that lands reserved for. the HLURB 9 certification that agricultural lands and therefore. non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the classification of the land as industrial did not exempt it from the coverage of the [DAR]. Inc. since it is one of the steps designed to petitioner that a 37. The High Court the Municipality of Biñan.. the same has been categorized as not being devoted to agricultural were planted with palay. that the subject landholdings were classified land upon approval of its inclusion in the LS Townsite Reservation pursuant to as industrial. for the housing program of the executed the waivers or voluntary surrender. and. 1971 was reserved. No. the provisions of RA 6657 apply only to agricultural Petitioner then filed a Petition 6 before the Department of Agrarian Reform lands under which category the Doronilla property. inter ordinance to date. 1998. It ceased. to be agricultural untenanted up to the present. Inc. and. 1998. thus. The above [Natalia Realty. among other things. . Capanas . during the period material. GONZALO PUYAT & SONS.] ruling was reiterated in National Housing Authority vs.80 as compensation for the said property. and Proclamation 1637. and therefore outside the coverage of CARL. then DAR Secretary Hernani A.AMaWS Page 23 . the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage over the subject landholding informing petitioner that the subject Held: properties were being considered for distribution under the government's agrarian reform program. The Office of the acquisition and distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries and that President stressed this in its Decision. outside the ambit of said law. issued an Order 11 in favor of the respondent declaring that the subject properties are agricultural Facts: land. Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons. Laguna does not have any approved plan/zoning declared that since the Tala Estate as early as April 26. Respondents 8 on their part countered. (DAR). under Presidential Proclamation No. are not considered and treated as CARP considering that it was made only in 1997. before the MARO sends a Notice of Coverage to the landowner concerned. 10 activity contemplated by Section 3(c) of R. Braganza. wherein it argued that the properties were bought from their previous no longer falls.7353-hectare portion of its property is subject to immediate comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The foregoing Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . that the Notice approval the following excerpts from the appealed CA decision: of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition be lifted and that the properties be declared exempt from the coverage of CARP. the As aptly found by the Office of the President. unoccupied.A. Whether or not the land is exempted. is the registered owner of 14 parcels of Issue: land. among other things.Atty.To restate a basic postulate. 6657. that the same remains uncultivated. the Court cites with Reform Program (CARP). 843. In other words. prior to the effectivity of [RA] 6657 . 4 Thereafter. that they are not among those farmer-beneficiaries who alia. he must first conduct a preliminary ocular inspection to determine whether or not the property may be covered under CARP.988. Inc. exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian the said reclassifying presidential issuance.071. 2001. following Natalia Realty.vs RUBEN ALCAIDE On June 8. . that the converted to. on November 15. that the subject landholdings [NHA].

entitled "2003 proceedings because of the DAR's failure to comply with administrative due Rules Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition of Agricultural process of sending Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition of the Lands Under RA 6657. 262 SCRA 245. Court of Appeals. In the AGRARIAN DISPUTE [Section 3(d)] event that a piece of land sought to be placed from CARP coverage is later found  any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold. and upon because it is unoccupied and uncultivated.AMaWS Page 24 ." ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS More importantly. tenancy. which are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. more so. unsuitable for agricultural purposes. the check box allotted for the all-important items "Land petitioner's landholdings cannot be the proper subject of acquisition and Condition/Suitability to Agriculture" and "Land Use" was not filled up. conducted. entitled "Issuance of Certificate of  “tenancy relationship” Exemption for Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Found Unsuitable for Agricultural Purposes. subject land is devoted to or suitable for agricultural purposes.undertaking is reiterated in the latest DAR AO No. there is no factual basis for the MARO to declare that the substantiation of factual issues. v. of 1997. and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and ocular inspection. 5-1). The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated. the MARO shall prepare the undertaken thereon. 5) Personal cultivation by tenant [1996]). it follows that however. the CARP has not yet been resolved. Until such determination. 47** AcICHD Found on the records of this case is a ready-made form Preliminary Ocular Thus. Inc. "1. a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership. The 2) Subject matter is agricultural land CARP was not intended to take away property without due process of law 3) Consent of parties 4) Purpose is agricultural production (Development Bank of the Philippines vs. s." Section 1 [1. the question of whether or not petitioner's properties could be covered by Inspection Report (undated) signed by the concerned MARO. these involve separate report on the record detailing the result of the ocular inspection factual controversies. However. s. the Supreme Court nullified the CARP acquisition  All requisites must concur. the need to conduct ocular inspection to determine initially whether or not the property may be covered under the CARP is one of the steps 1) Parties (landowner & tenants) designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. There is no eventual distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Court of Appeals. The Supreme actually conducted an on-site ocular inspection of the subject land.. 01.Atty. and stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture  any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL the DAR is duty bound to issue. Without an Court is not a trier of facts. 321 SCRA 106 [1999]. there is a need for the DAR to ascertain whether or not the NOC (CARP Form No." (NOC stands for Notice of Coverage) same may be placed under CARP coverage. 34. of 2003. Verily.1] thereof provides that: landowner concerned. These circumstances cast serious doubts on whether the MARO the review of factual matters is not the province of this Court. absence of one does not make one a tenant. Capanas . issue Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition. In Roxas & Co. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process 6) Sharing of harvest between parties be observed in the taking of private property.1Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) — After Considering the claim of appellant that the subject land is not agricultural determining that a landholding is coverable under the CARP. Memorandum Circular No. Interestingly. and no agricultural activity is being accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . the landowner concerned is entitled to.

Case involving agri land does not that private respondents are mere overseers. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico. he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner. Isidro v.here there was agreement which contradicts petitioner’s contention should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. landowners never gave consent. RTC dismissed bec 2. This belongs to DARAB. CA This falls under DARAB . Private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a did not give any consideration for its use. Capanas . Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land . citing Chico vs. They were acquitted but required Zerna to return inconsistency Bejasa testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owner’s P1. Since this amount is intertwined  Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Trial court declared private respondent as FACTS: agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA. There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in MONSANTO v.100 to Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto did not consent to share. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent. unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of coconuts was presented to prove this. which she leased to Malabanan. Private resp is owner of land. Bejasas continued to stay on the land and 1. Resp. Moreover. Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy or impliedly relationship and only after hearing that. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts vacate. Failure to 1. resp. 284 Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case.Atty. the court . CA pursuant to tenurial arrangements.AMaWS Page 25 . Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence BEJASA v. Private respondents were overseers at the time of taking by virtue of land is agricultural and so agrarian. with all the . Management was left entirely to private respondent Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. so private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR. There was no writing proof of sharing in harvest. Petitioner allowed respondent to plant There was no contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate coconut. SC:  Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of  tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing. weeding and ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas harvesting. harvest 2. RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it acted beyond and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans from the palay by way of when it ruled that agri tenancy between parties. from the property. While Bejasa testified. SC: Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it. if tenancy is shown. Sister of priv resp allowed Isidro to occupy  There is Agrarian dispute: swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon demand. SC said only Bejasa’s word  Sps. Private resp.100 as balance from proceeds of copra sale. yet at one time. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established verbally or question. be it in the form of rent or a shared farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would. CA . and wife were personally plowing. harvest of coconut. is claiming the amount of P1. Agreement . SC found no reasons to disturb findings expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Private respondents contend that this P1. planting. Six requisites were not present. CA of contractual relationship. Private respondent was allowed by with the resolution of agra dispute. foreclose their being tenants.100 proceeds of copra sale. Being overseers does not automatically make such case agrarian. Besides testimony was suspicious because of owned by petitioner. Who is entitled to P1. SC: 3. Years later.100 is their compensation SUPLICO v. Petitioner claim that he was paying rent for use of land. There 4. Candelaria owned two parcels of land. rental. Suplico threatened to eject priv. etc. CA correctly ruled that DARAB has Suplico to till the land while Suplico will provide the farm implements jurisdiction. expressly complaint.

SC: SC: Absence of tenancy relationship.Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and resp denied cultivation & waiver of rights was executed by some. Even Cultivation / possession not proven. proof must be adhered”.AMaWS Page 26 . waiver private lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation – of rights constitutes abandonment. wife and daughter were residents of California. EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before set and that Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600. The taking of property violated due This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so. no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property. Private respondents claiming tenancy.Atty. beyond the ambit process (CA was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. CA report that Almuete was unknown and waived his rights. on appeal. Valencia is the owner of land. All  no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants. Unknown to Almuete. Court of PASONG BAYABAS v. private ESCARIZ v. CLTs SC: Tenancy is not presumed. as admitted in their complaint a number of them have simply FACTS: occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage being . such more other complainants. Coverage Section 4: All alienable and disposable public lands. There was no evidence to prove consent of parties were upheld by Exec Sec and CA. aside from self-serving they filed a complaint for damages alleging surreptitious conversion. Roa was denied due of agrarian dispute. DARAB an action for recovery of possession and reconveyance before trial court. Possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner. is needed. SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to prove the existence of the following elements: (a) the consent of the parties and ALMUETE v. it is unfortunate that they have not shown that agreement did not prove tenancy .534 – “self serving statement are inadequate. Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property. she leased the property for five (5)years primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives to Fr. During the period of his lease. Consideration should be harvest sharing.” Sec. By analogy. upheld but CA reversed.. 5 “The distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed respondent is landlord. Facts: Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land without Valencia’s written consent. claimed they are actual tillers of land.000per year. Independent evidence. On the VALENCIA v. Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning SC : no tenancy ordinance. CA reversed were later awarded with CLTs after they filed application with DAR. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership) (b) the sharing of harvests. Petitioners. No substantial evidence that private Sec. v. priv statements. their self-serving statements. coverage to the proper party). Andres Flores under a civil law lease concept. within ten years from effectivity hereof. REVILLEZA : “tenancy is not presumed” respondents were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia. No proof was presented except for approved by DAR. DARAB considered petitioner a tenant. and sharing of harvest. CA contrary. Almuete filed DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery possession. Valencia demanded vacate but refused. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform between petitioners and respondent. Roxas & Co. possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been by authority of a valid contract of agricultural tenancy. Petitioner is After lease. Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent. CA : “no evidence” Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as process. 63: “The initial amount needed to Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . RTC was competent to try the case. Capanas . their cultivation. Andres was awarded homestead patent due to investigation HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. Andres also FACTS: represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone Jugalbot was issued EP. migrated to US and returned only in 1998. No concrete evidence of cultivation. As to the remaining twenty and assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for P20. Plus CA findings. Inc.

during the lifetime of Leopoldo delos Reyes. denominated as "KASUNDUAN farmworkers. including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or controversy.000. shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and she inherited a parcel of land consisting of stony land." executed on July 10. Bulacan. tenancy. San Fernando. excluded the stony portion. San Ildefonso. removed the case dated May 3." 3 This was followed by another agreement. but Leopoldo delos Reyes owned a parcel of land located in Barangay Sumandig in petitioners refused to heed the request. Capanas .Atty. which Jesus Fajardo religiously complied with. representation of persons in negotiating. Executive Order No. allotting the same to petitioner. Provincial arrangements. he was allowed by Leopoldo delos Reyes to erect a whether leasehold. Bulacan. ANITA R. 63 as follows: “The amount needed to implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the On December 22. 299. vs. which was referred to the DAR. Bulacan. Pampanga. San Ildefonso. whether the NG PAGHAHATI NG LUPA AT PAGTATALAGA NG DAAN UKOL SA MAGKABILANG disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary. rent was provisionally fixed at 27. not devoted to other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos agriculture. petitioner cultivated the land. sometime in the 1960s. changing. FLORES and that the land. or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. 2000. she alleged that. It relates to any controversy relating LUPA. 2014. San Ildefonso. or lessor and lessee. and that the use and occupation of the stony part of the land was by mere tolerance only. tenants. "KASUNDUAN SA HATIAN SA landowner and tenant. RA 8542: amended Sec. tenancy.923 sq m.42 Held: cavans per year. PANIG. No. 1988. over lands devoted to house for his family on the stony part of the land.000. as the sole heir of the late Leopoldo delos Reyes. From the time An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements. is untenable. inherited the property. It includes On January 26. which allegedly terminated Agrarian Reform Office. 21: respondent Anita Flores. Baliuag. Sec. In February 1999. any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and herein respondent Anita Flores. and other agrarian reform beneficiaries. which is the subject of agriculture. that Jesus Fajardo was then allowed to erect a house on the stony part of the land. Bulacan. 1991. against “The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this petitioners with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). 2000. the instant case involves a controversy regarding tenurial Anita Flores and Jesus Fajardo. Region III. and other pertinent laws. which was divided equally between the two parties. Anita other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to Flores and Jesus Fajardo executed an agreement. the Legal Officer advised the parties to ventilate their claims from the ambit of R. 6657. Regional Office.” RA 9700. 8532 complaint. inter alia. Per Order 2 from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Hacienda Buenavista. he allowed petitioner Jesus Fajardo to cultivate said land.implement this Act for the period of ten years upon approval hereof shall be and counterclaims with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of (DARAB).A. assisted by her husband Bienvenido Flores. and land suitable and devoted to agriculture located in Barangay (P150. 2351 an area of 10. 1991. The net harvests were divided equally Issue: between the two until 1975 when the relationship was converted to leasehold Whether or not MTC or the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the case. that. therefore. or otherwise. 4 In the Report and Recommendation the tenancy relationship between the parties and. No. until June 30. upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. In 1963. Jesus Fajardo requested the former to allow him to work and cultivate that portion of land devoted to agriculture. Bulacan. SPOUSES JESUS FAJARDO and EMER FAJARDO. Leopoldo delos Reyes died. Malolos. maintaining. stewardship. His daughter and sole heir. fixing.”. The contention that the Kasunduans. There still exists an agrarian Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . respondent approached petitioners and Facts: verbally informed them of her intention to repossess the stony portion.00)” Sumandig. xxx. a complaint for ejectment was filed by herein Agrarian Reform Fund. tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture. Apparently.AMaWS Page 27 . On June 28. there was a conflict of claims in the interpretation of the Kasunduan between Undeniably. wherein the parties agreed to deduct from Lot to.000. In the Act.

respondents asserted that Vicente is not a tenant but a mere regular originates from the relationship of landlord and tenant. Seeing the letter of Alice as a threat to his peaceful possession of subject farmland which might impair his security of tenure as a tenant. Since then. 1995 concur in order to establish the existence of tenancy relationship. Ronald. He averred that in 1970. 25 All the requisites must Controversy arose when Alice sent to Vicente a letter 6 dated January 16. Vicente filed The essential element of consent is sorely missing because there is no proof that before the regional office of DARAB in Region III a Complaint for Maintenance of the landowners recognized Vicente. an incident Preliminary Injunction. expressly or impliedly. instituted him as tenant-caretaker of the entire mango plantation. He also alleged that he was allowed to the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of improve and establish his home at the old building left by Ang Tibay Shoes landlord and tenant .Atty. Later on. She asked him to vacate the property as soon as possible. or property. Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). such as "Indeed. cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations . although Vicente claims that he is a tenant of respondents' Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . terminated by the Kasulatan is of no moment. The fruits were involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or then divided equally between them. And. The same may have arisen. Arsenio Tanco (Arsenio).AMaWS Page 28 . the following essential requisites must be present: land consisting of 28. agricultural production. 1199. continuance of the relationship of landlord and tenant — at the time of the dispute. the litigation is (then) farm worker. 24 For On December 18. If the same existed immediately. it was partitioned among the agricultural land. through the Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner and a DARAB. smudging. ." Issue: In the case at bar. and. and the informing him that subject landholding is not covered by the Comprehensive absence of one or more requisites is fatal. cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner. (6) there is sharing of the harvests between the parties. and often times arises. (3) there is consent between the parties. we affirm the findings of the CA that the essential requisites of consent and sharing are lacking. Insofar as Alice is said relationship has been lawfully terminated. (2) the subject matter is was devoted to mango plantation. section 21 of the Republic Act No. Bulacan. The land (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant. . After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case. (4) the purpose is respondents. They stressed that Vicente never worked and has no employer- shortly. pruning. . he has been performing all phases of farm works. shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of located at the middle of the plantation. he is in actual possession of the Court of Agrarian Relations. ALICE TANCO The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that Facts: one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. Presently. or if the dispute Held: originates from such relationship. The severance of the tenurial arrangement will not render the action tenant once they agree. husband of Alice. Capanas .dispute because the controversy involves the home lot of petitioners. or if the dispute springs or concerned. or that they hired him. as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land. and Patrick. precisely from the In their Answer. (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant. 1975. As long as the subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the termination of the relationship. the case is cognizable by the DAR. before the controversy and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not employee relationship with Geraldine. to undertake jointly the beyond the ambit of an agrarian dispute. respondents denied having instituted any tenant on their previous termination of such relationship. petitioners' claim that the tenancy relationship has been WHETHER or not VICENTE IS A BONA FIDE tenant.4692 hectares located in Norzagaray. . respondent Alice Tanco (Alice) purchased a parcel of tenancy relationship to exist. provides that 'all cases clearing.' This jurisdiction does not require the and continues to cultivate the land. 23 VICENTE ADRIANO vs. and spraying of the mango trees. as their legitimate Peaceful Possession with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of tenant. the arising from the landlord-tenant relationship.

Susano and their son Norberto R. were self-serving and have no evidentiary value. 27 for two reasons: first. and landowner never acquiesced to Vicente's cultivating the land. respondents failed to show that Pastor owned other agricultural lands in implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of excess of seven hectares or urban land from which he derived adequate income. by Operation Land Transfer. Herein respondents. as discussed above. Susano. These cannot suffice because was reduced by Pastor in 1986 to 8 cavans of palay per agricultural year. Yatco. which rent consent other than his self-serving statements. According to respondents. Macario and openly occupied it.0138-hectare parcel of land known as Lot 5.0138 hectares is not covered by the OLT program. 51 we rule that the subject land cannot be subject to the OLT program of P. Macario's program. Here. Pastor subdivided Lot 1108 into three portions of which he sold portions of it without Macario's knowledge. insist that while no devoted to rice and corn into a leasehold relationship as of October 21. Since However. the subject land is less than seven hectares.696 square meters. must be presented to show that there was sharing of Juanita Clamor.552 square meters of Lot 1108-A to spouses Felix Pacheco and evidence. We find in favor of petitioners. while the disputed landholding which had an original aggregate area Pastor was godfather to one of Macario's children.AMaWS Page 29 . It is settled that mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farm Whether or not there was a tenancy relation between Pastor Samson and worker into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws. the same may still request. the essential requisite of sharing of harvests is lacking. albeit under its Operation Land Leasehold (OLL) devoted the rest of the land to palay cultivation. Neither can we agree with the DARAB's theory of implied tenancy because the No.Tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7) hectares or less shall not be covered 1108 of the Tala Estate Subdivision located in Bagumbong.D. there was no evidence presented to show sharing of harvest in the context They aver that Macario came to know of the transaction only after Chan visited of a tenancy relationship between Vicente and the respondents. the DAR Memorandum on the "Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small Landowners" dated July 10. 30 It is Macario Susano and in binding herein petitioner. 54 Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Moreover. independent and concrete evidence is needed to prove consent of the landowner. no evidence was presented to establish the presence of religiously paid 15 cavans of palay per agricultural year to Pastor. such as receipts. SAMSON vs. Samson (Pastor) owned a 1. MERCEDES R. 1975 is explicit: Facts: Pastor M. together with the other requisites of tenancy relationship. the harvest between the landowner and the tenant. . tenancy must be present. The only the property sometime in October 1990 accompanied by an employee from the evidence submitted to establish the purported sharing of harvests were the city government. The OLL program placed landowners and tenants of agricultural land wife Mercedes R. Applying our pronouncement in Levardo v. SUSANO Moreover. as required by Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. petitioner's allegations of continued possession and Issue: cultivation do not support his cause.D.agricultural lot in Norzagaray. Capanas . 474. 53 Pastor was approached by his friend Macario Susano (Macario) who asked for permission to occupy a portion of Lot 1108 to build a house for his family. Pastor acceded to Macario's of only 1. No. Macario and his family occupied 620 square meters of Lot 1108 and be covered by P. . 52 ESTATE OF PASTOR M. The relation of the land owner and tenant-farmers in these areas shall be leasehold . Bulacan. 27. 28 Self-serving statements are not sufficient. Independent Pastor sold 2. the agricultural tenant must prove that he transmitted the landowner's share of the Held: harvest. for second. allegedly also without Macario's knowledge and consent. Likewise. allegations of Vicente which. essential that. 1972.Atty. Besides. and that he has continuously cultivated agricultural leasehold contract was executed by Pastor and Macario. Caloocan City. no written notice was sent by Pastor to Macario prior to the sale to Chan of Lot 1108-C comprising an area of 6.

we are thus unable to agree with DARAB's ruling had been farming it for a long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4. 5 equivalent thereof in pesos as rent are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . respondent complained that she lent the land to Barangay Case No. being a legal relationship. concrete evidence on record adequate to prove the element of sharing. respondent's complaint in In Barangay Case No. that Allingag also stated that petitioner of sharing cannot be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence. 99-6 was that the rental or the amount she receives from petitioner in 1992 without an agreement.000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. ejectment and payment of rentals before the Department of In the case at bar. DARAB and the CA are unanimous in their Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Rabang also claimed that petitioner and cultivation over the subject land for more than 30 years. rentals. because self-serving statements are inadequate. sharing of harvests. The Adjudicator said substantial evidence prove the tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent. Capanas . The Adjudicator It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural noted the certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) that land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. was a de jure tenant must be established.Atty. that Barangay Tanods said that evidence is necessary to prove personal cultivation. no independent and concrete evidence were adduced by respondents to prove that there was indeed consent and sharing of harvests Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant between Pastor and Macario. while the RARAD. establish a finding of tenancy relationship between Pastor and Macario. however. the mutual will of the said that the affidavits of Allingag. Independent and concrete petitioner is the registered farmer of the land. that what she receives in return from petitioner is not much. Contrary to what is mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the land. Leasehold relationship is not brought about by the petitioner's failure to prove his payment of rentals by appropriate receipts. Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are self- parties to that relationship should be primordial. CRESENCIA BUGARIN Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship Facts: Held: The matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondent's admission that Respondent owns a parcel of land. Consequently. Issue: JUAN GALOPE vs. and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on which is signed by respondent and was even attached as Annex "D" of her her own. docketed as DARAB Case No. Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact possession and cultivation of the land. and mere congruence of facts but.AMaWS Page 30 . 14 This fact is evident on the record 15 of said case petitioner is insignificant. Tenancy relationship cannot be The DARAB found no tenancy relationship between the parties and stressed that presumed. To recall. she receives rentals from petitioner.But the fact that Macario. The DARAB added that respondent's intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as implied tenancy for such lending was without The affidavits executed by three of respondents' neighbors are insufficient to consideration. Petitioner farms the land. Rabang claimed that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and and Macario Susano. respondents' predecessor-in-interest. The DARAB noted away with by conjectures. a receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented. required by law. Represented by Celso Rabang. there must be hired him only as farm helper. entitled to security of tenure. The case was not settled. To prove said that petitioner is a farmer of the land. Petitioner countered that respondent cannot recover the land yet for he DARAB petition. no specific evidence was cited to support such conclusion that the latter gave nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary other than their observation that Pastor failed to protest Macario's possession consideration for the use of the land. Cesar Andres. the elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done the elements of consent and sharing are not present.000 to that the affidavits 16 of witnesses that petitioner pays 15 cavans of palay or the P6. sharing of harvest. conclusion that an implied tenancy relationship existed between Pastor Samson 9378. For implied tenancy to arise it is serving and are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present. 99-6. respondent filed a petition for recovery of possession. and that respondent's own witness. or petitioner is the tenant of the land. that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioner's consent of the landowner.

Indeed. Constitution rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten tenancy agreement.citizens of Philippines over 18 years old & homesteaders right over the right of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian not an owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII. but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . his widow or heirs. The purpose of personally cultivating these lands. their relationship is agricultural land. 1987 Constitution)  designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land.) No. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit provisions of a written contract alone. otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code. a farm land. et al. Celso Rabang.6. 170 SCRA 706 agricultural leasehold relation may exist upon an oral agreement. but petitioners/tenants Gabino Alita refuse to their relationship is clearly to bring about agricultural production.A.) Respondent's act of allowing the petitioner to cultivate her land and receiving  expressly recognized in Sec. that petitioner paid nothing for the the homesteader. 3844. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine homestead (CA 141. Art XIII. by private respondents’ predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent Respondent is the landowner. recognizes that an Alita vs.6) enactment of the Public Land Act or CA No. Thus. Such admission belies the claim of conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of repurchase by respondent's representative. Both the Philippine constitution and the CARL respect the superiority of the  who are qualified . processes in palay farming. 6. emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation. CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec. The subject matter of under the provisions C. petitioner is her tenant. No. Held: petitioner's personal cultivation of the land 21 is conceded by respondent who We agree with the petitioners in saying that PD 27 decreeing the likewise never denied the fact that they share in the harvest. However. relying n the provisions of PD 27 and PD 316 and appurtenant harvest. use of the land. petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Zamboanga del Norte wer acquired Thus. After the vacate. Section 5 18 of Republic Act (R.Atty.of nonpayment of rentals. 141. Section 116) within five years after the grant of the Constitution which provides: patent. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he  A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence. herein are desirous of the cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the harvest. the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. Respondent's motion 20 to supervise harvesting and threshing. After that five-year period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead. Pursuant to such homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the Reform statute. 19 They mutually agreed to Private respondents/owners Enrique Reyes.AMaWS Page 31 . respondent's admission confirms their homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation or statement that rentals are in fact being paid. 3. a remedial Chapter II (Coverage) measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution. further confirms the purpose of their agreement. Capanas . Reform Statute. CA.A. “The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and HOMESTEAD PATENT protection of the poor. Facts: Two parcels of land in Tungawan. regulations issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present. Lastly.xxx”  filed at CENRO where land being applied is located. such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec. Sec. subsistence and for the satisfaction of life’s other needs. 141. In this regard.

neither of the conditions for retention is present. and as decided by the Supreme Court in Patricio vs.” Emancipation Patents precipitately issued to them are null and void for being contrary to law. (Public Land Act) PD 27. As approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to admitted by petitioner herself. compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the In the case at bar. thus she is entitled to retain the area to the exclusion of her tenants. other natural resources. The law SC: makes no exceptions whatsoever in its coverage. it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive original homestead grantee who still owned the same when RA 6657 was Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No..D. Bayug grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at and Alita vs. 6 thereof. Republic Act Petitioner Florencia Paris is the owner of 10. contending that the lands subject of the instant petition are covered by Section 6. thus.“The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship. Clearly. applies to all tenanted parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur thru homestead patent private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of  petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27 share-crop or lease-tenancy. Alfeche. That original homestead Homestead Patents.Bukidnon. proviso supporting the inapplicability of P. the right to retain an area of 7 hectares is not absolute. Held: ALITA v. 6: premised on the condition that the landowner is cultivating the area sought to Provided. Provided further.. The said parcels are fully tenanted by private respondents are subject to land reform. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteader’s rights and such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it. clearly not cultivating them. who are recipients of Emancipation Patents in their grantees under Sec. It is Sec. the tenants are not supposed to acquire the subject land and the lands. 6657. the subject parcels are fully tenanted. Petitioner further alleged that she owns the subject property as Additionally. which is a superior right over that of tenant- continue to cultivate said homestead. Capanas .AMaWS Page 32 . 27 to lands covered by homestead As regards to the land. 6657 likewise contains a approved. the homesteaders and their heirs have the right to cultivate the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they their homesteads personally. Facts: Even under the current primary law on agrarian reform.  However. operation. to which the application of PD 27 is suppletory. under which the EP  private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired 2 sought to be canceled here were issued to respondents.Atty. et al. not will she personally cultivate any part thereof. 364 SCRA 110 landholdings. she has no right to retain any portion of her Paris vs. “xxxx. and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral under CARL. That original homestead grantees or their direct be retained or will actually cultivate it upon effectivity of the law. subject to prior rights. CA. the landowner may retain an area of not more than 7 hectares if  Phil. therefore. CA: (1989) Petitioner’s contention is without legal basis. The said Act lays down the rights of homestead Dionisio Alfeche. including lands of public domain under lease or Petitioner contends that since she is entitled to a retention of 7 concession suitable to agriculture. petitioner has applied for retention of 7 hectares patents like those of the property in question. homestead rights of hectares under PD 27 and/or 5 hectares and 3 hectares each for her children small settlers.” CARL also. whether classified as landed estate or not. Undoubtedly. petitioner's lands Paitan. she is cultivate said homestead. the fact that neither the tenants nor the Land Bank [has] paid a single centavo whenever applicable in accordance with law. reading. in the disposition or utilization of for the said land.6146 hectare of land in (RA) No. PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA 141 Petitioner’s claimed entitlement to retain 7 hectares is also untenable. states: “In all cases. further. Nowhere therein does it  PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and appear that the lots obtained by homestead patents are exempt from it transferring to them ownership of land they till. names pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under PD 27 notwitstanding Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .” farmers. Retention Limits.. which provides the retention limit. PD 27.

Under RA 6657. Sec. In this case. 3) which require no qualifying condition (Sec.6 of RA 6657. ALFECHE (2001) 2.Indisputably. that shall exempt their lands.1988) per DAR Adm. It is the fact “That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries”.units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . That parcels of land are covered by homestead will not automatically exempt them from operation of land reform. rights of homestead grantee are provided but with condition: only for “as long as they continue to cultivate them”.  Who may apply for retention  Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original  Period to exercise right of retention homestead grantee. DIRECTOR. only for "as long as they continue to cultivate" NCC: conjugal – total is 5. are not entitled to awards of three (3) landowner from retaining the area. absolute (presumed) – not to exceed 5 Neither petitioner nor her heirs are personally cultivating the subject homesteads. 2003: continued cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs capital/paraphernal . homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and RETENTION RIGHTS retain the original homesteads.3. (Appeal) SC :  Petitioner’s contention is w/o legal basis. Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares (RA 9700. petitioner can retain five (5) hectares in accordance with Section 6 of RA 6657.Provincial.6) “SEC. Issuance of EPs/CLOA’s to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar Petitioner's heirs. she is entitled to retain the lands to the exclusion of  Where to file tenants. PD applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands primarily devoted to rice and corn. however. CA be entitled to retain such area. Nowhere does it appear that lots obtained by homestead patents are exempted from its operation. and PARIS v.  Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of retention  Operating produces : MARO – PARO – REG. In fact. which requires no qualifying condition for the landowner to DAEZ v. . S. So DAR was ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec. CLTs the farm. city and municipal government . Order # 2.AMaWS Page 33 . Capanas . at least 15 years of age.2003 respondents Alfeche.  Retention by landowner: 5 hectares  Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided: 1.not to exceed 5 provided with judicial separation that shall exempt their lands from land reform coverage. since they are not actually tilling the parcels or directly managing covered in later found to be part of landowner’s retained area. The DAR and the CA found that respondents were the ones who LANDOWNER’s RETENTION RIGHTS had been cultivating their respective portions of the disputed properties. EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land hectares each. It is the fact of FC (Aug. She admitted that land is fully tenanted by private DAR Adm. capital/paraphernal – not more than 5 each but not them. of private respondent were leased w/o according Daez her right of choice. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm  Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of 13 hectares. Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs? However.Sec. s.Atty. 2. Order No.et al. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. That parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not exceed 10 automatically exempt them from the operation of land reform.

Provided. directly & the time of the conduct of field investigation of the landholding under CARP. local children-awardees. of the land. forest reserves. school sites. mosque sites. shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or the LBP within (b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) a period of two (2) years from the date of transfer. reforestation. mosque sites.(now Del Monte). penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt) 3. Packing Corp. or negligence or misuse of the land and support extended to such as roads and bridges. reforestation. wildlife. Unauthorized sale Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 1988 up to  The subject lands are exempted because they are actually. public markets. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL (a) Lands ADE used for parks.Atty. forest reserves. school sites 4. Qualifications of Children-Awardees. following rights and obligations:  While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. 10. 06-06 Sec. and CENTRAL MINDANAO v. and cemeteries.1 Filipino citizen. church sites and convents. that the children or the spouse of the transferor sanctuaries and breeding grounds.AMaWS Page 34 . — The children-awardees shall have the agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious.2 At least fifteen (15) years of age. exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus.modes of acquisition to be used for actual. wildlife. whose landholding is subject of acquisition and distribution under the CARP may (b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) be awarded and given preference in the distribution of said lands if he/she (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL government. university in years to come. seeds and seedlings research. however. Sec. By the nature of CMU. church sites and convents. seeds and seedlings by the government in agrarian reform areas.3 Actual tillers or one directly managing the farm as of June 15. transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to the Sec. or to the LBP. or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (a) Lands ADE used for parks.2 Lands awarded to qualified children of landowners may not be sold. the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly connected to 4. communal burial grounds and cemeteries. with the approved local comprehensive land use plan. Rights and Obligations. watersheds and mangroves (exempt).” (RA 9700. consistent grounds for the forfeiture of their right as such. penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt) Exemptions from coverage (Section 10) DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. Direct management shall refer to the cultivation of the land through personal including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for supervision under the system of labor administration. and (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense. Capanas . shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section xxx. public parks and barangay plazas or squares. fish SECTION 3. It shall be interpreted establishing seed and seeding research along the lines of farm management as an actual major activity being performed  The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of by the landowner's child from which he/she derives his/her primary source of CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a income. communal burial grounds 3. watersheds and mangroves (exempt).1 All children-awardees shall exercise diligence in the use. — The child of a landowner sanctuaries and breeding grounds.3 The children-awardees may avail of any support services being provided and campuses including experimental farm stations. 4) 4. the need for vast tract of SECTION 4. which is a school established to promote agriculture & industry. school sites meets all of the following criteria: DaCTcA and campuses including experimental farm stations. direct and exclusive public purposes. cultivation and the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational institution maintenance of the land including the improvements thereon. 10. resettlement sites. research. fish (10) years. DARAB 3. and other violations under existing guidelines shall be government facilities.

7881 to R. petition to question DAR then appealed to SC contending and claiming that the subject properties the constitutionality of some portion of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law have already been classified as agricultural based on the tax declaration and is moot and academic with the passage of RA 7881. CA Issue: Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural.A. The DAR then issued a Notice of and prawn farms. prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. exemption of the land from agrarian reform but the same was denied. 274 SCRA 30 Facts: Facts: Parcels of land in Jala-Jala. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Republic vs. directly and question. Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered by mere ocular inspection. based on the report submitted by the commission. 6657 survey the land. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless it is manifest exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL. aquaculture industry. academic with the passage of R. Chapter II of RA 6657. that must be submitted when applying for exception from CARP. Secretary of DAR. No. CA.A. therefore is covered by CARL. They question Sections 3[b]. the Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from SC: CARL. school is in best position to resolve & answer the No. the question DAR administrative order no. 4. Sanchez v. Application was denied and on appeal of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government by virtue of the Court of Appeals created a commission to conduct ocular inspection and the amendments introduced by R. challenged RA 6657 which coverage lands devoted to the “land devoted for agricultural activity and not classified as minerals.Atty. 6[d].  As to determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary Section 2 of Republic Act No. that CMU has no real need for land. 13. forest. In view of the foregoing. vs. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic Act for use of CMU. Rizal was covered and has a tax declaration Petitioners are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds classifying the said land as agricultural. The excluded from the coverage of CARL.A. Agricultural lands are farms. 13 of the Constitution limits agrarian Private respondent corporation filed with the DAR office an application for reform only to agricultural lands. 342 SCRA 189 Atlas Fertilizer Corp. particularly fishponds and prawn farms. Held:  Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn RA 6657 (CARL) covers all private and agricultural land. Capanas . aside from tax concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and declaration.6 lists the other documents. residential commercial or industrial” SC: No law or jurisprudence holds that the land classification embodied in the tax R. Held: The CA reversed the DAR orders declaring those portions of the land of the The Court ruled that provisions of RA 7881 expressly states that fishpond and petitioner which are mountainous and residential to be exempt from the CARP.AMaWS Page 35 . 7881 The classification made by the Land Regulatory Board outweighed the classification stated in the tax declaration. Later. Marin REPUBLIC v. 17 and 32 of RA Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition pursuant 6657 as unconstitutional because they extend the agrarian reform to to Section 7.A. 6657 by expressly exempting/excluding private lands actually. Art. aquaculture lands even as Sec. DAR issued notice of Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage coverage & owner applied for exemption. Thus. 11. Sec. Atlas Fertilizer v. No. No. No.

Lim and/or NICORP Management and the land use map submitted by private respondent was an appropriate Development Corporation (NICORP) be ordered to respect her tenancy rights document consistent with the existing land use. that any act of disposition of the land to any and exclusively used for parks.and all lands with eighteen tenant. that the MARO issued a certification 7 that the land had no registered "Section 10. Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property DARAB hearing. Held: The disputed land is classified as PARK and subsequent studies and Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy survey showed that the parcel of land in question forms a vital part of a rights over the land. CA. Laguna. LEONIDA thereof. DTIaCS parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes. Capanas . directly the same to non-agricultural use. restore the land to its original condition and not to convert watershed. wildlife.SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax declaration is On August 26. it was found that praying that petitioners Salvador R. respondent's requests to show proof of their alleged ownership. Office (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist Order 5 but to no avail. Moreover. Thus. T-72669 in the name of Leoncia De Leon and Susana De Leon of 28% slope. forest reserves. that respondent could not be regarded as a landless tiller under the percent (18%) slope and over. who were her Facts: sisters-in-law. He alleged that 18% and over. No. It was confirmed that the lands over a parcel of land located in Barangay Mambog III. from the coverage of this Act. Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land since Sta. Exemptions and Exclusions. Rosa Realty Dev’t Corp. petitioners circulated rumors that they Petitioner Sta. Based on their report. watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt right of pre-emption or redemption over the land. R. who were likewise impleaded as parties-defendants over except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of in the suit. that on August the parcels of land are watersheds. – “xxx. that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy 8 was Hence.AMaWS Page 36 . The CARL has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and Loppacher (De Leon sisters). petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Article 10 of RA 6657 expressly states that “Lands actually. during the hearing at DARAB. vs. which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. petitioners entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice Canlubang community. tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of classification of land. she allegedly had a sanctuaries and breeding grounds. Lim claimed that respondent and her family surreptitiously entered the subject land and planted a few crops to pass themselves off as cultivators NICORP MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. respondent is a septuagenarian who is no longer physically capable of tilling the 6657. that the land is no longer Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Section 10." which she acquired through inheritance. that sometime in 2004. registered are not wholly agricultural as they consist of mountainous area with an average under TCT No. 2004. A. fish other person be declared null and void because as a tenant.Atty. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the registered have purchased the property from the De Leon sisters. as the latter was interested in entering into a joint venture with Facts: another residential developer. SC Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Region IV-Province of Cavite. praying for the exemption of the said parcels of land for the equipment. except those already developed shall be exempt CARP because she owns and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land from coverage of this Act. which provide clean potable water to the 12. 367 SCRA 175 time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of the owners. which shows that respondent has sufficient resources and cannot be a beneficiary under the CARP.. 2004. and thet 90% light industries are now located in the planted on the land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy area. Cavite. that respondent tried to negotiate with petitioner Lim for the sale of the DE LEON land to her. gave credence to commission’s report. According to the petitioner. CARL. that the incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian Reform compulsory acquisition under CARP. Bacoor. reforestation. that petitioners ignored owner of two parcels of land at Cabuyao. respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the conclusive. there was proof showing that the disputed executed by the De Leon sisters when they sold the property to him. provides: land.

O #9. lands under the coverage of agrarian reform. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be retained by and 73 34 (c) of R. Per (Sec. Cavite. They are subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution after 10 years from effectivity. poultry & swine raising” in definition of “commercial farms” is In the instant case.O. shown that the sale was made to circumvent the application of R. It was not land used for cattle raising from CARP. vegetable and cut-flower farms and cacao. 162070. those lands beyond the five-hectare retention limit allowed to landowners under the law. No. i. fruit farms. Sutton. G. Capanas . it Issue: was not shown that the subject land was covered by the CARP. 2005 Finally.joint venture in name of cooperative . The affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or details of the alleged harvest DAR A. Neither was it The constitutionality of DAR A. Issue: Whether or not the land is exempted. court's conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on the subject property. S of 1998 – allows commercial farms certain options.. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS certification issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Commercial farms – private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds.A. or that the De Leon sisters received any of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded.R. Citing Luz Farms case private agricultural shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy relationship with land or portions thereof actually. Only the grazing area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be considered for exclusion The affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a portion of the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her sisters-in-law. 6657 or aimed at dispossessing tenants of the land that they till Held: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . there is no substantial evidence to support the appellate invalid. it merely stated that the affiants have known respondent to be the approval of DAR & workers: (aside from voluntary & compulsory coverage) cultivator of the land since time immemorial. series of 1993. Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant.grower ship agreement That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without opposition. coffee and rubber Comprehensive Land Use Plan approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Exclusion shall be granted only upon proof of share in the harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a AED prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized for such purpose up to proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a tenancy application. the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate Sections 65 33 DAR issued A. plantations. 9.O. Coordinator of Bacoor. et al.. invalid. Adm. No. does of workers . DAR vs. II which includes “private agricultural land devoted to commercial Held: livestock. CLOAs are issued .A. exclusively &directly used for cattle raising as respondent who was their sister-in-law. In the instant case. No.classified as agricultural and could not thus be covered by the CARP. which were distributed to farmers-beneficiaries. the land is classified as residential pursuant to a orchards. Any act to change or convert . There was no illegal conversion of the land a landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and private agricultural because Sec.lease – back not mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly recognized the existence of a . Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above.e. October 19. 65 applies only to lands which were covered by the CARP. No.direct payment leasehold relation with respondent. It cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest sharing.AMaWS Page 37 . subject to sharing.shall be relationship. w/ intent to avoid CARP. 6657.Atty. LUZ FARMS  Sec.

Petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been 2. However the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Any diversification or change in the agricultural use of the landholdings.  Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 & continuously devoted shall be excluded. agricultural leasehold relationship Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the 2. i. DAR v. Order No.2 are evident. and contravene the provisions of the Constitution. Lands under VOS before CARP. Private agricultural lands or portions therof actually.12) Policy Guidelines: 1. in land is suitable for agriculture presently tilled by farmers After CARP & Luz Farms case.1 if there is agricultural activity in the area.2 the land is suitable for agriculture and it is presently occupied and tilled by administrative agency beyond the scope intended. planting rules and regulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not of crops.O. Non-land transfer schemer –stock distribution option(SDO).Atty. It is (Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising) an industrial. 7-2008 operation(Sec.Sec. Capanas . Constitutional and statutory farmer/s. 1988 and continuously and exclusively utilized or devoted for such purpose RA 6389 automatically converted share tenancy throughout the country into up until the time of inventory shall be excluded from CARP coverage.O #9 (1993) which provide that only portions of land used for raising of livestock. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in 8. production & profit sharing (PPS). we find that the impugned A. poultry & swine shall be excluded. landholdings or any portions thereof not actually. not an agricultural. the PARO promulgated by administrative agencies and the scope of their regulations In the shall immediately proceed with the issuance of NOTICE of COVERAGE on the case at bar. DAR issued A. including the harvesting of such products.e cultivation of the soil.16) 2. directly and exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. DAR partially exempted portion but ordered Chapter III (IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR RELATION) acquisition the rest. directly or exclusively DAR Adm. their ownership.20) 3. activity. is invalid as it contravenes the subject landholding or portions thereof Constitution. swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity. provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be 5. 13/32. or shift Commission show a clear intent to exclude. growing of fruit trees. Compulsory acquisition (Sec. leasehold DAR Adm. Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS. inter alia.raising. The A.O. to be valid. Order No. The Court clarified in the Luz guidelines on land use conversion. It has exclusively used for livestock raising are subject to CARP coverage if one or exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A. swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec. 2-06 used for livestock purposes other than agricultural like cattle raising as of june 15. swine and poultry. in case of any of the conditions under items 2. Conversely. all lands exclusively from crop production to livestock raising shall be subject to the existing devoted to livestock.” The Adm. Order #7 (2008) raising of livestock. The rule-making power of an other farm activities and practices. SUTTON :  Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided that the agricultural activity Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. whether done by a natural or juridical person administrative agency may not be used to abridge the authority given to it by and regardless of the final use or destination of such agricultural products Congress or by the Constitution. more of the following conditions apply: The fundamental rule in administrative law is that.O.1 and 2. any act of the landowner to change or convert his agricultural land for the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for livestock raising shall not affect the coverage of his landholdings under CARP. SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock . Farms case that livestock.AMaWS Page 38 . administrative 2. swine/poultry WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED FARMERS? raising do not fall under “agriculture” & “agricultural activity” 1.

desist from pursuing any activity or activities" concerning the subject land "until further 06(REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES GOVERNING LEASEHOLD orders. 4 Sec. the conversion of share tenancy into leasehold is mandated by law. the Department of Agrarian retained areas and areas not yet acquired.Atty. through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case No.6 there is consideration given to the lessor either in a form of share of the Title No. and their authorized representatives "to economic status of farmers in tenanted lands. alienation or transfer period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower's Agreement duly annotated of the legal possession of the land. Bukidnon. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect whether farmer-beneficiary NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action. Management and Development Corporation 1.2 the object of the relationship is an agricultural land 1. August 19. normal harvest during 3 agri years -AO 02-06 states.1. Purpose is to establish databank & identify actual famer- Agricultural leasehold shall be based on tenancy relationship. Sr. to rights/obligation of lessor. DAR issued AO 02. during the existence of the lease. a writ of prohibition with preliminary Sec.1 the parties are the landholder and the tenant Fortich. In February. Capanas . now Del Monte Philippines. granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). 1.38 million.  Pursuant to DAR’s mandate to protect the rights & improve tenurial & the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank).R." 5 IMPLEMENTATION IN TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS): On November 7.3 the consent freely given either orally or in writing. 1992. the Office of the President resolved the strikers' protest by -Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6 requisites) issuing the so-called "Win/Win" Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Inc. the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao. In case of alienation.Farmer has a right to elect whether to become a farmer beneficiary or a CHAPTER IV – REGISTRATION leaseholder in the retention are of the landholder. Leaseholders security of tenure shall be respected and guaranteed. one of the petitioners. Corona Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .5 there is personal cultivation (NQSRMDC). 3. 131457. 14371 3 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon. X-576. vs. a multinational corporation. The property is covered by a Transfer Certificate of 1. purchaser/transferee shall be subjugated 2. 1988 whether or not a leasehold agreement has been executed -The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of average 4.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents. Sec. in the certificate of title. as of june 15. et al. it sought and was OR leaseholds in retained area. 1997. abolition of share tenancy now covers all agricultural landholdings without -Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at term nor exceptions by sale. All share-crop tenants were automatically converted into agricultural lessees -DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract . of agricultural tenancy: 1. express or implied This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente. the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer implementation of CARP (PARO) of Bukidnon. (DMPI). Sumilao. The lease expired in April. et al. the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee.. title & documents required for injunction which ordered the DAR Region X Director. 1999 1.  Sec. the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of Corporation. G. RA 6657 mandates Dar to determine the fix rentals within retained areas and areas not yet acquired for agrarian reform . Essential elements beneficiaries.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within the In October. Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2. In 1984. among others. for a the term of period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale. harvest or payment of fixed amount in money or produce to or both. 1991.AMaWS Page 39 . 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/ DAR. Corona. Bukidnon.4 the purpose of the relationship is agricultural production owned by the Norberto Quisumbing. 1994.

Reform Program (CARP). and the root cause of peasant unrest. 29. Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed  In order to hasten the implementation of the program. the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case.. 18. (Emphasis of Agrarian Reform has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode ours). the law provides for the steps in It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court shall apply in a acquiring private lands through administrative instead of judicial suppletory character whenever practicable. the following procedures shall be followed: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . the act of the Office of the President in re- SEC. 16. Thus. except as otherwise provided for by special laws. the Department and entertained. 1996 Decision which had of private lands. Along the various phases of the CARP Section 7 of Administrative Order No.For purposes of acquisition opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29. become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties. thereby allowing the Decision of March 29.  DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being bonafide We rule in the negative.Atty.' by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997. 1996. the Office of the President has no more  The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory acquisition of authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR private agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Secretary. 1996 can still be substantially modified by the "Win-Win" Resolution. the petitioners claim that already become final and executory. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision dated March intervened in case. save in exceptionally meritorious cases. Section 7 thereof provides: CHAPTER V – LAND ACQUISITION Sec. precept that accord finality to administrative determinations. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. as no one has seasonably filed a motion for agricultural production. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall. 18 and Section 4. The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution. 1996 to lapse into finality. managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the 'farmers. Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of proceedings. as may be appropriate. more so qualified beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation.AMaWS Page 40 . was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution "after a very well. To the same end. modify its Decision. This procedure is allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice and hearing are complied with.  Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory acquisition When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23. Court mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the most of whom invoke the ground of lack of notice or non-observance of Decision of March 29. for distribution to reconsideration thereto. of land acquisition. Capanas . Fortich vs.  Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period. 7. 1997 declaring the of agricultural lands including facilities and improvements necessary for Decision of March 29. the process stalls because of Land Owner (LO) resistance. Having lost its jurisdiction." as provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18. proceedings. which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. 1996 final and executory. to be filed in "exceptionally meritorious cases. so they have no standing yet to intervene in the case. SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted due process in attacking the proceedings. beneficiaries  DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB. still the said motion should not have been entertained considering that LAND ACQUISITION the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed.

expropriation proceedings. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation. shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. While their petition is denominated as one for rejection or no response from the landowner. otherwise known as bonds in accordance with this Act. NFSP. The DAR are unconstitutional. if there is refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file petition municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Sec. are anchored on the proposition that these provisions Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. in court Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in (3) RD titles are cancelled while owner’s copy is subsisting accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17. the matter is Facts: deemed submitted for decision. titles & documents required for delivery or registered mail.  Take note of Sec. within fifteen (15) days from CONFED vs. (RA) 6657. the (1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof. in the exercise by the State of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. DAR the receipt of the notice.AMaWS Page 41 . the Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . must be strictly Sec.16(d) & (e): Camus and Paredes 7 decided by the Court in 1919. or administer private agricultural lands devoted to sugarcane. After the expiration of the above period. SC did not say “automatically”. the landowner. Sec. the LBP and other interested parties to summit evidence as to the just compensation for the land. DAR can request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. In the said case. SC (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply. by personal (2) titles are cancelled w/o owner’s copy surrendered (in Torren's delivery or registered mail. the DAR shall take immediate possession of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. upon the deposit with an prohibition and mandamus. Capanas . So even if landowners (c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR. 67 (Free Registration of patents. his administrator or representative implementation of CARP) shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.(a) After having identified the land. distribution of land will proceed.Atty. In Association of small land owners. as prescribed in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title. They allege the following grounds in support of their petition: (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court It is the principal contention of the petitioners that. 18. of the power of eminent domain. The petitioners rely on the case of Visayas Refining Company v. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of since time immemorial. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer) (b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal Sec. CLOAs are issued upon land landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go w/ executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and issuance of CLOA. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land complied with. the LBP shall pay the protests valuation. (e) and (f) of Section 16 5 of Republic Act No. the landowners and the beneficiaries. which the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer will be discussed shortly. their arguments. which in the case of RA 6657 is the acquisition of private lands for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries. UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that their members own days after it is submitted for decision. the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP (d). The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) Petitioners CONFED. In other words. requiring the landowner. the DAR shall conduct summary said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by conversation. and other pertinent provisions hereof. and post the same in a conspicuous place in the System.

Section 16 of RA 6657. The landowner. the landholding.463 square meters to be used for military and aviation purposes. in this manner: creditor or obligee refuses to accept the tender of payment. the DAR consignation in court. including the administrative orders issued the latter. Under the In the compulsory acquisition of private lands. Inc. Within thirty days from costs therefor. If Paragraph (f) is characterized by the petitioners as meaningless and useless to the landowner accepts. in the the execution of the deed of transfer. preclude judicial determination of just compensation portion of the property intended to be expropriated. Upon receipt by the owner of the Small Landowners. or. receipt of the Notice of Acquisition. by personal delivery or DAR cannot be allowed to take possession of the property of a landowner.AMaWS Page 42 . if the by the DAR in relation thereto. instructed requires factual determination. through the Governor-General. the shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the landowner.Government of the Philippine Islands.. The petitioners contend that. it is actually based on thereof. 41 the Court painstakingly outlined the to cancel the certificate of title of the landowner without notice to and consent of procedure for compulsory acquisition. The procedure for Paragraph (e) is assailed by the petitioners as it authorizes the DAR. directly or collectively.Atty. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or certificate of title cancelled. in the same manner. in case of rejection or lack of response from the allege matters that require factual determination. by registered mail. and in the process incur the government and surrenders the certificate of title. by allegedly compulsory acquisition is that prescribed under Section 16 of RA 6657. the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. the allegation latter. some of the grounds relied upon by the petitioners corresponding payment. in any way. fails to make a reply. there is no effective payment without valid tender of payment and and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its decision of RA 6657 had already been categorically upheld by the Court in Association of and the amount of just compensation. in contrast. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. For example. he has already been deprived of possession of his property and his pays the owner the purchase price. In compliance therewith. which owned a does not. under the Civil Code. The CFI provisionally fixed the total value of the subject property at P600. without having to go to court. the land they till. the landowner. After identification. Under the said law. Considering that the Court is not a trier of facts. he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the landowner. It allegedly compels him to file a case. his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. there are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural lands: compulsory and voluntary. the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an that the DAR is subjecting the sugar lands to the coverage of RA 6657 without accessible bank. Capanas . for the final determination of just compensation when. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and first ascertaining whether there are regular farmworkers therein and whether cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of they are interested to own. the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) meantime. Within thirty days from The Land Bank urges the Court to dismiss the petition since the constitutionality submission. 15 The petitioners theorize that.000 and upon payment thereof as Contrary to the petitioners' submission that the compulsory acquisition deposit. the Attorney-General to initiate condemnation proceedings for the purpose of the Land Bank argues that these matters are better threshed out in a trial court. the LBP The Respondents' Counter-Arguments representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice. the landowners Civil Code. expropriating a tract of land containing an area of 1. It among the defendants impleaded was Visayan Refining Co. allegedly the Philippines. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . v. Court of Appeals. Further. the CFI authorized that the Government be placed in possession procedure adopted by the DAR is without legal basis. Within thirty days from (e). and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and mere deposit of the compensation that it has summarily fixed under paragraph barangay hall of the place where the property is located.100. to immediately take possession of the property and to direct the Register of Deeds In Roxas & Co. the HELD: Attorney-General filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance (CFI) and DAR's compulsory acquisition procedure is based on Section 16 of RA 6657. it is the duty of the debtor or obligor to make consignation of the thing or amount due. TCDcSE merely causing the deposit with the Land Bank of the compensation.

Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms. TCASIH or 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 3. This ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds 500.Atty. 12. Capanas . A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . landowner shall also be asked to indicate his retention area.In all cases. 6. The the DAR issued on July 26.O. TCT/OCT number. "II. 1989 Administrative Order No. Series of 1989. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit law is silent on how the identification process must be made. agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. the first step in compulsory acquisition is representative and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation the identification of the land. the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) (CARP). 1. objection. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a c)CARP CA Form 3 — Applicant's Information Sheet copy each of his report. area of responsibility. Series of 1988. compute the valuation of the land landowner. shall: EDATSI B.Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).Update the master list of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his 1. Under Section 16 of the CARL. No. and tax declaration number.The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer.Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination of just compensation. A.Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO. d)CARP CA Form 4 — Beneficiaries Undertaking C. The minutes of the which set the operating procedure in the identification of such lands.Upon determination of the valuation. review. the landowners and the beneficiaries.DAR Central Office.OPERATING PROCEDURE 4. The master list shall include such information as required under the attached CARP Master List Form which shall include the name of the 2. the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular acquisition.AMaWS Page 43 . mentioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the are true and correct. the views. landholding area. with the assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC).Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs. a)CARP CA Form 1 — MARO Investigation Report 4. together with the b)CARP CA Form 2 — Summary Investigation Report of Findings and Evaluation duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations. However. the of the property. to the Central Office. forward the case folder. The meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an procedure is as follows: integral part of the CACF. The valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all 2. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms: inspection and verification of the property. in accordance with A.000 per estate. IEHTaA case folder.The PARO shall: 1. 3. specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and e)CARP CA Form 5 — Transmittal Report to the PARO Distribution (BLAD).Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder.Immediately upon receipt of a case folder. To fill in this gap. the BARC representative(s). shall: ECTHIA The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above. Invitations to The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition the said conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer- to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program beneficiaries.

O. CONFED vs. the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). to which  Valid implementation . the DARAB rendered a decision fixing the compensation of the shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries. Series of 1989 the same Special Agrarian Court docketed as DAR Case No. on the other hand.000.Prepare. LV-XI-0330-DN-2002 to fix the just the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue compensation. AEDCHc Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied on September 4.O No.294. the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall P76.999 representative. which is beneficiaries. the BLAD shall prepare Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized 37. the subject of this petition. The offer was rejected by private respondent. Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A. T-49200. through the PARO.145. Davao del Norte with an approximate area of 2.387.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional compensation. petitioner LBP deposited for the Series of 1989. a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject hectares of which was covered by RA No. being filed out of time. 78-2002.000. the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval compensation for the acquisition of the property.36 per hectare. Series of 1993 LBP vs Trinidad Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation. No. the area subject of compulsory acquisition. in accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No.806. in compensation for said 14. in case of acceptance.12. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just account of private respondent P1.806.57 per hectare. Thereafter. the required Order of Acquisition. However. and the amount of just compensation Private respondent offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the offered by DAR.Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value.999 hectares the amount of P1. In accordance with Section 16 of RA No. 6657. Once the property is transferred." property at P10. Tagum City.Atty. the DAR. 2002. Regional  First step: identification of the land. in case of rejection or non-response. 12. amended in 1990 by DAR A.certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the Facts: review and final valuation. On June 26. 3.00 or P686. Branch 2. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer to property. No.1. the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. price of P2.00 per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP.  Law is silent Private respondent. 13. through the Regional 4.06 or case of rejection or non-reply. Kapalong.145. or upon Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative deposit of payment in the designated bank.319. Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land situated in Sampao. docketed as DAR Case No. Serve the Notice to the landowner personally or through registered Sell (VOS) scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).O. two notices petitioner LBP filed its answer and moved for the dismissal of the petition for  DAR A. Capanas . among others. 14.1010 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2002. 79-2002. mail within three days from its approval. DAR  Compulsory Acquisition Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial  Notice of Acquisition determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court. filed a similar petition against DAR before  Administrative Order No. proceedings under DARAB Case No. Series of 1989. The Notice shall include.721.AMaWS Page 44 .Upon the landowner's receipt of payment.9. the landowners and the Trial Court.

Indeed.. denying petitioner LBP's motion for reconsideration. the offer of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. EAIcCS requiring the landowner. On December 12. 2002. during which the LBP.00 in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in "Land Bank of (d)In case of rejection or failure to reply. Sub-paragraph (d) provides for the consequence of the landowner's rejection of the initial valuation Petitioner LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for reconsideration which of his land.AMaWS Page 45 . Court of Appeals. and in sub-paragraph (c) — when the landowner accepts dated February 17. Et Al. The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional Sub-paragraph (e). 2002. for We find the foregoing as a strained interpretation of a simple and clear enough contempt for failure to comply with the order to deposit. Capanas .R.721. public respondent rendered the assailed resolution (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for release to the private respondent the rejection or no response from the landowner. No.294. preliminary determination by the DARAB through the PARAD or RARAD. Indeed. After the expiration of the above period.721.145.721. Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. the matter is deemed should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount of submitted for decision. Fernando Y. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days P1. No. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified On December 17. within fifteen (15) days from the receipt Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the deposit of the notice. states the precondition for the State's compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the landowner taking of possession of the landowner's property and the cancellation of the if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. it would make no After the filing of private respondent's comment to the motion for sense to mention anything about the provisional deposit in sub-paragraphs (a) reconsideration and petitioner LBP's explanation and memorandum to the and (b) — the landowner is sent a notice of valuation to which he should reply motion for reconsideration.294. manager of petitioner LBP's Agrarian Operations Office in Region XI and its handling lawyer. the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land. 118712. the DAR shall take immediate possession of On December 13. Pedro L. petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer said order to deposit.806. Yap.00. public respondent rendered the assailed resolution within a specified time.294. that is. on the other hand. thus paving the way for the eventual redistribution of the land initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while to qualified beneficiaries: payment of the compensation (if the landowner respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB already accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP) or deposit of the provisional in a summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by the compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond to the offer of the courts. accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act.00 as determined by the DARAB. 1995". the DAR shall conduct summary the Philippines vs. private respondent filed a motion to cite Romeo beneficiaries. respectively. G. Cabanal and Atty. landowner and other interested parties are required to submit ISSUE: evidence to aid the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD in the valuation of the subject land. DAR/LBP). provision on the procedure governing acquisition of lands under CARP. whether under the compulsory acquisition or VOS scheme. administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by October 6. 2003.Atty.Private respondent filed a Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that Section 16 of R. the CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the HELD: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Petitioner maintains it should be its landowner's title.06 and not P10.A. 2002. upon the deposit with an DARAB determined just compensation of P10. Isagani Cembrano. after it is submitted for decision. the conduct of a summary administrative proceeding for a still remains unacted upon by public respondent. 6657 reads: petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of P10.

5 Such application of the CARP to the 300-hectare land was later the subject of a case ISSUE: before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). filed a Petition for Summary Determination of Just accessible bank in the name of the landowner before taking possession of the Compensation with the PARAD. The No. No. therefore. it P166. In the Petition.R. 2004 with the RTC docketed as Facts: Agrarian Case No.Fixing the preliminary just compensation for 431.00 per hectare or a total of P71.Directing the DAR to immediately comply with all applicable requirements so prior to taking possession of the property.R. that the subject property may be formally distributed and turned over to the Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 108920. LBP argued further that the PARAD could only make an award of up to PhP5 and San Nicolas in Sablayan. under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT). 16 (e) when it speaks of "the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of 1. docketed as Case No. Capanas . could not award an amount of of Presidential Decree No.027. which What is the proper amount to be deposited under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 2003. considering that the documents necessary for it to portion of the land was subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform undertake a preliminary valuation of the property were still with the Department Program (CARP) instead of the OLT. 16 (a). Certificates of Landownership Award of Agrarian Reform (DAR). is only after the DAR has made its final determination of the initial valuation of the land that the landowner may resort to the judicial determination of the just 2. were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in possession of the land. DAR in its notice of acquisition of the land that must be deposited in an Federico Suntay. The LBP also contended that it could not satisfy the demand farmer-beneficiaries declared as owners of the property. 18 it is the purchase price offered by the Josefina S.0286-hectare Suntay Estate." Moreover. the 3. the Petition for Summary irrigated/unirrigated rice and corn lands covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Determination of Just Compensation filed before the PARAD was premature. Court of Appeals. in accordance with the Decision of the DARAB with an accessible bank. the DAR and LBP that is contained in the letter-offer to the landowner under Sec. appealing the PARAD Decision. Clearly. Occidental Mindoro. therefore. The PARAD.corresponding payment or the deposit of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds farmer beneficiaries thereof. judgment is hereby rendered: Conspicuously.634.Directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to immediately pay the aforestated compensation for the land. 1972. 6657? Is it the PARAD/DARAB determined valuation or the preliminary valuation The landowner admitted before the PARAD that said case was pending with this as determined by the DAR/LBP? Court and docketed as G. and as espoused in Land Bank Meanwhile. Thereafter. there is no mention of the PARAD in the foregoing Sec. T-31(1326) located in the Barangays of Gen. the LBP argued that because G. ruled that the subject land should have been the subject of OLT instead of CARP.634.AMaWS Page 46 . LBP vs Pagayatan The LBP then filed a Petition dated March 4. not the valuation of the PARAD. Thus. the owner of the land remained unpaid for the property. However. Lucia. with the PhP71. 27.027. Emilio Aguinaldo. a 300-hectare for payment of Lubrica. in her capacity as assignee of the owner of the property. Central in DARAB Case No. the PARAD issued its Decision dated March 21. entitled Federico Suntay v. it is the initial valuation made by amount to the Petitioner.1407 hectare property at the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. Lubrica. No.30.150. 1390. land. was subjected to the operation million only. of the Philippines v. 2846.30.Atty. Thus. Court of Appeals. DCN-0405-0022-2002. Sta. the dispositive portion of which reads: ECSHID The Court agrees with the LBP. 16 (e) of RA 6657. WHEREFORE. HELD: The LBP posits that under Sec. said valuation of which must be deposited and released to the landowner 3. consisting of the 300-hectare land subject of the instant case.682. 108920 was pending with this Court in relation to On October 21.

11 Land Bank v. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. upon the deposit with an DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit." 6657. . 7 and sought to "LBP bonds. Otherwise stated. the DAR shall take immediate possession of by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer and payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions of RA Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. before taking possession of the property. . Republic Act No. 6. ISSUE: SC: Whether the opening of trust accounts for payment of just compensation is valid. . Capanas . CA Moreover. and to allow them to deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. 6657). in lieu of depositing in cash or in LBP bonds. permitting the opening of trust account by LBP. 16 of RA 6657 does not Landbank merely "earmarked. and the Landbank to among the valid modes of deposit. Series of 1990. however. In sum." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can compel the DAR to expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to be made in any other form.Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. in case of Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the rejection or no response from the landowner. 10 Compensation in cash or in LBP bonds (Section 16) Petitioner DAR. qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly and "deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents.) Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction." "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the authorize the release of the PARAD's determination of just compensation for the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate that land which has not yet become final and executory.  Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be HELD: made in any other form like a trust account. 16 of RA 6657 that it is the initial valuation made by the DAR land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section and the LBP that must be released to the landowner in order for DAR to take 16(e) of RA 6657. maintained that Administrative Order No. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows:  There was no basis for issuance of order. .It is clear from Sec. Sec. CA Facts (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or.AMaWS Page 47 . there is no ambiguity in withdraw the same. Series of It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in 1992 6 and DAR Administrative Order No. 9. Aggrieved bonds in accordance with this Act. . private respondents filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari and (Emphasis supplied. that should have been made express. in lieu of depositing in cash or Facts: bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR. or at deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked. 9. Private respondents questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order No. — .  Sec.Atty. Series of 1990 was issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits LBP vs Honeycomb the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in “cash” or in “LBP bonds”. the DAR maintained that the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit"  Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" finally determine the just compensation of their properties." Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. Land Bank v. the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds. "SECTION 16. 9 Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the possession of the property. The contention is untenable." "reserved" least. the compensation for the Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .

In the event that the result of the validation/evaluation by the in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term DLRMO/DLRPO is such that an NOC is not warranted. Section 16(e) barangay where the property is located and thereafter issue the corresponding of RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in Certification of Posting Compliance (CARP-LA Form No. 1. 9 for being null and void. this Court struck down as void DAR Administrative Circular No. . as amended by DAR AO No. series of 1989. 6 and using the guidelines set forth in DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. By Whom the NOC is served provision of the law. 17. 7) to the of trust accounts to pay Honeycomb Farms. as the agency vested with the responsibility of determining the land valuation and compensation for parcels of DLR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. If it were the intention to include a "trust received the petition for coverage shall transmit or forward the same to the account" among the valid modes of deposit. the MARO where the subject landholding is located or any Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . we have not failed to notice that the LBP in this case made use prepare and send. . The DLR office which deposit can be made in any other form. Region V. In Land Bank of the Phil. In sum. 9. 29 concerned LO. that should have been made PARO of the province where the subject landholding is located. Commencement by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) — for a summary determination of the market value of the properties. xxx xxx xxx 2.1. 8).1. if be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. 04-05 land acquired pursuant to the CARL. Masbate. Commencement When Honeycomb Farms rejected this valuation for being too low. the NOC (CARP-LA Form No. 29. 1. After determination by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of the agricultural landholdings coverable under CARP in his area of jurisdiction. the DLRPO shall forward its "deposit." findings or that of the DLRMO to the DLRRO for evaluation and issuance of an Order. The DLRPO. 9. the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to enact rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. We said: CSDcTH proceedings herein by filing a petition for coverage before the Department of Land Reform (DLR) Central Office (DLRCO). through the MARO. Commencement by a party — Any person may commence the bonds contemplated in Section 16 (e) of RA 6657. providing for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in 1. "LBP bonds. shall validate the petition and shall issue the NOC. fixed the value of these parcels of land. express. CA. PROCEDURES series of 1991. [from Section 16(e)] that the deposit must be made only in Provincial Office (DLRPO) or DLR Municipal Office (DLRMO) of the region/province "cash" or in "LBP bonds.Honeycomb Farms Corporation (Honeycomb Farms) was the registered owner of two parcels of agricultural land in Cataingan." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the or municipality where the subject landholding is located. Upon receipt of a copy of the NOC and upon instruction by the PARO (CARP-LA Form No." In the same vein. DLR Regional Office (DLRRO). the Voluntary Offer to Sell was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board. Series of 1990. petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 3. Compulsory acquisition and notice requirements (Section 16) The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). v. 29-A and 54 because these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear 3. There is no The MARO shall post copies of the NOC for at least seven (7) days in the basis in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as bulletin boards or any conspicuous places in the municipality/city and the compensation for his property because. 5).Atty. 3.2.AMaWS Page 48 . Legaspi City. Capanas . DLR It is very explicit . as heretofore discussed. he HELD: shall submit the list of these agricultural landholdings to the PARO who shall As a final point. qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can through the MARO. or at least. Posting of the NOC In the present suit. Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking down Administrative Circular No. treating the petition as an Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case. there is no ambiguity warranted.

Service upon minors or incompetents — When the LO is a minor. 4.DLR personnel officially authorized by the PARO shall cause the service of the inquiry. or if the LO refuses to receive and sign the NOC for whatever reason. service may therein. Capanas . service may be made on the president. treasurer. province). or upon the person in charge ONLY" and "RETURN TO SENDER" if addressee has: MOVED OUT.4. upon due 5. Complete name/s of the LO/all LOs and last known address.4. REFUSED TO ACCEPT OR INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. upon his guardian ad litem whose 5. municipality/city. General rule — The NOC shall be addressed to and received by the LO. service may be made by leaving 4. service fails. or also be made on his father and/or mother. or latest Tax Declaration (TD) covering the subject landholding. Service upon co-owners — In case of co-ownership. The publication need not corporation. corporate secretary.1.1.2. or the like. Address or location of the subject landholding (barangay.4.2. service may be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of NOC to the LO in accordance with these rules.2. the MARO of 4. 5.Atty. 4.2. office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. Substituted Service — If personal service of the NOC cannot be served directly to the LO within a reasonable time. The number of the Original or Transfer Certificate of Title (OCT or TCT) or proceeding where the LO is designated as an unknown owner.6.AMaWS Page 49 . Service by publication — If any of the preceding three (3) modes of notice. If the LO's residence is outside the Philippines or unknown. 5. Such service shall ADDRESS. 4. Service upon domestic private juridical entity — When the LO is a as proof that the NOC was not received by the LO. in-house 5.2. service may be effected the LO. Personal Service — This is made by handing a copy of the NOC to the LO in person. service by registered mail will be made to the last known address of name by which they are generally or commonly known. may order.2. Service of the NOC 5. In the case of a minor. whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .4. The registered mail envelope shall be marked "DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE upon all the LOs by serving upon any one of them. 4. Service upon entity without juridical personality — When the LOs who are 5. general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order.7.1. partnership or association organized under the laws of the state the entire contents of the NOC but only the following essential particulars: Philippines with a juridical personality. temporarily out of the country.5. or when the LO ordinarily resides within the Philippines but is fact or failure to notify the LO through the regular mode of service to the PARO.3. Modes of Service: 4.2. the NOC shall be by tendering the same to him/her. Service by Registered Mail — if personal or substituted service is not persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the practicable.3. Service upon LO whose identity or whereabouts is unknown — In any 5. insane copies of the NOC at the LO's: or otherwise incompetent. 3. Extraterritorial service — When the LO does not reside and is not found the place where the subject landholding is located shall submit a report of such in the Philippines. 5.4. service may be made by publication in a and shall request the latter to cause the publication of the NOC in a newspaper newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR of general circulation. counsel or administrator. UNKNOWN of the Office or place of business maintained in such name.3. the NOC will be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has. service shall be made upon him personally and to his legal guardian if he has one. unless one is specifically authorized to receive for the other co-owners. if available. been severed before the proceeding was brought. or if none.1. AHEDaI 5. A "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped on the mailing envelope will serve 4. managing partner. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing appointment shall be applied for by the DLR. served upon each and every co-owner. general manager.

s. DAR should be given chance to validate proceedings.1. Lands. of Small Landowners: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 989) postmaster to the addressee. Notice of Field Investigation discuss the results of the field investigation. Voluntary appearance — The LO's voluntary appearance in the he is entitled to exercise his retention right.4.5. the DAR shall take immediate preferred beneficiaries or submit evidence for determining just compensation. Notice of Coverage:  Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that 7.1.  Confed v. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private landholding under CARP. and 2) an affidavit of publication by the publisher or authorized official together with a copy of the newspaper where the NOC appeared.4. the land valuation and other pertinent matters. 10). Procedure for Acquisition and which have been served with the process and name of the person who received Distribution of Private Lands. returned/unopened envelope referred to in paragraph 5.5. service may be proved by the following: 1) the unclaimed or law.2. nominate child/ren as cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. or. Written admission of the LO served. place and manner of service.1. The registry return card the beneficiaries. Capanas . The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the 6. proof may be made by the affidavit of the DLR personnel effecting the mail acquisition is the identification of the land. A reasonable period of thirty (30) days from publication date within which CARP Law provides that: “Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding the LO must file a response to the NOC. Proof of Service Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued.1 Personal or substituted service — The proof of service of the NOC shall qualified beneficiaries” consist of: Sec. DAR 6.4. the MARO sends to the LO  Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding an invitation letter for the conduct of field investigation (CARP-LA Form No.” 6. with a warning that failure to do so payment. shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be present. Section 6.4 hereof. The title was amended: "SEC.Atty. the first step in compulsory mail.  Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to 8. if any. A declaration that the Republic of the Philippines shall cover the subject Upheld validity of Sec.3 Proof of service by publication — If the service has been made by Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of publication. Section 16(e) of the 5. RA 6657 The title of the section states: “Procedure for Acquisition of Private 6.AMaWS Page 50 . 16. Official Return of the MARO or affidavit of the DLR personnel serving. the papers. Upon proof of service of the issuance of NOC. 6. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap (AO concerned or together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the #12. Assoc. 16. However.2 Proof of service by registered mail — If service is made by registered  Under Section 16 of the CARL." the same. the landowners and and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation). upon the within the period shall mean waiver of the right/privilege to: apply for deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in exemption/exclusion or choose the retention area. proceedings shall be equivalent to service of NOC. the law is silent on how the shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender or in lieu thereof the identification process must be made. RA 9700 stating the following: the date. or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner. possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a 6. unclaimed letter marked "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped by then post office  Identification process in Sec.

the area subject of compulsory Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original acquisition. namely: (1) public use. judicial determination is expressly prescribed in  The Notice shall include. According to petitioner. or in the implementation of RA 6657 since the Special Agrarian Courts. provided in RA 6657. including Rule 67 thereof. court can review. “(f)Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation”  Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation. among others. are embodied therein as well as in the Constitution.“ in Association of Small Landowners HELD: declared that the requirement of public use had already been settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for agrarian reform”.AMaWS Page 51 . through the PARO. rejection or non-reply. the Bureau of compensation to landowners. domain. are non-response. bonds.  Rule 67: “shall”  RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation  affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever Santos v. and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just  Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value.  Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms.  Rules of Court.Atty. the DAR. is not completely disregarded  Upon the landowner's receipt of payment. an order issued during execution proc that such amount shall be paid in cash however. calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the SC: prison of their dreams and deliverance Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation “in the manner provided by RA 6657” is not illegally amended but is merely clarified by  Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657. Facts:  intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land taken segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation. and (2) payment of just compensation. the chief limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent and bonds. It bears stressing that the determination of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and submit to the just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. Heirs of Deleste vs LBP  With respect to "public use. from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner. said order illegally amended the judgment  does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond rendered which directs payment of compensation to be made "in the manner in time to the foreseeable future. 58: “may”. “motu proprio or instance of party” land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries. LBP : kind as long in excess of max retention limits. Capanas . and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR. subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just Section 16 (f) clearly provides: compensation. the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court? required Order of Acquisition. to be made in cash and of our society. the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . in case of Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only. provides for (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. from all levels under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.Notice of Acquisition:  On “just compensation”. Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title  Section 58 of RA 6657. However. shall take possession of the  Sec. like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. in case of rejection or resolving petitions for the determination of just compensation. Once the property is the appointment of commissioners by the Special Agrarian Courts. in case of acceptance. transferred. which is the On the violation of petitioners' right to due process of law reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners. in upon deposit of payment in the designated bank.

1954. and not to the Facts: Nanamans. for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a  if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. — Just compensation is defined as the full and been entered into. property that is not in his actual or. evidence of ownership. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer ." it should be computed in accordance with said law. 27. indeed. they are nonetheless "good indicia of possession in the SC: concept of an owner. Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the name of Deleste.  “full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by expropriation” their right to due process of law was violated.Atty. 27 and EO No. hence." 64 There was. does not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the property taken CHAPTER VI –COMPENSATION from respondents. no reason for DAR to feign fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste. LBP v. being the landowner of the compensation.Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the Just Compensation: subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program. Dumlao Moreover. property under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated. the value of the standing subject property. the tax declarations. so they Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive filed complaint with RTC for determination. 228. this Court of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). ignorance of the transfer of ownership over the subject property. and such registration serves sworn valuation by the owner. Determination of Just Compensation. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the We agree with petitioners. we held in Bautista v. violated when the DAR failed  the determination made by the trial court.50 per hectare. translated into a basic formula held: by the DAR shall be considered." same property. 6657. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real. Sec. 17. (Assoc.912. is grossly erroneous. which relied solely on the to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of formula prescribed by PD No. therefore. is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the name of  Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27. — In determining just It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste. the assessment made by as a constructive notice to the whole world that the subject property was already government assessors. at least. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the Applying the law. of Small Landowners). its nature. actual use and income. Capanas . RA 9700: "SEC. Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. DEFINED.AMaWS Page 52 . Secretary It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration is "to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has JUST COMPENSATION. CA. ample. subject to the final decision of the proper court. the favor of Deleste was registered on March 2. and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation owned by Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale. which is based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s". Fule that the registration of an farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the nonpayment instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently deal with the land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation. constructive possession. the agrarian reform program. substantial. the cost of acquisition of the land.” compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements of administrative due process of law. as non. In Naval v. The amount of P6. Petitioners' right to due process of law was. Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR. full. although property was acquired under PD No. the current value of like properties. 7. It should be noted that the deed of sale executed by Hilaria in crop.

000.e. Capanas . They received a notice of Land valuation from  (c) available comparable sales in the area. namely: (a) Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. cost of acquisition . their issuance dates are not shown.00  The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just would have been a valid exercise of this judicial function. LV = Land Value  Citing Cosculluela v. It is from the P109. and value of its produce. as amended by AO No. Lee. Land Bank of the Philippines. compensation due to respondents. This is likewise erroneous because it does not adhere to the formula  However.. Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory Acquisition]  To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim: in processing is to violate the elementary rule that payment of just LV = (CNI x 0. subject to the payment of meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays in Villaverde. MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration Without prompt payment. Take into account the nature of land (i. As such. 6657.1) compensation must be within a reasonable period from the taking of Where: property.00 per square vested right of ownership in the landholding. irrigated). DAR Adjudication Board affirmed the  (d) average harvests per hectare. actual use & income & nature. 11. compensation cannot be considered "just" for The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present.00 per hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde. just compensation means not only the correct CNI = Capitalized Net Income determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also CS = Comparable Sales the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. location (i. 6.. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . market value. should determine the date of issuance of these emancipation patents in  It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be given to order to ascertain the date of taking and proceed to compute the just the owner cannot be assumed and must be determined with certainty.3) + (MV x 0. vs. 4.6) + (CS x 0.  CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109. DAR which offers P315. along highway) and the volume Sps. like:  (a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration. 2. the trial court provided by RA No. 5.  Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through AO No. 6657. just compensation to the landowner. compensation and valuation and declared that LBP fully complied with the criteria set forth by CARP.195 hec. 6. current value of like determined at the time of passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO properties. tax 228 have only suppletory effect. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been FACTORS (Section 17): 1. assessed value at the time of the taking.Atty. the emancipation patents. and (b) P60. appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the  Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a commissioner as basis for determining just compensation.AMaWS Page 53 . Facts:  (b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment Petitioner were notified that their land holdings is covered by Gov't and increase agricultural production. loss RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.3. Petitioners sought reconsideration but was denied.  Petitioner’s argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending Series of 1992.e. sworn valuation by owner.000. had it followed compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No. Action Scheme pursuant to CARP. assessment made by Government assessors. Series of 1994: determination by DAR is specious. 307 for 3. declaration. the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being relevant and applicable. 2. immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade Note: or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his 1. However. CA.

There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA: SP= Selling Price (the average of the latest available 12 months selling prices prior to the date of receipt of the CF (claim folder) by LBP for processing. The Court Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .6) + (CS x 0.12 formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. No.3) + (MV x 0.9) + (MV x 0. in their absence. and Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or verified. SP may be CNI = Capitalized Net Income secured within the province or region. this petition. net income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry studies to establish formula shall be: the applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP. 6657.CO precisely filled in the details of Section 17. Landholdings planted to coconut which are productive at the time of FI shall continue to use the assumed NIR of A1. relevant.Petitioner filed a petition for determination of Just Compensation before RTC.978. the property.A. Hence.1) DAR Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted wholeheartedly the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report. 6657 even though the appraisal same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one (1) company admitted that it did not consider as applicable the CARP valuation of year from receipt of claimfolder. an assumed applicable. A.12 = Capitalization rate” A2. citing appraisal report decided formula shall be: P7. from the Bureau of Where: Agricultural Statistics.750.1) prices to be secured from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other appropriate regulatory bodies or.A. SP data shall be gathered for the barangay or LV = Land Value municipality where the property is located.1) 0. Capanas . No. In the absence thereof. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable. CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration CO = Cost of Operations The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present. This formula has to be considered by the SAC in tandem with all the factors referred AGP= Average Gross Production corresponding to the latest available 12 months to in Section 17 of the law. 6657 by providing a basic . R.9) + (MV x 0. A3. and CS and MV are applicable. Held: --- The Court took note: Where: “These factors have already been incorporated in a basic formula by the DAR CNI= pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R. If possible. the 70 %. LV = (CNI x 0. The administrative order provides: gross production immediately preceding the date of FI (field investigation) A. AO No.AMaWS Page 54 . When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable. LV = MV x 2 Petition for review by LBP to CA and found that the SAC made a In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the wholesale adoption of the valuation of the appraisal company and did not lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the consider the other factors set forth in R. 5 (AGPxSP) . No. the formula shall be: The Court finds that the factors required by the law and enforced by the LV = (CS x 0. such LV = (CNI x 0. the RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC).Atty.00 as just compensation and ordered LBP to pay. When the CNI factor is not present.

determination be remanded. tax credits or LBP bonds.O. No. 228 Land Transfer 2 (OLT) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P. 27. there was admission that valuation was not The Court remanded the determination of just compensation to RTC based on factors under CARL: a representative of the company admitted that it acting as SAC. LBP fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. LBP v. accorded weight and probative value and that the SAC is guided by the various  Content and Manner (Section 18) factors enumerated in Section 17of R. No. because “revolutionary kind”.76 based on the guidelines set forth under P.D. which amount respondent withdrew in 1997. It disregarded respondents' claim that the valuation should be  Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash? based on the current market value of the landholding since no evidence was No. which valued the compensation therefor in the total amount of compensation is the value of the property at the time of the taking. vs. should be determined in accordancewithRA6657.repremands the case to the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court for the provided by PD No. 27/E. land transfer program of P.03 after computing the 6% The Court citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Capanas .  Case remanded. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz. Petitioner pegged the value of the acquired Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for determination of JC may be landholding at P106. 13. Heirs of Cruz  If valuation is not based on any evidence. Natividad.A. 27 3 and should be applied in fixing just compensation since respondents' landholding awarded to the tenant-beneficiaries by the Department of Agrarian Reform was acquired under P.and not PD 27 or EO 228. the The property was placed under the coverage of the government's Operation instant petition.00 per hectare fixed by the PARAD should be jurisdiction. it is not valid . Hence. 4 Held: The valuation was later increased to P903. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock. decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence. 27.O. CA rendered the assailed decision partly LBP vs.D.D.Atty. 6657. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has orig and exclusive held that the value of P80.) No.D. No. adduced in support of the claim and also did not accept petitioner's valuation as  Parties involved (Section 18) it was based on P. equivalent being real.” (Note that in this case. No.O. 228. No.) No. No. 6657 in determining just  Sec. petition for the determination of just compensation before the RTC acting as SAC (b) Sec. That just compensation Act No. compensation. No. 27 filed? and E. arguing that the formula set forth in P. without Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 27 in cognizance to a settled rule that just (DAR). 27 and Executive Order October 1972. is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and Sps. Reconsideration was denied. “It would annual interest increment 5 due on the property per DAR Administrative Order certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline No. so Land Bank of the Phils. full and ample.000.000. in which just compensation was determined at the time of the taking of the property.00 per hec.637. Jocson and sons granting petitioner's appeal but affirmed the SAC decision fixing just Facts: compensation at P80. Respondents petitioned for valuation and determination of just  No: compensation before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator which fixed it to (a) because DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the pendency P80. the  If valuation is based not on the factors.D. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of Republic the just compensation for a considerable length of time.563. so case Landholding of the respondents was placed under the coverage of the was remanded.D.00 per hectare.935. on 21 P250. did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable). (E.000. series of 1994. Lee v. Facts:  In this case. it is w/o basis. Motion for Reconsideration was denied so the Petitioner of protest.D.80 following the formula prescribed in P.AMaWS Page 55 . 228. substantial.

No. Chico. as in the case at bar.O. No. That just compensation. the SAC adopted a higher valuation (P93. and the CLOA the provisions of R. petitioner and the DAR claimed that the property and 1988.189. Pampanga. 18 The request was denied by Regional Director Antonio Nuesa on the ground that there was already a perfected sale. the time of payment. No. against the Land Bank (petitioner).prejudice to the outcome of the case it had filed hereunder to fix just determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time.O. 27 and E. 6657 on just compensation control. LBP issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of compensation after noting several decided cases where the Court found it more Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827. 7 the DAR. When in the interim R.Atty. 6657 was applied to cases involving lands placed under the coverage of P. the equivalent being real.D. series of 1991. Br. 228 where payment of Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an just compensation had not been completed. 7 Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform was acquired by the government under its OLT program and their valuation (DAR) for acquisition under the CARP at P30.6329 hectares of sugarland 6 located in Dapdap. 6657 is the relevant law for determining just On September 20. 1991. Land Bank of the Philippines where it declared that the reckoning It was only two years later 17 that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the period for the determination of just compensation is the time when the land was compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the taken applying P.657. indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an international paper mill. No. No. substantial.AMaWS Page 56 .A. 228 vis a vis R. series of 1989. time it was first offered for sale. No. Trial Court of Bacolod City. Mabalacat. and not PD 27 or EO 228. LBP. judicial determination of just compensation against DAR. Whether the SAC erred in the valuation the land Livioco was then promptly informed of the valuation 14 and that the cash portion of the claim proceeds have been "kept in trust pending [his] submission HELD: of the [ownership documentary] requirements.O." 15 It appears however that In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v.O. No.870. sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC).D. holders.00. having been made pursuant to the P9. P. 27 the Court declared Livioco did not act upon the notice given to him by both government agencies.48 as compensation equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of the property at for Livioco's 26 hectares. Sometime between 1987 In their respective Answers. This was a clear departure from the Court's earlier stance in Gabatin v. 12 the LBP set the Issue: price at P3. Capanas . is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be Finding the DAR's offer of compensation for the property to be grossly the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the inadequate. No. 228 and P.A. It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the In this Petition before us. 17. 3. No.D.A. 1997 before the Regional expropriator. Respondent Enrique Livioco (Livioco) was the owner of 30.943. and the tenant-beneficiaries. for a total of thereof constituted just compensation. 6657 outrageously low valuation of his property.943. 228. 46. Republic Act (RA) No. 11 as amended by Administrative Order No.48 for 26 hectares. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form 8 he submitted to the DAR guidelines set by E. 27/E. in no uncertain terms that R.00 per square meter. No.D. full and ample. It maintains that it is not the State's policy to Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 27.00/hectare) which the DAR had applied to a similar landholding The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. for LBP vs Livioco "Determination and Fixing of Just Compensation for the Acquisition of Land and Facts: Payment of Rentals". 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. In arriving at the just compensation. compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657. 27/E. respondent filed a complaint 6 on July 18. Following Section 17 of belonging to one Pablo Estacion adjacent to respondent's.21 per square meter or a total of P827. LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of Livioco's guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to property as a residential land.A. No. No. Livioco finally filed a petition for was passed before the full payment of just compensation.

No. the judge cannot abuse his for considering the subject property's value as residential. for reasons explained Was the compensation for respondent's property above. DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Respondent's property remains agricultural and While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function should be valued as such. and the time of actual taking. Lim. This may changed from agricultural to residential. in the absence of any DAR approval for the Bank of the Philippines v. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. it is the farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay For purposes of just compensation. at most. it had to be valued as an agricultural land. not the ultimate in determining just compensation. The proper approach should have been to value respondent's property as an agricultural land. it Philippines v. DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions 73 so as to prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. 25 and Land Bank of the conversion of respondent's property or an actual expropriation by an LGU. we were explicit in stating that: cannot be said that the character or use of said property changed from agricultural to residential. 5. Capanas . because there is no allegation or proof just bring the State right back to the starting line where the landless remain that the property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR. While the potential use of an expropriated property is apply it. Valuing the property as a residential land (as the lower courts have done) is not the correct approach. It would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform. Barrido. discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. unable to keep up with payment amortizations. 68 payment). The courts cannot ignore. 24 Land industrial or commercial. .Atty. the fair market value of an expropriated the valuations paid to the former land owners (LBP merely advances the property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. not its potential DAR and LBP or as may be finally determined by the court as just compensation uses. Hence. 78 If the farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as There are three important concepts in this definition — the character of the residential lands (the valuation for which is substantially higher than the property. general vicinity of the expropriated property. courts have no option but to of the property. Note that in lands HELD: acquired under RA 6657. series of 1998. 76 it should never control the determination of just compensation (which appears to be what the lower courts Valuation and Payment (Section 18) have erroneously done). the potential use of the property or its "adaptability for conversion for the land. without violating the agrarian law. it is not unlikely that such farmers. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property (which the disregard the formula laid down in DAR A." 77 Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 26 In Barrido. The potential use of a property should not be the FORMS OF PAYMENT principal criterion for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to SEC. because lower courts found to be preponderant) could. refer to the potential use unless an administrative order is declared invalid. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz. If at all. its price. 18. Even LBP vs Honeycomb reclassification 74 and plans for expropriation 75 by local government units HELD: We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable (LGUs) will not ipso facto convert an agricultural property to residential.AMaWS Page 57 . will be forced to give up their landholdings The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property has in favor of the State or be driven to sell the property to other parties. in the future is a factor. Since the property was acquired under the CARP. It is the landless and the rich acquire more landholdings from desperate farmers. which value may be adjusted in light of the improvements in Issue the Municipality of Mabalacat. valuation for agricultural lands). Thus.The LBP shall compensate the the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the determined by its character and its price at the time of taking.O. the CA and the trial court had no legal basis vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. which is determined in accordance with law? to free the tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil without delivering them to the new oppression of exorbitant land valuations. the sometimes considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.purchase residential land.

The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes at the option of (ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or controlled
the landowner: corporations or shares or stock owned by the government in private
corporations;
(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions:
(a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is (iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused
concerned - Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in persons, or for performance bonds;
government financial instruments negotiable at any time.
(iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the
(b) For lands above twenty-four hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares - Thirty proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in
percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments a small and medium-scale industry, in the same province or region as the land
negotiable at any time. for which the bonds are paid;

(c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below - Thirty-five percent (35%) (v) Payment for various taxes and fees to the government: Provided, That the
cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at use of these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of
any time. the outstanding balance of the financial instrument: Provided, further, That the
PARC shall determine the percentages mentioned above;
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP
preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance (vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder
with guidelines set by the PARC; in government universities, colleges, trade schools and other institutions;

(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability; (vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
government hospitals; and
(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:
(viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.
(a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate
(10%) of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of measures to protect the economy.
issuance until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose
to forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid LBP vs Darab
correspondingly in LBP bonds; - the valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the landowners, After re-
(b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the computation upon order of PARAD, a revaluated amount was made but Los still
landowner, his successors-in-interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their found it low. Los appealed to DARAB,. Pending resolution of their appeal Los
face value for any of the following: interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation seeking the release to tem
of the amount representing the difference between the initial value.
(i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including
assets under the Assets Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by SC- the need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the amount
government financial institution in the same province or region where the lands deposited in their behalf, pending final determination of what is just
for which the bonds were paid are situated; compensation for their land
- it is a an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not allow
withdraw

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS Page 58

- it is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation ISSUE:
under Section 16 (e) and final compensation under Section 18 for the purposes Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation of just
of exercising the landowners’ right to appropriate the same. The immediate compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken by the
effect in other situations in the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately
compensated. HELD:
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still
Heirs of Lorenzo vs. LBP incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to
- Petitioner are owners of land; first valuation was rejected but upon re- be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before
computation and order of RRAD, the revaluation was accepted by owners LBP the completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and
filed MR but denied, LBP filed an opposition for determination of JC with the RTC the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law,
- Petitioner submit that LBP has no legal personality with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our
- SEC 18, clearly states there should be a consensus among ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.
- LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedingsund4r RA
6657 and thus has the legal personality to question the determination. xxx xxx xxx

DAR vs Heirs of Domingo It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the
Facts: guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to
The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a 70.3420- determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
hectare rice land situated at Macapabellag, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, covered by compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27
Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-97157. or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be
the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 2 (P.D. No. 27) was issued, expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to
rice and corn were deemed as full owners of the land they till. The land transfer Content and manner of compensation
program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently implemented by Executive Order
No. 228. Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. Sec.

On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent
Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of
against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR. relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a
specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary
Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just compensation for kind of expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural
the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the
Republic Act No. 6657 4 (R.A. No. 6657). maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not
mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous.
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. The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option,
No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228. are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS Page 59

bonds, other properties or assets, tax credits, and other things of value On October 12, 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the lands subject of
equivalent to the amount of just compensation. this case pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law, or CARL). The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) referred their
Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always required to be made voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) applications to Land Bank for initial valuation. Land
fully in money. Bank fixed the just compensation at P165,484.47/hectare, that is,
P86,900,925.88, for AFC, and P164,478,178.14, for HPI. The valuation was
rejected, however, prompting Land Bank, upon the advice of DAR, to open
Parties Involved (Section 18) deposit accounts in the names of the petitioners, and to credit in said accounts
the sums of P26,409,549.86 (AFC) and P45,481,706.76 (HPI). Both petitioners
Land Bank v. CA: withdrew the amounts in cash from the accounts, but afterwards, on February
The parties are DAR, landowner and LBP. The law does not mention the 14, 1997, they filed separate complaints for determination of just compensation
participation of farmer-beneficiary. with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing proper
compensation. When DARAB did not act on their complaints for determination of just
 Voluntary offer (Section 19) compensation after more than three years, the petitioners filed complaints for
 Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash payment if LO voluntarily determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagum
offers land for sale. City, Branch 2, acting as a special agrarian court (SAC), docketed as Agrarian
 Voluntary land transfer (Secs. 20 and 21) Cases No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000. Summonses were served on May 23, 2000
to Land Bank and DAR, which respectively filed their answers on July 26, 2000
How is VLT made? and August 18, 2000. The RTC conducted a pre-trial, and appointed persons it
Sec. 20 – LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for direct transfer to considered competent, qualified and disinterested as commissioners to
qualified beneficiaries but subject to guidelines (i.e., all notices for VLT be determine the proper valuation of the properties.
submitted to DAR within 1st year of implementation of CARP, terms and
conditions shall not be less favorable to transferee).
The RTC rendered its decision:
Sec. 21 – direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under terms
mutually agreed and which shall be binding upon registration and approval by DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
DAR. thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners'
 Sec. 44 (2) – provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC the fees herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the
adoption of direct payment scheme. So, AO #2, s. 1995 was issued: 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half
(2 1/2) percent of the determined and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and
 Beneficiaries are determined by DAR;
just compensation of plaintiffs' land and standing crops plus interest equivalent
 Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area which the
to the interest of the 91-Day Treasury Bills from date of taking until full
govt would otherwise acquire;
payment;
 CLOA’s should bear proper annotations.
ISSUE:
Payment in interest in just compensation Whether or not the interest was validly imposed.
Apo Fruits corp. vs CA HELD:
Facts:

Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS Page 60

238. prompting them to file their respective appeals with the Court of Appeals. Respondents alleged The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of that they are entitled to an amount of not less than P4. 5 Any intervening delay thereby entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank. the just compensation of the 18.Atty. and of the 0.94. we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just compensation is not justified and should therefore be deleted. Therefore. Both parties disagreed with the trial court's valuation. Wycoco that interest on the just compensation is date. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case.000.612. making the aforecited Administrative Order delay in the payment of just compensation which should warrant the award of applicable. the SAC rendered a judgment. ordering LBP to pay the them and bring the matter to court for judicial determination. Albay. until the value is fully paid or a total of P894. 11 compensation to KPCI. and that Land Bank filed in March 2003 its petition for and Republic Act No. however. 27 4 a notice of appeal.30 incremental interest). representing In the case at bar. until the value is fully paid. beginning August 17.2329 hectare was computed at P8.It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA. 6657 several parcels of rice land situated in Oas. Clearly. the factors Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . the subject lands were taken under PD 27 and were covered just compensation for the subject properties.0491 hectares of irrigated are unfavorable to it. HELD: LBP vs Soriano In the instant case. The appellate court. As a matter of fact. the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the Domingo and Mamerto Soriano (respondents) are the registered owners of court on 23 November 2000 or long after the passage of Republic Act No.94 plus 12% interest per annum.2820 hectares were placed under the basis of the computation for just compensation. 8 Not satisfied with the unjustified delay. with a right to appeal decisions in such cases that ACCORDINGLY. beginning October 21. It is likewise true that AFC and HPI already collected P149. considering that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a The LBP 6 pegged the value of 18.79. Land Bank is ordered to pay the landowners Domingo Soriano and imposed only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be sufficiently Mamerto Soriano said amount/land value in accordance with law. plus increment of 6% per annum computed annually cannot be penalized by making it pay for interest.94 as of this It is explicit from LBP v. while the act in bad faith or in an unreasonable manner as to make such party guilty of remaining 0.65 as land value plus P348. instituted a Complaint 9 for Plantation: 18 HAcaCS judicial determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City.363.94. 1998. The dispositive portion reads: indispensable party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the Agrarian Reform Program. It must be emphasized that "pertinent amounts were deposited in favor of AFC affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 6657 should be the principal of land 3 owned by the respondents. . otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian certiorari in the CA only because the RTC did not give due course to its appeal.9163 hectares in 1988.2329 hectare of rain fed riceland is P8. 12% interest per annum in AFC and HPI's favor.500. respectively. This makes LBP an respondents P894. 18. As stated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. established. . It also upheld the award of compounded and HPI within fourteen months after the filing by the latter of the Complaint for interest. respondents. there is no unreasonable by Operation Land Transfer. 10 sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC).AMaWS Page 61 . Section 17 of Republic Act No. Out of the 18. LBP riceland is P133. on 23 November 2000. 6657. Given the foregoing.00 as just Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation. while the subject lands were acquired under Presidential Facts: Decree No. Capanas .95 7 remedy afforded by law to every losing party. 27. however. 1972. thus: determination of just compensation before the RTC". Kumassie valuation.6 and P262 million. 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 On 21 February 2005. who cannot thus be considered to (P133. by filing Operations Land Transfer and the CARP pursuant to Presidential Decree No.238.584. Reform Law.751.751.0491 hectares of land at P482.584. .

27 in 1972. Original Certificate of Title No. On 1 December 1994.8704 hectares of the total area of 20. at 12% per annum should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time. 19 we affirmed the award of 12% interest on just prompt payment. Court of Appeals. 18. stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage SEC. . The court decreed: payment of the land transfer claim and deposits the proceeds in the name of the landowner is not tantamount to actual payment because on said date. broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal Note: RA 6657 – 12% action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who PD 27 – 6% receives. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. Capanas . respondents claim that the date LBP approves the compensation due to the landowner. In fine. in its 1979 decision. Moreover. was correct in imposing interest on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment. 19. This allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the form of lease rental amounting to P75. legal Transfer Certificate of Title No. if property is taken for public use before LBP vs Rivera compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case. 27 7 were governed and valued in accordance with and other financial institutions who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be the provisions of Executive Order No.Landowners of agricultural lands subject to were public funds to be disbursed only in accordance with existing laws and acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct regulations. T-95690 that was placed under the coverage of interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. the The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum release of the amount is conditioned on certain requirements. LBP approved instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September the payment of P265. that the administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Voluntary Transfer (Section 20 and 21) Decree No. Only (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred.5254 hectares were subject of the coverage. that the funds that LBP would use to pay compensation SEC. the final compensation must include interest on its just value to Facts: be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land embraced by compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. The award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to ensure In Republic v.AMaWS Page 62 . 20. 27 and Executive Order No. Voluntary Offer for Sale (Section 19) LBP filed its answer. and later transferred in their names under between the taking of the property and the actual payment. exclusive of the advance payments made in the 1969. 94-03 for determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court. Series of 1987 and other statutes and administrative issuances. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm. .20.415. 13. 228 was already settled. P-082. equivalent to the market value of the property. 27 and Executive Order No. The Bulacan trial court. Thus.Landowners other than banks of Presidential Decree No. the respondents instituted Civil Case No. and one who desires to sell.Atty. P191. Voluntary Land Transfer. that the supporting documents were not yet received by LBP. and Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .enumerated therein had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR that the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No.99 pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 6657.494. being an effective forbearance. Administrative Order No. pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 228 8 as implemented by DAR entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment.88 but inclusive of 6% increment of property as of the time of the taking computed. series of 1994.876. 2. if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government.

unless notice of disapproval is received by the farmer-beneficiary within 30 days from the date of Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the registration. they may be granted ownership of other lands available for SEC. or in the absence thereof. 168787.No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to (3) hectares of agricultural land. the landowners.R.transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines: (2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the (a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within distribution of the land of their parents. (4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. . due to the landowner’s retention rights or to the number of tenants. aptitude. at the option of the beneficiaries. or workers on the land. land. there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them. 24) (f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries. Thus. or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the under the Program. and Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (g) others directly working on the land. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . which shall contain the restrictions and conditions (d) other farmworkers.  Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land (c) seasonal farmworkers. 23) by the DAR. Distribution Limit. which shall be binding upon them. 21. and (c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants. In. either party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the (6) If. Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary Land distribution under the Act. if such offers have been made and are fully known to both parties. Said approval shall be considered given.AMaWS Page 63 . concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse procedure for compulsory acquisition as provided in Section 16 shall apply.. landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries.. and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds (e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands. The of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of PCPCI LBP shall extend financing to the beneficiaries for purposes of acquiring the (DAR vs. Polo Coconut Plantation Co. Ownership Award.. Chapter VII Award Ceiling Limit (Section 23) QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES SEC. land shall instead be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act. upon registration with and approval land. (b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the disposed of.. 23. et al. (Sec. AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES (b) regular farmworkers. G.Atty. September 3. In the event they cannot agree on the price of the land. Negotiations between the landowners and qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer (3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such therefrom. 2008). (5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness. landless residents of the same barangay. the first year of the implementation of the CARP. provided for in the Act. Transfer.Direct payment in cash or in kind may be made by the farmer- beneficiary to the landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both (8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural parties. (Sec.27 who have culpably sold. lessees. Capanas . DAR.

v. Carmona. and awarded to the beneficiary. the CBC issued transfer or conveyance. shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP. 76742. and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in the Register non-payment of an aggregate of three(3) annual amortization. – Section 24 of R. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .A. Capanas . EP or CLOA therefor. the children of the spouse of the transferor shall have a (b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two awarded through the EP or CLOA. 20210 issued in favor of Loyola on 27 December 1990 and duly value of the annual gross production as established by the DAR. Cavite.July (1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold.) Examples of these are: (a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Association of Small Landowners in TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS the Philippines. Reform Law of 1988. the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the completed within 180 days from the time the DAR takes actual principal obligation to make the repayment affordable. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee beneficiaries may already be in possession of the land but still have no (PARCCOM) shall. (Sec. Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land (2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.Atty.R. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to Cont. which award shall be to the beneficiary’s fault. Lebrudo vs Loyola PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES (1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to Facts: the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to Respondent Remedios Loyola (Loyola) owns a parcel of land located in Barangay the following rules: Milagrosa. prior right) by way of mortgage on the land Ownership Award (CLOA). 6657 provides that the (c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the of the annual gross production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due time the DAR makes an award of the land to him. 998. 6657 4 (RA 6657) or the Comprehensive Agrarian reduced amounts as established by the PARC.) that title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession. awarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at (DAR) under Republic Act No. Inc. (2) years. No. in turn. as a condition for such beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof. possession of the land. advice the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. be given the due notice thereof by the BARC. shall cultivate the land himself. government. land may be transferred or conveyed. the identified land is situated. or to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. to any heir Moreover. the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming pending the fulfillment of certain legal and administrative requirements. 1989. which shall contain the restrictions. However. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1)… the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the  Thus. however. an intermediate document to evidence that they have been identified and (2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary. 26. For this reason. with prior approval of the DAR. The LBP shall of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. This lot is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership 5 (b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the (CLOA) No.. the DAR shall first issue a CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the would-be beneficiaries. pending the fulfillment of the said requirements. or to the only upon full payment of compensation to their respective landowners.e. a beneficiary under the Act. 14. No. aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the identified of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who. registered on 14 March 1991 under Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT)/CLOA No. A beneficiary whose land In several instances. the rights to the have qualified as agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP.AMaWS Page 64 . Secretary of Agrarian Reform” (G.  When certificate issued.

Lebrudo (Lebrudo).AMaWS Page 65 . Loyola denied from the grant by the DAR. Clearly. Lebrudo insists that he is entitled to one-half portion of the Milagrosa. titling and does not fall under any of the exceptions. Loyola explained that the lot was her only property and it the waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government was already being occupied by her children and their families. in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian reform laws. to Loyola's name. or to the government. Lebrudo asked Loyola to comply with her promise. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries Barreto. Lebrudo used the two Sinumpaang Salaysay executed PNP and the barangay. 998 was issued in favor of It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the Loyola. Loyola then allegedly executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay 9 dated 28 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold.00 and a cavan of palay. there was no amicable settlement.Atty. or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. Lebrudo re-filed the same action. Loyola maintained that Lebrudo was the one who approached her conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land reform rights within 10 years and offered to redeem the lot and the release of the CLOA. as amended by RA 9700. now deceased and covered by RA 6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of rights embodied represented by his son. Ellano. petitioner Julian S. under this ACT may not be sold. 20 which provides for the transferability of awarded lands. committing herself to remove her house constructed on the prohibitory 10-year period. during the December 1992. The law provides for four exceptions and Lebrudo promising one-half portion of the lot as payment for the transfer. is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws. TCT/CLOA No. transfer or In her Answer. transferred or conveyed except through Loyola again sought Lebrudo's help in obtaining title to the lot in her name by hereditary succession. After Lebrudo redeemed the lot for P250. any sale. Thus. On 11 March 1996. Lebrudo's assertion must fail. states: Lebrudo alleged that he was approached by Loyola sometime in 1989 to redeem the lot. despite expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from Loyola's mother. the waiver and transfer of rights to the lot as embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed ISSUE: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . rights is void. Lebrudo filed an by Loyola alloting to him the one-half portion of the lot as basis for his claim. filed with the Office of in the two Sinumpaang Salaysay. 8 Section 27 of RA 6657. and contains the prejudice on the ground that the case was filed prematurely. Cristina steps taken to amicably settle the issue. Loyola promised to give Lebrudo the one- half portion of the lot. except as allowed by law. 3) to the Land Bank of the executed two more Sinumpaang Salaysay 10 dated 1 December 1992 and 3 Philippines (LBP). Cristina Hugo. Cristina Hugo. or to the LBP. The law enumerate four exceptions: (1) the lot in favor of Lebrudo. an action 6 for the cancellation of the TCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola HELD: and the issuance of another for the one-half portion of the lot in Lebrudo's favor. lot awarded to Loyola under the CARP as payment for shouldering all the Cavite. A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of In a Decision 7 dated 18 December 1995. Thereafter. or to other qualified shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from her beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. transferred or December 1989. Thereafter. restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws. petitioner Reynaldo L. Loyola refused. 27. The law expressly prohibits any sale. (2) to the government. the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Carmona. However. The main issue is whether Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot On 27 June 1995. To reiterate her commitment. and the Department of Agrarian Reform to mediate. Lebrudo sought the assistance of the Sangguniang Barangay of In the present case. In exchange. waiving and transferring her rights over the one-half portion of conveyed for a period of 10 years. to Trinidad SEC. In short. Cavite. Capanas . transfer or conveyance of land reform corresponding one-half portion to be allotted to Lebrudo. the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Trece Martires City. which was mortgaged by Loyola's mother. However.Transferability of Awarded Lands. Lebrudo. as evidenced by certifications from the Hugo. Loyola allegedly through hereditary succession. Cavite. Carmona. action against Loyola. In Maylem v. mother. 21 we held that registration of the lot. the PARAD dismissed the case without the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR.

– This scheme provides corporate rights and features as all other shares. of shareholders. these corporations shall implement a production and profit- sharing scheme in their farms. (2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS). Capanas . GSIS FINANCED THE PURCHASE ON subject to confirmation by the DAR. with 6657. . or in a management or executive committee. corporations owning agricultural lands may give THE TENANTS.by Loyola is void for falling under the 10-year prohibitory period specified in RA distributed be reduced. banana. and pineapple. corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of this Act. In no case shall the DISTRIBUTED TO FARMERS. Pending final land transfer. the farmers (b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association. NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital (1) Leasehold Operations (LO).This scheme is an interim measure while (a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to the lands owned or operated by agricultural entities await coverage dividends and other financial benefits.Atty. chosen by the beneficiaries. actually devoted to IN 1980 GOVT FILED AT RTC MANILA CASE AGAINST TADECO FOR IT TO agricultural activities. There entities are companies mostly involved in the association shall be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants commercial production of rubber. within the same corporation. under such SURRENDER THE HACIENDA TO MAR (NOW DAR) SO THE LAND WILL BE terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. Corporate Landowners. IN 1988 CA DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUBJECT TO REVIVAL IF Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 31. the agricultural land of the deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets. if one exists.Under this arrangement. . of the management or executive committee to protect the rights and interest corporation or association. Chapter VIII (Corporate Farms) HLI vs PRAC SEC. CONDITION THAT THE LAND WILL ULTIMATELY BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD TO Upon certification by the DAR. If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act. as there has been greater pressure for them to approved by the PARC within the same period. under THE HACIENDA COMPRISED 6. That the following condition are complied with: displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land. The deferment period was up to 1998. the are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits and are also beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the board of assured of at least a representatives at the Board of Directors. MANILA RTC RULED AGAINST TADECO. TO TADECO OWNED BY THE COJUANCOS. and landowners of newly-established commercial plantations enough time to (d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void ab recover their investment before such agricultural lands are covered by initio UNLESS said transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered beneficiary CARP. directors. respect to their equity or participation. and (c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same (4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD).Corporate landowners may voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the Republic of the BASIC Facts: Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified beneficiaries.AMaWS Page 66 . IN 1957 TABACALERA SOLD THE LAND such terms and conditions consistent with this Act. however.443 HAS. the books of the corporation or under the CARP. their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land. bears in relation to the company's total assets. The same principle shall be applied to associations. as they may agree upon. the land or stock transfer The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution not been given much priority. (3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified or lands not yet due for distribution are placed under leasehold to beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the ensure farmers’ security over the land they till and pre-empt their provisions of this Act: Provided.lands within the land owners’ retained areas stock. TADECO compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are APPEALED TO CA.

EO 229 FARMERS AND HLI ENTERED INTO STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION AGREEMENT empowers PARC to approve the plan for stock distribution in appropriate cases. is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary SCTEX USE.000.[14][94] APPROVING THE SDO BE REVOKED. privileges or jurisdiction which it grants. as implemented by DAO 10.000. IN 1995 HLI APPLIED TO CONVERT 500 HAS TO INDUSTRIAL USE. While. that RA 6657 IN 2003 FARMER GROUPS FILED CASE AT DAR FOR EITHER RENEGOTIATION OF or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the PARC SDOA OR ITS REVOCATION ON GROUND THAT THEIR LIVES DID NOT IMPROVE with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP.TADECO FAILS TO GET APPROVAL OF FARMERS OF STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION NO. from which it is derived in the first place. We have explained that “every statute is understood. PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously approved. AND THEY DID NOT GET FAIR SHARES IN THE SALE OF LANDS TO LIPCO AND FOR however. IN Under Sec. Such power or authority. By the same token. for neither RA 6657 nor EO 229 WERE FOR FARMERS AND 250. as HLI argued. HLI maintains WERE 400. power. IS the authority to grant the license. to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose. Veridiano II is instructive: HLI ARGUES THAT PARC IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REVOKE THE STOCK The power to approve a license includes by implication. However. but not to recall its IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND THEY WILL GET GREATER BENEFITS. it is only for their violation that the FDA may revoke the said license. It may be.[16][96] ISSUE: Gordon v. BUT THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT IT CAN DISAPPROVE THE SDP.51 HAS WAS EXPROPRIATED FOR the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. HENCE THE CASE.00. THEN IT TRANSFERRED THE 500 HAS TO CENTENNARY HELD HOLDINGS INC WHICH TRANSFERRED IT TO LUISTA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORP OR We disagree. ACQUISITION OF THE HACIENDA FOR DISTRIBUTION TO FARMERS. as urged.000. LIPCO CONVEYED SOME LANDS TO RCBC AS PAYMENT FOR LOANS. having granted the permit upon Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . it is the court which has jurisdiction and authority to order the revocation or rescission of the PARC-approved SDP.000. DAR APPROVED previous approval of the SDP after it has been implemented by the parties.Atty. 150. 31 of RA 6657. CONVERSION WS APPROVED. THE TOTAL SHARES On the postulate that the subject jurisdiction is conferred by law. a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part (PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUCIL) THAT THE PREVIOUS ORDER of it as that which is expressed. OTHERWISE PARC WOULD BE A TOOTHLESS AGENCY. if the FDA grants a license upon its finding that the applicant drug store has complied with the requirements of the general laws and the implementing administrative rules and regulations.[13] SDOA. the power to revoke is limited by SDP.”[15][95] Further. DAR CREATED TASK FORCE WHICH RECOMMENDED TO PARC implication. Capanas . contrary to petitioner HLI’s posture. right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power. IF PARC WAS GIVEN POWER TO APPROVE SDP. By extension. right or XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX privilege.000 SHARES FOR OTHER STOCKHOLDERS. USE OF SCTEX. or IN 2005 PARC REVOKED THE SDO AND ORDERED THE COMPULSORY to make effective rights.000 SHARES that PARC is without authority to revoke an SDP. by implication.AMaWS Page 67 .000. (SDOA) WHICH PROVIDES THAT FARMERS AGREE BECAUSE SUCH SDO WILL the empowerment only includes the power to disapprove. the power to revoke it.000 WITH PAR VALUE OF P400. even if not expressly DISTRIBUTION PLAN (SDP). THE LAW GIVES PARC THE POWER TO APPROVDE granted. REVOKE IT BY THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION. [93] To HLI. HLI WENT TO including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and THE SC AND ASKED FOR TRO TO STOP IMPLEMENTATION OF PARK ORDER. the authority to approve ADDITION TO THE 500 HAS SOLD TO LIPCO. 80. IT HAS THE POWER TO (SDO) AND IF OPTED BY FARMERS TADECO FAILS TO IMPLEMENT SDO. expressly vests PARC with such authority. “every statutory grant of 2006 SC ISSUED TRO. IN 1988 TADECO CREATED HACIENDA LUISITA INC (HLI) AND TADECO BOUGHT SHARES OF HLI IN EXCHANGE OF THE HACIENDA LAND. HLI’S ARGUMENT CORRECT? Thus. LIPCO. IN logically inferred from its terms. powers.

cannot. RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY BY A PROPER PARTY OR ONE WITH LOCUS STANDI. this modality of distribution is an anomaly to be annulled for being inconsistent with the basic concept of agrarian reform ingrained in Sec. to resort to stock distribution. INCLUDING ALL SUCH COLLATERAL AND reform. Art. The instant challenge on the constitutionality of Sec. because the very same agency tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved SDP would THE FARMERS QUESTIONED THE CONSITUTIONALITY OF R. 6657 ONLY AFTER be without authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance with it. HLI added.[17][97] (Emphasis supplied.[32][108] reduce it into a toothless agency of CARP. to deny PARC such revocatory power would THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE CASE.[34] WHAT IS IMPLIED IN A STATUTE IS AS MUCH A PART OF IT AS THAT WHICH IS [107] EXPRESSED. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the ARE NOT ALL COMPLIED WITH. TO Reacting. impairs the fundamental right of farmers and farmworkers under Sec. It draws attention in this OBJECT AND PURPOSE. it does so only when the following essential requirements are first met. Capanas . FARM asks for the invalidation of Sec.AMaWS Page 68 . THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE: (1) THERE IS AN agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY. and at least eleven (11) other department corporation. 31 of RA 6657. but direct point. With the view We take of the case.[20][94] EVERY STATUTE IS UNDERSTOOD. OR TO MAKE EFFECTIVE RIGHTS. BY IMPLICATION.” The constitutionality of a law. insofar as it affords the the DAR Secretary as vice-chair. IT IS TOO LATE. no less. The ALSO. 4. and pass upon the constitutionality of. FROM ITS TERMS.[18][98] 14 YEARS SINCE THE SDP WAS DRAWN AND IMPLEMENTED.) CONTRAVENES SECTION 4.[33][106] Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To a more specific. there is stock certificate ownership of the farmers or farmworkers instead of them WHAT IS THIS DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION? owning the land. HLI insists that agrarian reform is not only about transfer of land CONTAIN ALL SUCH PROVISIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE ITS ownership to farmers and other qualified beneficiaries. 31 of RA 6657 permits stock transfer in lieu of outright agricultural land transfer. to FARM. it may be stated that the NO. “EVERY STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . by his own authority as such. it is only for the violation of such conditions that the mayor may DISTRIBUTION INSTEAD OF LAND DISTRIBUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT revoke the said permit. 4.his ascertainment that the conditions thereof as applied x x x have been RESPONDENT FARM ARGUES THAT SEC 31 OF RA 6657 WHICH ALLOWS STOCK complied with. ART.Atty. X111 OF THE CONSTITUTION.[19][99] arrangement which. acceptance and/or approval of the SDP sought to be taken back or undone is the act of PARC whose official composition includes. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUE REGARDING THE SDP WAS NOT THE LIST DAR Secretary. PRIVILEGES regard to Sec. POWERS. as a mode of CARP compliance. IT WAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SDP. 31 of RA 6657 and RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL INCIDENTAL POWER. as the MOTA. an heads. to wit: (1) there is an actual case or controversy. RIGHT OR necessarily its counterpart provision in EO 229 must fail as explained below. (2) THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS recall the approval of the plan. XIII of the Constitution. FARM argues that Sec. in fine. Art. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT? Following the doctrine of necessary implication.”[21][95]FURTHER. AND (3) THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE As public respondents aptly observe. XIII of the Constitution. only PARC can effect such revocation. For FARM. as here. PRIVILEGE When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review over. be attacked SUBSIDIARY CONSEQUENCES AS MAY BE FAIRLY AND LOGICALLY INFERRED collaterally. as envisaged in the Constitution.A. 3(a) of RA 6657 on the concept and scope of the term “agrarian OR JURISDICTION WHICH IT GRANTS. cannot plausibly do so. the President as chair. acts of the executive or legislative ISSUE departments.

the lis mota is whether or Solicitor General. 31 of RA 6657. 3l of RA 6657. The lis mota aspect is not Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .AMaWS Page 69 . Executive [108] Secretary explains why: Lis Mota — the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will undertake Not all the foregoing requirements are satisfied in the case at bar. 2003 or 14 years after approval of the constitutionality. but by petitioner AMBALA. 1989 before it challenged the constitutionality of Sec. et al. The FARM members slept on their rights underlying petitions of AMBALA. constitutionality of Sec. the AMBALA The lis mota in this case.Atty. And before the Court. looking deeply into the 6657 which is quite too late in the day. 2007 when it filed its Supplemental implemented. has yet to explain its failure to challenge the on some other ground. proceeding from the basic positions originally taken by petition did NOT question the constitutionality of Sec. This requirement is thereafter and why its members received benefits from the SDP without so much based on the rule that every law has in its favor the presumption of of a protest. On the not PARC acted in grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the recall of the other hand. Thus. whose 27 members formerly belonged to AMBALA. 1989 that said plan breach of the Constitution. Capanas . 31 of RA 6657. The unyielding rule has been to avoid. It was only on December 4. judicial review — means that the Court will not pass upon a question of While there is indeed an actual case or controversy. if the case can be disposed of of a small minority of 27 farmers. composed unconstitutionality. 31 of RA constitutionality of Sec. whenever plausible.[37][110] If some other grounds exist by which judgment can be made without touching the (3) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. Comment with the Court. therefore. but AMBALA (to which the FARM members previously belonged) and the Supervisory concentrated on the purported flaws and gaps in the subsequent Group. To be sure. as represented by the support a plea for its revocation. The Court that is flawed. such as the application of the statute or the general law. such recourse is favored. present. there must be a clear and unequivocal SDP via PARC Resolution No. 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. it took FARM some eighteen (18) years from any of these key issues may be resolved without plunging into the November 21. it is not the said section per se that is and even accepted benefits from the SDP with nary a complaint on the alleged invalid.[36][109] FARM is. offends certain constitutional and statutory provisions. intervenor FARM. 31 of RA 6657. raised the SDP for such non-compliance and the fact that the SDP. did not question the constitutionality of the provision. to stress. Even the public respondents. an issue opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standi. 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. by FARM argumentative. as couched and constitutionality of Sec. Furthermore. but rather it is the alleged application of the said provision in the SDP unconstitutionality of Sec. and assailing the constitutionality of a statute or governmental act. the constitutional issue tendered not being critical to the resolution of (2) that the constitutional question is raised at the earliest possible the case. remiss in belatedly questioning the constitutionality of Sec.) or any of its members. 31 upon which the benefits were derived. since as early as November 21.[39][112] (Italics in the original. but not. FARM. l989 when The petitioner must be able to show that the case cannot be legally resolved PARC approved the SDP of Hacienda Luisita or at least within a reasonable time unless the constitutional question raised is determined. and not one that is doubtful. The second requirement that the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity is clearly wanting. is the alleged non-compliance by HLI with the conditions of the SDP to implementation of the SDP.. or and approving resolution were sought to be revoked. The last but the most important requisite that the constitutional issue must be the very lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. 31 only on May 3.[35] constitutionality of a law. to justify its nullification.[38][111] Garcia v. 89-12-2 dated November 21. although properly presented. speculative. Moreover.