Case Digest Agra

Uploaded by Jhulie Ann Villanueva on Apr 14, 2014

CONTENTS:

1. LANDBANK vs. ARANETA, GR 161796

2. DAR vs. BERENGUER, GR 154094
3. ALANGILAN REALTY vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, GR 180471
4. REPUBLIC vs. LOPEZ, GR 178895
5. DAR vs. PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATION SATELLITE, GR 152640
6. ARNAIZ vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, GR 170623
7. CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT vs. MATEO, GR 175485
8. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY vs. DARAB, GR 175200
9. ADRIANO vs. TANCO, GR 168164
10. GALOPE vs. BUGARIN, GR 185669
11. HEIRS OF REYES vs. GARILAO, GR 136466
12. MAGO vs. BARBIN, GR 173923
13. MAYLEM vs. ELLANO, GR 162721
14. ANTONIO vs. MANAHAN, GR 176091
15. LANDBANK vs. DARAB, GR 183279
16. LANBANK vs. COLARINA, GR 176410
17. LANDBANK vs. HEIRS OF HONORATO DE LEON, GR 164025
18. LANDBANK vs. KUMASSIE PLANTATION, GR 177404
19. DAR vs. TONGSON, GR 171674
20. AGAPITO ROM ET AL vs. ROXAS & COMPANY INC., GR 169331
21. ROXAS & COMPANY INC. vs. DAMBA-NFSW, GR 149548
22. LANDBANK vs. HEIRS OF TRINIDAD S. VDA. DE ARIETA, GR 161834
23. APO FRUITS CORPORATION vs. LANDBANK, GR 164195
24. LANDBANK vs. SUNTAY, GR 157903
25. LANDBANK vs. LISTANA, GR 168105
26. SORIANO vs. REPUBLIC, GR 184282
27. MENDOZA vs. GERMINO, GR 165676
28. OCTAVIO vs. PEROVANO, GR 172400
29. MONTANEZ vs. PARAD, GR 183142
30. SEARBEMCO vs. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., GR 154048
31. HEIRS OF SPS. VIDAD vs. LANDBANK, GR 166461
32. CONCHA vs. RUBIO, GR 162446
33. HEIRS OF CERVANTES vs. MIRANDA, GR 183352
34. LAKEVIEW GOLF CLUB vs. LUZVIMIN SAMAHANG NAYON, GR 171253
35. CREBA vs. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, GR 183409
36. PVB vs. BASES CONVERSION DEV’T AUTHORITY, GR 173085
37. PO vs. DAMPAL, GR 173329
38. RURAL BANK OF DASMARINAS vs. JARIN ET AL, GR 180778
39. HACIENDA LUISITA INC. vs. LUISITA IND’L PARK CORP., GR 171101

HACIENDA LUISITA INC vs LUISITA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORP, GR. 171101

FACTS:

On 1989, some 93% of the then farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) complement of Hacienda

Luisita signified in a referendum their acceptance of the proposed HLI‘s Stock Di stribution
Option Plan (SODP). The SDOA was formally entered into by Tadeco, HLI, and the 5,848
qualified FWBs. This attested to by then DAR Secretary Philip Juico. The SDOA embodied the
basis and mechanics of HLI‘s SDP, which was eventually approved by the PARC after a follow-
up referendum conducted by the DAR, in which 5,117 FWBs, out of 5,315 who participated,
opted to receive shares in HLI.
On 1995, HLI applied for the conversion of 500 hectares of land of the hacienda from
agricultural to industrial use, pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 6657. The DAR approved the application
subject to payment of three percent (3%) of the gross selling price to the FWBs and to HLI‘s
continued compliance with its undertakings under the SDP, among other conditions.

On 1996, HLI, in exchange for subscription of 12,000,000 shares of stocks of Centennary,

ceded 300 hectares of the converted area to the latter. Subsequently, Centennary sold the
entire 300 hectares for PhP750 million to Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), which
used it in developing an industrial complex. Later, LIPCO transferred these 2 parcels to
RCBC in payment of LIPCO‘s PhP431,695,732.10 loan obligations. LIPCO‘s titles were
cancelled and new ones were issued to RCBC. Apart from the 500 hectares, another 80.51
hectares were later detached from Hacienda Luisita and acquired by the government as part of
the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX) complex. Thus, 4,335.75 hectares remained of the
original 4,915 hectares Tadeco ceded to HLI.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sec. 31 of RA 6657, which allows stock transfer in lieu of outright land transfer,
unconstitutional?

HELD:

There is, thus, nothing unconstitutional in the formula prescribed by RA 6657. The policy on
agrarian reform is that control over the agricultural land must always be in the hands of the
farmers. Then it falls on the shoulders of DAR and PARC to see to it the farmers should always
own majority of the common shares entitled to elect the members of the board of directors to
ensure that the farmers will have a clear majority in the board. Before the SDP is approved,
strict scrutiny of the proposed SDP must always be undertaken by the DAR and PARC, such
that the value of the agricultural land contributed to the corporation must always be more than
50% of the total assets of the corporation to ensure that the majority of the members of the
board of directors are composed of the farmers. The PARC composed of the President of the
Philippines and cabinet secretaries must see to it that control over the board of directors rests
with the farmers by rejecting the inclusion of non-agricultural assets which will yield the majority
in the board of directors to non-farmers. Any deviation, however, by PARC or DAR from the
correct application of the formula prescribed by the second paragraph of Sec. 31 of RA 6675
does not make said provision constitutionally infirm. Rather, it is the application of said provision
that can be challenged. Ergo, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 does not trench on the constitutional policy of
ensuring control by the farmers.

SORIANO vs. REPUBLIC, GR 184282

FACTS:

Spouses Soriano were the registered owners of two parcels of agricultural land located in Hijo,
Maco, Compostela Valley Province. The first parcel had an area of 5.2723 hectares and was
covered by TCT No. (T-8935) T-3120, while the second parcel had an area of 4.0887 hectares
and was covered by TCT No. (T-2906) T-749. In October 1999, the two parcels of land were
compulsorily acquired by the government pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. The LBP
made a preliminary determination of the value of the subject lands. Petitioners, however,
disagreed with the valuation and brought the matter before the DARAB for a summary
administrative proceeding to fix the just compensation.

Search
On September 30, 2000, the DARAB rendered its decisions affirming the LBP‘s preliminary
determination. Notices of the decisions were duly received by counsel for petitioners. But
petitioners belatedly filed a petition before the RTC acting as SAC, for the fixing of just
compensation. Thus, the DAR moved to dismiss the petition arguing that the petition was filed
beyond the 15-day reglementary period provided in Section 11, Rule XIII of the 1994 DARAB
Rules of Procedure.

On June 27, 2001, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and declared that the "DARAB Rules

Download
of Procedure must give way to the laws on prescription of actions as mandated by the Civil
Code." The DAR sought reconsideration of the order, but its motion was denied. Thus, the DAR
Save Related Info
lodged a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Search
trial court. The CA granted the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an action to fix just compensation for lands placed under R.A. No. 6657 is
outside the purview of the ordinary rules on prescription as contained in Article 1146 of the Civil
Code.

HELD:

The court ruled that the RTC acted without jurisdiction in hastily dismissing said refiled Petition.
Accordingly, the Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the dismissal should
be granted.

Under the law, the Land Bank of the Philippines is charged with the initial responsibility of
determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation to be paid for
their taking. Through notice sent to the landowner pursuant to §16(a) of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR
makes an offer. In case the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative proceeding is
held and afterward the provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB)
adjudicator as the case may be, depending on the value of the land, fixes the price to be paid
for the land. If the landowner does not agree to the price fixed, he may bring the matter to the
RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court. This in essence is the procedure for the determination of
compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657. In accordance with it, the private respondent‘s case
was properly brought by it in the RTC, and it was error for the latter court to have dismissed the
case. In the terminology of §57, the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has "original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners." It would subvert this "original and exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC for the DAR to
vest original jurisdiction in compensation cases in administrative officials and make the RTC an
appellate court for the review of administrative decisions.

Consequently, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to
the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from §57 that the o r i g i n a l and
e x c l u s i v e jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such
jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into
appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to §57 and therefore would be void. What
adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable
compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this
question.

Related titles

Read
LANDBANK books,
vs. ARANETA, audiobooks,
GR 161796 and more
Scribd
FACTS:
½ View
GET
At the heart of the—controversy
On theisApp Store
a large tract of land with an area of 1,645 hectares, more or
less, which was originally registered in the name of Alfonso Doronilla (Doronilla) under Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 7924 of the Rizal Registry.

On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283, carving out a wide
expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the segregated area
for townsite purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be ‖.

In 1978, the OSG filed with the then CFI of Rizal an expropriation complaint against the
Doronilla property. Meanwhile, on 1979, Doronilla issued a Certification, copy furnished the
Agrarian Reform Office, among other agencies, listing seventy-nine (79) "bona fide planters" he
allegedly permitted to occupy a portion of his land. On 1987 or nine (9) years after it
commenced expropriation proceedings, the OSG moved for and secured the dismissal of the
expropriation case.

Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased, acquired ownership of the
subject Doronilla property by virtue of court litigation. A little over a week later, he had OCT No.
7924 canceled and secured the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-70860 in
his name.

All Case Digest

ISSUES: Agrarian Law Case Agrarian Reform Alita
Whether or not the disputed Digest Law-All
lots are covered by the Comprehensive Cases…
Agrarian Reform Law of
1988.

HELD:
NORSU
The primary governing agrarian law with regard to agricultural lands, be they of private or public
ownership and regardless of tenurial arrangement and crops produced, is now RA 6657. The
provisions of RA 6657 apply only to agricultural lands under which category the Doronilla
property, during the period material, no longer falls, having been effectively classified as
residential by force of Proclamation 1637. It ceased, following Natalia Realty, Inc., to be
agricultural land upon approval of its inclusion in the LS Townsite Reservation pursuant to the
said reclassifying presidential issuance.

Before Proclamation 1637 came to be, there were already PD 27 tenant-farmers in said
property. In a very real sense, the "private rights" belong to these tenant-farmers. Since the said
farmer-beneficiaries were deemed owners of the agricultural land awarded to them as of
October 21, 1972 under PD 27 and subsequently deemed full owners under EO 228, the logical
conclusion is clear and simple: the township reservation established under Proclamation 1637
must yield and recognize the "deemed ownership rights" bestowed on the farmer-beneficiaries
under PD 27. Another way of looking at the situation is that these farmer-beneficiaries are
subrogated in the place of Doronilla and eventual transferee Araneta.

Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that CARL shall ‗cover, regardless of tenurial agreement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands.‘ As to what constitutes
‗agricultural land,‘ it is referred to as ‗land devoted to agric ultural activity as defined in this Act
and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.‘ The deliberations
of the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. ‗Agricultural lands‘ are only those lands
which are ‗arable and suitable agricultural lands‘ and do not include commercial, industrial and
residential lands.‘ "Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of
CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity
of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR.

You're reading a preview. Unlock full access

with a free trial.
Pages 5 to 40 are not shown in this preview.
Download With Free Trial

GALOPE vs. BUGARIN, GR 185669

FACTS:

Respondent owns a parcel of land located in Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, while petitioner farms
the land. Parties respective contentions are as follows: (a) respondent complained that she lent
the land to petitioner in 1992 without an agreement, that what she receives in return from
petitioner is insignificant, and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on her own; (b)
petitioner countered that respondent cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a
long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per
harvest.

Respondent filed a petition for recovery of possession, ejectment and payment of rentals before
the DARAB, claiming that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave
nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for the use of the land. It was
also claimed that petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the
land.

After due proceedings, the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner
GALOPE
FACTS: vs. BUGARIN, GR 185669
is a tenant entitled to security of tenure. On appeal, the DARAB disagreed with the Adjudicator
and ruled that petitioner is not a de jure tenant. The DARAB ordered petitioner to pay rentals
Respondent
and vacate the owns a parcel
land. of land
Pet itioner located but
appealed, in Sto.
the Domingo,
CA affirmedNueva Ecija, ruling
DARAB‘s while that
petitioner farms
no tenancy
the land. Parties
relationship respective
exists; contentions
that the elements are as follows:
of consent (a) respondent
and sharing complained
are not present; that she lent
that respondent‘s
the land
act of to petitioner
lending her landinwithout
1992 consideration
without an agreement,
cannot be that
takenwhat she receives
as implied tenancy;in and
return
thatfrom
no
petitioner is insignificant,
receipts prove petitioner‘s and that of
payment she wants to recover the land to farm it on her own; (b)
rentals.
You're Reading a Preview
petitioner countered that respondent cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a
long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per
harvest.
ISSUE:

Respondent filed a petition

exists for recovery of possession, ejectment and payment of rentals before
Whether or not there
Unlock full access with a free trial.
a tenancy relationship between the parties.
the DARAB, claiming that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave
nothing
HELD: in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for the use of the land. It was
also claimed that petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the
land.
The court found the petition impressed with merit and held that the CA and DARAB erred in
ruling that there is no tenancy relationship between the parties.

is
Thea tenant entitled
essential
Download With Free Trial
After due proceedings, the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner
to security
elements of anof agricultural
tenure. On appeal,
tenancythe DARAB disagreed
relationship are: (1) with the Adjudicator
the parties are the
and ruled that
landowner andpetitioner
the tenant is or
notagricultural
a de jure tenant.
lessee;The(2) DARAB ordered
the subject petitioner
matter to pay rentals
of the relationship is
and vacate the land. Pet itioner appealed, but the CA affirmed DARAB‘s ruling that
agricultural land; (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; (4) the purpose of no tenancy
relationship exists; that the elements of consent and sharing are not present; that respondent‘s
the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation on the
act
partofoflending her or
the tenant land without consideration
agricultural cannot
lessee; and (6) the be takenisas
harvest implied
shared tenancy;
between theand that no
landowner
receipts
and prove petitioner‘s
the tenant or agriculturalpayment
lessee.of rentals.

Contrary also to the CA and DARAB pronouncement, respondent‘s act of allowing the petitioner
ISSUE:
to cultivate her land and receiving rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten
tenancy agreement. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit
Whether
provisionsorof
nota there exists
written a tenancy
contract relationship
alone. Section 5between the parties.
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise
known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural leasehold relation
HELD:
may exist upon an oral agreement.

The
Thus,court found
all the the petition
elements of animpressed
agriculturalwith merit relationship
tenancy and held thatarethe CA and
present. DARAB erred
Respondent in
is the
ruling that there
landowner; is no is
petitioner tenancy relationship
her tenant. between
The subject the of
matter parties.
their relationship is agricultural land, a
farm land. They mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the
The essential
harvest. elements
The purpose of anrelationship
of their agriculturalis tenancy
clearly torelationship
bring about are: (1) the production.
agricultural parties areAfter
the
landowner
the harvest,and the tenant
petitioner paysorrental
agricultural lessee;
consisting (2) the
of palay or subject matter i nofcash.
its equivalent the relationship
Respondent‘s is
agricultural land; (3) there
motion to supervise is consent
harvesting between the
and threshing, parties to
processes in the relationship;
palay (4) theconfirms
farming, further purposetheof
the relationship
purpose of theirisagreement.
to bring about agricultural
Lastly, petitioner‘sproduction;
personal(5) there is of
cultivation personal
the land cultivation on the
is conceded by
part of the tenant
respondent or agricultural
who likewise lessee;
never denied theand
fact(6)
thatthe harvest
they share isin shared between the landowner
the harvest.
and the tenant or agricultural lessee.

Contrary also to the CA and DARAB pronouncement, respondent‘s act of allowing the petitioner
to cultivate her land and receiving rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten
tenancy agreement. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit
provisions of a written contract alone. Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise
known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural leasehold relation
may exist upon an oral agreement.

Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present. Respondent is the
landowner; petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of their relationship is agricultural land, a
farm land. They mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the
harvest. The purpose of their relationship is clearly to bring about agricultural production. After
the harvest, petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its equivalent i n cash. Respondent‘s
motion to supervise harvesting and threshing, processes in palay farming, further confirms the
purpose of their agreement. Lastly, petitioner‘s personal cultivation of the land is conceded by
respondent who likewise never denied the fact that they share in the harvest.

LANDBANK vs SUNTAY, GR 157903

FACTS:

Respondent Suntay owned land situated in Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro with a
total area of 3,682.0285 hectares. In 1972, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
expropriated 948.1911 hectares of Suntay‘s land pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27.

Petitioner Land Bank and DAR fixed the value of the expropriated portion at P4,497.50/hectare,
for a total valuation of P4,251,141.68. Rejecting the valuation, however, Suntay filed a petition
for determination of just compensation in the Office of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(RARAD) of Region IV, DARAB, docketed as DARAB Case No. V-0405-0001-00; his petition
was assigned to RARAD Miñas.

After summary administrative proceeding, RARAD Miñas rendered a decision fixing the total just
compensation for the expropriated portion at P157,541,951.30. Land Bank moved for a
reconsideration, but RARAD Miñas denied its motion. Land Bank brought a petition for the
judicial determination of just compensation in the RTC (Branch 46) in San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro as a Special Agrarian Court, impleading Suntay and RARAD Miñas. The petition
LANDBANK
FACTS: vs SUNTAY, GR 157903
essentially prayed that the total just compensation for the expropriated portion be fixed at only
P4,251,141.67. Suntay filed a motion to dismiss mainly on the ground that the petition had been
Respondent Suntay
filed beyond the owned
15-day land situated
reglementary periodinas
Sta. Lucia,by
required Sablayan, Occidental
Section 11, Rule XIIIMindoro with of
of the Rules a
total area of
Procedure ofDARAB.
3,682.0285
After hectares. In 1972,
the RTC granted the the Department
motion to dismiss,ofLand
Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Bank appealed to the
expropriated 948.1911
CA, which sustained thehectares of Suntay‘s
dismissal. land
As a result, pursuant
Land Bank to Presidential
came Decree
to the Court No.
(G.R. No.27.157903)

You're Reading a Preview

Petitioner Land Bank and DAR fixed the value of the expropriated portion at P4,497.50/hectare,
for a total valuation of P4,251,141.68. Rejecting the valuation, however, Suntay filed a petition
ISSUE:
for determination of just compensation in the Office of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(RARAD)
Whether or of not
Region IV, DARAB,
the RTC erred in docketed
dismissingasthe
DARAB Case No.
Land Bank‘s V-0405-0001-00;
petition his petition
for the determination of
was compe
assigned to RARAD Miñas.
just nsation.
Unlock full access with a free trial.
After
HELD: summary administrative proceeding, RARAD Miñas rendered a decision fixing the total just
compensation for the expropriated portion at P157,541,951.30. Land Bank moved for a
reconsideration,
The Court has but RARADthat
declared Miñasthedenied its and
original motion. Land Bank
exclusive broughttoa petition
jurisdiction determinefor just
the
judicial determina
compensation tionRepublic
under of just compensa tion in
Act No. 6657 the RTC (Branch
(Comprehensive 46) inReform
Agrarian San Jose,
Law,Occidenta
or CARL)l
Mindoro
pertains to
essentially
asthe
Download With Free Trial
a Regional
Special Agrarian
prayedtothat
such jurisdiction
Trial Court
the the
Court,
(RTC)impleading
total just of
adjudicators
as a Special
compensation
the Department
Suntay
Agrarian
for the
andCourt;
RARAD
expropriated
of Agrarian
that Miñas.
portion
Reform
The
any effort petition
to transfer
be fixed at
Adjudication only
Board
P4,251,141.67.
(DARAB) and toSuntayconvertfiledtheaoriginal
motion jurisdiction
to dismiss mainly on the
of the RTC ground
into that jurisdiction
appellate the petition is
had
voidbeen
for
filed
beingbeyond theto15-day
contrary the CARL;reglementary periodDARAB
and that what as required by Section
adjudicators are 11, Rule XIII to
empowered of the
do isRules
only of
to
Procedure of DARAB. After the RTC granted the motion to dismiss, Land
determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid to the landowners, Bank appealed to the
CA, which sustained the dismissal. As a result, Land
leaving to the courts the ultimate power to decide this question.Bank came to the Court (G.R. No. 157903)

Thus, the RTC erred in dismissing the Land Bank‘s petition. It bears stressing that the petition is
ISSUE:
not an appeal from the RARAD final Decision but an original action for the determination of the
just compensation for respondent‘s expropriated property, over which the RTC has original and
Whether
exclusiveor not the RTC erred in dismissing the Land Bank‘s petition for the determination of
jurisdiction.
just compensation.
The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657, as
HELD:
summarized in Landbank v. Banal , is that initially, the Land Bank is charged with the
responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation
The
to beCourtpaid has declared
for their takingthat the the
under original and exclusive
voluntary offer to selljurisdiction to determine
or compulsory just
acquisition
compensation
arrangement. The under Republic
DAR, ActonNo.
relying the6657
Land(Comprehensive Agrarian
Bank‘s determination of Reform
the landLaw, or CARL)
valuation and
pertains to the Regional
compensation, then makes TrialanCourt
offer(RTC) as aa Special
through Agrarian
notice sent to theCourt; that anyIfeffort
landowner. to transfer
the landowner
such
acceptsjurisdiction
the offer,tothe the adjudicators
Land Bank shall ofpay
the him
Department of Agrarian
the purchase price ofReform
the landAdjudication Board
after he executes
(DARAB)
and delivers anda to
deed convert the original
of transfer jurisdictionthe
and surrenders of the RTC into
certificate appellate
of title in favorjurisdiction is void for
of the government.
being
In case contrary to the CARL;
the landowner rejects and
thethat what
offer or DARAB adjudicators
fails to reply thereto, are
the empowered
DAR adjudicatorto do conducts
is only to
determine administrative
summary in a preliminary manner thetoreasonable
proceedings determine compensation
the compensation to befor paid
thetoland
the landowners,
by requiring
leaving
the to the courts
landowner, the ultimate
the Land Bank and power to decide
other this question.
interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land. A party who disagrees with the Decision of the DAR adjudicator may
Thus, the matter
bring the RTC erred to theinRTC
dismissing the Land
designated as a Bank‘s
Specialpetition.
AgrarianIt Court
bears for stressing that the petition
the determination is
of just
not an appeal from
compensation. the RARAD just
In determining final compensation,
Decision but anthe original
RTCaction for the to
is required determination of the
consider several
just compensation
factors enumeratedfor respond17
in Section ent‘s
of expropriate
R.A. No. 6657. d property, over which the RTC has original and
exclusive jurisdiction.

The procedure for the determination of just compensation cases under R.A. No. 6657, as
summarized in Landbank v. Banal , is that initially, the Land Bank is charged with the
responsibility of determining the value of lands placed under land reform and the compensation
to be paid for their taking under the voluntary offer to sell or compulsory acquisition
arrangement. The DAR, relying on the Land Bank‘s determination of the land valuation and
compensation, then makes an offer through a notice sent to the landowner. If the landowner
accepts the offer, the Land Bank shall pay him the purchase price of the land after he executes
and delivers a deed of transfer and surrenders the certificate of title in favor of the government.
In case the landowner rejects the offer or fails to reply thereto, the DAR adjudicator conducts
summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring
the landowner, the Land Bank and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land. A party who disagrees with the Decision of the DAR adjudicator may
bring the matter to the RTC designated as a Special Agrarian Court for the determination of just
compensation. In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider several
factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657.

AGAPITO ROM ET AL vs ROXAS & COM

FACTS:

Respondent sought the exemption of 27 p

Batangas, having an aggregate area of 21
covered by TCT No. T-44664 from the c
Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994.
You're Reading a Preview
Respondent asserted that Comprehens
Unlock full access
agricultural landwith a free is
which trial.
defined under S
activity x x x and not classified as minera
Respondent claimed that prior to the effect
Download
were alreadyWith Free Trialas part of the Re
re-classified
since respondent had previously voluntaril
DAR, it can no longer withdraw the sam
petitioners‘ contention that a landowner can
of CARP once he has voluntarily offered to
AGAPITO
FACTS: ROM ET AL vs ROXAS & COM
ISSUE:

Respondent sought
Whether or not the exemption
a voluntary of a27lan
offer to sell p
Batangas, having an aggregate area of 21
covered
HELD: by TCT No. T-44664 from the c
Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994.
The court upheld that DAR‘s Order which g
Respondent
from the fact that asserted
this Courtthatin Comprehens
Roxas & Com
agricultural land which
grant of a similar is defined
application which,under
notably S
activity
in support x xofxthe
and not classified
application asour
herein, minera
own
Respondent claimed that prior to
was indeed no error on the part of the DAR the effect
were alreadytore-classified
respondent support itsas part of thefor
application Re
since respondent
CLUPPI-II clearly had
showpreviously
that the voluntaril
27 parce
DAR,
classified as residential prior to thethe
it can no longer withdraw sam
effectivi
petitioners‘
of fact of x xcontention that a bodies
x quasi-judicial landowner
(like can
the
of CARP once he has voluntarily offered
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, to
ANTONIO
even finality.vs.They
MANAHAN,
are bindingGR 176091
upon this C
ISSUE:
discretion or where it is clearly shown that t
FACTS:
the evidence on record.
Whether or not a voluntary offer to sell a lan
Subject
Respondent of thehad instant petitionvoluntarily
previously are two (2) pa
offer
HELD:
San Mateo,subject
properties Rizal, ofwiththisancase
aggregate area oH
are located.
of private respondent
respondent was later able Manahan under befo
to establish Orig
The
Rizal court upheld
Provincial
reclassified that
Registry. DAR‘s
as non-agricultural Order
(residential)g
which
from 4theprior
fact tothatthe
You're
No. Reading athis Court in Roxas
Preview
effectivity of the&CAR Com
grant
Manahan of a and
Department similar application
of Antonio
Agrarian entered
Reform,which,
into notably
a Lea
it was he
in support
Unlock fullthe
cultivate
outside theof
accessthe application
with a parcels
subject
coverage freeoftrial. herein, our
for anincluding
CARL own
annual re
was
palay,indeed
prior toeach no error
the weighing on
effectivity 44 the
CARL by the
part
of kilos. of DAR
governm
respondent
case, respondent to supportis notitsboundapplication
by itsforpr
Downloadcannot
CLUPPI-II
Manahan
properties Withcomplaints
clearly
filed Free
show
be the Trial
that the
before
subject 27 parce
of a the
VOS, M
classified as residential prior
Antonio, for such violations of the Lease to the effectivi
of fact of xrentals
stipulated x x quasi-judicial
despite demands. bodies (like the
jurisdiction
ROXAS & COMPANY is confined INC. to specific matters,
vs. DAMBA-N
even finality.denying
Specifically They are thebinding
materialupon this C
allegation
discretion
that
The he case orinvolves
wherethe
remitted it three
isstipulated
clearly shown that
rentals
haciendas t
inreN
ANTONIO
FACTS:
the evidence vs. MANAHAN,
on record. GR 176091
refused
Caylaway, to accept
owned the same. petitioner Roxa
by herein
the haciendas ‘ coverage under the CARP a
Subject
Respondent
Provincial of the
agricultural instant
had
Adjudicator
to petition
previously
rendered
non-agricultural are ause.
two
voluntarily (2) pa
offer
decision
For
San Mateo,subject
properties
respondent
proceedings Rizal,
to with
of
thethis
respect
over ancase
aggregate
tenant‘s
haciendas are
peac area
located.
wereeful nulpooH
of privatesubsequently
respondent
DARAB
conversion, respondent
was
the Court Manahan
later able
set tothat
heldaside under
establish
its
DAR Orig
befo
initial
is inru
Rizal
upheld
primaryProvincial
reclassified
the same.
agency Registry.
as non-agricultural
possessing the (residential)
necessar
No. 4 prior to the effectivity
December 17, 1999, this Court ordered of the CAR
Manahan
acquisitionand
Department
ISSUE: of Antonio
Agrarianentered
proceedings Reform,
and into a Lea
it was
determination heo
cultivate
outside the the coverage
subject parcels of CARL for anincluding
annual re
palay,
prior
Whethertoeachor weighing
the effectivity
not tenant 44 kilos.
ofpetitioner
CARL byisgovernm justifie
case, respondent is not
cultivation of the disputed land. bound by its pr
Manahan filed complaints
properties cannot be the subject before
of a theVOS, M
Antonio,
HELD: for such violations of the Lease
stipulated rentals despite demands.
An agricultural leasehold relationship is s
Specifically denying (1)
essential requisites: the the
material
partiesallegation
are the
ROXAS
that he & COMPANY
remitted the INC. haciendas
vs. DAMBA-N
stipulated rentals
The
the subject matter of the relationship in
case involves three isreaN
refused
Caylaway,to accept
parties to owned
the the same. (4)
by herein
relationship; petitioner Roxa
the purpos
the haciendas
production; (5)‘ coverage under the
there is personal CARP a
cultivation
Provincial
agriculturalAdjudicator
(6) the harvest rendered
betweenause.
to isnon-agricultural
shared decision
the For
lando
respondent
proceedings toover
tenancy relationshiprespect tenant‘s
theis haciendas peac
established, wereefulnul
the po
ten
DARAB
ejected bysubsequently
conversion, the Court set
thelandlord held aside its initial
thatordered
unless DAR isbyinru
upheld
primary the same.
agency
and protection ofpossessing
the tenant‘s theright
necessar
to se
December 17, 1999,
agricultural lessor to show thisthe
Court ordered
existence of
ISSUE:
acquisition proceedings and determination o
The rule is settled that failure to pay the le
Whether or notas
be considered tenant
ground petitioner is justifie
for dispossessio
cultivation
shows thatofAntonio‘s
the disputed land.
failure to pay and/or
lease rentals of 70 Cavans of palay we
HELD:
deliberate. The foregoing disquisition notwit
however, still warranted by his repeated v
An
whichagricultural
prohibited,leasehold
among other relationsh ip isthe
matters, s
essential requisites:
the expansion of the(1) the parties
tenant‘s are as
dwelling thew
the subject matter of the relationship is a
thereon.
parties to the relationship; (4) the purpos
production;
Fealty to the (5) fact
therethat
is personal
"R.A. No. cultivation
3844
(6) the harvest is shared between
landowner‘s rights to his land" or "author the lando
tenancy
excessiverelationship
manner in is established,
derogation of thetheland
ten
ejected by the landlord
dispossession. "Althoughunless orderedlaws
the agrarian by
and
from protection
the viciousofcycle
the tenant‘s
of having right to se
to perpe
agricultural lessor tothat
modesty demands show thisthe existence
kindness of
should
those benefited by them. Hence, the petition
The rule is settled that failure to pay the le
be considered as ground for dispossessio
shows that Antonio‘s failure to pay and/or
lease rentals of 70 Cavans of palay we
deliberate. The foregoing disquisition notwit
however, still warranted by his repeated v
which prohibited, among other matters, the
the expansion of the tenant‘s dwelling as w
thereon.

Fealty to the fact that "R.A. No. 3844

landowner‘s rights to his land" or "author
excessive manner in derogation of the land
dispossession. "Although the agrarian laws
from the vicious cycle of having to perpe
modesty demands that this kindness should
those benefited by them. Hence, the petition