Heirs of Deleste v.

Land Bank of the Philippines; June 8, 2011

FACTS: Spouses Gregorio and Hilaria Nanaman were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land. They
had no children, but Gregorio had children with another woman: one of them being Virgilio. When
Gregorio died, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the property. They subsequently sold the same to Dr.
Deleste. When Hilaria died, Noel (Gregorio’s brother), was appointed as the regularad ministrator of the
estate. He filed an action for reversion of the title of the property, to which the SC ruled that the
property was the conjugal property of the Nanaman spouses, hence Hilaria can only sell ½ of the land.
Deleste and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be co-owners of the property. While the case
was pending, PD 27 was issued. The property was then placed under the Operation Land Transfer
Program, but only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by DAR as the landowners.

In 1975, the City of Iligan passed an ordinance which reclassified the land into commercial/residential.

In 1984, the DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer in favor of respondents who were tenants of the
land. In 2001, Emancipation Patents and OCT of Title were issued to respondents. Petitioners Heirs of
Deleste filed with the DARAB a petition to nullify the EPs issued to respondents.

The PARAD declared such Eps void in view of the subsequent reclassification of the property into a
residential land. The DARAB reversed the ruling of the PARAD and held that the Eps were valid and that
the Heirs should have informed the DAR at the time the property was placed under the OLT program.

ISSUE: Whether the subject property is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of
the enactment of the City ordinance reclassifying the area into residential/commercial land.

RULING: YES. Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential/commercial land with the
enactment of City Ordinance 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an "agricultural land"
within the ambit of RA 6657. As held in Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. EM Ramos
and Sons, Inc., "To be exempt from CARP, all that is needed is one valid reclassification of the land from
agricultural to non-agricultural by a duly authorized government agency before June 15, 1988, when the
CARL took effect."

Furthermore, the Certificates of Land Title were issued in 1984. Therefore, it was only in 1984 that
private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an inchoate right over the subject
property prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements. Considering that the local zoning
ordinance was enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978, private respondents
still had no vested rights to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that private respondents
were issued the CLTs and were "deemed owners."

[ GR No. 175422, Mar 13, 2009 ]

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

FACTS: Allied owned two abutting parcels of land located at Mabiga, Hermosa, Bataan. The two parcels
of land were compulsorily acquired by the DAR pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657. The two parcels of
land were compulsorily acquired by the DAR pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657.
Allied presented its arguments before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator. The Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator upheld the valuation of the Landbank. Allied filed a Petition for Just
Compensation with the RTC. Upon the agreement of the parties, commissioners were appointed,
namely: 1) Gilbert S. Argonza, the chairman and commissioner of the RTC; 2) Hilario M. Pariña,
nominated by Allied; 3) Engr. Moises L. Petero, nominated by Landbank; and 4) Crispin O. Dominguez,
nominated by the DAR. Only Hilario M. Pariña, the commissioner nominated by Allied, submitted his
report who made use of the Market Data Approach which is the value of the land is based on sales and
listings of comparable property registered within the vicinity.

The RTC adopted the valuation submitted by Commissioner Hilario M. Pariña, who fixed the value of the
lands in question at P15.00 per square meter or at P150,000.00 per hectare.

The Court of Appeals nullified the RTC Decision and remanded the case to the RTC for determination of
just compensation.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC, acting as a special agrarian court, can disregard the factors mentioned under
Section 17 of the agrarian law, detailed by DAO No. 6, and adopt the market data approach submitted
by a court-appointed commissioner.

RULING: NO. In the process of determining the just compensation due to landowners, it is a necessity
that the RTC must take into account several factors enumerated in Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657,
as amended.

While the determination of just compensation involves the exercise of judicial discretion, however, such
discretion must be discharged within the bounds of the law. Here, the RTC wantonly disregarded R.A.
6657, as amended, and its implementing rules and regulations.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. COURT OFAPPEALS and JOSE PASCUALAPPEALS and JOSE PASCUAL

Facts: Private respondent Jose Pascual owned 3 parcels of Private respondent Jose Pascual owned three
(3) parcels of land located inland located in Gattaran, Cagayan.

The DAR placed these lands under its Operation Land Transfer (OTL). The PARO of the DAR
recommended Average Gross Productivity (AGP) should be 25 cavans per hectare for unirrigated
lowland rice.

The DAR Secretary also conducted its own valuation. Responded Pascual opposed the AGP of the PARO.

The PARAD ruled in favor of respondent and nullified the AGP. The PARAD applied instead the 1976 AGP
and the AGP in respondent’s tax declaration to determine the correct compensation. It likewise ordered
the LBP to pay respondent P1,961,950.

The LPB refused to pay such amount thus forcing respondent for a writ of execution with the PARAD.
According to the petitioner, just compensation should be determined only by the courts. Furthermore, it
argued that the PARAD could not reverse a prior order of the Secretary of Dar as the valuation of lands
under EO 228 falls within the jurisdiction of the latter and not of the DARAB.
ISSUE: Whether DARAB of the DAR has jurisdiction to determine the value of the lands covered by OLT
under PD 27

RULING: YES. it is the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial valuation of lands involving
agrarian reform although such valuation may only be considered preliminary as the final determination
of just compensation is vested in the courts.

While it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 provides that the Special Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction
over the final determination of just compensation cases, it must be noted that petitioner never
contested the valuation of the PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its decision became final and
executory. There was therefore no need for private respondent Pascual to file a case in the Special
Agrarian Court.

ASSO. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SEC. OF DAR [175 SCRA 343; G.R. NO. L-78742; 14 JUL 1989]

FACTS: These are consolidated cases which involve common legal, including serious challenges to the
constitutionality of the several measures such as P.D. No. 27, E.O. No. 228, Presidential Proclamation
No. 131, E.O. No. 229, and R.A. No. 6657.

The petitioners are petitioning the court for the following:

a. declare unconstitutional P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of separation of
powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be
taken for public use without just compensation. G.R. No. 79310

b. prohibit the implementation of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229. They contend that taking must be
simultaneous with payment of just compensation as it is traditionally understood, i.e., with money and
in full, but no such payment is contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O. No. 229.

c. declare unconstitutional E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are violative of the constitutional provision that no
private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation.

Furthermore, petitioners claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of
retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform has so far not issued the implementing rules
required.

ISSUE: Whether E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 violate due process by arbitrarily transferring title before the
land is fully paid

RULING: NO. The CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of
the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
landowner. 57 No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.

It is true that PD 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer and declared that he shall "be
deemed the owner" of a portion of land consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title to the land
owned by him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had become a full-fledged member of
a duly recognized farmers' cooperative." It was understood, however, that full payment of the just
compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional requirement.

[ GR No. 118712, Oct 06, 1995 ]

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR and subjected to
transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under RA 6657.

Private respondents questioned the validity of DAO 6, Series of 1992 and DAO 9, Series of 1990 as it was
issued without jurisdiction because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in lieu of
depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the compensation for the land
before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA 6657, and sought to
compel the DAR to expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the
just compensation of their properties.

Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked", "deposited
in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate that
before taking possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds.

ISSUE: whether the word "deposit" as used in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 includes the opening of a trust
account as a mode of payment of just compensation

RULING: NO. It is clear under the law that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds".
Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. If it were
the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been
made express, or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced
that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant
an expanded construction of the term "deposit".

[G.R. NO. 168631 : April 7, 2009]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILLIPINES v. CAROLINA B. VDA. DE ABELLO

FACTS: Respondent Carolina Vda. de Abello (Carolina) is the widow of the late Eliseo Abello, while the
rest of the respondents are their children. Respondents are the owners of a parcel of land situated at
San Jose City.

LBP informed the respondents that 10.3476 hectares of their property have been placed under the
government's Operation Land Transfer and that the assessed compensation for the land's expropriation
was P146,938.54.

Respondents rejected the valuation and filed a Petition for Just Compensation before the RTC acting as a
Special Agrarian Court (SAC). The SAC appointed commissioners to assist it in ascertaining the valuation
of the subject landholding. It adopted the recommendation of its appointed commissioners which fixed
the just compensation for the subject property at P200,000.00 per hectare.
Both the LBP and the DAR filed separate motions for reconsideration which was denied in the Order.
Upon reaching the CA, the same tribunal denied LBB and DAR’s petition. The CA opined that the SAC
made no mistake when it ruled that the provisions of RA 6657 is controlling and that the provisions of
PD 27 and EO 228 shall apply only in suppletory character to RA 6657.

ISSUE: Whether a Special Agrarian Court can disregard the formula prescribed under PD 27 and EO 228
in fixing the just compensation of PD 27-covered land

RULING: YES. It would be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided
by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a
considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657,
and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full
and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real,
substantial, full and ample."

Under the factual circumstances of the case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just
compensation to be paid respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage RA 6657 before the
completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded
under the said law.

[ GR No. 173923, Oct 12, 2009 ]

PEDRO MAGO v. JUANA Z. BARBIN

FACTS: Respondent alleged that she is the owner an irrigated riceland , and that Petitioners were
tenants of the subject landholding. Respondent further alleged that petitioners violated the terms of
their leasehold contracts when they failed to pay lease rentals for more than 2 years, which is a ground
for their dispossession of the landholding.

On the other hand, petitioners alleged that the subject landholding was placed under the Operation
Land Transfer program of the government pursuant to PD 27. Respondent’s title was then cancelled and
the subject landholding was transferred to Petitioners who were issued Emancipation Patents by the
DAR.

The TCT issued to petitioners were registered with the Registry of Deeds. Petitioners averred that prior
to the issuance of the Emancipation Patents, they already delivered their lease rentals to respondent.
They further alleged that after the issuance of the Emancipation Patents, the subject landholding ceased
to be covered by any leasehold contract.

PARAD denied the petition for lack of merit. The PARAD held that pursuant to DAR Memorandum
Circular payment of lease rentals to landowners covered by the Operation Land Transfer shall terminate
on the date the value of the land is established. Thus, the PARAD held that the proper recourse of
respondent is to file a claim for just compensation.

On appeal, the DARAB reversed and set aside the PARAD Decision ordering the Register of Deeds to
cancel the Emancipation Patent of the Petitioners and DIRECTING the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
to reallocate the subject lands to qualified beneficiaries. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the DARAB denied for lack of merit.

Petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the DARAB Decision and thereafter
denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Issue: Whether the Emancipation Patents and TCT issued to the Petitioner which were already
registered with the Register of Deeds have already become indefeasible and can no longer be cancelled
even if they failed to fully pay the landowner.

Held: NO. The mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian
reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform
beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In
fact one of the grounds for cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or Certificates of
Landownership Award includes ” Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of 3 consecutive
amortizations in case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous
events and force majeure” Indeed, there is no valid reason to depart from the challenged decision and it
does not also allow unjust treatment of landowners by depriving the latter of the just compensation
due.

G.R. No. 153456 March 2, 2007

ROBERTO PADUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Private respondents Pepito Dela Cruz, et al. were tenants of Lots in Anao, Tarlac. In 1966, upon
the request of Anao Mayor Catalino Cruz (Mayor Cruz), Dela Cruz, et al. agreed to donate said properties
to the municipality on the condition that these be used as school sites. The project did not materialize
and, in 1977, Dela Cruz, et al. asked that the properties be returned to them. However, they found out
that Mayor Cruz had distributed the Lots to Flor Labagnoy and to Edwin Cruz (Cruz) who were each
issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT).

Upon Petition for Cancellation of CLT filed by Dela Cruz, et al., Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Secretary Condrado Estrella issued an Order dated cancelling the CLT issued to Labagnoy and Cruz. The
latter filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment for lack of due process but the same was denied
Labagnoy and Cruz appealed to the Office of the President (OP) which dismissed the same.

However, during the pendency of the appeal before the OP, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over
his interest in Lot No. 90 on the basis of which DAR cancelled the CLT of Cruz and declaring Lot No. 90
open for disposition. The DAR Secretary issued an Order awarding Lot No. 90 to herein petitioner
Roberto Padua (Padua) who had been occupying said property and paying the amortization thereon to
the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).

Aggrieved, Dela Cruz, et al., acting thru Anao Mayor filed with the DAR Secretary a Letter-Petition for
Cancellation. DAR Secretary granted the Letter-Petition.

Padua filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of a Final and Executory Order of the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform claiming that the DAR cannot take cognizance of the petition for cancellation because
the matter involved is a civil law issue relating to the validity of a contract of sale executed by LBP and
petitioner, not an agrarian reform matter.

ISSUE: Whether Petitioner Padua’s status in relation to Lot No. 90 was no longer that of a mere potential
agrarian reform farmer-beneficiary but a civil law vendor dealing directly with the LBP in the payment of
amortizations on the property

RULING: NO. The mechanism for the acquisition of land through agrarian reform requires full payment
of amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be issued a CLOA or EP, which, in turn, can become the
basis for issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate of title.

As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying amortization on Lot No. 90 to LBP, his status in relation
to said property remains that of a mere potential farmer-beneficiary whose eligibilities DAR may either
confirm or reject. In fact, under Section 2 (d) of AO 06-00, DAR has authority to issue, recall, or cancel a
CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA issued to potential farmer-beneficiaries but not yet registered with the Register of
Deeds.

JESUS PASCO et al. v. PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

485 SCRA 514 (2006)

FACTS: Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation, is the registered owner of a parcel of
land in Negros Occidental. Constructed on the said land are houses occupied by the corporation‘s
workers. Jesus Pasco et al. are former workers of the corporation. When their employment contracts
were terminated, they were asked to vacate the house but they refused to do so. The corporation
thereafter filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the MTCC. The trial court rendered judgment in
favor of Pasco et al.

On appeal, the RTC affirmed the decision. Pasco et al. appealed the decision contending that the court
has no jurisdiction over the case on the ground of a pending agrarian reform dispute between them and
the corporation.

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision which affirmed the RTC‘s decision.

ISSUE: Whether one who has been identified by the DAR as potential agrarian reform beneficiary may
be ejected from the land where he is identified as such, by the landowner, who has already been
notified by the DAR of the coverage of his land by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the
government

RULING: YES. A Notice of Coverage does not ipso facto render the land subject thereof a land reform
area. The owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his land, as what respondent Pison-
Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation did in the present case.

Nothing in the records of the case shows that the DAR has made an award in favor of Spouses Pasco et
al. Moreover, under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, ownership of the land is transferred only
after the award of the same to the beneficiary by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Hence, no rights
over the land they occupy can be considered to have vested in their favor.