You are on page 1of 58

Republic of the Philippines Rules of Court and/or without the application or conformity of a

SUPREME COURT majority of the regular farmworkers on said farms."
Manila
The Parties
EN BANC
The petition is filed by the following: (1) the Confederation of Sugar
G.R. No. 169514 March 30, 2007 Producers Association, Inc. (CONFED), a national federation of sugar
planters’ associations and cooperatives from Luzon, Visayas and
CONFEDERATION OF SUGAR PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Mindanao, which is purportedly joined by its individual member
(CONFED), NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE organizations;1 (2) the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters, Inc.
PLANTERS, INC. (NFSP), UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS (NFSP), a duly organized federation of sugar planters’ associations
FEDERATION OF THE PHILS., INC. (UNIFED), PANAY and cooperatives from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, which is also
FEDERATION OF SUGAR-CANE FARMERS, INC. (PANAYFED), purportedly joined by its individual member organizations;2 (3) the
FIRST FARMERS HOLDING CORPORATION, NATIONAL United Sugar Producers Federation of the Phil., Inc. (UNIFED),
CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR INDUSTRY OF THE likewise a national federation of sugar planters’ associations and
PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP), LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES OF THE cooperatives from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, and is purportedly
PHILIPPINES – NEGROS OCCIDENTAL CHAPTER. Petitioners, joined by its individual member organizations;3(4) the Panay
vs. Federation of Sugarcane Farmers, Inc. (PANAYFED), a federation of
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR), (Now also known sugarcane planters’ organizations and cooperatives from Panay
as DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM), LAND BANK OF THE Island, also purportedly joined by its individual member
PHILIPPINES (LBP), LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY organizations;4(5) the First Farmers Holding Co., a domestic
(LRA). Respondents. corporation principally engaged in operating a sugar mill for the milling
and manufacture or processing of sugarcane into sugar and the
DECISION distribution of sugar and its by-products; (6) the National Congress of
Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP), a labor
CALLEJO, SR., J.: organization; and (7) the League of Municipalities of the Philippines,
Negros Occidental Chapter.
Before the Court is a petition for prohibition and mandamus under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of a writ of For the purpose of the present petition, CONFED, NFSP, UNIFED
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order filed by the and PANAYFED are represented by their Chairman or President,
namely, Bernardo C. Trebol, Enrique D. Rojas, Manuel R. Lamata and
___________ Francis P. Trenas, respectively.

* No part. On the other hand, named as respondents are the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and
the Land Registration Authority (LRA).
Confederation of Sugar Producers Association, Inc., et al. It seeks,
inter alia, to enjoin the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank
of the Philippines, and the Land Registration Authority from The Petitioners’ Case
"subjecting the sugarcane farms of Petitioner Planters to eminent
domain or compulsory acquisition without filing the necessary Petitioners CONFED, NFSP, UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that
expropriation proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Rule 67 of the their members own or administer private agricultural lands devoted to
sugarcane. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been

planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly since time immemorial. 5. In Choosing and Designating Non-Tillers, Non-Regular
While their petition is denominated as one for prohibition and Farmworkers and Outsiders of the sugar lands as
mandamus, the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs (d), (e) Beneficiaries and later, Forcibly Installing Them in said lands.
and (f) of Section 165 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. In other words, their 6. By Disturbing and Outlawing the Farming System of LABOR
arguments, which will be discussed shortly, are anchored on the ADMINISTRATION obtaining in the Sugar Lands Knowing As
proposition that these provisions are unconstitutional. it Does that Under R.A. 6657 and By the Very Definition of
Agrarian Reform in said Act, Labor Administration is
They allege the following grounds in support of their petition: Recognized as an Alternative Mode of Agrarian Reform.

A. RESPONDENT DAR ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF 7. In Assuming Jurisdiction, through DARAB, over Cases and
JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THE Controversies which, by virtue of the provisions of B.P. 129 or
COMMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS: the Judiciary Reorganization Act, in relation to P.D. 946 should
fall under the original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
1. By Exercising the Power of Eminent Domain to Deprive
Thousands of Landowners, including the Member-Planters of B. THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES ACTED WITHOUT OR
Petitioner-Federations of their Private Agricultural Lands, IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
without Filing the Necessary Expropriation Proceedings DISCRETION.
pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court in Gross Violation of
the Bill of Rights of the Constitution and in Lawless Usurpation By Making or Causing Payment, Through a Deposit or Opening a
of the Exclusive Power of the Supreme Court to Promulgate Trust Account with a Bank designated by DAR for the Alleged
Rules of Procedure as vested by the Constitution. Paragraphs Compensation for the Land, without Waiting For the Final
(d), (e) and (f) Section 16 of R.A. 6657 are Unconstitutional. Determination of Such Compensation By the Court.

2. In Usurping the Powers and Functions of the Presidential C. THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY OR LRA ACTED
Agrarian Reform Council or PARC by Promulgating and WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE
Issuing Ultra Vires Rules and Procedures Governing the ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
Acquisition and Distribution of Agricultural Lands in Gross
Violation of the Provisions of E.O. 229 and R.A. 6657 or the By Authorizing the Registers of Deeds under its Jurisdiction to Cancel,
CARL. upon being directed by DAR, the Certificates of Title of the Registered
Owners without the Notice to or Consent of the latter or an Order from
3. In Unlawfully Delegating to the MAROs the Authority to the Court in Gross Violation of the Property Rights of the Latter and
Issue Notices of Coverage and Acquisition to Landowners of the provisions of the Land Registration Laws.6
Private Agricultural Lands in their Respective Cities and
Municipalities in violation of R.A. 6657. It is the principal contention of the petitioners that, in the exercise by
the State of the power of eminent domain, which in the case of RA
4. In Subjecting the Sugar Lands of the Planters to CARP 6657 is the acquisition of private lands for distribution to farmer-
Coverage and Acquisition, Without First Ascertaining: No. 1. beneficiaries, expropriation proceedings, as prescribed in Rule 67 of
Whether there are Regular Farmworkers on said lands and the Rules of Court, must be strictly complied with. The petitioners rely
No. 2. Whether the Regular Farmworkers, if any, are on the case of Visayas Refining Company v. Camus and
Interested to Own, Directly or Collectively the Lands they Till. Paredes7 decided by the Court in 1919. In the said case, the

Government of the Philippine Islands, through the Governor-General, Nevertheless it should be noted that the whole problem of
instructed the Attorney-General to initiate condemnation proceedings expropriation is resolvable in its ultimate analysis into a constitutional
for the purpose of expropriating a tract of land containing an area of question of due process of law. The specific provisions that just
1,100,463 square meters to be used for military and aviation compensation shall be made is merely in the nature of a superadded
purposes. In compliance therewith, the Attorney-General filed a requirement to be taken into account by the Legislature in prescribing
complaint with the Court of First Instance (CFI) and among the the method of expropriation. Even were there no organic or
defendants impleaded was Visayan Refining Co. which owned a constitutional provision in force requiring compensation to be paid, the
portion of the property intended to be expropriated. The CFI seizure of one’s property without payment, even though intended for a
provisionally fixed the total value of the subject property at ₱600,000 public use, would undoubtedly be held to be a taking without due
and upon payment thereof as deposit, the CFI authorized that the process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the laws.
Government be placed in possession thereof.
This point is not merely an academic one, as might superficially seem.
Visayan Refining Co. questioned the validity of the proceedings on the On the contrary it has a practical bearing on the problem before us,
ground that there was no law enacted by the Philippine Legislature which may be expressed by saying that, if the Legislature has
authorizing the exercise of the power of eminent domain to acquire prescribed a method of expropriation which provides for the payment
land for military or aviation purposes. The Court, speaking through of just compensation, and such method is so conceived and adapted
Justice Street, upheld the right of the Governor-General to authorize as to fulfill the constitutional requisite of due process of law, any
the condemnation of the subject property for military and aviation proceeding conducted in conformity with that method must be valid.11
purposes. It pointed to Sections 241 up to 2538 of the Code of Civil
Procedure as the applicable provisions for the conduct of Citing Visayan Refining Co. as well as other cases12 and
expropriation proceedings. It likewise pointed to Sections 2 and 39 of statutes,13 the petitioners thus contend that a landowner cannot be
Act No. 2826 as authorizing immediate possession when the deprived of his property until expropriation proceedings are instituted
Government is the plaintiff. Further, Article 349 of the Old Civil Code in court. They insist that the expropriation proceedings to be followed
was also cited as it stated that: are those prescribed under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court. In
other words, for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain, the
ART. 349. No one may be deprived of his property unless it be by Government must institute the necessary expropriation proceedings in
competent authority for some purpose of proven public utility and after the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of
payment of the proper compensation. Court.

Unless this requisite has been complied with, it shall be the duty of the In this connection, they cite Section 1 of Rule 67, which they stress is
court to protect the owner of such property in its possession or to entitled EXPROPRIATION, thus:
restore its possession to him, as the case may be.
SEC. 1. The complaint. - The right of eminent domain shall be
The Court stated that "[t]aken together the laws mentioned supply a exercised by the filing of a verified complaint which shall state with
very complete scheme of judicial expropriation, deducing the authority certainty the right and purpose of expropriation, describe the real or
from its ultimate source in sovereignty, providing in detail for the personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants
manner of its exercise, and making the right of the expropriator finally all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof
dependent upon the payment of the amount awarded by the court."10 or interest therein, showing, so far as practicable, the separate
interest of each defendant. If the title to any property sought to be
The petitioners also quote the following disquisition in Visayan expropriated appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines,
Refining Co. on expropriation vis-à-vis due process of law: although occupied by private individuals, or if the title is otherwise
obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or

certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to that effect shall SEC. 53. Compulsory Purchase of Agricultural Lands. – The Authority
be made in the complaint. shall, upon petition in writing of at least one-third of the lessees and
subject to the provisions of Chapter VII of this Code, institute and
The DAR, however, according to the petitioners, particularly through prosecute expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of private
the process of compulsory acquisition, has managed to operate agricultural lands and home lots enumerated under Section fifty-one.
outside of the Constitution and the Rules of Court. They alleged that In the event a landowner agrees to sell his property under the terms
the compulsory acquisition process adopted by the DAR is absolutely specified in this Chapter and the National Land Reform Council finds it
without any constitutional or lawful basis whatsoever. It is allegedly suitable and necessary to acquire such property, a joint motion
"utterly repugnant to the principle of eminent domain" or embodying the agreement, including the valuation of the property,
"expropriation" and an "unmitigated and lawless usurpation of the shall be submitted by the Land Authority and the landowner to the
constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of court for approval; Provided, That in such case, any person qualified
procedure." As such, the process of compulsory acquisition is to be a beneficiary of such expropriation or purchase may object to
allegedly null and void. the valuation as excessive, in which case the Court shall determine
the just compensation in accordance with Section fifty-six of this
The petitioners add that Section 22, Article XVII (Transitory Code.
Provisions) of the Constitution states that "[a]t the earliest possible
time, the Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned lands as According to the petitioners, the foregoing provisions have not been
may be defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the repealed by RA 6657; hence, in consonance therewith, the acquisition
agrarian reform program." The use of the word "expropriate" in this of private agricultural lands for purposes of agrarian reform can only
provision allegedly underscores the necessity of expropriation be exercised by the Government through expropriation proceedings
proceedings pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules of Court in the under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, the process
acquisition of private agricultural lands. of compulsory acquisition adopted by the DAR, as embodied in its
administrative orders, is allegedly violative of the landowners’ rights
It is the petitioners’ view that the following provisions of RA 3844,14 as enshrined in the Constitution.
amended, remain effective:
The petitioners specifically refer to Section 16 of RA 6657, which
SEC. 51. Powers and Functions. – It shall be the responsibility of the reads:
Department:
SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. – For purposes
(1) to initiate and prosecute expropriation proceedings for the of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be
acquisition of private agricultural lands as defined in Section one followed:
hundred sixty-six of Chapter XI of this Code for the purpose of
subdivision into economic family-size farm units and resale of said (a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the
farm units to bona fide tenants, occupants and qualified farmers; beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land
Provided, That the powers herein granted shall apply only to private to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail,
agricultural lands subject to the terms and conditions and order of and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal
priority hereinbelow specified. building and barangay hall of the place where the property is
located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a
xxx corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth
in Sections 17, 18 and other pertinent provisions hereof.

(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written without the predicate of a prior hearing where the landowner is given
notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowners, an opportunity to be heard. He is allegedly only allowed in paragraph
his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his (d) to question or reject the compensation offered by the DAR. This
acceptance or rejection of the former. procedure allegedly violates the rights of the landowners under
Sections 1 and 9 of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution, to wit:
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP
shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within SEC. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the protection of the laws.
Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
xxx
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall
conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the SEC. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP compensation.
and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the Paragraph (e) is assailed by the petitioners as it authorizes the DAR,
receipt of notice. After the expiration of the above period, the by allegedly merely causing the deposit with the Land Bank of the
matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall compensation, to immediately take possession of the property and to
decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for direct the Register of Deeds to cancel the certificate of title of the
decision. landowner without notice to and consent of the latter. The petitioners
contend that, in contrast, under the Civil Code, if the creditor or
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding obligee refuses to accept the tender of payment, it is the duty of the
payment or in case of rejection or no response from the debtor or obligor to make consignation of the thing or amount due.
landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank Under the Civil Code, there is no effective payment without valid
designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP tender of payment and consignation in court.15 The petitioners
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take theorize that, in the same manner, the DAR cannot be allowed to take
immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper possession of the property of a landowner, by mere deposit of the
Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) compensation that it has summarily fixed under paragraph (e), without
in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall having to go to court.
thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the
qualified beneficiaries. Paragraph (f) is characterized by the petitioners as meaningless and
useless to the landowner. It allegedly compels him to file a case, and
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the in the process incur costs therefor, for the final determination of just
matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination compensation when, in the meantime, he has already been deprived
of just compensation. of possession of his property and his certificate of title cancelled. The
petitioners cite EPZA v. Dulay16 where the Court ruled that:
They clarify that while they concede the validity of paragraphs (a), (b)
and (c), they vigorously assail the validity of paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) We, therefore, hold that P.D. 1533 which eliminates the court’s
of the above-quoted provision. Under the assailed paragraphs, a discretion to appoint commissioners pursuant to Rule 67 of the Rules
landowner is allegedly deprived of his right to question or challenge of Court, is unconstitutional and void. To hold otherwise would be to
the legality or necessity of the taking of his land by the DAR. The undermine the very purpose why this Court exists in the first place.17
"public purpose and necessity" of the taking is already assumed

24 No law has allegedly been passed The petitioners next assail the Court’s Decision in Association of transferring the powers of the PARC to DAR. the DAR shall send its notice to courts of justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or acquire the land to the owners thereof x x x. the petitioners maintain that paragraphs (d) and (e) discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. contemplate a transfer of possession and ownership even before full payment of compensation. by law. while the notices of coverage and compulsory acquisition. (e) and (f) of Allegedly in violation thereof.Relying on the above pronouncement. The petitioners assert that the only emphasize that. to the State only upon full payment of compensation to their this entitlement or right may be waived or declined by the regular respective owners.. Consequently. the regular 67 of the Rules of Court." coverage and compulsory acquisition involving sugar lands to be brought under RA 6657 allegedly constituted grave abuse of Further. For example. "to take immediate possession of the land" the MAROs of the authority and discretion to send the notices of and cause "the cancellation of the certificate of title of the landowner. (e) and (f) of Section 16. is that title to the reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator farmworkers. The petitioners private agricultural lands. to own directly or collectively the only upon full payment of the just compensation"21 and its dispositive lands they till x x x." They refer to pronouncements made therein that are allegedly inconsistent with The petitioners also assail as undue and unlawful delegation to the its conclusion. They thus wonder how these paragraphs Citing Section 4. null and void. provides that "[a]fter having identified the land. Decision. affirming the validity of RA 6657. The DAR concerned. Inc. they must first express their willingness or conformity to own the lands they are tilling before the The petitioners opine that even as the Decision affirmed the validity of DAR may allegedly send the notices of coverage and acquisition." According to the official of the government"19 and that "the determination made by the petitioners. with respect to the regular farmworkers in sugar procedure for the exercise by the State of eminent domain in the lands. (e) and (f) of Section 16 of RA 6657. v. quoted earlier. the task of promulgating the rules for the schedule of acquisition and redistribution of agricultural lands. consequently. As a corollary. In other words. describe the Decision as a "riddle wrapped in an enigma. as they similarly powers and functions of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council eliminate the appointment by the court of commissioners to appraise (PARC). actually support their argument that paragraphs (d).23 which is allegedly the body charged under RA 6657 with the valuation of the land. Section 16 (a). indeed. including Municipal Agrarian Reform Officers (MAROs) the authority to issue paragraphs (d). i. the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the landowners and the beneficiaries. They are ultra vires. citing EPZA. the delegation by the DAR Secretary to administrative proceeding. the pronouncements made in the body. undertake an agrarian in the Decision that "[t]he recognized rule. Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred farmworkers or farmers are entitled to own the land they till. this function has been delegated to the DAR Secretary DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties and it can and should only be exercised by the said official. the Small Landowners in the Philippines. are unconstitutional. RA 6657. pronounced that "[t]o be sure. the quoted earlier. a majority of the regular farmworkers must first agree to implementation of agrarian reform is through expropriation under Rule exercise their right to own the land they till. notices of coverage and acquisition are Section 16 are invalid as they dispense with the expropriation being sent out by the DAR "indiscriminately" without first identifying proceedings under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court in the acquisition of the land. Further."22 farmworkers or farmers. who are landless."20 these pronouncements are allegedly irreconcilable with Secretary cannot allegedly delegate the same to a subordinate official paragraphs (d) and (e) which allow the DAR. Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights) which were allowed to survive and remain despite the avowals of the Court states in part that "[t]he State shall. farmworkers in sugar lands can exercise their right to own the land ." the petitioners posit that only the regular portion that "2. through summary or employee. the landowners and the beneficiaries. Secretary of Agrarian various administrative orders that it has issued to implement RA 6657 Reform18 which affirmed the constitutionality of RA 6657.e. the petitioners submit that The DAR is also being accused by the petitioners of usurping the paragraphs (d).

sugar lands in the Visayas. according to the petitioners. the DAR is allegedly Administration. work. If they decide against the exercise of (a) Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands. as recognized in RA 3844. The petitioners contend that RA 6657 expressly recognizes Land "parcelized" and owner-cultivated farms. As an alternative mode of agrarian reform. In so doing. Also. the DAR has allegedly increases and amelioration of benefits for sugar farmworkers is included landless residents who are non-tillers and who are outsiders allegedly the recognition of the system of Land Administration as a as beneficiaries in the distribution of private agricultural lands.only collectively. Definitions. the farmworkers also receive other benefits from the planters The petitioners explain that there are certain crops. The peculiar nature of SEC.26 they explain. RA 6982 and indicates otherwise: other laws have recognized Labor Administration as an alternative mode of agrarian reform. i. reform. to include the totality of qualify as beneficiaries. is a farming system that has been not bothering to find out whether the alternative mode of agrarian adopted and followed by sugar planters in the operation of their farms. ejects and replaces the regular farmworkers with non. irrespective of tenurial arrangement. such as production or profit-sharing. is already in place and whether the Under this system. factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical What is actually implemented in the sugar lands of the members of redistribution of lands. Land Administration. non-regular farmworkers or outsiders who are falsely designated as "beneficiaries. according to the petitioners." These "beneficiaries" are then installed Another indication that Land Administration is continued to be on the sugar lands with the assistance of members of the Armed recognized in the operation of farms. labor petitioners-federations is that the DAR. Congress amended the minimum wage (PNP). of them. and the distribution of shares of stock. Implicit in these policies of minimum wage contravention of the letter of the said provision. The said law allegedly recognized that the work in the sugar and unmitigated distortion" of Section 2225 of RA 6657. medical services and education for their children. Congress enacted RA 698227 which. Labor hectares of private agricultural lands. the DAR cannot choose to replace them with non. Aside from right. which will allow some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and farmer beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they organizations. the petitioners aver that Despite this recognition. should Administration as it is bent on acquiring and distributing thousands of continue to be allowed particularly in sugar lands. their salaries and wages. is Forces of the Philippines (AFP) or the Philippine National Police the fact that after RA 6657. allegedly in collusion with administration.e. and sugar is one such as housing. in 1991. to farmer and regular farmworkers who are regular farmworkers or non-tillers thereon because they would not landless. The petitioners claim that these incidents have resulted in law several times to provide for the increase of the minimum wage not heightened tension and anxiety and even violent confrontations in the only for non-agricultural workers but also for agricultural laborers. . mechanized and plantation-type agriculture than by small. unless the context the sugar industry is allegedly the reason why RA 3844. not individually. which are covered by the minimum wage law. This is allegedly especially Administration as an alternative mode of agrarian reform as it defines true in the sugar producing regions in the Visayas where planting and "agrarian reform" in this wise: harvesting of sugarcane have to be synchronized with the milling season of the sugar mill in a particular district.. In industry is seasonal. the DAR has allegedly outlawed Land the system of Land Administration. that are more economically and efficiently produced by organized. regardless of the said right. granted wage and other benefits to workers in the sugar By these alleged acts. 3. the petitioners charge the DAR with "deliberate industry. tillers. crops or fruits produced. legitimate mode of agrarian reform. the planters employ or hire farmworkers who regular farmworkers entitled to own the land want to exercise their supply the labor required for the entire farm operations. – For the purpose of this Act.

allegedly requires factual determination. The latter’s jurisdiction is allegedly limited only to grounds relied upon by the petitioners allege matters that require matters involving the administrative implementation of agrarian reform factual determination. the DAR." ascertaining whether there are regular farmworkers therein and whether they are interested to own. 496). Considering that the the Court’s pronouncement in Association of Small Landowners that Court is not a trier of facts. the Registers of Deeds are allegedly canceling certificates of title of The DAR is further allegedly committing grave abuse of discretion by landowners without asking them to surrender their owners’ duplicate assuming jurisdiction. The petitioners likewise pray that (CAR). some of the like the DAR. has been allegedly summarily canceling certificates of 6657. the petitioners allege that in the light of they till. The Land Bank must to give the landless farmers and regular farmworkers the right to own allegedly wait until such compensation is determined with finality by the land they till but also the right to receive a just share of the fruits of the courts. Further. the DAR is ousting knowledge and consent of the registered owners.28 Specifically. In violation of the regular farmworkers and installing outsiders to take over the lands. the allegation that the DAR is laws. This is so. the Land Bank argues that these matters "the determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless are better threshed out in a trial court. The petitioners note that prior to BP 129. The petitioners advance the view that RA 6657 did not repeal BP 129 such that the RTCs are not divested of The Respondents’ Counter-Arguments their exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases formerly under the jurisdiction of the CAR. the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality the said determination in Refuting the petitioners. If these farmers then choose not to exercise their right to own the land they till. accepted by all parties concerned. by virtue of Batas Pambansa Blg. through the various Registers of implemented to afford the farmworkers a "just share of the fruits of the Deeds in the country and particularly in the sugar producing regions in land. is allegedly violating the rights of the sugar farmworkers title merely upon the directive or request of the DAR and without the guaranteed by other applicable laws. are grave abuse of discretion since it. The Land Bank urges the Court to dismiss the petition since the because the jurisdiction of the CAR involved the exercise of judicial constitutionality of RA 6657 had already been categorically upheld by power that could not be properly transferred to an administrative body the Court in Association of Small Landowners. directly or collectively. the CAR was abolished and paragraphs (d). through the Department of Agrarian Reform certificates of titles. disputes and controversies "relating to tenurial subjecting the sugar lands to the coverage of RA 6657 without first arrangements. then it allegedly behooves the DAR to see to it The Land Registration Authority is similarly assailed as committing that the other laws.g. (BP) 129. the land With respect to the Land Bank. "cases from subjecting the petitioners’ sugarcane farms to eminent domain or involving expropriation of all kinds of land in furtherance of the compulsory acquisition without filing the necessary expropriation agrarian reform program" and "expropriation proceedings for public proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules of purpose of all kinds of tenanted agricultural lands x x x"29 were Court and/or without the application or conformity of a majority of the exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations regular farmworkers on said farms. pertinent provisions30 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. e. [o]therwise. the Land Bank asserts that taking of private the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. known as "The Judiciary The petitioners thus pray. (e) and (f) of Section 16 of RA 6657 be declared cases under its jurisdiction were transferred to the exclusive and unconstitutional. the land. For example. such as the minimum wage law and RA 6982. the Land Bank and the Land Registration Authority Courts (RTCs).The petitioners stress that the mandate of the Constitution is not only DAR which is considered as preliminary." the Land Bank property for agrarian reform purposes can be effected even without cannot effect the payment of compensation as determined by the . over cases and controversies which. Adjudication Board (DARAB).. inter alia. With the enactment of BP 129. according to the petitioners." Instead. original jurisdiction of RTCs. for the issuance of a writ to Reorganization Act." are properly cognizable by the Regional Trial prohibit the DAR. by its stance of singularly implementing RA the Visayas.

MORE LIBERAL VIEW and found that the statute in question with its provision for deposit of the money with the court satisfied The Land Bank thus denies committing any grave abuse of discretion constitutional requirements. sugar lands included. the Court said that morality or practicability of acquiring sugar lands for agrarian reform is "ACCORDING TO THE WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY. question. there can be no UNNECESSARY. is legislative not judicial. for purposes of agrarian without any unreasonable delay.e. the DAR informs the Court that the concerns of the of lands covered by RA 6657. of the case. "parcelized. as in this case. the DAR contends that the first requisite. (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest Commissioner Regalado proposed the amendment as a measure to possible opportunity. i. of just compensation is finally adjudicated by the courts. It cites the following commentary of Debunking the petitioners’ argument that it may have been "unwise" Fr.." THE COURT OPTED FOR THIS reform. mechanized. It cites Fr. however. there is no actual case or controversy to speak of and the instant petition is. Absent any IT. It xxx avers that when issues of constitutionality are raised. the petitioners allegedly simply want to interminably delay the acquisition In this connection. Regalado’s explanation. (2) a PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE ‘PRIOR PAYMENT OF JUST personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional COMPENSATION’ IN LAND REFORM EXPROPRIATIONS. Bernas: and "impractical" for Congress to include sugar lands within the coverage of RA 6657 as certain crops. the Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the following ANOTHER MATTER TAKEN UP BY THE COMMISSION WAS THE requisites are present: (1) an actual and appropriate case exists. and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota protect the interest of landowners. IF THE beyond the ambit of judicial review."33 taking of private lands for agrarian reform purposes could be effected. including sugar. and it will be sufficient if a certain and adequate basis to prohibit the DAR and the Land Bank from acquiring all remedy is provided by which the owner can obtain compensation agricultural lands. Bernas anew: Through the Office of the Solicitor General. created pursuant to Memorandum Order No. the DAR urges the Court to dismiss the petition outright on the ground that it is premature. premature. the PRIOR TO ENTRY INTO THE CONDEMNED PROPERTY. is not attendant. are more xxxx efficiently and more economically produced by organized. There is REGALADO WAS SATISFIED WHEN THIS MEANING WAS allegedly no showing that the petitioners’ sugar lands have been ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSION and he did not insist on an subjected to compulsory acquisition by the DAR.full payment of just compensation. BUT existence of an actual or appropriate case.32 itself is allegedly devoid of such allegation. Even the petition explicit constitutional provision. petitioners are appropriately within the domain of the Task Force Sugarlandia. ACTUAL PAYMENT OR TENDER BEFORE TAKING IS amendment to RA 6657 with respect to its coverage. The remedy to address this issue. Reviewing conflicting American authorities. Accordingly.34 revealed that ALL HE WANTED WAS WHAT ALREADY OBTAINS IN EXPROPRIATION LAWS WHICH REQUIRES A COURT DEPOSIT In the present case. 199 dated ." IS SUCH RIGHT OF IMMEDIATE ENTRY CONSTITUTIONAL? x x x owner-cultivated farms. at By insisting that title should remain with the landowners until the issue best. the Land Bank opines that the wisdom. CONSTITUTION OR STATUTES DO NOT EXPRESSLY REQUIRE according to the Land Bank. plantation-type agriculture than by small.31 in "making or causing the payment of the initial amount of valuation regarding private lands acquired pursuant to RA 6657 notwithstanding The Land Bank is also of the view that the framers of the Constitution the lack of finality of the decision adjudging the amount of just did not intend to require full payment of just compensation before compensation of subject properties.

After the expiration of the above period. however. within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper d. the Court categorically passed specific problems in the implementation of the Comprehensive upon and upheld the validity of Section 16 of RA 6657. including paragraphs (d). rules. including Agrarian Reform Program as provided under Republic Act paragraphs (d). department. x x x the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to For its part. agency or instrumentality of the Government. it adopts the Comment of the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just the DAR as its own. Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the office. Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that: c. Recommend modifications/amendments to existing laws. and conduct consultations in areas to be identified by the Task in this wise: Force. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. regulations and procedures to remove impediments in Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment. compensation for the land. upon the deposit programs and activities relative to the Comprehensive with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act 6657. (e) and (f) of made to Section 16(d). Perform such other functions as may be directed by the Objection is raised. may be employed in raising the amount. or in the immediate. Conduct and complete a study identifying and addressing In Association of Small Landowners. effective and efficient implementation of the case of rejection or no response from the landowner. beneficiaries." Nevertheless. in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. the Land Registration Authority observes that it was determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner. (e) and (f). the DAR invokes Association of Small disregard by the owner of the offer of the government to buy his land - Landowners which affirmed the constitutionality of the said law. e. as "the compensation is a public charge. nonetheless. which provides that in case of the rejection or Section 16 of RA 6657. Submit recommendations to the President on the make a deposit upon its taking possession of the condemned formulation of policies. the good faith of the development of the sugar industry and implementation of the public is pledged for its payment. Enlist the assistance of any branch. impleaded as a nominal party. Specific reference is Anent the alleged unconstitutionality of paragraphs (d). . of RA 6657 has already been affirmed in Association of Small exercise the following powers and functions: Landowners a. (e) and (f) Section 2. compensation. The petition lacks merit. the matter is The Court’s Rulings deemed submitted for decision. programs and projects relative to property. and all the resources of taxation the ethanol program. which reads: The validity of Section 16. The DAR shall thereafter government-owned and controlled corporations. Where the State itself is the expropriator. including name of the Republic of the Philippines. which sets forth the manner of acquisition 6657 directly affecting the development of the sugar industry of private agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation. 2005 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. to carry out proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified the provisions of this Memorandum Order. which it is claimed is entrusted to the administrative authorities in violation of judicial prerogatives. Powers and Functions. bureau.December 5. it is not necessary for it to b. plans. to the manner of fixing the just President. Task Force Sugarlandia shall thereof.

haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail Justice Hugo E.To be sure. the Court held through Mr. And it the sworn valuation thereof by the owner.D. under this Constitution is reserved to it for final determination. it would be value of the property. Until . Otherwise. which contains the same provision on just compensation as its predecessor decrees. whichever was lower. to of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the appoint commissioners for such purpose. Gutierrez. following the applicable decrees. The court cannot exercise its discretion or independence in determining The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless what is just and fair. 1533.: over the judgment of a court promulgated only after expert commissioners have actually viewed the property. for in the taking of private property is seemingly fulfilled since it cannot be Section(f) clearly provides: said that a judicial proceeding was not had before the actual taking. we are once again confronted with the same Landowners instructs: question of whether the courts under P. No. after evidence and The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited arguments pro and con have been presented. Moreover. EPZA v. As a necessary consequence. the determination of the useless for the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the just compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and Rules of Court. ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner independent of what is stated by the decree and to this effect. conditions the transfer of possession and still have the power and authority to determine just compensation. A reading of the aforecited Section 16(d) will readily show that it does Thus. exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. and its choice is always limited to the lower of the two. the landowner and other interested parties are to simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence on the real the owner or the assessor. addressed to the courts of justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government. compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. for its part. Although the proceedings are described property. Jr. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for the accepted by all parties concerned. It tends to render this Court inutile in a matter which judiciously evaluated. The CARP Law. But more importantly. In is repulsive to the basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the declaring these decrees unconstitutional. However. Dulay resolved a xxx challenge to several decrees promulgated by President Marcos providing that the just compensation for property under expropriation It is violative of due process to deny the owner the opportunity to should be either the assessment of the property by the government or prove that the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong.35 xxx On the matter of when transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the Government is reckoned. its task would be relegated as summary. assessor. the determination of just compensation is a function This time we answer in the affirmative. the courts of justice will judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just compensation still have the right to review with finality the said determination in the is concerned. the strict application of the decrees during the proceedings (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to would be nothing short of a mere formality or charade as the court has the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just only to choose between the valuation of the owner and that of the compensation. the need to satisfy the due process clause conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party. although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically not suffer from the arbitrariness that rendered the challenged decrees would still have the power to determine the just compensation for the constitutionally objectionable. and after all factors and decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been prerogatives. Association of Small In the present petition.

After Occidental and Planters’ Committee. Inc.. it will adhere to that principle. the landholding. that the DAR. Under the said law. manner: albeit partial. and post it in a therein was the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters. and not to unsettle well. it is actually first principle of justice that. whether the parties and property are the same. regardless of of Small Landowners. Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stare decisis simply just compensation means that for the sake of certainty. Stand by RA 6657. It does not.. including those pertaining to the validity of Section necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle 16.000 individual sugar planters all over the country. or that it is ripe for adjudication. Court of Appeals. it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are DAR’s compulsory acquisition procedure is based on Section 16 of substantially the same.then. As correctly observed by the Solicitor General. has decisis differs from res judicata which is based upon the judgment.400 planter-members.36 case. Inc. of law as applicable to a certain state of facts. but res judicata as movere which means "to adhere to precedents. absent any powerful countervailing based on Section 16 of RA 6657. The procedure for compulsory acquisition is that prescribed the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and under Section 16 of RA 6657. (e) and (f). the judgment which results therefrom. in this for prohibition and mandamus. including the A careful reading of the petition shows that while it purports to be one administrative orders issued by the DAR in relation thereto. No outright change of presumably the same organization as one of the petitioners in this ownership is contemplated either. by personal delivery or registered mail. title also remains with the landowner. In this particular sense stare at the least. It proceeds from the procedure adopted by the DAR is without legal basis. v. which then claimed to represent its members of at least 20. of the Decision in Association of Small Landowners. thus: case or controversy. 79310. the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the of 1. the In the compulsory acquisition of private lands. the Court has held that it is a very desirable and Small Landowners.38 The doctrine of stare the petition does not allege that the farm lands of any of the decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule involved and not upon petitioners have actually been subjected to compulsory acquisition or. it practically seeks a reconsideration.40 In Roxas & Co. Also allowed to intervene as petitioner landowner. following Section 16 of RA 6657. there are two considerations."37 Under the doctrine. Negros landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. an organization composed identification. a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the Contrary to the petitioners’ submission that the compulsory acquisition same. the allegations of the petition have failed to present an actual necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions. conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the .41 the Court painstakingly outlined the procedure for compulsory acquisition. one of the consolidated cases therein. where facts are substantially the same.R. The Decision in The foregoing disquisition is binding and applicable to the present Association of Small Landowners is thus final and conclusive on these case following the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta parties not only on the ground of stare decisis. like cases ought to be decided alike. the petition has failed to a certain state of facts. despite its lengthy discussion. when the Supreme Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to In any case. and apply it to all present any cogent argument for the Court to re-examine Association future cases. In other The doctrine of stare decisis is one of policy grounded on the words.39 actually given any of the petitioners notice that it is acquiring their respective properties for the purpose of agrarian reform. things which are established. the petitioners were landowners and sugar planters in Victorias. in any way. including paragraphs (d). It is noted that in G. the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same. of RA 6657. even though the parties may be different. which would warrant the Court’s re-examination of its rulings in Association of Time and again. preclude judicial determination of the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Thus. decided by a competent court. where the modes of acquisition of private agricultural lands: compulsory and same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by voluntary.

Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer.place where the property is located. The landowner shall A. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian include such information as required under the attached CARP Reform Officer (PARO). he executes and delivers a deed 2. 12. If the landowner rejects the DAR’s offer or fails to make a reply. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. or. 1. A case folder shall contain the following duly the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine accomplished forms: just compensation for the land. The MARO/ BARC shall certify that all information contained in The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land the above-mentioned forms have been examined and verified acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive by him and that the same are true and correct. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. shall: the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF. To fill in this gap. The minutes of pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC). 1989 Administrative Order No. landholding area. Update the master list of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area of responsibility.Summary Investigation Report of of its decision and the amount of just compensation. the LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on a) CARP CA Form 1—MARO Investigation Report just compensation within fifteen days from notice. the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner b) CARP CA Form 2-. OPERATING PROCEDURE property. 3. Invitations to the said DAR issued on July 26. Within thirty days from submission. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the e) CARP CA Form 5—Transmittal Report to the PARO regular courts for final determination of just compensation. with the assistance of the also be asked to indicate his retention area. Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a the landowners and the beneficiaries. Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). objection. Series of conference/ meeting shall also be sent to the prospective 1989. Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I title. The procedure is as follows: Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the "II. He shall discuss the MARO/ BARC investigation report and solicit the views. However. the DAR shall deposit the c) CARP CA Form 3—Applicant’s Information Sheet compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the d) CARP CA Form 4—Beneficiaries Undertaking issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. the Land lands. Master List Form which shall include the name of the . the landowner. The master list shall 4. acquisition. the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land. agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. Under Section 16 of the CARL. The landowner. the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. his administrator or declaration number. TCT/OCT number. Upon receipt by Findings and Evaluation the owner of the corresponding payment. the and II of the CARP except those for which the landowners Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land price. the law is silent on conference/ meeting to the landowner covered by the how the identification process must be made. which set the operating procedure in the identification of such farmer-beneficiaries. in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter. If the landowner accepts. Within thirty days from receipt of landowner. the BARC representative(s). and tax the Notice of Acquisition.

or upon deposit of payment in the designated through ocular inspection and verification of the property. This bank. be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds ₱500. At the meeting. the Secretary shall ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the computed value exceeds 500. authorized representative. a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. for the signature of the Secretary or her duly retention area. objections or agreements of the parties. The Notice shall include.000. together with the duly accomplished valuation forms possession of the land for redistribution to qualified and his recommendations.000 per estate. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the CARP. Once the property is 4. the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the all the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition. 1988. in case of 3. the PARO may validate the report of the MARO acceptance. Administrative Order No. and the Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall amount of just compensation offered by DAR. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder. However. 13. A summary review covered by the CACF. in case of rejection or non- by his MAROs. among Reform Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. forward the case transferred. the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) the review and final valuation. 4. others. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" PARO. Should the landowner accept the DAR’s offered value. No. the area subject of compulsory acquisition. 12. Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master C. 6. review. the landowner is asked to indicate his 2. suggestions. evaluate and determine the final land valuation and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/ meeting" over the land of the property covered by the case folder. in case of rejection or non-response. DAR Central Office. in accordance with the procedures provided valuation of the land in accordance with A.B. corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. through the PARO." representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report. Upon determination of the valuation.00. the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval 1. Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him the Order of Acquisition. shall take folder. Upon determination of the valuation. The LBP beneficiaries. The PARO shall: 3. Series of under Administrative Order No. to the Central Office. these forms. the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in Reform Committee (BARC). the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just 2. compute the compensation. shall: containing all the required information. Prepare. He also sends invitations to the prospective and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by farmer-beneficiaries.O. the DAR. the PARO shall forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central . The valuation worksheet and the related CACF Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB’s decision on just valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and compensation. and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views. Series of 1989. In all cases. Upon the landowner’s receipt of payment. Serve the Notice to the landowner personally or through registered mail within three The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian days from its approval. specifically through the Bureau of Land list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD). reply. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by 1.

i. farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties above and prepares corresponding VOCF/ CACF by pursuant to DAR A.O. 1. was amended in 1990 by DAR A. The DAR Central Office. liberty or property without due process of law. No. the provisions of Section 16 of R. 4). But suitability for agriculture and productivity of the land where. 12.. two notices are including supporting documents. and its actual conduct cannot be schedule of ocular inspection of the property at least one week understated. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due c) Screen prospective farmer-beneficiaries and for process be observed in the taking of private property. a Notice of Acquisition for the subject property. those found qualified. The BLAD shall and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to R. from whence the Notice of Coverage first sprung. Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL. evaluate and the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell determine the final land valuation of the property. BARC and prospective beneficiaries of the letter of invitation to the conference. A. 9. including the Land Use Map of the taking under the power of eminent domain. there is an exercise of police power for the a) Identify the land and landowner. Series of 1989. the Bureau of DAR A. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners.1 For a valid implementation of the CAR Program.b the BARC. Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.A. The d) Complete the Field Investigation Report based on Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to the conference meeting the result of the ocular inspection/ investigation of the were expanded and amplified in said amendments. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess b) Interview applicants and assist them in the and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer preparation of the Application For Potential CARP beneficiary. 2). DENR. Receives the duly accomplished CARP Form Nos. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State’s police power and the power of 4. No. MARO/ LAND BANK FIELD OFFICE/ BARC eminent domain. to carry out such regulation. the owners are deprived of lands and jointly prepare Field Investigation Report (CARP they own in excess of the maximum area allowed. requirements of administrative due process. 3. 6657. They are steps designed to comply with the in advance. No. 9. LBP. See to it that Field Investigation Report is duly accomplished and signed by all concerned.a or 1. 1. 3). property and documents submitted. the representatives of 2. 12. shall review.O. The taking contemplated property.e. DAR A. Gathers basic ownership documents listed under 1. the Notice of Coverage and the LBP. . The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be Beneficiary (CARP Form No. From "B. O. 1 & 1. is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. Notifies/ invites the landowner and representatives of the The importance of the first notice. there is also a Form No. 6657 then apply." requires that: prepare. and (2) the Notice of landowner/ landholding. MARO this point. Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules Governing Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD). and determine the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution.Office of the DAR. O. cause the signing of the respective Application to Purchase and Farmer’s Undertaking (CARP Form No. on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative. deprived of life. required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner. Series of 1989. specifically." The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. No. No. Series of 1993. O.

that: x x x. Series of 1993 provided. landowner. farmer’s organizations and other Inputs to valuation interested parties. e) Forwards the completed VOCF/CACF to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) using CARP Form No. which shall be signed by all parties concerned. 7. He then forwards the records to the RARO for another review. 1. areas retained by the landowner. d) Prepares Summary of Minutes of the conference/ public The PARO reviews. DAR A. LBP or BARC conducts the ocular inspection and applicable. Report and other documents in the VOCF/ CACF. 5. DA. Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) "Steps Responsible Activity transactions involving lands enumerated under Section 7 of the Agency/Unit Forms/Docume CARL. Series of 1990 was amended by DAR A. No." "IV. determining the suitability of the land for agriculture and productivity. In addition to the field investigation. 9. subject of VOS.. O. In both VOS and CA transactions. interviewing and b) Sends Notice of Coverage (CARP Form No. investigation by identifying the land and landowner. farmers’ organizations and (OLT). issues that may be raised in relation Issues raised thereto. O. No. the MARO sends a "Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly authorized representative inviting him to a Result of Field Investigation conference or public hearing with the farmer beneficiaries. No. Series of 1993. After the survey and field matters: investigation. NGO’s. the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell Case Folder (VOCF) and the Compulsory . among others. LBP. OPERATING PROCEDURES: DAR A. representatives of the BARC. The MARO notifies the landowner as well as a) Assists the DENR Survey Party in the conduct of a representatives of the LBP. O. Department of Agriculture (DA). and Natural Resources (DENR) to be assisted by the MARO. Based on its investigation. Minutes of the conference/ public hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files shall be forwarded by the MARO to the PARO. LBP or BARC prepares the Field Investigation Report representative inviting him for a conference. No. areas with infrastructure. At the public hearing. 1. as the case may be. (Transmittal Memo to PARO). BARC and prospective beneficiaries of boundary/ subdivision survey delineating areas the date of the ocular inspection of the property at least one week covered by OLT. and other interested parties to discuss the following the areas subject to VOS and CA. This beneficiaries. etc. The phases. DENR. landowner concerned or his duly authorized the MARO. if possible). retention. MARO Acquisition Case Folder (CACF). evaluates and validates the Field Investigation hearing to be guided by CARP Form No. and other comments and recommendations by all parties concerned. over a particular landholding. 5) to screening prospective farmer beneficiaries. O. DENR. inputs to the valuation of the subject landholding. non-government organizations. a boundary or subdivision survey of the land may also c) Sends Invitation Letter (CARP Form No. the parties shall discuss the results of the field investigation. 9. survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation Land Transfer LBP. infrastructures. 8 DAR A. whichever is MARO. 6) for a be conducted by a Survey Party of the Department of Environment conference/ public hearing to prospective farmer. CA (by before the scheduled date and invites them to attend the same. The Comments/ recommendations by all parties concerned. representatives of BARC.

BARC. 2 return indorsement O Coverage to LO on CARP Form CARP by personal No. 4 Land Use s of the LBP conducted on his LBP BARC. should be Local conducts the scheduled at least Office investigation on two weeks in subject Office advance of said property to identify notice. deter. the field where the property investigation shall . barangay halls However. or by of the schedule of registered mail the field 6 DARMO with return card. the landholding. invites him to join the field 7 DARM With the CARP BARC representative investigation to be O participation of LO. No.mines its A copy of said CARP Form No. if schedule of the he desires to avail field investigation of his right of to be conducted on retention. suitability and Notice shall be 17 product. Identification and Documentation compliance with xxx posting requirement thru 5 DARM Issues Notice of Form No. Form his property is now No. Notify delivery with proof prospective ARBs of service.3 CARP DENR under CARP representatives coverage and for and prospective LO to select his ARBs of the retention area. Sends notice to the informing him that LBP. nt is located. 17.vity. and posted for at least jointly prepares the one week on Field Investigation bulletin board of Report (FIR) and the municipal and Land Use Map. LGU (Requirements) office concerned notifies DAR about A. and DENR Map Form property which DENR prospective ARBs. and at the subject the same time property.

5 taking (APFU). and on . provided. on the issue of suitability to agriculture. endorsement on CARP Form No. 8 DARMO were given due Screens prospective ARBS and CARP BARC causes notice of the time the signing of Application Form of Purchase and and date of the Farmers' under. If he agrees to the LGU office CARP Form No. investigation to be conducted. if the O of the duly 4 LBP representative accomplished FIR is not available or to the landowner court or could not by personal come on the delivery with proof scheduled date. Land Survey whether in whole or in part. LBP. pursuant are not available to Joint Memorandum Circular of the DAR. The team shall submit its report of findings prospective ARBs which shall be binding to both DAR and LBP. between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to the propriety of covering the land under CARP. DENR representatives of and DA which shall jointly conduct further investigation the DENR and thereon. 4 shall the municipal and be forwarded to barangay halls the LBP where the property representative for is located. ocular inspection concerned notifies 17 report of DAR. validation. of service or regis- the field tered mail with investigation shall return card and also be conducted. he notifies DAR about signs the FIR (Part posting I) and requirement thru accomplishes Part return II thereof.No. the resolved by a composite team of DAR. B. LBP. posts a copy after which the thereof for at least duly accomplished one week on the Part I of CARP bulletin board of Form No. degree of development or slope. Similarly. they DENR and DA dated 27 January 1992. In the event that there is a difference or variance 17. 9 DARM Furnishes a copy CARP Form No.proceed even if the issues affecting idle lands. the conflict shall be LO.

DENR and DA which shall jointly conduct further segregation or investigation. the land’s suitability to agriculture. 1.. Segregation representatives of the LBP. Series of 1993. the field investigation shall proceed. No. modified the identification process right. This Notice of Coverage does not merely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention DAR A. 1 DARM Forwards CARP Form No Clearly then. O. No. the DAR Municipal Office shall the plan shall be prepare the Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map." Another copy of the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week in C. or by registered mail with representatives may be present. Series of 1990 and DAR A. LBP. etc. the Notice of specific requirements. DARPO.42 return card. a copy of approved by which shall be furnished the landowner "by personal delivery with DENR-LMS. the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner before the of the field investigation. the degree or development infrastructure. The date of the field and/or segregation survey Survey Plan areas investigation shall also be sent by the DAR Municipal Office to Local covered by OLT . No. the notice requirements under the CARL are not 1 O VOCF/CACFto 6 confined to the Notice of Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office Coverage also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his (DARMO) must send the Notice of Coverage to the landowner by landholding shall be conducted where he and the other "personal delivery with proof of service. reform. Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A. pursuant to DAR A. provided they were duly t. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be posted . 9. 1. LBP. O. The field investigation shall be conducted on the date such as 18% slope set with the participation of the landowner and the various and above. They also include the Notice of Coverage first laid down in DAR A. O. If the landowner and other representatives are unproductive/unsui absent. he may choose which area he shall retain.1 DARM Conducts Perimeter DENR for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and 0 O perimeter or or delineating barangay halls where the property is located. O. This of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results time. O. As outlined in Roxas. No. No. the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of case of the DAR. BARC. identifying the landholding and determining its suitability for agriculture ensures compliance with the due process requirements of the law. No. it also notifies him. The team’s findings shall be binding on both DAR and subdivision survey. Review and Completion of Documents.able to notified thereof. the municipal or barangay halls where the property is located. O. Series of 1993. two weeks from notice." informing him that his property is under CARP coverage and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention. In of the slope. proof of service or registered mail with return card. Series of 1993. the said procedure. 12. After the field investigation. 1. the DAR and the LBP as to whether the land be placed under agrarian retention. x x x. representatives. The Notice of Coverage shall also invite The procedure prescribed in Section 16 of RA 6657 is a summary the landowner to attend the field investigation to be scheduled at least administrative proceeding. Series of 1990. Should there be a variance between the findings of agriculture. the land valuation and other pertinent conduct of the field investigation and the sending must comply with matters." 9. and its productivity. Under DAR A. The field investigation is for the purpose of taken together with the pertinent administrative issuances of the DAR. and increased the number of government agencies involved in the that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives identification and delineation of the land subject to acquisition. DENR and prospective farmer Office "uncarpable areas beneficiaries.

enforcement. In appropriate cases before it the court concerned must not tolerate any delay. 29-2002 which have been assigned to handle agrarian cases or whose dated July 1. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction of the RTCs into an appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec.A. 6657 delineating party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the jurisdiction over agrarian disputes are hereby reproduced: court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. the Supreme Court shall give preference to the Regional Trial Courts In relation thereto. 57 designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is within each province to act as a Special Agrarian Court. except those Agrarian Courts. determination of just compensation. although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to Section 56. In the designation. with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).The Supreme Court shall the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts.More importantly. thus: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges assigned to said courts shall In view of the increasing number of complaints on matters of exercise said special jurisdiction in addition to the regular jurisdiction jurisdiction over agrarian disputes. in the RTCs. sitting as a Special in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order Agrarian Court. sitting as Special matters involving the implementing of agrarian reform. jurisdiction in review of administrative decisions. over petitions for the determination of just falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture compensation is original and exclusive as provided in Section 5744 of (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources RA 6657. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. pertinent provisions of R. the concerned trial court judges of their respective courts. sitting as a Special (DENR). delineated the jurisdiction of the DAR and the presiding judges were former judges of the defunct Court of Agrarian Special Agrarian Courts with the view of avoidance of conflict of Relations. Conflict in jurisdiction . This "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC would be implementation. 6657. 57 and therefore The Supreme Court may designate more branches to constitute such would be void. Thus. No. it is clear from Sec. dispute or application." Section 50. is valid: Section 55. As such. Court of Appeals. are reminded of the need for a careful and judicious application of Republic Act No. -. Thus. has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all or writ of preliminary injunction against PARC or any of its duly petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners." authorized or designated agencies in any case. – No court x x x It is clear from Sec. direct resort to the RTC. in order to avoid conflict of jurisdiction inherent in or belonging to the Regional Trial Courts. In fact. jurisdiction under RA 6657. or interpretation of this Act and other undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original pertinent laws on agrarian reform. – The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian In Land Bank of the Philippines v. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. 57 that the RTC. this summary administrative proceeding does not must be avoided to prevent delay in the resolution of agrarian preclude judicial problems.43 the Court reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all underscored that the jurisdiction of the RTCs. direct resort to the SAC by private respondent is additional Special Agrarian Courts as may be necessary to cope with valid. paragraph (e) of Section 16 of RA 6657 is categorical on this point as it provides that "[a]ny For this purpose. the Court in its Administrative Circular No. 2002. Agrarian Court. Special Agrarian Courts.45 the number of agrarian cases in each province. otherwise known as the Comprehensive The Special Agrarian Courts shall have the powers and prerogatives Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.

– The special Agrarian Courts shall community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the Filipino nation. Generations yet to come are as involved in this program as we are today.47 Proc. With respect to "public use. The Rules of Court whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. from all levels of our society. whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from The petitioners’ main objection to paragraphs (d).’ That public use. No. No. 13148 and RA No.D. De prison of their dreams and deliverance. we are not distribution of all agricultural lands to enable farmers who are landless dealing here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent to own directly or collectively the lands they till. The Office of the Court domain. judicial determination of just compensation is power of eminent domain. This kind of Section 57 of RA 6657 authorizes not only direct resort to the Special expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a particular Agrarian Courts in cases involving petitions for the determination of just compensation. from the impoverished determination of just compensation to land owners. Special Jurisdiction. This is not an ordinary expropriation where expressly prescribed in Section 57 of RA 6657. case for decision. Court of Appeals (201 SCRA 609). although The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under hopefully only as beneficiaries of a richer and more fulfilling life we will their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the guarantee to them tomorrow through our thoughtfulness today. over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. namely: (1) public use. It bears stressing that the determination of just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only. compensation. (e) and (f) of their owners. calling for "a just Further."49 x x x However. Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657. the trial court judges concerned are directed to take note of distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the the decisions of the Supreme Court of 3 December 1990 in Vda." the Court in Association of Small Rule 67 of the Rules of Court is not entirely disregarded in the Landowners declared that the requirement of public use had already implementation of RA 6657 been settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for agrarian reform. and (2) payment of just Administrator is directed to implement this Administrative Circular. the chief limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent Strict compliance is hereby enjoined.46 Tangub vs. Its purpose does not cover only the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. it likewise mandates that the "Rules of Court shall . As adopt the necessary measures ‘to encourage and undertake the just declared by the Court in Association of Small Landowners. which it hopes to secure and edify with the vision unless modified by this Act. landowners. but a revolutionary kind of expropriation: pronounced by the fundamental law itself. subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. foreseeable future. we do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the On the other hand. The petitioners’ argument does not persuade. however. as it only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. 27. and the farmer to the land-glutted owner. and of 13 September 1991 in Quismundo vs. and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos. The Section 16 of RA 6657 is that they are allegedly in complete disregard purposes specified in P. And. 6657 of the expropriation proceedings prescribed under Rule 67 of the are only an elaboration of the constitutional injunction that the State Rules of Court. are embodied therein as well as in the Constitution. Court of Appeals [191 SCRA 885). let it not be forgotten that it is no less than the Constitution itself that has ordained this revolution in the farms. which shall take effect upon its issuance.Section 57. must be binding on us. as domain. quoted above. finally.

and to file a written report thereof to the court. designated as small and owner-cultivated farms. petitioners. Appointment of Commissioners. contrary to the contention of the particular interests of their own. for each department is EPZA by eliminating the appointment by the court of commissioners supreme and independent of the others. including the the wisdom of the inclusion by Congress of the sugar lands in the valuation of properties. non-tillers.50 the land they till.apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. unless because they (sugar planters) belong to a particular class with modified by this Act. It is basic in our form of government that the judiciary cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the acts of The petitioners’ contention that RA 6657 contradicts the dictum in the executive or the legislative department.52 The scope of lands subjected to agrarian reform under RA 6657 has The other issues raised by the petitioners require factual been characterized as overwhelming. is not completely disregarded in the implementation of RA 6657 since the Rejecting this particular argument.51 Courts. – The Special Agrarian equally to all the members of the class. however. non-regular farmers. with the assistance of the AFP or the PNP. provides for the appointment of commissioners by the following requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial the Special Agrarian Courts: distinctions. coverage of RA 6657. insofar as it included the sugar farms. as conforming to the Rules of Court. are enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of entitled to a different treatment. beyond the ambit of judicial review taken or decisions made by the other departments. including Rule 67 thereof. (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only. in resolving petitions for the determination of planters failed to show that they belong to a different class and are just compensation. (4) it must apply SEC. but also to inquire into or The inclusion of sugar lands in the coverage of RA 6657 delves into pass upon the advisability or wisdom of the acts performed. erroneous. The sugar farmworkers and later on installed these ‘beneficiaries’ on the sugar planters therein argued that there was no tenancy problem in the lands. "indiscriminately sends notices of coverage and acquisition to practically all the planters and leaves the matter of The petitioners insist that the system of Land Administration should be identifying and convincing the prospective beneficiaries later. Indeed. even broader in scope than that determination which the Court cannot properly undertake in the of PD 27. the Court held that the sugar Special Agrarian Courts. 58. it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or look into investigate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute."53 It is maintained to govern the relations between the sugar planters and the also alleged that "in ACTUAL PRACTICE in the sugar lands of planter farmworkers because sugar is one of the crops that is more suitably members of petitioners-federations. Section 58 of RA 6657. without consulting the regular public and private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial farmworkers on whether or not they want to exercise their right to own arrangement and commodity produced. the Rules of Court. particularly in the sugar-producing . authority not only to encroach upon the powers or field of action assigned to any of the other departments." Hence. may appoint one or more commissioners to examine. While the latter (PD 27) applies to all private agricultural present case lands primarily devoted to rice and corn with tenant farmers under a system of sharecrop or lease tenancy. Moreover. and each is devoid of to appraise the valuation of the land is. In Association of Small ‘beneficiaries’."54 sugar areas that could justify the application of RA 6657 and that they should not have been lumped in the same legislation as the others The petitioners also made the statement that "what is actually happening in the country today. (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law. the matter of the inclusion of sugar farms in land and other unqualified groups to eject and replace the regular the coverage of RA 6657 had already been settled. therefore. upon their own initiative or at the instance of any of the parties. DAR. measures the wisdom of an act of Congress. It thus upheld the classification made the Rules of Court. and outsiders of the Landowners. RA 6657 generally covers all The petitioners allege that the DAR. like Rule 67 of by RA 6657. in collusion with some and efficiently produced by plantation-type agriculture rather than by NGOs and other ‘instant’ farmer organizations.

whether he likes it or not. unsupported by any evidence to prove their veracity or truthfulness. the Register of Deeds will cancel his certificate of title and issue a new certificate in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.regions. they require de novo appreciation of factual questions. ROMEO J. the appreciation of which is beyond the function of this Court since it is not a trier of facts. however. remain as such – mere allegations. Moreover."55 These allegations of the petitioners. without asking the landowner to surrender his owner’s duplicate of title or even notifying him that. the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. premises considered. is that Certificates of Title of the landowners are being canceled by LRA merely upon the directive or request by DAR. SO ORDERED.56 WHEREFORE. SR. CALLEJO. No trial court has had the opportunity to ascertain the validity of these factual claims. Associate Justice .

respondents. the MARO completed three (3) Investigation Hacienda Banilad is 1.R. In 924 and covered by Tax Declaration Nos. Haciendas Palico. INC. J. 0468. compulsory acquisition this year under the Comprehensive Agrarian Hacienda Palico is 1.050 hectares in area.: Hacienda Palico This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu. the MARO found that 270 hectares under Tax Hacienda Caylaway is 867. As SUPREME COURT head of the provisional government. 5 In the second Report. PUNO. 0465. and took over legislative power from the President. on May 6. the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. President Aquino 0234 which also had several actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane. the EN BANC President signed on July 22. 6 while in the third Report. passed Republic Act No. 0470. the Congress of the Philippines formally convened ROXAS & CO.O. 0236. the government under Republic Act No. 6657. to the provisions of E. Batangas owned On September 29. 466. was addressed to "Jaime Pimentel.. the Comprehensive sent a notice entitled "Invitation to Parties" to petitioner. the President exercised Manila legislative power "until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution. respondent DAR. is a domestic corporation and is the registered October 6. petitioner filed with DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant BOARD." 3 Therein. 3 promulgating a Provisional Constitution. slope)" and actually occupied and cultivated by 34 tillers of sugarcane. 468 and 470 were "flat to undulating (0-8% under TCT Nos.024 hectares in area and is registered under Reform Program. 0237 and 0390. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM. 1988 and took effect on June 15." 1 In the exercise of this legislative power. 1987. DEPARTMENT OF Law (CARL) of 1988. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and Executive Order No. T-44662. through respondent by petitioner and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu. Batangas. 2 This Congress vs. BATANGAS and Before the law's effectivity.. Aquino. DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV. the MARO found approximately . namely. The Act was signed by the President on June AGRARIAN REFORM. 0234 and 0354. G. 229 providing the mechanisms necessary to initially implement the program. 1989. petitioner. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL. 1989 at the DAR office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of owner of three haciendas." 4 Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. President Corazon C. all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu. Banilad and the DAR investigation of Hacienda Palico. Hda. the first Report. 127876 December 17. Palico. the MARO invited petitioner to a conference on Petitioner Roxas & Co. which was "scheduled for Caylaway. Hda. 1988. 1999 On July 27. 1988. Republic of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. Administrator. 10. No. MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU. On October 25. This land is covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 6657. 465. The Invitation Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. the MARO identified as "flat to The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then undulating" approximately 339 hectares under Tax Declaration No. T-44663. 1987. 229. No. Batangas.4571 hectares in area and is registered Declaration Nos. 0466. 985. registered under TCT No. In February 1986. T-44664 and T-44665. Proclamation No. 1989. Reports after investigation and ocular inspection of the Hacienda.

On October 30.807. 1989. petitioner.0800 hectares." Each 33 actual occupants and tillers also of sugarcane. the government was offering compensation of P3. petitioner applied with the Philippines (LBP). on September 26. respondent DAR 75. petitioner sent a letter to the DAR Regional Director P6. 1991..188. The Notice was addressed as follows: 6654. two (2) more reiterating its request for conversion of the two haciendas. Limited Hacienda Banilad Soriano Bldg.999 hectares of its land in Mr. respondent Secretary Miriam D. or upon deposit of the compensation petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes such as Voluntary with an accessible bank if it rejects the same. 18 Almost two years later.75 hectare under Tax Declaration No. 985 of the Hacienda. petitioner was to inform the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) of the DAR. that in case of Nasugbu.47.622. On December 12. sent a notice to petitioner addressed as follows: Petitioner was informed that 1. 1993. They recommended that 270. Plaza Cervantes On August 23. representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) and Land Bank of the Meanwhile in a letter dated May 4. 11 willing to provide assistance thereto. 1989. 15 On October 22.023. 13 On July Hacienda Palico be subject to compulsory acquisition at a value of 14.00 and P2. 8 The following day. the DAR Regional On September 18. that should accepts respondent DAR's offer. respectively. that whether this offer was to be Hacienda Banilad accepted or rejected. Jaime Pimentel Hacienda Palico were subject to immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL.109. the DAR shall take Offer to Sell or Voluntary Land Transfer. and by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer DAR for conversion of Haciendas Palico and Banilad from agricultural (PARO). 14 Summary Investigation Reports were submitted by the same officers and representatives. The LBP trust compensation of P8.195.3800 hectares be placed under compulsory acquisition at a proceeded with the acquisition of the two Haciendas. 9 accounts as compensation for Hacienda Palico were replaced by respondent DAR with cash and LBP bonds. 0354 as "flat to undulating" with Memoranda entitled "Request to Open Trust Account. through respondent MARO of Manila.0876 hectares and Despite petitioner's application for conversion. 1989.739. 1989.4 million for 333.20. Batangas. 12 submitted and signed jointly by the MARO. CLOA's were distributed to farmer beneficiaries. respondent DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings with notice to The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was petitioner to determine just compensation for the land. 7 Memoranda requested that a trust account representing the valuation of three portions of Hacienda Palico be opened in favor of the On October 27. Santiago sent a "Notice of Acquisition" to DAR registered Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. that based on the Hacienda Administrator DAR's valuation criteria. 16 Roxas y Cia. The Report recommended that 333. the MARO sent an "Invitation to Parties" Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager three (3) separate again to Pimentel inviting the latter to attend a conference on . respondent DAR. that if petitioner subject to compulsory acquisition under the CARL. Batangas 17 petitioner's rejection or failure to reply within thirty days. 1993. 1993. respondent DAR was immediate possession of the land. October 28. 1993. a "Summary Investigation Report" was petitioner in view of the latter's rejection of its offered value. 1989. respondent DAR through then Department from the mother title of TCT No. Metro Manila. 10 Nasugbu.0800 hectares of to non-agricultural lands under the provisions of the CARL.

234. a second Summary Investigation on May 6. 21 On December 18. 101 Aguirre St.468. 1991. 234. Makati. through the Department voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway. 29 farmer beneficiaries. They recommended that after ocular inspection of the Hacienda Caylaway property. Inc.78 in cash and LBP bonds had been The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference. T-44663. 1991 over 723.. Roxas y Cia. 27 A second "Request to Open Trust Account" was sent on second Report. 1989. 20 In the Banilad. 1989. In his first Report. 1989 at the MARO Office in Nasugbu to discuss the Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of results of the MARO's investigation over Hacienda Banilad.4190 hectares and P4. 25 On September 4. the same day the conference was held. the BARC.496. 28 Tax Declaration No. 24 1989.00 for 234. 1988 before the effectivity of the CARL. T-44664 and T-44665. Unlike the Notice over Roxas & Company.6498 hectares under Tax Declaration No. the DAR Regional Director issued two separate Memoranda to the LBP Regional Manager requesting for the valuation of the land under TCT Nos. T-44662. and Jaime Pimentel on behalf of the landowner. the Notices over Hacienda Banilad were addressed to: 7th Flr.428. 0237 Land Valuation Manager a "Request to Open Trust Account" in and 0236 were "flat to undulating (0-8% slope). representatives of the BARC.6498 hectares. 22 After the meeting. sent to petitioner two (2) separate "Notices of Acquisition" 44664 and T-44663.40 and P21.September 21.52 for 729. 23 The Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government following day. jointly by the MARO. the LBP certified that the amounts of P4. through the Regional Director for Region IV. he found that On September 26. Limited Aguirre. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. a Summary Investigation Report was submitted Palico and Banilad. Metro Manila. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. however. sent to petitioner two (2) separate Resolutions accepting petitioner's On December 12. petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas September 21. it was found that approximately 235 hectares under November 18. 1989. particularly TCT Nos." on which were 92 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane. 1990. 1991.108. the LBP. These Notices were sent on the same day as the Notice of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. on the same day. earmarked as compensation for petitioner's land in Hacienda Present in the conference were representatives of the prospective Banilad. T-44664 and T-44663. respondent DAR.496. through the Regional Director. the MARO submitted two (2) Reports. the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP approximately 709 hectares of land under Tax Declaration Nos. September 22. On May 4. M 31 Makati. 0390 were "flat to undulating.2590 hectares under Tax Declaration Nos.4130 hectares of said Hacienda. The Hacienda has was submitted by the same officers." On this area were petitioner's name as compensation for 234. 1989. Hacienda Palico. They recommended that a total area of 867. On January 12. and the PARO. Legaspi Village 7th Floor. sent to . 30 The Resolutions were addressed to: over Hacienda Banilad. M. 1993.995.428. 26 On September 21. 0390 be subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution by CLOA. 0236 and 0237 be TCT Nos.6493 hectares of Hacienda discovered 162 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles — 737. T- Secretary. 19 P15. 32 On the same day. respondent DAR. likewise placed under compulsory acquisition for distribution. Leg. LBP. respondent DAR.

Municipality of Nasugbu. Roxas. withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway.. this question should be submitted its President. March 1. ATI (BA) Bldg. N-0017-96-46 (BA) In a letter dated September 28. The Sangguniang Bayan Coordinator and Deputized Zoning Administrator of Nasugbu. 1992 issued by Reynaldo Eduardo J. 36 On July 14. 32484. petitioner filed its application for conversion of both the case involved the prejudicial question of whether the property was Haciendas Palico and Banilad. 1997 by respondent court. the Notice of Acquisition was approving the Zoning Ordinance enacted by the addressed to petitioner at its office in Makati. on August 6. reiterated its request to withdraw the to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.6777 hectares under TCT 3) Resolution No. Gonzales. 1993. 1994. Diliman. respondent DAR Secretary with respondent DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the informed petitioner that a reclassification of the land would not exempt cancellation of the CLOA's issued by respondent DAR in the name of it from agrarian reform. including [the Hence. 1992. Petitioner assigns the following errors: Department of Agrarian Reform]. 1993. 39 Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the motion was reclassifying areas covered by the referenced titles to denied on January 17. Quezon City dated landholdings. 37 uses.petitioner a "Notice of Acquisition" over 241. 40 non-agricultural which was enacted after extensive consultation with government agencies. 1993. 1993 stating that the lands subject of referenced titles "are not feasible and economically Meanwhile. petitioner. 4th under the CARL and the denial of due process in the acquisition of its Floor. through its President. the petition for conversion of the three haciendas was sound for further agricultural development. 34 On August 24. T-44664 and 533. 19 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Petitioner's petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April Nasugbu. Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of addressed to Mrs. SP No. 2) Resolution No. T-44663. based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for that the land is not suitable for agricultural production. As a result. Metro Manila. G. Nevertheless. Garcia of the Municipal Planning & Development. 106 of the Sangguniang No. Officer. 1992. sent a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR U. or if the slope of the land is over 18 degrees and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to non- land is undeveloped. Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway. on In a Resolution dated October 14. and the requisite public hearings. withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be where the haciendas are located. Respondent Secretary also denied petitioner's several persons. Municipality of Nasugbu. 35 agricultural. Region 4. had been declared a tourist zone.R. petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals CA- 1) Certification issued by Conrado I. petitioner. Batangas approving the Zoning Ordinance 28. . 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. 4) Letter dated December 15. and that the agriculture. hence. through subject to agrarian reform. Alicia P. this recourse. 1993. 33 Like Panlalawigan of Batangas dated March 8. 1993 the Resolutions of Acceptance. 38 VOS over Hacienda Caylaway in light of the following: On October 29. Logarta advising that the Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. denied by the MARO on November 8. respondent DARAB held that May 11. 1993. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu. Batangas has no objection to petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for the conversion of the lands subject of referenced titles conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other to non-agricultural.8180 hectares under TCT No. Department of Agriculture. It questioned the expropriation of its properties in-Charge. Eduardo Roxas.

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY when the question raised is purely legal. (9) when strong public interest is DUE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND TO involved. IN ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S VIOLATION OF R. agricultural to non-agricultural. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC AREAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER'S CAUSE SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED. (10) when the subject of the controversy is private land. Among these exceptions are: (1) C. however. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY OF THE PATENT ILLEGALITY OF THE ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT RESPONDENTS' ACTS. OF PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS AS NON- AGRICULTURAL. (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal. whether this court has the power to BATANGAS AS A TOURIST ZONE. speedy and adequate remedy. THE IRREPARABLE PETITIONER WAS BRAZENLY AND ILLEGALLY DAMAGE CAUSED BY SAID ILLEGAL ACTS. CONSIDERING THAT ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE PETITIONER WAS NOT PAID JUST OF LAW — ALL OF WHICH ARE EXCEPTIONS TO COMPENSATION BEFORE IT WAS THE SAID DOCTRINE. AND DEPRIVED OF ITS PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST THE ABSENCE OF A PLAIN. BOTH OF WHICH PLACE SAID In its first assigned error. 41 LANDHOLDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO COVERAGE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN The assigned errors involve three (3) principal issues: (1) whether this REFORM LAW. IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED Court can take cognizance of this petition despite petitioner's failure to FACT THAT PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS HAVE exhaust administrative remedies.A.A. SPEEDY AND COMPENSATION. As a general rule. 42 . Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. (8) when there is no other 6657. petitioner claims that respondent Court of LANDHOLDINGS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF Appeals gravely erred in finding that petitioner failed to exhaust AGRARIAN REFORM. OR AT THE VERY LEAST administrative remedies. is not absolute. and (11) in quo warranto proceedings. ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU RE-CLASSIFYING CERTAIN PORTIONS I. This DAR. There are instances when judicial action may be resorted to immediately. (5) when the FOR FAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS. before a party may be ENTITLE PETITIONER TO APPLY FOR allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of justice. 1520 with law. AND THE rule on this issue. when irreparable damage will be suffered. IN FAILING TO GIVE plain. (2) whether the acquisition BEEN CONVERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. OF ACTION IS PREMATURE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN VIEW D. and (3) assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from WHICH DECLARED THE MUNICIPALITY NASUGBU. he is CONVERSION AS CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress. 6657. respondent acted in disregard of due process. MORE PARTICULARLY. as an alter ego of DISREGARDED THE PROCEDURE FOR THE the President. (6) when the CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS BLATANTLY respondent is a department secretary whose acts. (2) when the administrative ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE THE body is in estoppel. UNCEREMONIOUSLY STRIPPED OF ITS LANDHOLDINGS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF B. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT DAR VOID (4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention. bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter.A. (7) ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS UNDER R. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY CLOA'S TO ALLEGED FARMER BENEFICIARIES.

Until then.A. 6657 administrative proceedings to determine . the Law of 1988. The transfer of possession and land to the owners thereof. by personal ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon delivery or registered mail. 44 There was no receipt by petitioner the place where the property is located. acquisition of private lands is set forth in Section 16 of R. in the entire acquisition proceedings. 6657. 6657. the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform a). The procedure for the compulsory remedy. landowners and the beneficiaries. viz: Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award Sec. and other pertinent "LBP bonds. Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. 6657. his administrator or process. The replacement of the trust account with cash or LBP of receipt of written notice by personal bonds did not ipso facto cure the lack of compensation. the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the II.A. there is need to lay down the procedure in the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the law.Petitioner rightly sought immediate redress in the courts. The Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings Over the land within thirty (30) days after he Haciendas. municipal building and barangay hall of title remains with the landowner. A Certificate of Land following procedures shall be followed: Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R. the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of violation of its rights and to require it to exhaust administrative 1988 (CARL). Under these circumstances. the without just compensation to petitioner. Trust account deposits are not cash b) Within thirty (30) days from the date or LBP bonds. the the determination of this compensation was marred by lack of due landowner. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in The kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. however. d) In case of rejection or failure to reply. the DAR. Before we rule on this matter. in petitioner' s name with the Land Bank of the Philippines does not constitute payment under the law. the the land must first be acquired by the State from the landowner and DAR shall send its notice to acquire the ownership transferred to the former. After having identified the land. There was a Republic Act No. 43 Before this may be awarded to a farmer beneficiary. In fact. speedy and adequate land: compulsory and voluntary. accordance with the valuation set forth The law provides that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in Sections 17. other muniments of title. 18. executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and Petitioner's allegation of lack of due process goes into the validity of surrenders the Certificate of Title and the acquisition proceedings themselves." 45 Respondent DAR's opening of trust account deposits provisions hereof. delivery or registered mail. the DAR shall conduct summary A. provides for two (2) modes of acquisition of private remedies before the DAR itself was not a plain. process. A. respondent representative shall inform the DAR of DAR disregarded the basic requirements of administrative due his acceptance or rejection of the offer. — (CLOA's) to farmer beneficiaries over portions of petitioner's land For purposes of acquisition of private lands. the issuance of the CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries necessitated immediate judicial action on the part c) If the landowner accepts the offer of of the petitioner. of any compensation for any of the lands acquired by the government. 16. and post the the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit same in a conspicuous place in the by the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. for essentially.

If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. the landholding. the Committee (BARC). or. Within thirty days submitted for decision. 1989. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the of the compensation in cash or in LBP regular courts for final determination of just compensation. landholding of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of . with the assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform In the compulsory acquisition of private lands. The the landowners and the beneficiaries. the Republic of the Philippines. the the landowner. However. and post it in a agricultural lands covered under the conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the CARP in his area of responsibility. the matter is deemed just compensation within fifteen days from notice. the redistribution of the land to the qualified DAR issued on July 26. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer accessible bank designated by the DAR beneficiaries. shall: landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. 12. Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land. The DAR shall from submission. the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the 1. Series or beneficiaries. or. his administrator or as required under the attached CARP representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of Masterlist Form which shall include the the offer. bonds in accordance with this Act. After identification. which set the operating procedure in the identification of such lands. the law is silent on DAR shall thereafter proceed with the how the identification process must be made. 1989 Administrative Order No. the DAR shall deposit the e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Within thirty days from receipt of masterlist shall include such information the Notice of Acquisition. Upon receipt by after it is submitted for decision. If the landowner accepts. The corresponding payment. The place where the property is located. he executes and delivers a deed name of the landowner. in case of DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the rejection or no response from the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of landowner. the LBP the notice. the compensation for the land requiring title. by personal delivery or registered mail. To fill in this gap. the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine within fifteen (15) days from receipt of just compensation for the land. the DAR shall take immediate possession of The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of the the land and shall request the proper land acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). the LBP and other Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase interested parties to submit evidence as price. A. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer. The procedure is as follows: f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the II. the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner decide the case within thirty (30) days of its decision and the amount of just compensation. OPERATING PROCEDURE court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. the owner of the corresponding payment. Update the masterlist of all landowner. The landowner. After the expiration of the representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on above period. the landowner. to the just compensation for the land. upon the deposit with an the Philippines. in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter. 46 Under Section 16 of the CARL.

area. the PARO may validate 3. Series of 1988. Ensure that the individual case folders Beneficiaries Undertaking are forwarded to him by his MAROs. 6. A case valuation of the property. In all cases. objection. e) CARP CA Form 5 — 2. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed b) CARP CA Form 2 — by all participants in the conference and Summary Investigation shall form an integral part of the CACF. Applicant's Information Sheet B. be duly certified correct by the PARO mentioned forms have been examined and all the personnel who participated in and verified by him and that the same the accomplishment of these forms. and tax conference/meeting to the landowner declaration number. The PARO shall: d) CARP CA Form 4 — 1. Immediately upon receipt of a case Transmittal Report to the folder. Report of Findings and Evaluation 4. Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition conference/meeting shall also be sent to Case Folder (CACF) for each title the prospective farmer-beneficiaries. compute the valuation of the land PARO in accordance with A. 47 The valuation worksheet and The MARO/BARC shall certify that all the related CACF valuation forms shall information contained in the above. No. Invitations to the said 2. the (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered BARC representative(s). This ocular inspection and . are true and correct. He shall folder shall contain the following duly discuss the MARO/BARC investigation accomplished forms: report and solicit the views. Send a Notice of Coverage and a the report of the MARO through ocular letter of invitation to a inspection and verification of the property.O. covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer c) CARP CA Form 3 — (PARO). 3. and other interested have already filed applications to avail of parties to discuss the inputs to the other modes of land acquisition. The landowner shall also be Report asked to indicate his retention area. agreements or a) CARP CA Form 1 — suggestions of the participants MARO Investigation thereon. TCT/OCT number. the Land Bank under Phase I and II of the CARP of the Philippines (LBP) except those for which the landowners representative.

and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/meeting" over the land among others. . and the amount farmer-beneficiaries the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian of just compensation offered by DAR. approval the Order of Acquisition. through the PARO. 13. Prepare. in case of acceptance. Immediately upon receipt of the Office. specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition 4. together with procedures provided under the duly accomplished valuation forms Administrative Order No. Reform Committee (BARC). the BLAD shall prepare copy each of his report. C. the BLAD shall of the parties. a Notice of Acquisition Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility property. the landowner is asked to indicate his prepare and submit to the Secretary for retention area. objections or agreements DAR's offered value. the the personnel directly participating in the DAR. A summary review and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the evaluation report shall be prepared and name of the Republic of the Philippines.000 per reply. 12. Series of and his recommendations. and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition. compensation. He also sends invitations to the prospective compulsory acquisition. DAR Central Office. 2. The LBP representative and the DARAB's decision on just MARO concerned shall be furnished a compensation. At the meeting. Upon the landowner's receipt of and Distribution (BLAD). in accordance with the forward the case folder. response. review. the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of 3. to the Central 1989.verification shall be mandatory when the However. duly certified by the BLAD Director and Once the property is transferred. for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized Administrative Order No. Should the landowner accept the the property and solicit views. the Secretary shall evaluate and determine the final land immediately direct the pertinent Register valuation of the property covered by the of Deeds to issue the corresponding case folder. possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries. in case of rejection or non- case folder from the PARO. The MARO prepares a landowner personally or through Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by registered mail within three days from its CARP. or upon deposit of payment in the designated 1. Series of 1989 requires that the representative. Upon determination of the valuation. in case of rejection or non- computed value exceeds = 500. the DAR Adjudication Board estate. shall: payment. suggestions. shall take review and final valuation. Within three days from receipt of the bank. The Notice shall include. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" approval. (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just 4. the area subject of covered by the CACF. Serve the Notice to the containing all the required information.

forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. Receives the duly accomplished CARP Form Nos. d) Complete the Field Investigation Report based on the result of the ocular inspection/investigation of the property and .O. The BLAD shall and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to R. the Notice of Coverage and the of the schedule of ocular inspection of the property at letter of invitation to the conference. Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules Governing Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD). was amended in 1990 by DAR A. The implementation of 4. farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties by landowner/landholding. No. Upon determination of the valuation. evaluate and the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell determine the final land valuation of the property. DENR. 6657. 1 & 1. pursuant to DAR A. shall review. For a valid implementation of the CAR program. deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed. MARO/LAND BANK FIELD OFFICE/BARC the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of eminent domain. 4). MARO property. specifically.A. 50 But where. liberty or property without due process of c) Screen prospective farmer-beneficiaries and for those found law. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention a) Identify the land and landowner. No. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. two notices are required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a 2.O. to carry out such regulation. No. 48 From this point.b above and prepares corresponding VOCF/CACF the BARC.a preliminary conference sent to the landowner. there is an exercise of police power for the suitability for agriculture and productivity of the land and jointly regulation of private property in accordance with the prepare Field Investigation Report (CARP Form No.e. from whence the Notice of Reform Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative. Constitution. Series of 1989.00. No. 3. The DAR Central Office. 12. 51 The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life. 9." 52 The CARL was not intended to take away property without qualified.1 including supporting documents. the farmer beneficiary. the provisions of Section 16 of R.000. Series of 1993. 6657 then apply. Gathers basic ownership documents listed under 1. The be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to the conference meeting P500. the owners are including the Land Use Map of the property.O. Coverage first sprung.O. and determine the limits to the landowners. there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. 53 The exercise of the power of eminent domain Purchase and Farmer's Undertaking (CARP Form No. Notifies/invites the landowner and representatives of the LBP. No. the representatives of or 1. Series of 1989.The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian DAR A. LBP. the Bureau of DAR A. BARC and prospective beneficiaries The importance of the first notice. understated.. cause the signing of the respective Application to due process of law. Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A." requires that: prepare. 12. 49 1. i.O.A. a Notice of Acquisition for the subject B. 9. requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property. 2). 3). 1. the PARO shall were expanded and amplified in said amendments. What is b) Interview applicants and assist them in the preparation of required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the the Application For Potential CARP Beneficiary (CARP Form said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of No. and its actual conduct cannot be least one week in advance. and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.

Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) transactions Steps Responsible Activity Forms/ involving lands enumerated under Section 7 of the CARL. areas with infrastructure. the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Agency/Unit Document . The PARO d) Prepares Summary of Minutes of the conference/public reviews.. CA (by phases. LBP. After the survey and field investigation. representatives of the BARC. DAR A. whichever is applicable. subject of VOS. documents submitted. The MARO notifies the landowner as well as representatives of the 5. the parties shall discuss the results of the field investigation. 7. 9. 9. evaluates and validates the Field Investigation Report and hearing to be guided by CARP Form No. LBP or b) Sends Notice of Coverage (CARP Form No. e) Forwards the completed VOCF/CACF to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) using CARP Form No. that: xxx xxx xxx IV. inputs to Issues raised the valuation of the subject landholding. Result of Field Investigation LBP. delineate the areas covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT). other documents in the VOCF/CACF. non-government organizations. Series of 1990 was amended by DAR A. boundary or subdivision survey of the land may also be conducted by a Survey Party of the Department of Environment and Natural c) Sends Invitation Letter (CARP Form No. 1. the MARO. among others. 1. 5) to landowner BARC prepares the Field Investigation Report which shall be signed concerned or his duly authorized representative inviting him for by all parties concerned. areas landowner. 8 DAR A. Department of Agriculture (DA). if possible). agriculture and productivity. interviewing and screening prospective farmer beneficiaries. and other comments and recommendations by all parties concerned. representatives of BARC. etc. farmer's organizations and other interested parties. issues that may be raised in relation thereto. BARC and prospective beneficiaries of the date of the ocular inspection of the property at least one week before the scheduled a) Assists the DENR Survey Party in the conduct of a date and invites them to attend the same. 6) for a Resources (DENR) to be assisted by the MARO. DA. No. No. the the following matters: MARO sends a "Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly authorized representative inviting him to a conference or public hearing with the farmer beneficiaries. See to it that Field Investigation Report Sell Case Folder (VOCF) and the Compulsory Acquisition Case is duly accomplished and signed by all concerned. transactions. determining the suitability of the land for infrastructures. No. DENR. 55 This survey shall conference/public hearing to prospective farmer-beneficiaries. NGO's. and the areas farmers' organizations and other interested parties to discuss subject to VOS and CA.O. He then forwards the records to the RARO for another review. In addition to the field investigation. 54 In both VOS and CA. MARO LBP. a a conference. Folder (CACF). Based on its investigation.O.O. LBP or BARC boundary/ subdivision survey delineating areas covered by conducts the ocular inspection and investigation by identifying the OLT. retained by the landowner. over a particular landholding. retention. Series of 1993 provided.O. DENR. Series of 1993. (Transmittal Memo to PARO). At Inputs to valuation the public hearing. land and landowner. The MARO. OPERATING PROCEDURES: DAR A. The Minutes of the Comments/recommendations by all parties concerned. conference/public hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files shall be forwarded by the MARO to the PARO. as the case may be. No.

representatives of Form No. CARP coverage and for LO to select BARC. Map said notice. 4 which should be scheduled at LBP the LBP. DENR representatives Form No. BARC. property is now under CARP 6 DARMO Send notice to the LBP. 2 notifies DAR about compliance with proof of service. informing him that his Form No. Local Office conducts the investigation on A copy of said Notice shall CARP subject property to identify . 17. if he desires and prospective ARBs of the schedule of the field investigation to avail of his right of retention.(requirements) be posted for at least one Form No. to join the field investigation to 7 DARMO With the participation of CARP be conducted on his property BARC the LO. 3 his retention area. to be conducted on the subject and at the same time invites him property. or with posting requirements thru registered mail with return return indorsement on CARP card. DENR Land Use least two weeks in advance of DENR and prospective ARBs. Identification and week on the bulletin board of Documentation the municipal and barangay xxx xxx xxx halls where the property is 5 DARMO Issue Notice of Coverage CARP located. 17 A. LGU office concerned to LO by personal delivery Form No.

the landholding. prospective ARBs are not available whether in whole or in part. the LBP as to the propriety of representatives of the DENR and covering the land under CARP. on the scheduled date. determines to the ocular inspection report of DAR. its suitability and productivity. he signs the FIR (Part I) and and jointly prepares the Field accomplishes Part II thereof. investigation to be conducted. However. If he agrees pursuant to Joint Memorandum . representative for validation. The team shall submit its Part I of CARP Form No. Similarly. LBP. if the LBP representative the conflict shall be resolved by is not available or could not come a composite team of DAR. they were given due the issue of suitability to agriculture. difference or variance between the field investigation shall the findings of the DAR and the proceed even if the LO. and on issues affecting idle lands. on provided. 4 shall report of findings which shall be be forwarded to the LBP binding to both DAR and LBP. conduct further investigation after which the duly accomplished thereon. the field DENR and DA which shall jointly investigation shall also be conducted. Investigation Report (FIR) In the event that there is a and Land Use Map. notice of the time and date of degree of development or slope.

Circular of the DAR. requirement thru return 8 DARMO Screen prospective ARBs endorsement on CARP BARC and causes the signing of CARP Form No. And/or segregation survey or 9 DARMO Furnishes a copy of the CARP DENR delineating areas covered Segregation duly accomplished FIR to Form No. 4 Local Office by OLT. 17 11. C. the board of the municipal plan shall be approved and barangay halls where by DENR-LMS. infrastructure. the property is located. unproductive/ service or registered mail unsuitable to agriculture. Review and Completion LGU office concerned CARP of Documents notifies DAR about Form No. DARMO Forward VOCF/CACF CARP . the Application of Purchase Form No. "uncarpable Survey Plan the landowner by personal areas such as 18% slope delivery with proof of and above. LBP. DENR compliance with posting and DA dated 27 January 1992. 5 B. a copy thereof for at least In case of segregation or one week on the bulletin subdivision survey. 17. Land Survey and Farmer's Undertaking 10 DARMO Conducts perimeter or Perimeter (APFU). will return card and posts retention.

through the Municipal Agrarian Reform LBP. 12. 9. BARC. identification and delineation of the land subject to acquisition. After the field investigation. he may choose which area he shall retain. 9.O. Series of 1993. the administrator of Hacienda Palico. Series of 1990 and DAR A. administrator also of Hacienda Banilad. The team's findings shall be binding on both DAR and When respondent DAR. Series of 1990. through MARO identifying the landholding and determining its suitability for agriculture Leopoldo C. 1.. 60 the DAR. the LBP and farmer the DAR and the LBP as to whether the land be placed under agrarian beneficiaries. respondent DAR claims that Jaime beneficiaries.O. the land's suitability to agriculture. as in this case. representatives of the BARC. the land valuation and specific requirements. 12 does not specify how the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week in notices or letters of invitation shall be sent to the landowner. With representatives of the LBP. 6 They also include the Notice of Coverage first laid down in DAR A. the degree or development held with respect to Hacienda Caylaway because it was subject to a of the slope." Another copy of Procedure in DAR Administrative Order No. The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad the landowner to attend the field investigation to be scheduled at least two weeks from notice. Lejano. The procedure in the sending of these notices Clearly then. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office other pertinent matters. DAR A. the the municipal or barangay halls where the property is located. Series of 1993. Form No. xxx xxx xxx. when the owner. was notified and set with the participation of the landowner and the various sent an invitation to the conference. a copy of and invitation to the conference. The field investigation is for the purpose of In the case at bar. If the landowner and other representatives are conference on September 21. The date of the field was received on the same day it was sent as indicated by a signature investigation shall also be sent by the DAR Municipal Office to and the date received at the bottom left corner of said invitation. Pimentel actually attended the representatives.O. 12. pursuant to DAR A. The Notice of Coverage shall also invite B. Petitioner is a . 1989 and signed the Minutes of the absent. Series of 1993. the field investigation shall proceed. 1989 to petitioner corporation. sent a letter of invitation entitled "Invitation to and its productivity. DENR and DA which shall jointly conduct further investigation. Should there be a variance between the findings of signed by the representatives of the BARC. No. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be posted Parties" dated September 29. it also notifies him. No. and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention. the notice requirements under the CARL are not is important to comply with the requisites of due process especially confined to the Notice of Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. No. Series of 1989 which shall be furnished the landowner "by personal delivery with was already in effect more than a month earlier. sent to the various parties the Notice of Coverage prepare the Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map. is a juridical entity. the (DARMO) must send the Notice of Coverage to the landowner by Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field "personal delivery with proof of service. No. LBP. etc. DENR and prospective farmer regard to Hacienda Banilad. 57 The invitation barangay halls where the property is located. the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of Voluntary Offer to Sell to respondent DAR. modified the identification process be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention and increased the number of government agencies involved in the right. the farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties.O. Under DAR A. to DARPO.O. the LBP. 58 The Minutes was also notified thereof.O. through for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and Jaime Pimentel. 1. shall be conducted where he and time. No. respondent DAR claims that it. The field investigation shall be conducted on the date Pimentel. 56 This that a public hearing. Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A. or by registered mail with investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the return card. provided they were duly meeting on behalf of petitioner corporation. 59 No letter of invitation was sent or conference meeting reform." informing him that his property is under CARP coverage other representatives may be present. 1. The Operating proof of service or registered mail with return card. No. the DAR Municipal Office shall Officer (MARO).O. This Notice of Coverage does not merely notify the landowner that his property shall DAR A. the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner before the representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to conduct of the field investigation and the sending must comply with discuss the results of the field investigation. No.

The Notices of Acquisition organized under the laws of the Philippines or a over Haciendas Palico and Banilad were addressed to petitioner at its partnership duly registered. 65 Petitioner's notices may be found in the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DAR evidence does not show the official duties of Jaime Pimentel as Adjudication Board (DARAB).domestic Jaime Pimentel is not the president. a place over two hundred Rule 14 provides: kilometers away from Metro Manila. Plaza Cervantes. Sec. 101 Aguirre St. cashier. cashier or corporation. and the notices and letters of invitation were validly domestic corporation or partnership is capable of action. manager.. assuming that Pimentel was an agent of petitioner its directors. Manila. Batangas. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation or petitioner's principal place of business was listed in respondent DAR's Partnership. service may be made on offices in Manila and Makati. Manila nor in Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. 63 Service must be made on a address the Notice may be sent by personal delivery or registered representative so integrated with the corporation as to make it a mail. pleadings and notices in cases against a private respondent.. Haciendas. Service of pleadings before the DARAB administrator of petitioner's haciendas. — If the defendant is a corporation petitioner's principal place of business. BARC and LBP representatives and farmer beneficiaries for purposes of compulsory acquisition of petitioner's landholdings. secretary. Metro Manila.. These persons are those through whom the private corporation. In the proceedings before the DAR. or business of petitioner. At the time the notices were sent and the preliminary conference conducted. agent or any of Nevertheless. manager. in Section 13. the what he should do with any legal papers served on him. service may be made on Manila. 62 served on petitioner through him." 67 Pimentel did not hold office at the principal place of the president. 64 and bring distinction between natural and juridical persons in the sending of home to the corporation notice of the filing of the action.. manager. Is he. manager. secretary. Service upon private domestic corporation or Curiously. The DAR Administrative Orders priori supposable that he will realize his responsibilities and know also do not distinguish. 13. there is no showing that Pimentel himself was duly authorized to attend the conference meeting with the MARO. secretary. The evidence does not is governed by Section 6. respondent DAR had information of the address of partnership. has a personality separate and distinct director of petitioner corporation. officers and employees. Rule V of the DARAB Revised Rules of indicate whether Pimentel's duties is so integrated with the Procedure. agent. He performed his official functions and actually resided in the Similarly. Makati." 66 and "7th Flr. 61 and therefore. the law does not distinguish. 6. Notices and pleadings are served on private domestic corporation that he would immediately realize his responsibilities and corporations or partnerships in the following manner: know what he should do with any legal papers served on him. Neither did he exercise his functions in Plaza any of its directors or partners. considered an agent of the corporation? The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to be The purpose of all rules for service of process on a corporation is to sent to the landowner by "personal delivery or registered make it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and mail. cashier. as administrator of the two from its shareholders. Sec. organized under the laws of the Philippines or a Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. domestic corporation before the DARAB and the regular courts are served on the president. Cervantes. Metro partnership duly registered. cashier. the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines. 68Why respondent DAR chose to notify Pimentel instead of the officers of the corporation was not explained by the said Summonses. agent. secretary. Makati. conference." Whether the landowner be a natural or juridical person to whose proper notice in an action against it. haciendas in Nasugbu. These Notices were sent barely three to the president. or four months after Pimentel was notified of the preliminary any of its directors. Even . — If the defendant is a corporation records as "Soriano Bldg.

Hacienda Palico has an (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his area of 1. is guaranteed in Section 6 of the CARL." 71 contiguous. 1988. The right of retention and how this right is the preliminary conference or public hearing. Series of 1990 was issued and this required that the Notice of Sec. Coverage must be sent "to the landowner concerned or his duly authorized representative. shall pertain to the Assuming further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP landowner.7576 hectares were targetted for choice of the area for retention. viz: Pimentel was informed of the preliminary conference. Upon receipt of this notice. features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the Respondents admit at the same time.050 hectares but only 964. he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. 73 and under this Even respondent DAR's evidence does not show that petitioner. the areas found actually subject to CARP selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted. to choose the area to be retained. 1988. horticulture and woodland. Before Notices of Acquisition were sent to petitioner. VOS transactions were first governed by contiguous. one year after exercised. The right haciendas describe the landholdings as "sugarland. order. the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to Under Section 16 of the CARL. The The acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of tenant must exercise this option within a period of one the two haciendas. DAR.A. No. In fact. If the area chosen for retention is tenanted. 1988 shall be heard and through its duly authorized representative. however. . DAR A. Notably. petitioner claims that it had no knowledge of the letter. acquisition. The two haciendas in the instant case cover vast tracts of land. Provided. Respondents insist that the lands were identified remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or because they are all registered property and the technical description another agricultural land with similar or comparable in their respective titles specifies their metes and bounds. whether these retained portions were compact or R. which shall be compact or sugarland. 9. corporation had no idea which portions of its estate were subject to which was the subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS).O. pertains to the landowner. DAR Administrative Order No. Retention Limits. 72 before the effectivity of retain. and which portions were excluded from CARP coverage. that not all areas in retained area." and "forest. could not have given Pimentel the authority to bind it at least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be to whatever matters were discussed or agreed upon by the parties at acquired compulsorily. 70 another agricultural land. which shall be compact or contiguous. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1. 6. The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway the exact areas of the landholdings were not properly segregated and delineated. hence. however. petitioner Petitioner was also left in the dark with respect to Hacienda Caylaway. a landowner may retain not more than five hectares entirely agricultural lands. was notified of any ocular . The haciendas are not Under the law." 69 The right to choose the area to be retained. . On the inspection and investigation that was to be conducted by respondent contrary. the were not properly identified before they were taken over by tenant shall have the option to choose whether to respondent DAR. . — . therefore.respondent DAR's evidence does not indicate this authority. The VOS in compulsory acquisition. pasture land. C. but only portions thereof. 19. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in land.0688 hectares were subject to CARP. first identified. which portions it could rightfully the instant case was made on May 6. 6657 on June 15. the various tax declarations over the out of the total area of his agricultural land subject to CARP. the sending of the Notice of remain on the portion or be a beneficiary in the same or another Acquisition specifically requires that the land subject to land reform be agricultural land with similar or comparable features. series of 1989. That in case the area coverage of its haciendas. however.024 hectares and only 688. Neither is there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to invitation. he shall be considered a leaseholder the haciendas were placed under the comprehensive agrarian reform and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this program invariably by reason of elevation or character or use of the Act. all VOS filed before June 15.

shall purchase all agricultural lands it deems productive and suitable to farmer cultivation voluntarily offered for III. 229 does not lay down the operating xxx xxx xxx. 229. 83 Resolution No. shall be heard and processed survey and the land valuation summary report. was not denied participation therein. 6657. 229 provides: cannot be dispensed with. 1989. the notice No. received by petitioner or its duly authorized representative. In two separate Resolutions both dated January 12.4571 hectares and is covered the Sangguniang Bayan was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas on March 8. 19 reclassifying certain areas of Nasugbu as non-agricultural. 1988? The answer is no. 229 merely reiterates the procedure Lands in Nasugbu. All VOS filed before 15 June 1988.A. the same E. 19 of The Hacienda has a total area of 867. 1989. 1520. the date of as landowner. the Sangguniang Bayan of VOS filed before June 15. 1992. 1993. however. 229. Batangas adopted Resolution No. the Regional Director for Region IV of the of coverage and the preliminary conference with the landowner. is reclassified as non-agricultural 13 years before the effectivity of R. much less the notice requirements. Does and sound for agricultural development. 81 This Resolution approved First of all. the LBP and farmer beneficiaries. 6657. The Conversion of the three Haciendas. were allegedly of acquisition in Section 16.5257 the DAR and for which no payment has been made hectares. however. paragraph 3. Series of portions are located. do not in accordance with the procedure provided for in indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and Executive Order No.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage shall be subject to the notice and hearing requirements of R. Department of Agriculture certified that the haciendas are not feasible representatives of the BARC. 84 . the E. the Revised Zoning that the land. 6657. this mean that these requirements may be dispensed with regard to pursuant to Proclamation No. Subsection A.O. 79 In 1993. Executive Order No. 9. 78 In 1975. No. 229. 80 On March 20. then President Marcos issued Proclamation No. agrarian reform because they have been declared for tourism. Section II. on the other hand. and that petitioner. — The government at the very least.O.O. Respondent DAR.processed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Executive by four (4) titles. 12. It is part of administrative due process and is an essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to exercise.A. not agricultural Executive Order 229 does not contain the procedure for the purposes. sale to it at a valuation determined in accordance with Section 6. The results of the effectivity of the CARL. 19. In other words. dated 26 July 1989. like Section 16 of the CARL. through the Regional Director.O. his right of retention guaranteed under the CARL. thus: 1989. Series of 1520 declaring the municipality of Nasugbu. Voluntary Offer to Sell. avers that surveys on the land covered by the four titles were conducted in 1989. landowner and beneficiaries of the land subject to Ordinance of Nasugbu 82 which zoning ordinance was based on a agrarian reform be identified before the notice of acquisition should be Land Use Plan for Planning Areas for New Development allegedly issued.O. procedure. Nasugbu. All VOS transactions which are now pending before titles. but only 648. formally accepted the VOS over the two of these four III. 74 Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale in 1989. respondent DAR. identification of private land as set forth in DAR A. R. 75 The land covered by two titles has an area of 855. Sec. Order No. A. 9 of E. prepared by the University of the Philippines. Batangas a tourist zone. Sec. Notice to the landowner. before the VOS is accepted by respondent DAR. including the subject haciendas. Series of 1992. 77 To reiterate. Such transaction shall be exempt from the It is petitioner's claim that the three haciendas are not subject to payment of capital gains tax and other taxes and fees. silent as to the procedure for the identification of the land. 12. requires Municipal Ordinance No. 76 Petitioner claims it does not know where these provided in Administrative Order No. Section 5 of E.

87 No. Petitioner urges Executive Order No.827 (DAR) is mandated to "approve or hectares in Nasugbu into a tourist area known as the Batulao Resort disapprove applications for conversion. applications for land use conversion on For lands less than five hectares. the haciendas should likewise be converted. The Department of Agrarian Reform respondent DAR in 1991 when it approved conversion of 1. Land Use Policy. 6 B. pursuant to R.Petitioner claims that proclamation No. Series of We do not agree. Series of 1987 and reiterated in the CARL and Memorandum Circular 6657 and E. accordingly. Series of this Court to take cognizance of the conversion proceedings and rule 1987. No. For lands exceeding five the responsibility of the DAR. 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 6657. the RARO shall approve or individual landholdings shall remain as disapprove applications for conversion. Complex. Sec.O. likewise empowers this A. No. documents on the comprehensive land Applications over areas exceeding fifty hectares are approved or use plans and accompanying disapproved by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. provides that "action on Regional Agrarian Reform Officer (RARO) who shall review the same." . inspection of the property.A. ordinances passed upon and approved by the local government units The DAR's mandate over applications for conversion was first laid concerned. exclusive in the acquisition of petitioner's landholdings does not ipso facto give authority to approve or disapprove this Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for applications for conversion of conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural.. the conversion of agricultural supporting documents and conducts field investigation and ocular lands. otherwise Procedure governing the processing and approval of applications for known as the Comprehensive Agrarian land use conversion was the DAR A. Series of 1993 of the Office of the President.O. and 13. 129-A. the application for conversion is filed with the MARO where the DAR to authorize under certain the property is located. 129-A. No. The agricultural lands for residential. 5 (l) of E. No. 85 Petitioner present evidence before us that agricultural lands into non-agricultural these areas are adjacent to the haciendas subject of this petition. Respondent DAR's failure to observe due process 1987. The findings of the MARO are subject to review and evaluation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer D. The DAR's jurisdiction over applications for conversion is provided as follows: Applications for conversion were initially governed by DAR A. Series of 1990. 2. industrial and other land applications for conversion is the DAR. Series of 1993 of the Office of the submit a supplemental report together with his recommendation to the President.52 hectares in Barangay Caylaway as within the restructuring or readjustment of potential tourist belt. 1520 was also upheld by A. 1.A. No. uses. Sec.O. agency charged with the mandate of approving or disapproving commercial. The PARO may conduct further field investigation and 54." pursuant to Section 4 (j) of hence. the Rules of C. Sec. The MARO reviews the application and its conditions.O.O. Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands and Non-Agricultural Uses. vests in the DAR. 129-A. uses. 54. together with the National down in Section 4 (j) and Section 5 (l) of Executive Order No. (PARO). Under Reform Law of 1988. 129-A. which hectares. the RARO shall evaluate the PARO Report and forward the shall utilize as its primary reference. records and his report to the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs. 65 of R. At the time petitioner filed its application for conversion.

exempt from the coverage of the CARL lies with agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR. The MARO only posts the until the present. farmer beneficiaries. including Presidential issuances and national policies related to land Appeal from the decision of the Undersecretary shall use conversion have been consolidated in DAR A. a special task force. being primarily the agency "Land Use" refers to the manner of utilization of land. 91Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion. the guiding principle in land use the Office of the President or the Court of Appeals as conversion is: the case may be.O. which has yet to run its regular course. these farmers have been cultivating their lands. 92 Since then CLUPPI prepares the Notice of Posting.'s and other implementing guidelines. from to preserve prime agricultural lands for food production Undersecretary to the Office of the Secretary shall be while. 7. and the appeal fee. industrialization and the arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction optimum use of land as a national resource for public over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special welfare. however. 88 competence. In accordance with the hectares are approved or disapproved by the Secretary. The mode of appeal/motion for reconsideration. we stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with They involve factual findings and highly technical matters within the the requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not special training and expertise of the DAR. The Order procedure. hence. as the case may Governing the Processing and Approval of Applications for Land Use be. The goes against the basic precepts of justice. Finally. recognizing the need of the the same as that of the Regional Director to the Office other sectors of society (housing. viz: Conversion.O. of the land they applicants and the farmer beneficiaries to ascertain the information till. Applications involving more than fifty DAR's failure to observe due process therein. fairness and equity to CLUPPI conducts the field investigation and dialogues with the deprive these people. 2." These A. Anyhow.O. In Hacienda Palico alone. The Chairman of the rightful owner of the land. or proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform. through no fault of their own. thru the Undersecretary. known as the Center for Land Use Policy Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI-DAR Central Office). Series of be made to the Secretary. the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to to promote social justice. 07. conversion of agricultural land to uses other than agricultural requires field investigation and conferences with the occupants of the land. the CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in 1993. the case is hereby remanded to respondent DAR for provides that the decision of the Secretary may be appealed to the . No. industry and of the Secretary. the petition is granted in part and the acquisition transmitted to the Regional Director. including its possessing the necessary expertise on the matter. "Land Use Conversion" determine whether Haciendas Palico. No. The guidelines set forth in this decision and the applicable administrative procedure does not end with the Secretary. 90 commerce) for land. No. Under this recent issuance. the farmer beneficiaries hold the property in trust for the necessary for the processing of the application. Series of give this Court the power to nullify the CLOA's already issued to the 1997 lays down with specificity how the DAR must go about its task. Series of 1990 entitled "Rules of Procedure Office of the President or the Court of Appeals. 93 It notice and thereafter issues a certificate to the fact of posting.and DAR A. CLUPPI deliberates on the merits of the investigation report and recommends the appropriate action. This recommendation is IN VIEW WHEREOF. and from the Secretary to 1997. procedure is that once an application for conversion is filed. when coinciding with the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law Indeed.O. at the same time. the field investigation is not conducted by the MARO but by administrative process. 89 The the DAR. development and management. Banilad and Caylaway are non- refers to the act or process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural. To assume the power is to short-circuit the This time. The power to allocation. The lapses in the acquisition proceedings. DAR A. not with this Court.

concur. SO ORDERED. C.proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's application for conversion. Jr. Buena.. Gonzaga-Reyes and De Leon. . Jr.. Purisima. JJ.J. Mendoza. Vitug.. Panganiban.. Davide. Bellosillo.

and Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) is the government financial PEREZ.[15] It appears however that Livioco did not act upon the . are hereby AFFIRMED.⃰ Factual Antecedents . No. J.versus . While remand is frowned upon for The DAR referred Liviocos offer to the LBP for valuation.[10] Following Section 17 of obviating the speedy dispensation of justice. the Court is left with no evidence on record that could aid in the proper resolution of the case. 10405 PHILIPPINES.[11] as amended by Administrative Order No.[9] the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. assailing the August 30.[7] Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) DEL CASTILLO. 83138. for a total of P9.. 3. 2010 Reform Fund. 2004 and the Order dated March 16. institution[4] established to aid in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian ENRIQUE LIVIOCO. 2005 documentary] requirements. DEL CASTILLO. price at P3. Branch 56. September 22. Pampanga. CARPIO MORALES. the farmers. 17. Chairperson. JR.870.R. The Decision dated January 29. premises considered. as well as its December 5. 2005 proceeds have been kept in trust pending [his] submission of the [ownership Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA). Sometime between 1987 and 1988. VELASCO. The dispositive portion of the assailed Supreme Court Manila Decision reads as follows: FIRST DIVISION WHEREFORE.. C. the petition is DENIED.[12] the LBP set the State their due. Republic of the Philippines Resolution[2] in CA-GR SP No.00.00 per square meter.943. 170685 2004 of the RTC.48 for 26 hectares.21 per square meter or a total of P827. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. series of 1991. Present: CORONA. Promulgated: Reform Program (CARP) as well as to act as financial intermediary of the Agrarian Respondent. it becomes necessary to ensure Republic Act (RA) No.[5] x--------------------------------------------------------x Respondent Enrique Livioco (Livioco) was the owner of 30.[3] Petitioner.[13]Livioco was then promptly informed of the valuation[14] and that the cash portion of the claim This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45. and the 1989.189.6329 hectares of DECISION sugarland[6] located in Dapdap.The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form[8] he submitted to the DAR When the evidence received by the trial court are irrelevant to the issue of just indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an international compensation and in total disregard of the requirements provided under Section 17 of paper mill. JJ. Mabalacat. series of compliance with the law and to give everyone the landowner. Angeles City in Civil Case No. for acquisition under the CARP at P30. J. LAND BANK OF THE G.

a creek.[24] Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an outrageously low valuation of his property.[22] the CA sustained the validity of judgment of this Court.[21] In its final and executory Decision. Livioco was informed on August 8. they What matters most is the fact that the requirements for Compulsory Acquisition of private lands. the deposit of the amount of property was determined as not compensable because this comprised a residential land valuation in the name of petitioner after he rejected the said area.4241 hectares of the agency which is the LBP.9191 hectares. The certifications by other on the ground that there was already a perfected sale. it is to the best interest of the public that the litigation Livioco filed separate complaints to cancel the CLOAs and to recover his property but regarding the reconveyance of the disputed property between the the same proved futile.[19] government agencies that the land was identified as a resettlement area [are] of no avail as the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and has The DAR proceeded to take possession of Liviocos property. and the CLOA holders before . which dismissed the petition on the amount of P827. especially the indispensable ones.48 as compensation for Liviocos 26 hectares. Register of Deeds. and a chapel.6329 hectares to 23.[28] of the subject land. 2001 that the payment was Considering therefore that there was material and substantial already deposited in cash and agrarian reform bonds and may be withdrawn upon compliance with the requirements for the Compulsory Acquisition submission of the documentary requirements. recovery same parties for the same grounds must come to an end.[27] The total value for 24.[26] the CLOAs. LBP.notice given to him by both government agencies.54. awarded Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) covering Liviocos property to 26 qualified farmer-beneficiaries. The remaining 6. its reconveyance to the petitioners was first offered for sale. was P770. this of possession and damages against the DAR. to reduced the acquired area from 30. the acquisition of the same is indubitably in order and in accordance with law. Livioco finally filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation against DAR. were substantially complied with in the instant case. At first. 1991.904. (2) DARs Notice of Land Valuation to petitioner and. the matter having [been] already fully and fairly adjudicated by the DAR. On September 20. the DAR exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. LBP Livioco then filed in 1998 a petition for reconveyance before the DAR Regional issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked the Office.[23] The relevant portions of the Decision read: Upon the request of DAR. In 1994.[25] The case eventually reached the CA. Later.[18] The request was denied by Regional Director Antonio Nuesa properly disallowed by the DAR. (3) most importantly. and the farmer.943. Court and the Supreme Court which had declined to disturb the beneficiaries. road.[20] xxxx Indeed. LBP made two amendments to the valuation. The first case he filed in 1995 was for quieting of title.2088 hectares amount. they wit: (1) valuation of the subject property by the proper government increased the acquired area to 24. LBP.2088 hectares. to wit: [17] It was only two years later that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it was As the disputed property was eventually acquired through Compulsory Acquisition.[16] ground that the validity of the compulsory acquisition had already been decided with finality in the earlier CA case.

from the Pinatubo Project Management Office that Liviocos property was valued at P300.[30] He also presented Ruling of the Regional Trial Court certifications from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Pinatubo Commission. 2003 Order requiring the reception of additional evidence: Livioco then presented evidence to prove the value of his property as of 2002. comparable sales and market to P200. for the Court to properly determine and fix the just explained that he arrived at the said value by asking the buyers of adjacent residential compensation to be accorded to [respondents] property.00/square meter. To prove that his property is now residential. who testified[36] and certified[37] that he valued the and insufficient.[44] The only other witness of LBP was its value as such. whether or not the property is residential. series of 1991. It justified the P3. Livioco presented a lawyer. property at P800.[38] There was also a certification reopening of this case for the purpose of the presentation of additional evidence is hereby ordered. as ranging from P150.[39]Livioco prayed that just compensation be computed Let the reception of aforesaid additional evidence be set on April 22. whether testimonial or guidelines in RA 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. the trial court issued its April 2. Olay WHEREFORE. 2003 at 8:30 am. at P700.904. the next hearing took place on July 10.. chief appraiser value pursuant to the corresponding tax declaration. his property has a market value A perusal of the record of this case as well as the evidence adduced by the parties shows that the facts required for the proper of P700.[34] He also presented the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) computation and/or determination of just compensation for the zonal value for residential lands in Dapdap. are unavailable of the Rural Bank of Mabalacat.[29] He maintained that between 1990 and 2000. testified[43] that. Liviocos land is located in an area where the dominant land use is residential. who explained the legal basis for the DAR administrative orders and the Certification from the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator factors for land valuation provided in Section 17 of RA 6657. According to his sworn valuation.[31] the Mt.00 plaintiffs property i.00/square meter. due to the increase in the acquired area. LBP [47] documentary.[45] of the Municipality of Mabalacat that. capitalized net income.21/square Based on the records.e.[40] x x x x[46] Only LBP filed its Answer[41] and participated in the trial.[35] He then presented Franklin Olay (Olay).[42] LBP presented its agrarian affairs specialist who . using the DAR located has become predominantly residential hence he should be paid his propertys Administrative Order No. the area where his property is claim of Livioco. 2003 where none of the meter valuation of the property on the ground that it was made pursuant to the parties presented additional evidence.00/square meter. She computed the total value thereof at P770. 3. the trial court proceeded to rule in favor of Livioco: objected to respondents theory that his property should be valued as a residential land because the same was acquired for agricultural purposes.00 per square meter. she was assigned to amend the 2001. series of 1991. as per zoning ordinance. the properties as to the prevailing selling price in the area. 3. None of these plans pushed through.Branch 56 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City on December 18.00/square meter. land value of the property in accordance with the Listasaka. Nevertheless.54. not for its potential for conversion to other uses. computation of the just compensation.[32] and the National Housing Authority[33] that his property is suitable for Apparently aware that neither party presented relevant evidence for the proper a resettlement area or for socialized housing.

it had to be valued compensation deposited by LBP in the account of respondent was only P770. Ruling of the Court of Appeals[53] Defendants Department of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Petitioner turned to the CA to no avail. while the balance may be paid in government [49] LBP sought a reconsideration of the adverse decision arguing that the court should financial instruments negotiable at any time. WHEREFORE. The same was denied by the trial court. It maintains that it is not the States policy to purchase LBP sought a reconsideration of the said order. there was a dearth of government to the property. Pinatubo eruption in 1991.904. consisting of 24. Philippines with a determination that the just compensation of Liviocos property. 1991 (the date when LBP informed the Register of Deeds that it has earmarked the said amount in favor of Livioco). the assumption that Liviocos property has a for the 24.21 per square meter valuation of the property. this petition. It clarified that the just residential land. the Court hereby renders documents. valuation. therefore.[59] . Pampanga is worth Php700. the lower court ordered LBP on March 29. Enrique Livioco. ordered to pay [respondent] the amount of Php700.[48] were all considered by the trial court in arriving at its decision.[52]The records are silent as to the courts action on the motion as well as to judgment in favor of the [respondent]. tax declarations.2088 hectares toto. Not a coincided with the Mt. and against the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank of the the execution of this order.54 as an agricultural land. 2005.00 per square meter multiplied by 24.[51] In this Petition before us.[58] Moreover. actual use of the property. 2005.[55] have considered the factors appearing in Section 17. the just compensation for their lands because it is valued way beyond its productive capacity. premises considered.2088 hectares located at Mabalacat. 2004 to release as initial cash down payment the amount of P827. plaintiff. The CA affirmed the trial courts decision in Philippines are. inclusive of legal interest Petitioners arguments accruing from the time of taking on September 20.[50] Hence. set out in Section 17 of RA 6657. LBP assails the CAs assent to the valuation of Liviocos property as a residential land. and the socio-economic benefits contributed by the of his property with a preponderance of evidence. the court placed A motion for reconsideration[56] was filed on September 29. which was denied the farmer-beneficiaries in a very difficult position.[54] Pursuant to Section 18(1)(b) of RA 6657. First it held that factual findings of the trial courts are entitled to respect. It likewise noted that the taking of Liviocos property evidence to support LBPs P3. It stressed that in failing to consider the propertys productive capacity (capitalized net income). It held representing the entire area taken by the government from the that the factors for determining just compensation.2088 hectares. Upon respondents motion. zonal The trial court was of the opinion that Livioco was able to prove the higher valuation value.00 per square meter. It likewise asked that the release of the deposit be subject to residential use is entirely speculative and baseless because none of the government respondents compliance with the release requirements of the ownership plans to use it as a residential land was carried out. It stated that among the relevant evidence considered were Liviocos sworn valuation.943.48. They would not be able to pay off in a Resolution[57] dated December 5. the CA ordered LBP to pay 30% of the purchase price in cash. In contrast. which event affected its single documentary evidence was presented to substantiate its valuation. Since the property was acquired under the CARP.

the propertys character refers to its actual use at the time of taking. the trial the rule is that just compensation must be valued at the time of taking.[67] relied on factors that were not in existence at the time of taking. Courts manifested that his land is agricultural and suitable for agricultural purposes.[69] not its potential uses. with respect to the determination of just compensation. The trial and appellate courts valued respondents property as Respondents arguments a residential land worth P700. respondent courts are not bound by the findings of administrative agencies such as LBP. the land use or crop For purposes of just compensation. are the final authority in this matter. LBPs valuation is only preliminary and it has the LBP also assails the Decision of the trial court which valued the land as of 1997 when duty to prove to the trial courts the veracity of its valuation. which in this court decided based on the evidence presented but found LBPs valuation case was in 1988. By considering events that transpired after 1988. the court obviously unsubstantiated. They considered the use for the property as having changed from agricultural in 1988 (when Livioco offered it to Respondent argues that by seeking a review of the just compensation. Pinatubo).[60] Issue LBP further argues that the trial court should have given more weight to its Was the compensation for respondents property land valuation because it is the authorized agency recognized by the legislature as determined in accordance with law? [61] having expertise on the matter. He points out that LBP is merely reiterating the arguments of the property. Our Ruling LBP insists that the Claim Valuation and Processing Form that it presented before the appellate court clearly established the area covered. the average price/hectare and the total value of the subject land.[62] important concepts in this definition the character of the property. the factors set out in Section 17 of RA 6657 for the determination of just compensation.[66] He then prays for the dismissal of the instant petition for review. In his letter to the DAR in 1988. and the time of actual taking.00 per square meter. In the instant case. although . Both a question of fact. LBP describes is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking.[68] There are three this document as clear and convincing evidence of the correctness of its valuation.[70] Respondent himself admitted that his property was agricultural at the time he Respondent then argues that. [65] instant petition dilatory. offered it for sale to DAR in 1988. its price. without any proof that authorized land conversion had taken place. already presented in its motion for reconsideration before the CA. Did the appellate court properly consider these three concepts LBP likewise assails the lower courts valuation on the ground that they disregarded when it affirmed the trial courts decision? We find that it did not. the fair market value of an expropriated property planted. which makes the In expropriation cases (including cases involving lands for agrarian reform). It argues that the factors stated in that provision are exclusive and the As to the character of the property [63] courts cannot consider factors that are not included therein. LBP is raising DAR) to residential by 2002 (allegedly due to the eruption of Mt. which entails an examination of the probative value of the evidence courts erred in treating the land as residential and accepting the change in the character [64] presented by the parties.

it is the [73] mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions so as to prevent farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the valuations paid to the former land fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. it is not unlikely that such farmers. The potential use of a nature as an agricultural land was not drastically affected. This changed from agricultural to residential. It is the DAR that is of exorbitant land valuations. The Mt. considering the subject propertys value as residential. Third. as already explained. it has been conclusively conversion in the future is a factor. Valuing the property as a residential land (as the lower courts have done) is not the correct approach. industrial or commercial. not the ultimate in determining just decided by final judgment in the earlier cases[72] filed by respondent that his property compensation. Second. Pinatubo eruption property should not be the principal criterion for determining just compensation for only served to make his property attractive to government agencies as a resettlement this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an area. it cannot be said that the character or use of said property landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to sell the property to other parties.it stood adjacent to residential properties. Note that in lands acquired under RA 6657. or even an application for conversion with DAR. the circumstance that respondents property was surrounded by not its potential uses. refer to the potential use of the the appellate courts conclusion. agricultural. It would The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property has also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform. Hence. which value may be adjusted in light of the improvements in the valued as such. hence.[78] If the farmer-beneficiaries are made for expropriation[75] by local government units (LGUs) will not ipso factoconvert an to pay for lands valued as residential lands (the valuation for which is substantially agricultural property to residential. respondent himself testified that [76] property.[79] which can only mean that its appears to be what the lower courts have erroneously done). If at all. because there is no allegation or proof that the the land from the bondage of the soil without delivering them to the new oppression property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR. Respondents property remains agricultural may just bring the State right back to the starting line where the landless remain and should be valued as such. We find no basis for courts found to be preponderant) could. the CA and the trial court had no legal basis for landless and the rich acquire more landholdings from desperate farmers. for reasons explained above. Even reclassification[74] and plans owners (LBP merely advances the payment). While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes considered order from DAR. to justify the CAs in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated decision to treat the property as residential. any DAR approval for the conversion of respondents property or an actual unable to keep up with payment amortizations. but none of these government plans panned out. which is to free the tillers of changed from agricultural to residential. First.[71] Moreover. will be forced to give up their expropriation by an LGU. in the absence of higher than the valuation for agricultural lands). there was no conversion property. the potential use of the property or its adaptability for residential subdivisions was already in existence when he offered it for sale sometime . Since the coverage of RA 6657 only extends to agricultural lands. Thus. his property remained expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. The CA also erroneously considered the Mt. Municipality of Mabalacat. The proper approach should have been to value respondents property as respondents property should be conclusively treated as an agricultural land and an agricultural land.[77] was validly acquired under RA 6657 and validly distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries. at most. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 as converting Respondents evidence of the value of his land as residential property (which the lower the use for respondents property from agricultural to residential. it should never control the determination of just compensation (which his property was not affected by the volcanic ashfall.

drastic change caused by volcanic eruption. actual use and in nature. preferably also income. All together. By issuing its April 2. the trial court revealed its awareness of the importance of adhering to Section 17 of RA However. the current value of the like properties. however. Instead. 2003 Order requiring the reception of additional evidence. within the municipality or adjacent municipalities. (c) Also. and sugarcane lands. non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government Comparing respondents agricultural property to residential properties is not what the financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation. what was instead considered was the propertys potential use. these circumstances negate the CAs ruling that the subject property should be treated differently because of the The CA ruled that the trial court took into account all the factors in Section 17 of RA natural calamity. It would not have been difficult to require respondent to present evidence of the propertys price when he acquired the same. The VOS form that respondent accomplished described his regardless of the fact that the evidence presented by respondent were not really property as being located adjacent to residential subdivisions. It was based on respondents evidence which were irrelevant or off-tangent to the factors laid down by Section 17. no heed was Sec. the sworn valuation by the owner. Determination of Just Compensation. Going over the factors in Section 17. the cost of acquisition of the land. its nature. Section 17 of RA 6657 provides: erroneously treated it as residential rather than agricultural. arrive at the just compensation and that the necessary evidence were unavailable for its consideration. the trial court. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the appraiser of the Rural Bank of Mabalacat testified that he considered the value of farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the adjacent residential properties. the trial court proceeded to rule on the LBP argues that its valuation should be given more weight because it is the case without actually receiving such relevant evidence. as recognized agency with expertise on the matter. It was not therefore a relevant to the factors mentioned in section 17 of RA 6657. law envisioned.[82] The Court ruled that LBPs authority is only preliminary and the landowner who disagrees with the LBPs . 6657. 17. the tax declarations. For some reason. Luciano. (b) [80] The trial and appellate courts also erred in disregarding Section 17 of RA 6657 in As to the nature of the property. but this same argument had been affirmed by the CA. not like properties as required under the law. we also cannot accept the valuation proffered by LBP for lack of 6657. ruled in favor of respondent based on preponderance of evidence. In given to the current value of like properties. (d) The factor of actual use and income of the property was also ignored.[81] with Section 17 of RA 6657.between 1987 and 1988. like properties in this case would be agricultural lands. it is clear that almost all were not properly considered and some positively ignored. struck down in Landbank of the Philippines v. it has already been explained that the lower courts their determination of just compensation. We disagree. For instance: (a) The cost of As to the price: Applying Section 17 of RA 6657 acquisition was not even inquired into. Jurisprudence is replete with reminders to special agrarian courts to strictly adhere to Thus. we cannot accept the valuation by the lower courts. But the chief the assessments made by government assessors shall be considered. as it is not in accordance the factors set out in Section 17 of RA 6657. It recognized that the evidence presented by the parties were insufficient to proper substantiation. Since respondents property is agricultural determining just compensation.

that would support the correctness of the values or data used in such deprived of the use and benefit of his property. LBP merely submitted its It is reminded to adhere strictly to the doctrine that just compensation must be valued computation to the court without any evidence on record. However. x x decision on the matter. LBP also offered in evidence the Claims Valuation and Processing compensation. In the instant case. we find that LBP did not sufficiently substantiate its valuation. Not being a trier of facts.] through DAR[. The RTCs. but there is no must substantiate its valuation. taking into consideration the factors enumerated in Section 17 of RA 6657 and the applicable DAR regulations. whether documentary or at the time of taking. the Court notes the lack of evidence to prove the veracity of LBPs claims. the case may have to be remanded for the reception of evidence. The time of taking[89] is the time when the landowner was testimonial. In Luciano. as it is the RTC. The first witness only testified that she prepared the documents. We are thus constrained It is not enough that the landowner fails to prove a higher valuation for the property. we can take guidance from the findings LBP presented two of its officials. The value. organized as special agrarian courts. are the final Form to show the total valuation[87] of the property. relevant implementing guidelines in arriving at its valuation. substantiation.[83] because LBP did not prove the correctness of the values or data contained in the said We have ruled in several cases that in determining just compensation. the Court held: way of knowing if the values or data used in the computation are true.[88] only as an initial determination. The barren records of this case leave us in no position to resolve x[84] the dispute. the Court cannot also receive new evidence from the parties that would aid in the prompt resolution of this case. LBP Form. the records are silent as to the date when title was transferred to the Republic. such as when title is transferred to the computation. but their testimonies were hardly of any contained in the final and executory decision in CA-GR SP No. to remand the case to the trial court for the reception of evidence and determination of [85] LBP must still prove the correctness of its claims. In the absence of such just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657. the Republic[.valuation may bring the matter to court for a judicial determination of just valuations. 45486. it is premature for the Court to make a final accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657 and DAR AO No. Land Banks valuation had to be substantiated Given that both parties failed to adduce evidence of the propertys value as an during the hearing before it could be considered sufficient in agricultural land at the time of taking. While LBP insists that it strictly followed the statutory provision and its The trial court should value the property as an agricultural land. which is not conclusive. The other testified that LBP follows said Decision states that between 1993 and 1994.] took Section 17 of RA 6657 and the relevant administrative orders in arriving at its possession of the subject portion of [Liviocos] land and awarded the same to [agrarian . For this Court to accept such valuation would be jumping to a conclusion without anything to support LAND BANKs valuation of lands covered by CARL is considered it. computed the on the validity of the DAR acquisition and is binding on both Livioco and LBP. and had the same approved by her superior. that should make the final determination of Remand of the case just compensation. sitting as a SAC.[86] Guidelines in the remand of the case In the case at bar. which ruled use. The effort was however futile adjudicators on the issue of just compensation. Republic. The computation in the Form may be mathematically correct.

83138 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE for lack of property must be based on the values prevalent in 1994 for like agricultural lands.R. premises considered. to DAR Regional Trial Court[96] of Angeles City for reception of evidence on the issue of just Administrative Order No.[97] are situations where their application is not practicable or possible. SP No.The factual and legal basis. irrelevant. If the cited factors in the DAR Administrative Order are absent. Civil Case No. In case the release required by the trial courts March 29. 6. as amended by DAR Administrative compensation. 2005 the evidence to be presented by the parties before the trial court for the valuation of the Resolution in CA-G.[93] hence. or unavailable. there recommended conclusions within sixty (60) days from notice of this Decision.[95] . In the event that the respondent had already withdrawn the amount deposited in the LBP as required by the trial courts March 29. The So as not to lose time in resolving this issue.[94] the withdrawn amount should be deducted from the final land valuation to be paid by LBP. but. 2004 Order has not yet been effected. should exercise judicial discretion and make its own computation of the just compensation based on the factors set in Section 17 of RA 6657. 2004 Order. as far as practicable. the petition is DENIED insofar as it seeks to sometime in 1994. it must not be considered as valid payment. due reliance on DAR Administrative to conclude the proceedings and to submit to this Court a report on its findings and Orders is encouraged. The trial court is directed to determine the just compensation in Order No. series of 1994. The trial court is reminded that the practice of earmarking funds and opening trust accounts has been rejected by the Court for purposes of effecting payment.[90] have the Land Bank of the Philippines valuation of the subject property sustained. 11. as the Administrative Orders themselves recognize. 10405 is REMANDED to Branch 56 of the evidence must conform to Section 17 of RA 6657 and.reform beneficiaries] who were issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award WHEREFORE. 2005 Decision of the Court of Appeals and its December 5. the trial courts first order of business should be to require LBPs immediate compliance therewith.[91] accordance with the guidelines set in this Decision. the trial court SO ORDERED. series of 1992. The trial court may impose interest on the just compensation[92] as may be warranted by the circumstances of the case and based on prevailing jurisprudence. the Court declares that assailed August 30. The trial court is further directed Given the expertise of the DAR on the matter.

: On July 25. which included 34 DAR based its genial oh the ground that the subject hectares of a 129. SP No. Bataan. 2006. the PCGG published in the newspaper an reconsideration in an order dated September 26."5 Order. 2000. through ROGELIO A. 2007.R. being government-owned.4227-hectare property. Sarmiento wrote the Department of on certiorari1 assailing the July 27. TOMAS TAN.10 It appeared that. Jr.16 The DAR denied both the petitioner's petition in an Order dated February 3. The petitioner then Corporation. The CA dismissed the petitioner's 16. Anchor Estate Corporation after it was identified to be a dummy corporation of the late President Ferdinand E. Barangay Ipag. Morales.15 the petitioner filed with the DAR a from which they "derive their income for their daily Petition to Revoke Secretary Morales's July 26. Petitioner. property. on June CA-G. In a decision dated April 10.6 The PCGG sequestered the properties of appealed to the OP. also PRESIDENT. the" PCGG. INC.12 FACTUAL BACKGROUND In an Order13 dated July 26. granted Chairman Sarmiento's request and lifted The petitioner Samahan ng Magsasaka at Mangingisda ng the Notice of Coverage on the 129. 2006. acquisition in the year 2000. 2016 Respondent Tomas Tan emerged as the highest bidder in the bidding of the 34-hectare property. 1994.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag. G.9 BRION. does not fall as 'private Mariveles. 1995. previously owned by Anchor Estate agricultural land' subject to the CARP. the OP dismissed the . Mariveles.8 On August 1. Bataan.11 and that the 34 hectares sold by Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) issued over the PCGG to the respondent had been already land sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good identified for CARP coverage and targeted for Governance (PCGG). No. 20l0 decision2 and Agrarian Reform (DAR) requesting to stop the acquisition of February 10. April 18. and its subsequent motion for On April 4. 2000.R.17 The Invitation to Bid for the sale of its assets. proceedings on the property. the 129. SECOND DIVISION Marcos. 2000. 2004. 2000 sustenance.14 Bataan. executed a Deed of Sale in the respondent's favor. approved the sale of the property to the respondent on July 16. 196028. Sitio Naswe.4 The petitioner claimed that its members "have resided in the area for several years doing farming activities" On October 29. COMMENDADOR.4227-hectare land in Barangay Ipag. (petitioner) is an association of farmers and Secretary Morales also ordered to stop the acquisition fishermen residing at Sitio Talaga. Zamora. Respondent. then Chairman of the PCGG Committee on We resolve the present petition for review Privatization Jorge V. 2000. a Notice of Coverage had been issued over appeal from the decision of the Office of the President (OP). 2011 resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in the property under the CARP. REPRESENTED BY issued to the respondent on May 2.7 The PCGG Committee on SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA AT MANGINGISDA NG Privatization approved the sale and a Notice of Award was SITIO NASWE. former Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. J. v. DAR Secretary Horacio R. which affirmed the lifting of the Notice of Coverage from the Mariveles. 100926. 2000. Inc. representing the DECISION Republic of the Philippines. [SAMMANA]. The OP.

actual. the expectancy that. that the that has been alleged in the records was that the members law should be harmonized with the interest requirement in of the Petitioner are in actual possession of the Subject bringing actions and suits.18 The petitioner moved to reconsider but the OP of Court. the petitioner However. We DENY the present petition for review on certiorari as we material interest to question the July 26.19 The the name of the real party-in-interest. " In other words. nonetheless. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. or substantial interest in the subject matter erroneous. the party must have a real. organizations and associations may represent their members Nothing.26 party in interest to the case. while Property and that farming activities were conducted thereon. Not being assailed decision and resolution. NOT merely' an expectancy. hence. or consequential interest. or at least potential beneficiaries. find that the Petitioner is not a real party Rules of Court expressly allows farmers. etc. the subject land. or have already been actually awarded portions of it. It must be pointed out. the CA held that. or a future contingent Assailed Decision and Assailed Resolution would positively interest. denied its motion for reconsideration. This Court material. 2010. before the DAR. 2007.. every action must be prosecuted and defended in denied its motion in a resolution dated August 6. in interest in the case at bench. or have been issued Certificates of Land OUR RULING Ownership Award (CLOAs) for which they could validly claim the status of the land's grantees having a real.22 (Citations omitted) Here. actual. All before the DAR. be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit. and fishermen members The petitioner moved to reconsider the ruling but the CA which allegation gave it the right to represent its members. the petitioner alleged that it is duly registered with the SEC acting on behalf of its farmers. it failed to allege and prove that these members filed the present petition for review on certiorari before this are identified and registered qualified beneficiaries of Court. A real party in interest is the cultivators. under CARP. It held: Republic Act (RA) No. 665727 in relation with Section 3 of the We. unfortunately for them.A."24 To be properly In a decision21 dated July 27. did not ripen to Constitutional right to form associations does actual award and ownership. however. the petitioner's petition for review must be of the action.Unless otherwise authorized by law or the Rules Coverage. . 2000 DAR Order.petitioner's appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the DAR not make the petitioner a realparty-in-interest Secretary's Order lifting the subject Notice of in this case. to represent their members in any proceedings in the suit. while considered as such. farmworkers. affect the Petitioner simply because it is composed of farmers and fishermen x x x.. the lifting of the subject Notice of Coverage was irregular and material.23 The Rules of Court petitioner then filed a Petition for Review under Rule defines a real party in interest as "the party who stands to 4320 with the CA. these members must have such real.25 NOT a mere expectancy or a future. organizations and associations. or substantial interest in the subject matter of the cannot be made to guess how a judgment setting aside the action. tillers. these realparty-in-interest to members' interest over the subject land were at most an question the July 26. is stated as to them being beneficiaries. actual. 'through party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment their leaders. 2000 Order of the find no reversible error committed by the CA in issuing its DAR Secretary lifting the Notice of Coverage. dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a real contingent. The petitioner is not a identified and duly registered qualified beneficiaries. however. or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. subordinate.

actually awarded lands. held that "farmer-beneficiaries. but were discretion committed by the administrative agency. the administrative implementation of the CARP. Sumilao. and finally by the DAR Secretary."34 right to the farmers since the fact remains that they have not yet been approved as awardees. in the case because. the under CARP is vested in the DAR Secretary pursuant to Court ruled that being 'mere qualified beneficiaries of the Section 15 of RA No. the Court did not consider as real 28 farming activities in the area. the Court held that question the DAR's July 26. In Department of Agrarian Reform v. and were conducting In Fortich v. beneficiaries. in Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya. of whether the farmers are qualified beneficiaries of CARP) that the identification of actual and potential beneficiaries Subsequently. the BARC certified the The Court was later confronted with the same issue farmers-individuals who claimed to be permanent and in Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa. 2000 Order which Order alleged that its members. or were granted CLOAs over their respective in Fortich. 2000 Order. are not real parties the courts to exercise great caution in substituting its own in interest. does not vest any case. that the case folders of its members were not processed attached to their motion' for intervention a "Master List of because of the DAR Secretary's July 26. or In contrast with the petitioner's case.30 MARO over the disputed land was approved by the DAR Regional Director. aside from their self-serving 'assertions.33 Farmer-Beneficiaries" to show that they are real parties in interest in the case. fishermen. 2000 Order.there was none."31 that the fact that there was "x x x certification determination of the issue. the movants were those "Found Qualified and Recommended for petitioner and its members are not real parties-in-interest to Approval" as farmer-beneficiaries. the DECS's appeal. Bataan. On the In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa. The document merely showed that the Thus. its members were not granted CLOAs x x x. "Since the identification and CARP' was not enough to be considered a party in interest selection of CARP beneficiaries are matters involving strictly The Court. The petitioner even admits disputed agricultural land in San Vicente. Corona. applying Fortich. Bataan. were long-time residents of Sitio Talaga. declaring (on the issue identified and registered as qualified CARP beneficiaries. who claimed to be farmer-beneficiaries of the portions of the disputed property. the CA set aside the DAR Secretary's decision Court rejected the petitioners' claim as real parties in interest approving the Notice of Coverage. In this not issued because of the present dispute. 6657. and the Notice of Coverage was in fact lifted by As earlier pointed out. No evidence was presented to parties in interest the movants in the case who were show that the petitioner's members were approved as merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries. composed of farmers and the OP subsequently affirmed. notwithstanding its representative capacity. it behooves who are not approved awardees of CARP. the petitioner in this case merely the DAR Secretary via the July 26. regular farmworkers of the disputed land as potential CARP Litton29 and Samahang Magsasaka ng 53 Hektarya v. Bukidnon. Department of Education Culture and Sports. ."32 identified and registered by the BARC as the subject land's beneficiaries. Mariveles. thus. unless there is grave abuse of that CLOAs were already generated in their names. the records were devoid of proof that they have been The Court reversed the CA decision. they were not real parties in interest as their interest over the land in question was a mere expectancy. Bataan v. the Notice of Coverage issued by the Mosquera. The movants awardees. Barangay Ipag. Also.

therefore. No. these hall. submit the same to the Regional Director who shall rule on Litton. the governing the hearing of protests involving the coverage of beneficiaries must be qualified and registered by the DAR. and registered farmers and/or farmworkers- beneficiaries acquire the covered lands which they A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP themselves actually till (subject to the landowners retention beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in the barangay rights as protected by the law). identified.35 the rules the corresponding Notice of Coverage. only the qualified. copy of the BARC list or registry must be posted38 in provide any minimum period of time within which the protest accordance with the guidelines established by the or. it is a non. Conversely. (which is not even reflected in its decision's fallo) cannot be validly relied upon by the petitioner.37and second. tenants and farm workers who are qualified to be Social justice in the land reform program also applies to beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR landowners. the land should be covered by DAR Administrative Order No. Registration of Beneficiaries. 6657 to which they are not entitled. This is shall provide the following data: precisely why the law . in lands under RA No. farmworkers. series of 1994 provided.and the applicable rules provide for the procedure for determining the proper a) Names and members of their immediate farm household.. 9. Bataan v.O. letter-request was filed was not inconsistent with then existing rules and was.the PCGG letter-request must be decided. two requisites must concur: first. c) Crops planted. In this light. to be covered under the CARP. the CA's advantage of the agrarian reform program to acquire lands finding that the subject land is covered by RA No. in this case. lessees. the MARO or PARO shall. not merely to farmers and farmworkers. As Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC). tillers. 9. wages received. and d) Their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or These procedures ensure that. shall register all agricultural every farmer and farmworker. et al. 15. Thus. binding obiter dictum."36 specific in its requirements for registering qualified beneficiaries. beneficiaries and grantees or awardees of the lands covered b) Location and area of the land they work. "comment oh said protest and In Sumalo Homeowners Association of Hermosa. 6657 . series of 1994. or to be covered under the CARP.39 A. school or other public buildings in the barangay where it . once the protest is filed. did not (BARC). etc. Section 15 of the CARL explicitly provides: The constitutional considerations: provisions governing agrarian SEC.The DAR in reform program do not entail coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee automatic grant of lands to (BARC) as organized in this Act. . not irregular.. 6657 at the time the PCGG Chairman coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee filed the letter request with the DAR Secretary.RA No. the DAR's lifting of the Notice of Coverage issued by registered as qualified beneficiaries are not real parties-in- the MARO over the subject land one day after the PCGG interest.As the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are procedures likewise ensure that landowners do not lose their matters involving strictly the administrative implementation lands to usurpers and other illegal settlers who wish to take of the CARP which the Court generally respects." Those who have not been identified and In short.40 the Court pointed out that the "CARL is the same. At most. for a particular land and its farmers.

above everything else. 2000 Order of the DAR. subject 129. 6657 specifically requires that not only must he or she be a SECTION 15. Justice Leonen cannot rely on Department of Agrarian Reform v. Finality of Order.shall be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable petition to revoke the lifting of the Notice of Coverage on the hours. Section 15 of categories of qualified beneficiaries as enumerated under Executive Order (E. 2000 Order is misplaced. the views of Associate Justice Marvic M. be identified and registered as such in accordance with the procedures and guidelines laid out in the law and applicable rules. which we reiterate it is not. The July 26. but he or she does not at the time the assailed order was issued. Department of Education Culture and Sports that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest because the land has already been subjected to the coverage of the CARP.41 the applicable general law Section 22 of RA No.F.O. the present petition for review on certiorari still fails because the July 26.V. So also. To emphasize and reiterate. Even assuming that the petitioner is a real party-in-interest. he or she must. 292.4227-hectare property only on October 29. or more than four (4) years after the Order was issued In other words. has already attained finality. In these lights. provides that: automatically become a grantee of the covered land. which the petitioner ultimately seeks this Court to review. the land must be covered by the corresponding Notice of Coverage and the beneficiaries must be both qualified and registered by the DAR for the subject land and the petitioner's farmers and fishermen members to be covered by the CARP. qualified beneficiary. a claimant may fall under one of the by Secretary Morales on July 26. 2000. There is thus nothing irregular in the procedure undertaken by the DAR Secretary in the lifting of the Notice of Coverage a day after the request was filed by the PCGG Chairman. The petitioner alleged that they filed with the DAR their . Leonen (Justice Leonen) that the social justice principles of the Constitution guarantees the petitioner automatic standing to question the DAR's July 26. RA No. 2000 DAR Order has already attained finality is no longer reviewable by this Court. 2004. 6657.) No.