2 CASES

Is there a need for conversion clearance before june 15, 1988? No. what about after? Yes
Example cases:
Roxas & co vs ca
- They filed an application for conversion but dar did not rule
Who are authorized to receive notices if petitioner is a corporation? A. president, secretary,
treatsurer, manager
Here, the notice was received by administrator, so sc said he did not have authority, so
the registration is void
SO THE SC REMANDED THE CASE BACK TO DAR

Alangilan vs. OPres

Classification
Reclassification – theres already a classification
Zoning ord was passed on 1982 classifying a land. In 984, the same lgu (now a city)
approved another zoning ordinance RECLASSIFYING the land as residential
Alangilan: but my land is not agri bec it was already classified
DAR: no change in the nature of the land bec in the zoning ordinance, the word “Reserved” was
used, so it remained to be agricultural
Sc: at the time of effectivity of carl, the land was still agri. If indeed the land was already earmarked
or residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, there thered be no necessity for the passage of
the 1994 ordinance

Capanas: for purposes of examination, the issue is on the word “reserved”. So answer must be
the sc’s decision in accordance with alangilan case re agri land
Example before june 15 1988 you are a landowner of agri land. There was a zoning ord enacted
before june 15 1988 and this ord was approved. Based on the classification of the land, you can
use it already as resiential. But in case you have no money yet but you want to use the land, you
plant sugarcane. Does it pass the first element ie agri activity? Yes. the second element ie not
classified as residential? No. the nature kay dili jud mausab

LBP vs estate of araneta

PDs were enacted by marcos in 1974 and 1977. Issue
Dar: it is agri bec they’ve conducted the acquisition proceedings
Sc: but when proclamation was issued, you stopped all activity so that is your conformation that
you recognize the land as no longer agri

Puyat and Sons vs. Alcaide

Puyat and sons own a land covered under AGRA. They contended that the land is uncultivated,
unoccupied, untenanted, and that it was classified as industrial land.
Sc: there’s a report signed by the MARO, but one of the items was not filled up. So since not filled
up, no actual inspection was conducted, so wrong for maro to say that the land is agri, so if land
is not agri, then wrong for you to classify it as agri…
On MR, SC said: the unfilled boxes cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity… puyat and
sons cannot claim that bec no evidence was presented by petitioner that land was classified from
agri to industrial

Holy trinity vs dela cruz

Malolos passed reso 16-98. Sc was looking for proof on the conduct of public hearing bec it was
erely a resolution and a reso is not an ordinance. If its classifcation, it must be by virtue of a zoning
ordinance, and may only be passed after the conduct of public hearings (e.g., minutes specifically,
attendance)
Holy trinity was able to hold on to the land bec there was no agri activity as required

Agra dispute (sec 3 (D) used, among others, in:

Sec. 47, functions of baranggay agrarian reform committee
Sec. 53, certification of barc – dar wont take cognizance of any agra dispute unless went through
mediation and conciliation
Sec 54 – if theres any ruling of agra dispute, parab, darab, ca, sc??

Sec 3 (d) agra dispute – any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture (LOOK UP RA 3834); ALSO controversy relating
to (just) compensation of lands acquired under carl and other terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership
6 requisites of tenancy relationship:
a. Parties (landowner and tenants)
b. Subject matter is agri land
 c. Consent of parties
d. Purpose is agri production
e. Personal cultivation by tenant
f. Sharing of harvest between parties
All requisites must concur, absence of one doesn’t make one a tenant

Sec. 19, … no court or proseutor’s office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to
implementation of carp except those provided under sec 57 of ra 6657  no provision

Example (before sec 19): landowner legitimate relationsihp w/ tenant he wants to reject the
tenancy but doesn’t want to go to darab, so he files a case against tenant. Affidavits are filed with
prosec office. The handling prosecutor now issues subpoena. Farmer says this is actaully
harrassment, no leasehold bec theres tenancy relations. So it would be filed with rtc, which will
issue a warrant, and will arrest the accused.
Now bring in sec 19 – who among the three prosec will refer? The handling (issue subpoena and
weigh evidence if theres pob cause and decided if theres need for a hearing), reviewing (),
approving prosec. It’s the handling fiscal bec its in him where the compaint is naa niya and the
counter will be filed, siya pa jud mag-weigh the allegation. So possible that the case will not reach
the court bec of the word “shall”

Chailese devt co vs dizon gr 206788 feb 14 2018

Sc: judge or prosec is obligated to auto refer the cases pending before it to the dar when the ff
req are present:
a. Theres an allegation from any one of both of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature.
And
b. One of the parties is a farmer, farmworker or tenant
In this case, presence of fist req is satisfied by the allegations made by the respondents in their
answer w/ counterclaim
Anent the 2nd req court finds tha the resondents failed to prove tha they are farmers, farmworkers,
or are agri tenants.

But remember, the prosecutor only looks at probable cause baya

Doj CIRCULAR 40 states that all the agencies of the govt are one in implemnenting this
OCA Circ 62-2010: all judges are directed to refer all cases before it alleged to involve an agra
dispute
1) Paro will be the one to give a rling
2) Paros recom is final and non-apppealable
3) Any parties who disagree w the recom of the paro has judicial recourse by submitting its
position to the referring court of office of the pub prosecutor in accordance w the latter’s
rules
4) Reconsideration
5) Appeal, depends on jurisdiction (from city prosec to
6) If w rtc, goes directly to sec of justice

CASES ABSENCE OF AGRA DISPUTE EITHER BEC

Nature of action is not of agra dispute or
One of the req is absent

Isidro vs ca
Juris is determined by allegations in cmplaint; that land involved is agri land doesn’t ato make
case an agra dispute
Sc: we have juris bec juris is determined by allegations in complaint
Issue here was rtc dismissed the case on the ground that since the land is agri, then theres agra
dispute
But sc said doesn’t auto make it such

Bejasa vs ca
Confirmation of leasehold that they are lessee; only evidence presented are self-serving
statements and none else
Sc: if your evidence is that, then not adequate. Consent isnt established. As for proof on sharing
of harvests, proof required is receipt or any other similar evidence (admin order of da 05-16
interest-bearing checking account (open an account w landbank if landowner refuses))

Valencia vs ca
Involves ciil law lessee. Landowner had contract of lease with another person who allowed a third
party to cultivaet the land. In the contract there was prohib against subleasing. Is there tenancy
between third person and landowner? No bec no consent. Remember ra 3844 sec 6 does not
auto authorize a civil law lesse to employ a tenant

Almuete vs andres
Recovery of possession and conveyance. Sc said that’s not an agra dispute bec its about
ownership of farmland which beyond ambit of agra dispute

Bases Conversion Devt Authority vs PARO

Properties in the name of farmers. Paro filed an action. Bcda: but these are titled in the name of
rp intended for the bases.
Who has valid title?
Sc: that’s not an agra dispute

Pasong bayabas association vs ca

Complaint for damages, no allegation on tenancy
Sc: you didn’t even allege tenancy , no evidence so no agra dispte

Ascariz vs revillexa

Heirs of jugalbot vs ca
Jugalbot was already issued emancipation patents. Private respondents questioned the title. Sc
annulled the title of jugalbot bec No concrete evidence that jugalbot was cultivating the land so
no basis for issuane of title. The evidence presented ws that jugalbot was a soldier and he was
in the us when the land was issued to him. Plus land is residential due to zoning ord

Nicorp mgt vs de leon

The letter used “kasama”. Tenant said we’re referred to as tenant bec kasama
Sc: but “kasama” could be taken in varying contexts

Adriano vs tanco
Who has burden to proof the elements? It is the person who claims or alleges the tenancy
Sc: theres no allegation here to prove exception or defense indie and concrete evidence is needed
to prove consent