NATALIA REALTY, INC.

, and ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS

CORP., petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SEC.
BENJAMIN T. LEONG and DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR-REGION IV,
respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of three (3)
contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, with areas of
120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares and 2.7080 hectares, or a total of
125.0078 hectares, and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31527 of
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal.

On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312

hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and
Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the
metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The
NATALIA properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite
reservation.

Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into low-
cost housing subdivisions within the reservation, petitioner Estate Developers
and Investors Corporation (EDIC, for brevity), as developer of NATALIA
properties, applied for and was granted preliminary approval and locational
clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. Thus the
NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.

On 15 June 1988, R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law of 1988" (CARL, for brevity), went into effect.

Conformably therewith, respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR, for

brevity), through its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued on 22
November 1990 a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares.
NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage.

On 17 January 1991, members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok

Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA, for brevity), filed a complaint against NATALIA and
EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain petitioners from
developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA members.

NATALIA and EDIC argued that NATALIA properties already ceased to be

agricultural lands when they were included in the areas reserved by
presidential fiat for townsite reservation.
ISSUE:

W/N the subject property is covered by Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

of 1988? This is the.

RULING:

NO.

Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardless of
tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to
as "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified
as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the

Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as
"agricultural lands." These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased
to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod
Silangan Reservation.

Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent
DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the
undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of
CARL.

[G.R. No. 103125. May 17, 1993.]

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R.
VILLAFUERTE and HON. BENJAMIN V. PANGA as Presiding Judge of
RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines Sur, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN JOAQUIN and EFREN
SAN JOAQUIN, respondents.

FACTS:

On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of

Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the
Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the
provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-
traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government
employees.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its
Governor, Hon. Luis R. Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation
against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin, docketed as Special
Civil Action Nos. P-17-89 and P-19-89 of the Regional Trial Court, Pili,
Camarines Sur, presided by the Hon. Benjamin V. Panga.

In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked: (a) that
Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be
declared null and void; (b) that the complaints for expropriation be dismissed;
and (c) that the order dated December 6, 1989 (i) denying the motion to
dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of
the property subject of the expropriation and the order dated February 26,
1990, denying the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set
aside.

The Solicitor General on its Comment stated that under Section 9 of the Local
Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no need for the approval by the
Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor General expressed the view
that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the
Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of
petitioners for use as a housing project.

CA ruled that ordered the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings
until after the Province of Camarines Sur shall have submitted the requisite
approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert the classification of
the property of the private respondents from agricultural to non-agricultural
land.

Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

W/N the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is

subject to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the
implementor of the agrarian reform program.

RULING:

NO.

Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government
units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the
conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can
institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no
provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects
the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control
of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1)
of Executive Order No. 129 - A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the
authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of
a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by
the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the Department of
Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions
of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such
authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the
land owners or tenant beneficiaries.

— In Heirs of Juancho Ardana v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 220, petitioners raised the
issue of whether the Philippine Tourism Authority can expropriate lands
covered by the "Operation Land Transfer" for use of a tourist resort complex.
There was a finding that of the 282 hectares sought to be expropriated, only
an area of 8,970 square meters or less than one hectare was affected by the
land reform program and covered by emancipation patents issued by the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform. While the Court said that there was "no need
under the facts of this petition to rule on whether the public purpose is superior
or inferior to another purpose or engage in a balancing of competing public
interest," it upheld the expropriation after noting that petitioners had failed to
overcome the showing that the taking of 8,970 square meters formed part of
the resort complex. A fair and reasonable reading of the decision is that this
Court viewed the power of expropriation as superior to the power to distribute
lands under the land reform program.

[G.R. No. 170220. November 20, 2006.]

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C.
SUNTAY, NENITA SUNTAY TAÑEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III,
petitioners, vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee 2 of Federico C. Suntay over

certain parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental
Mindoro. . In 1972, a portion of the said property with an area of 311.7682
hectares, was placed under the land reform program pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 27 (1972) 4 and Executive Order No. 228 (1987). 5 The land was
thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of the land at
P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited in cash and bonds in favor of
Lubrica.

petitioners Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from
Federico Suntay a parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay, Mamburao,
Occidental Mindoro covered by TCT No. T-128 6 of the Register of Deeds of
Occidental Mindoro, consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with an area of
45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of 165.1571 hectares or a total
of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but
only 128.7161 hectares was considered by LBP and valued the same at
P1,512,575.05.

Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary
administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation.

Petitioners insist that the determination of just compensation should be based

on the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment.
Respondent LBP, on the other hand, claims that the value of the realties should
be computed as of October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.

ISSUE:

W/N the determination of just compensation should be based on the value of

the expropriated properties at the time of payment.

RULING:

YES.

In the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals we

held that expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place,
not on the effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just
compensation.

In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of their properties in 1972 but
have yet to receive the just compensation therefor. The parcels of land were
already subdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries thereby
immediately depriving petitioners of their use. Under the circumstances, it
would be highly inequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute the just
compensation using the values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at
the time of the payment, considering that the government and the farmer-
beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof
have not yet been transferred in their names. Petitioners were deprived of
their properties without payment of just compensation which, under the law,
is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away from its owners.The
transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are
conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment
or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then,
title remains with the landowner.

The petition is GRANTED

YOLANDA CABALLES, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN

REFORM, HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ and BIENVENIDO ABAJON,
respondents.

FACT:

The landholding subject of the controversy, which consists of only sixty (60)
square meters (20 meters x 3 meters) was acquired by the spouses Arturo
and Yolanda Caballes, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978
executed by Andrea Alicaba Millenes.

In 1975, before the sale in favor of the Caballes spouses, private respondent
Bienvenido Abajon constructed his house on a portion of the said landholding,
paying a monthly rental of P2.00 to the owner, Andrea Millenes. The
landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a portion of the land, agreeing
that the produce thereof would be shared by both on a fifty-fifty basis. From
1975-1977, Abajon planted corn and bananas on the landholding. In 1978, he
stopped planting corn but continued to plant bananas and camote. During
those four years, he paid the P2.00 rental for the lot occupied by his house,
and delivered 50% of the produce to Andrea Millenes.

After the property was sold, the new owners, Arturo and Yolanda Caballes,
asked Abajon to vacate the premises, saying that they needed the property.
But Abajon refused to leave.

A criminal case for malicious mischief was filed against Abajon and which was
docketed as Criminal Case No. 4003. Obviously, all the planting on the
property, including that of the banana plants, had been done by Abajon. On
September 30, 1982, upon motion of the defense in open court pursuant to
PD 1038, the trial court ordered the referral of the case to the Regional Office
No. VII of the then MAR for a preliminary determination of the relationship
between the parties.
The Regional Director of MAR Regional VII issued a certification 1 dated
January 24, 1983, stating that said Criminal Case No. 4003 was not proper
for hearing on the bases That herein accused is a bona-fide tenant of the land
owned by the complaining witness.

ISSUE:

W/N private respondent is a tenant of the petitioner and can avail of the
benefits afforded by RA 3844

RULING:

NO.

The private respondent cannot avail of the benefits afforded by RA 3844, as

amended.

RA 3844, as amended, defines an economic family-size farm as "an area of

farm land that permits efficient use of labor and capital resources of the farm
family and will produce an income sufficient to provide a modest standard of
living to meet a farm family's needs for food, clothing, shelter, and education
with possible allowance for payment of yearly installments on the land, and
reasonable reserves to absorb yearly fluctuations in income."

The private respondent only occupied a miniscule portion (60 square meters)
of the 500-square meter lot. Sixty square meters of land planted to bananas,
camote, and corn cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as
an economic family-size farm. Surely, planting camote, bananas, and corn on
a sixty-square meter piece of land can not produce an income sufficient to
provide a modest standard of living to meet the farm family's basic needs.
The private respondent himself admitted that he did not depend on the
products of the land because it was too small, and that he took on carpentry
jobs on the side. Thus, the order sought to be reviewed is patently contrary
to the declared policy of the law stated above.

The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are:

1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant;
2. The subject is agricultural land;
3. There is consent;
4. The purpose is agricultural production;
5. There is personal cultivation; and
6. There is sharing of harvests.
All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship
between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a
parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant.
This is so because unless a person has established his status as a de jure
tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land
Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.

Agricultural production as the primary purpose being absent in the

arrangement, it is clear that the private respondent was never a tenant of the
former owner, Andrea Millenes. Consequently, Sec. 10 of RA of 3844, as
amended, does not apply. Simply stated, the private respondent is not a
tenant of the herein petitioner.

[G.R. No. 112526. March 16, 2005.]

STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.
JUAN B. AMANTE, et al., respondents.

(What was highlighted here by Attorney during the discussion was the
jurisdiction of DAR and DARAB)

FACTS:

The Canlubang Estate in Laguna is a vast landholding previously titled in the

name of the late Speaker and Chief Justice Jose Yulo, Sr. Within this estate
are two parcels of land (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property")
covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891 measuring 254.766 hectares and part
of Barangay Casile, subsequently titled in the name of Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation (SRRDC).

The subject property was involved in civil suits and administrative proceedings
that led to the filing of G.R. Nos. 112526 and 118838.

On December 6, 1985, Amante, et al., who are the private respondents in

G.R. No. 112526 and petitioners in G.R. No. 118838, instituted an action for
injunction with damages in the Regional Trial Court of Laguna (Branch 24)
against Luis Yulo, SRRDC, and several SRRDC security personnel alleging that
they are residents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna and have been
peacefully occupying the land when some time in June 3, 1985, SRRDC's
security people illegally entered Bgy. Casile and fenced the area, cut down the
trees, burned their huts, and barred the lone jeepney from entering the
Canlubang Sugar Estate and as a result of these acts, Amante, et al. were
deprived of possession and cultivation of their lands.
Defendant SRRDC also alleged that as the real owner of the property, it was
the one that suffered damages due to the encroachment on the property.

Between October 1986 and August 1987, fter the injunction case was filed by
Amante, et al., SRRDC filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao,
Laguna, several complaints for forcible entry with preliminary injunction and
damages against Amante, et al. alleging that some time in July 1987, they
learned that Amante, et al., without their authority and through stealth and
strategy, were clearing, cultivating and planting on the subject property; and
that despite requests from SRRDC's counsel, Amante, et al. refused to vacate
the property, prompting them to file the ejectment cases.

RTC dismissed the ejectment cases on the ground that the subject property is
an agricultural land being tilled by Amante, et al., hence it is the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which has jurisdiction over the dispute.

While the injunction and ejectment cases were still in process, it appears that
in August, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice
of Coverage to SRRDC, informing petitioners that the property covered by TCT
Nos. T-81949, T-84891 and T-92014 is scheduled for compulsory acquisition
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

SRRDC filed its "Protest and Objection" with the MARO on the grounds that
the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes, as it was rugged in
terrain with slopes of 18% and above, and that the occupants of the land were
squatters, who were not entitled to any land as beneficiaries.

ISSUE:

W/N the identification of Amante et al as beneficiaries of the subject property

is valid.

RULING:

VALID.

DAR Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over classification and identification

of landholdings for coverage under the CARP.

Section 15 of R.A. No. 6657, the identification of beneficiaries is a matter

involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter
which is exclusively vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, through its
authorized offices.
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. — These Rules shall govern cases falling within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall include the
following:

(a) Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), including protests or
oppositions thereto aid petitions for lifting of coverage;
(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-
beneficiaries;
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP;
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) and
CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall or cancellation
of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Awards
(CLOAs) not yet registered with the Register of Deeds;
(e) Exercise of the right of retention by landowner; . . . (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the power to determine whether a property is agricultural and subject

to CARP coverage together with the identification, qualification or
disqualification of farmer-beneficiaries lies with the DAR Secretary.

The farmer-beneficiaries have already been identified in this case. Also, the
DAR Secretary has already issued Notices of Coverage and Notices of
Acquisition pertaining to the subject property. It behooves the courts to
exercise great caution in substituting its own determination of the issue,
unless there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the administrative
agency, which in these cases the Court finds none.

Pursuant to its judicial mandate of achieving a just, expeditious and

inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before it, 88 the DAR
adopted the DARAB Revised Rules, Rule II (Jurisdiction of the Adjudication
Board) of which provides:

SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. — The

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both
original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes,
cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657,
Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended
by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws
and their implementing rules and regulations.
Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to the
following:
a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the
cultivation and use of agricultural land covered by the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian laws;
b) Cases involving the valuation of land, and determination and payment of
just compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance
compensation, amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the
functions of the Land Bank;
c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of orders or decisions of DAR
officials other than the Secretary, lease contracts or deeds of sale or their
amendments under the administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP;
d) Cases arising from, or connected with membership or representation in
compact farms, farmers' cooperatives and other registered farmers'
associations or organizations, related to land covered by the CARP and other
agrarian laws;
e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption
and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other
agrarian laws;
f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate
of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the
administrative correction thereof;
g) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it
by the Secretary of the DAR.

PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF

APPEALS, HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, DAVAO CITY
and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:

Four parcels of land owned by petitioner bank was placed under the
comprehensive agrarian reform program by the Department of Agrarian
Reform pursuant to RA No. 6657. Petitioner rejected the valuation made by
the Land Bank and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) and questioned the same with the Regional Trial Court in a petition
for determination of the just compensation.

RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day
reglementary period for filing appeals from the orders of the DARAb which was
affirmed by CA.

Petitioner argues that DAR adjudicators have no jurisdiction to determine the

just compensation for the taking of lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program, because such jurisdiction is vested in Regional Trial Courts
designated as Special Agrarian Courts and, therefore, a petition for the fixing
of just compensation can be filed beyond the 15-day period of appeal provided
from the decision of the DAR adjudicator.

respondents argue that actions for the fixing of just compensation must be
filed in the appropriate courts within 15 days from receipt of the decision of
the DAR adjudicator, otherwise such decision becomes final and executory,
pursuant to §51 of R.A. No. 6657.

ISSUE:

W/N DAR has jurisdiction in the determination of just compensation.

RULING.

The pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657 provides:

SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Power of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested
with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters
and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

SECTION 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of
just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the
Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their
special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for
decision.

There is nothing contradictory between the provision of §50 granting the DAR
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters"
and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform," which includes the determination of
questions of just compensation, and the provision of §57 granting Regional
Trial Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over (1) all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of
criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657.
The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the second refers to
judicial proceedings.

If the landowner finds the price unsatisfactory, he may bring the matter
directly to the appropriate Regional Trial Court.

In accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction

is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary
manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program