Section 3 - JD4202 - Group 2

AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Group 2 members:
Micah Caparas, Robby Delgado, Joseph Lorenzo Espino, April Garay, Daniel Padullo, Jessamine Raña, Carmela Segui
Professor: Atty. Ferdinand Casis
B. What is an ‘Agricultural land?
1. Section 3(c)
Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
2. Luz Farms vs. Secretary of DAR, G.R No. 86889 December 4, 1990
FACTS:
Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business affected by the
enforcement of R.A No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Luz Farms questions the ff. Provisions:
Sec 3(b) which includes the raising of livestock and poultry in the definition of
“Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity.”
Sec 11 which defines “Commercial Farms” as private agricultural lands devoted to
commercial, livestock, poultry and swine raising.”
Sec 13 & 32 directing “Corporate farms” which include livestock and poultry raisers to
execute and implement “production sharing plans” whereby they are called upon to
distribute from 3% of their gross sales and 10% of their net profits to their workers as
additional compensation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising
are included in the coverage of CARL.
RULING:
The Supreme Court has excluded agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry
and swine raising from the coverage of CARL. The transcripts of the deliberation of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word “agricultural” clearly show that
it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the
government. The Committee adopted the definition of “agricultural land” as defined under
Section 166 of R.A. 3844, as laud devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop
1
Group 2 members:
lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol.
III, p. 11).
The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of the word “agriculture.”
Commissioner Jamir proposed to insert the word “ARABLE” to distinguish this kind of
agricultural land from such lands as commercial and industrial lands and residential properties
because all of them fall under the general classification of the word “agricultural”. This proposal,
however, was not considered because the Committee contemplated that agricultural lands are
limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include commercial,
industrial and residential lands (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 30).
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes "private
agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising" in the definition
of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are
made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply no reason to
include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform (Rollo, p. 21).
3. Natalia Realty vs. DAR, G.R No. 10302, August 12, 1993
FACTS:
On April 18, 1979, due to the growing population of Metro Manila Presidential Proclamation
No. 1637 (PD 1673) was enacted. The Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban
was designated as townsite area to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis or the
Lungsod Silangan Reservation.
Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA) owned three parcels of lands which is covered by the PD 1673
and since private landowners could develop their properties into low-cost housing subdivision
Estate Developer and Investors Corporation (EDIC) as developer of NATALIA properties applied
for it and was able to comply with the requirements and was issued with development permits
thus Natalia Properties became Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
On June 15, 1988, RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL) went
into effect. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued on November 22, 1990 a Notice of
Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
ISSUE:
2
Group 2 members:
Whether or not the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision is inside the
coverage of CARL.
RULING:
No. Agricultural land is referred to as “land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in RA
6657 and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
Antipolo Hills Subdivision ceased to be an agricultural land after its approval and inclusion in
the Lungsod Silangan Reservation which was intended for residential use. Lands not devoted
for agricultural activities 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 DAR.
4. Section 3 (a), (b), and (e), RA No. 6657
SECTION 3. Definitions. – For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:
(a) Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced
to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement,
to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of
the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of
lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of
shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the
lands they work.
(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of the
soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the
harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a
farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or
juridical.
[...]
(e) Idle or Abandoned Land refers to any agricultural land not cultivated, tilled or developed
to produce any crop nor devoted to any specific economic purpose continuously for a period
of three (3) years immediately prior to the receipt of notice of acquisition by the government
3
Group 2 members:
as provided under this Act, but does not include land that has become permanently or
regularly devoted to non-agricultural purposes. It does not include land which has become
unproductive by reason of force majeure or any other fortuitous event, provided that prior to
such event, such land was previously used for agricultural or other economic purpose.
Related Case: Sec. 3 (b) and (c) of RA 6657:
Mateo vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 128392
FACTS:
In contest in this case is a parcel of registered land situated at Pulang Lupa I, Las Piñas,
Metro Manila. Private respondent Casimiro Development Corporation (CDC) alleged that it
was the owner of the land in question since it acquired the same from the previous owner,
China Banking Corporation. After the sale CDC advised the petitioners that it was the new
owner of the land and that they had failed to pay the rentals due to it and to its predecessor-
in-interest. After demands were made of the petitioners to settle their obligations and after
they failed to pay, CDC gave them notice to vacate the premises. The petitioners refused.
This prompted CDC to file a complaint for Unlawful Detainer against the petitioners before
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas. In an Answer with Counterclaim, petitioners
denied the allegations in the complaint and maintained that the Metropolitan Trial Court has
no jurisdiction over the case since the land was classified as agricultural and that it is the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) that had jurisdiction over the
case. They further claimed that they were in continuous and open possession of the land
even before World War II and presumed themselves entitled to a government grant.
Petitioners also questioned the validity of the title held by CDC, arguing that the land was
registered before it was declared alienable.
The Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas decided in favor of CDC and reasoned out as
follows: “The Court, after careful consideration of the facts and the laws applicable to this
case[,] hereby resolves:
1. On the issue of jurisdiction.
4
Group 2 members:
The defendants alleged that the land in question is an agricultural land by presenting a Tax
Declaration Certificate classifying the land as “FISHPOND.” The classification of the land in a
tax declaration certificate as a “fishpond” merely refers to the use of the land in question for
the purpose of real property taxation. This alone would not be sufficient to bring the land in
question under the operation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
The petitioners raised the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) through a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a restraining
order/preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the RTC rendered a judgment in favor of the
petitioners, reversing the Metropolitan Trial Court. The RTC reasoned thus: Since the land is
a fishpond, the same is agricultural as defined under Sec. 3 (b) and (c), RA 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. As an agricultural land, it is
covered under Sec. 4 thereof which provides:
“Sec. 4. Scope.—The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover,

regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.” Because the land is
within the scope of RA 6657, it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) or the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) to determine whether petitioners as the occupants tillers of the said land are
qualified as beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Under
Sec. 17 of Executive Order No. 129-A which is a repetition of Sec. 50 of RA 6657, the
DARAB is vested with quasi-judicial power to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over matters including
implementation of Agrarian Reform.
The Court of Appeals found in favor of CDC and held:
After an assiduous study of the case, We find that the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas
had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case and not the DARAB. The appellees
presented tax declarations (Exhs. “A” and “A-5”, pp. 51-56, Record); and photographs (“D-
4” to “D-5”, pp. 123-124, Record) of the property to show that the subject land is a fishpond
and hence an agricultural land within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. While We may concede
that the property was, in the past[,] a fishpond, it was not anymore a fishpond at the time
the complaint for unlawful detainer was filed. The tax declarations (Exhs. “A” to “A-5”)
showing that the property is a fishpond [are] no longer true. It is worthy to note that tax
declarations are not conclusive proof of the nature of the property (Vide, Patalinghug vs.
Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 554) and the photographs show that no form of fish life can
survive in the alleged fishpond since it is polluted (Exhs. “3” to “3-C”, pp. 77- 80).
5
Group 2 members:
Significantly, the area where the subject property is located was declared as a low density
residential zone (R-1) per MMZO 81-01 dated March 1981 (Exh. “6”, pp. 146-148). Even
assuming that the subject land is a fishpond, and therefore an agricultural land, still, it is
error for the court a quo to declare void the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court on this
finding alone. In Isidro vs. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 503, the Honorable Supreme Court
declared that the mere fact that a land is an agricultural land does not automatically make
such case an agrarian dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction.
The petitioners thus filed the present petition for review on certiorari to question the
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not jurisdiction over the subject matter lies with the DARAB (pursuant to R.A.
6657) or with the Metropolitan Trial Court?
RULING:
The jurisdiction over the subject matter lies with the Metropolitan Trial Court.
The jurisdiction of the DARAB is provided in Section 50 of Rep. Act No. 6657, which reads:
Sec. 50. Quasi Judicial Powers of the DAR.—The DAR is hereby vested with the 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). It shall not be bound by
technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases,
disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the
case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination for every action or proceeding before it.
First. For the DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be a tenancy relationship
between the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it is
essential to establish all its indispensable elements, to wit:
1) That the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) that the
subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent
between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to
bring about agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of
the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
6
Group 2 members:
Regarding the classification of the land, covered by the second element, considering the
absence of the first, third, fourth and sixth elements, the same is not necessary in
determining jurisdiction.
Since there is no proof of tenancy relationship, and in view of absence of the necessary
elements enumerated in Duremdes v. Duremdes, the DARAB does not have jurisdiction over
the present case. The MTC, therefore, had jurisdiction over the subject matter and hence
properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.
WHEREFORE, Petition is denied and the decision of the CA is affirmed.
5. Jose Luis Ros, et al. vs. DAR G.R No. 132477, August 31, 2005
Petitioners are the owners of various parcels of land being subject to a reclassification.
FACTS:
Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land located in Balamban Cebu.
Because of a Municipal Order No.101 that was passed by the Municipal Council of Balamban,
these lands were reclassified as industrial lands. Despite preparing the necessary permits and
certifications, they received a letter from Jose Llames, Director of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Regional Office, informing him that the DAR was disallowing the conversion of the
subject lands for industrial use. Thus, Petitioners filed a case before the RTC for Injuction and
Application for a TRO.
RTC ruled that DAR has jurisdiction over the issue and dismissed the complaint due to lack of
jurisdiction. Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.
ISSUE:
Whether the reclassification of the subject lands to industrial use by the Municipality of
Balamban, Cebu pursuant to its authority under LGC has the effect of taking such lands out of
the coverage of the CARL and beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR - NO
RULING:
7
Group 2 members:
The court ruled that forms of reclassification involving agricultural lands, despite not
redistributed, have to go through the process of conversion. Jurisdiction over this conversion is
vested in the DAR. In this case, there is no final order of conversion yet. The subject landholding
was merely reclassified. Conversion is different from reclassification.
Conversion - The act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into
some other use as approved by the DAR.
Reclassification - is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, etc. as embodied in the land
use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land use conversion.
Despite the land being RECLASSIFIED, they also have to undergo the process of CONVERSION
as well. The Court held in favor of DAR
6. Roxas & Co., Inc. vs CA G.R No. 127876, December 17, 1999
FACTS:
The case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner and the
validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the government under Republic Act No. 6657,
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three
haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of
Nasugbu, Batangas.
On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative
power from the President. 2 This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988
and took effect on June 15, 1988. Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed
with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of
E.O. No. 229 before the effectivity of the CARL.
Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent
DAR in accordance with the CARL.
8
Group 2 members:
Respondent DAR, through respondent Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu,
Batangas invited petitioner to a number of conferences to discuss the results of the DAR
investigation of Hacienda Palico and Banilad, which were "scheduled for compulsory
acquisition this year under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."
Despite petitioner’s application for conversion, respondent DAR proceeded with the acquisition
of the two Haciendas.
However, petitioner sent a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of
Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the
reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result,
petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway
from agricultural to other uses.
Respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that a reclassification of the land would not
exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent Secretary also denied petitioner's withdrawal of
the VOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be based on specific grounds such as
unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the slope of the land is over 18 degrees and that the
land is undeveloped.
Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, petitioner filed its application
for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad. It was also denied.
Petitioner instituted Case No. N00179646 (BA) with respondent DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOA's issued by respondent DAR in the name of
several persons. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the haciendas are
located, had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for agricultural
production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to
nonagricultural.
ISSUE:
Whether the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance
with law.
9
Group 2 members:
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court recognizes that the Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), provides for two (2) modes of acquisition of private land:
compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for the compulsory acquisition of private lands is set
forth in Section 16 of R.A. 6657.
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and the farmer
beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of
Acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a
conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property
is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his
administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the
deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If
the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts summary
administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The landowner, the
LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation
within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the
case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt
by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the
latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible
bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a
transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be
redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the
regular courts for final determination of just compensation.
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of
the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the
identification process must be made. To fill in this gap, the DAR issued on July 26, 1989
Administrative Order No. 12, Series or 1989, which set the operating procedure in the
identification of such lands.
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his area
10
Group 2 members:
of responsibility containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory
Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the
landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/meeting" over
the land covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to the prospective farmer beneficiaries
the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the
property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or agreements of the parties. At the
meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate his retention area.
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO)
who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification of the property
by the PARO shall be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds
P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together
with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically,
the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall review, evaluate and determine
the final land valuation of the property. The BLAD shall prepare, on the signature of the
Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition for the subject property.
From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of R.A. 6657 then apply.
For a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice of
Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the
representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR
A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section
16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the
conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply
with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an
exercise of the State's police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the
CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the
regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry ou such
regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed,
there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a
mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and
physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of
11
Group 2 members:
the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law." The CARL was not intended to take away
property without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires
that due process be observed in the taking of private property.
DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first sprung, was
amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of
1993. The Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to the conference meeting were expanded
and amplified in said amendments.
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and
Compulsory Acquisition (CA) transactions involving lands enumerated under Section 7 of the
CARL. In both VOS and CA. transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell Case
Folder (VOCF) and the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF), as the case may be, over a
particular landholding. The MARO notifies the landowner as well as representatives of the LBP,
BARC and prospective beneficiaries of the date of the ocular inspection of the property at least
one week before the scheduled date and invites them to attend the same. The MARO, LBP or
BARC conducts the ocular inspection and investigation by identifying the land and landowner,
determining the suitability of the land for agriculture and productivity, interviewing and
screening prospective farmer beneficiaries. Based on its investigation, the MARO, LBP or BARC
prepares the Field Investigation Report which shall be signed by all parties concerned. In
addition to the field investigation, a boundary or subdivision survey of the land ma also be
conducted by a Survey Party of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
to be assisted by the MARO. This survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation Land
Transfer (OLT), areas retained by the landowner, areas with infrastructure, and the areas
subject to VOS and CA. After the survey and field investigation, the MARO sends a "Notice of
Coverage" to the landowner or his duly authorized representative inviting him to a conference
or public hearing with the farmer beneficiaries, representatives of the BARC, LBP, DENR,
Department of Agriculture (DA), non-government organizations, farmer's organizations and
other interested parties. At the public hearing, the parties shall discuss the results of the field
investigation, issues that may be raised in relation thereto, inputs to the valuation of the subject
landholding, and other comments and recommendations by all parties concerned. The Minutes
of the conference/public hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files shall be
forwarded by the MARO to the PARO. The PARO reviews, evaluates and validates the Field
12
Group 2 members:
Investigation Report and other documents in the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards the records to
the RARO for another review.
DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and increased the number
of government agencies involved in the identification and delineation of the land subject to
acquisition. This time, the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner before the conduct of
the field investigation and the sending must comply with specific requirements.
Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office (DARMO) must send the Notice of Coverage to
the landowner by "personal delivery with proof of service, or by registered mail with return
card," informing him that his property is under CARP coverage and that if he desires to avail of
his right of retention, he may choose which area he shall retain. The Notice of Coverage shall
also invite the landowner to attend the field investigation to be scheduled at least two weeks
from notice. The field investigation is for the purpose of identifying the landholding and
determining its suitability for agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the Notice of Coverage
shall be posted for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls
where the property is located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by the DAR
Municipal Office to representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR and prospective farmer
beneficiaries. The field investigation shall be conducted on the date set with the participation of
the landowner and the various representatives. If the landowner and other representatives are
absent, the field investigation shall proceed, provided they were duly notified thereof. Should
there be a variance between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to whether the land be
placed under agrarian reform, the land's suitability to agriculture, the degree or development of
the slope, etc., the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and
DA which shall jointly conduct further investigation. The team's findings shall be binding on
both DAR and LBP. After the field investigation, the DAR Municipal Office shall prepare the
Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map, a copy of which shall be furnished the landowner
"by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with return card." Another copy of
the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week in the municipal or barangay
halls where the property is located.
Assuming further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP coverage of its haciendas, the
areas found actually subject to CARP were not properly identified before they were taken over
by respondent DAR. Respondents insist that the lands were identified because they are all
registered property and the technical description in their respective titles specifies their metes
and bounds. Respondents admit at the same time, however, that not all areas in the haciendas
13
Group 2 members:
were placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform program invariably by reason of
elevation or character or use of the land.
The acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of the two haciendas, but
only portions thereof. Hacienda Palico has an area of 1,024 hectares and only 688.7576
hectares were targeted for acquisition. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050 hectares but
only 964.0688 hectares were subject to CARP. The haciendas are not entirely agricultural
lands. In fact, the various tax declarations over the haciendas describe the landholdings as
"sugarland," and "forest, sugarland, pasture land, horticulture and woodland."
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the sending of the Notice of Acquisition specifically requires
that the land subject to land reform be first identified. The two haciendas in the instant case
cover vast tracts of land. Before Notices of Acquisition were sent to petitioner, however, the
exact areas of the landholdings were not properly segregated and delineated. Upon receipt
of this notice, therefore, petitioner corporation had no idea which portions of its estate were
subject to compulsory acquisition, which portions it could rightfully retain, whether these
retained portions were compact or contiguous, and which portions were excluded from CARP
coverage. Even respondent DAR's evidence does not show that petitioner, through its duly
authorized representative, was notified of any ocular inspection and investigation that was to
be conducted by respondent DAR. Neither is there proof that petitioner was given the
opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired
compulsorily. The right of retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed in Section 6
of the CARL.
Under the law, a landowner may retain not more than five hectares out of the total area of his
agricultural land subject to CARP. The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be
compact or contiguous, pertains to the landowner. If the area chosen for retention is tenanted,
the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain on the portion or be a beneficiary
in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.
Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale in 1989. The Hacienda has a total area of
867.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles. In two separate Resolutions both dated
January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director, formally accepted the VOS
over the two of these four titles. The land covered by two titles has an area of 855.5257
14
Group 2 members:
hectares, but only 648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage of R.A. 6657. Petitioner
claims it does not know where these portions are located.
Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four titles
were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied participation
therein, The results of the survey and the land valuation summary report, however, do not
indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and received by petitioner or
its duly authorized representative. To reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay down the
operating procedure, much less the notice requirements, before the VOS is accepted by
respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner, however, cannot be dispensed with. It is part of
administrative due process and is an essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to
exercise, at the very least, his right of retention guaranteed under the CARL.
Therefore, the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent
DAR's failure to observe due process therein.
Failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the acquisition
proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify what the CLOA has already issued to
the farmer beneficiaries.
To assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to
run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural
lapses in the acquisition proceedings. In Hacienda Palico alone, CLOA's were issued to 177
farmer beneficiaries in 1993. Since then until the present, these farmers have been cultivating
their lands.
It goes against the basic precepts of justice, fairness and equity to deprive these people,
through no fault of their own, of the land they till.
7. Republic Act No. 7881

There are amendments made to certain provisions of RA 6657. These are as follows:
● Section 3, paragraph (b) - Definitions
○ Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means the
cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, (growing of fruit trees, including
15
Group 2 members:
the harvesting of such farm ‘products, and other farm activities and
practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming
operations done by persons whether natural or juridical.
● Section 10 - Exemptions and Exclusions
○ Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves
○ Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and
fishponds: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been
distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to
agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
○ In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law by voluntary offer to sell, or
commercial farms deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a
simple and absolute majority of the actual regular workers or tenants
must consent to the exemption within one (1) year from the effectivity of
this Act
■ When the workers or tenants do not agree to this exemption the
fishponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the
worker-beneficiaries or tenants who shall form a cooperative or
association to manage the same.
○ In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the consent of the farm
workers shall no longer be necessary. However, the provision of Section
32-A hereof on incentives shall apply.
○ Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary
for national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental
farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational
purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production center,
church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic
centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries,
penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates,
government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands
16
Group 2 members:
with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed.
● Section 11, paragraph 1 - Commercial Farming
○ Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to
saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and
cacao, coffee and rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate
compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from the
effectivity of this Act. In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall
begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, as
determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the Government
shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just
compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in
favor of organized cooperatives or associations which shall thereafter
manage the said lands for the workers-beneficiaries.
There are also new sections incorporated in the same law. These are as follows:
● After section 32
○ SECTION 32-A. Incentives. – Individuals or entities owning or operating
fishponds and prawn farms are hereby mandated to execute within six
(6) months from the effectivity of this Act an incentive plan with their
regular fishpond or prawn farmworkers or fishpond or prawn farm
workers’ organization, if any, whereby seven point five percent (7.5%) of
their net profit before tax from the operation of the fishpond or prawn
farms are distributed within sixty (60) days at the end of the fiscal year as
compensation to regular and other pond workers in such ponds over and
above the compensation they currently receive.
○ In order to safeguard the right of the regular fishpond or prawn farm
workers under the incentive plan, the books of the fishpond or prawn
farm owners shall be subject to periodic audit or inspection by certified
public accountants chosen by the workers.
○ The foregoing provision shall not apply to agricultural lands subsequently
converted to fishpond or prawn farms provided the size of the land
converted does not exceed the retention limit of the landowner.
17
Group 2 members:
○ SECTION 65-A. Conversion into Fishpond and Prawn Farms. – No

conversion of public agricultural lands into fishponds and prawn farms
shall be made except in situations where the provincial government with
the concurrence of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR) declares a coastal zone as suitable for fishpond development. In
such case, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) shall allow the lease and development of such areas: Provided,
That the declaration shall not apply to environmentally critical projects
and areas as contained in title (A) sub-paragraph two, (B-5) and (C-1)
and title (B), number eleven (11) of Proclamation No. 21-+6, entitled
“Proclaiming Certain Areas and Types of Projects as Environmentally
Critical and Within the Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) System established under Presidential Decree No. 1586,'” to ensure
the protection of river systems, aquifers and mangrove vegetations from
pollution and environmental degradation: Provided, further. That the
approval shall be in accordance with a set of guidelines to be drawn up
and promulgated by the DAR and the BFAR: Provided, furthermore, That
small-farmer cooperatives and organizations shall be given preference in
the award of the Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs).
○ No conversion of more than five (5) hectares of private lands to fishponds
and prawn farms shall be allowed after the passage of this Act, except
when the use of the land is more economically feasible and sound for
fishpond and/or prawn farm, as certified by the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR), and a simple and absolute majority of the
regular farm workers or tenants agree to the conversion, the Department
of Agrarian Reform, may approve applications for change in the use of
the land: Provided, finally, That no piecemeal conversion to circumvent
the provisions of this Act shall be allowed. In these cases where the
change of use is approved, the provisions of Section 32-A hereof on
incentives shall apply.
○ SECTION 65-B. Inventory. – Within one (1) year from the effectivity of
this Act, the BFAR shall undertake and finish an inventory of all
government and private fishponds and prawn farms, and undertake a
program to promote the sustainable management and utilization of
18
Group 2 members:
prawn farms and fishponds. No lease under Section 65-A hereof may be
granted until after the completion of the said inventory.
○ The sustainable management and utilization of prawn farms and
fishponds shall be in accordance with the effluent standards, pollution
charges and other pollution control measures such as, but not limited to,
the quantity of fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals used, that may
be established by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), the
Environmental Management Bureau(EMB),and other appropriate
government regulatory bodies, and existing regulations governing water
utilization, primarily Presidential Decree No. 1067, entitled “A Decree
Instituting A Water Code, Thereby Revising and Consolidating the Laws
Governing the Ownership, Appropriation, Utilization, Exploitation,
Development, Conservation and Protection of Water Resources.
○ SECTION 65-C. Protection of Mangrove Areas. – In existing Fishpond
Lease Agreements (FLAs) and those that will be issued after the
effectivity of this Act, a portion of the fishpond area fronting the sea,
sufficient to protect the environment, shall be established as a buffer
zone and be planted to specified mangrove species to be determined in
consultation with the regional office of the DENR. The Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources shall provide penalties for any
violation of this undertaking as well as the rules for its implementation.
○ SECTION 65-D. Change of Crops. – The change of crops to commercial
crops or high value crops shall not be considered as a conversion in the
use or nature of the land. The change in crop should however, not
prejudice the rights of tenants or leaseholders should there be any and
the consent of a simple and absolute majority of the affected farm
workers, if any, shall first be obtained.
○ SECTION 73-A. Exception. –The provisions of Section 73, paragraph (E),
to the contrary notwithstanding, the sale and/or transfer of agricultural
land in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary
as a result of a bank’s foreclosure of the mortgaged land is hereby
permitted.
8. Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, et al. vs CA G.R No. 149621, May 5, 2006
19
Group 2 members:
FACTS:
Francisco Tantoco and his co-owners owned a vast tract of land with a total area of
106.5128 which was registered in their names. Petitioners donated 6.5218 hectares to Caritas
De Manila, Inc. thereby leaving an estimated area of 100 hectares. Meanwhile, the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) had been considering the land for compulsory acquisition pursuant
to R.A. No. 6657.
On May 8, 1989, Tantoco declared the productive nature and agricultural suitability of the land
in dispute, and offering the same for acquisition under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme
of the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The land was offered
for sale for a sum of P53,256,400. However, since the petitioner was only offered
P4,826,742.35, he withdrew his voluntary offer to sell adding that the land is not suitable for
agriculture anymore and that it had been classified in 1981 for use by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HLURB) as land for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes.
On August 30, 1933, the DAR issued a collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)
over the subject property to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) of San
Francisco, General Trias, Cavite. Consequently, Register of Deeds issued the title in favor of
ARBA and its 53 members, and cancelled petitioners title.
ISSUE:
Whether the subject property is within the coverage of CARP.
RULING:
The requirement for the DAR clearance in cases of land use conversion from agricultural
to non-agricultural uses applies only to conversions made on or after June 15, 1988, the date of
the agrarian reform law’s effectivity. Prior thereto, the powers of the HLURB and the
Department of Finance to re-categorize lands for land use and taxation purposes were
exclusive.
It is noted that the definition of agricultural land in R.A. 6657 excludes lands which have
previously been classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial and industrial areas.
Viewed against this context, the subject property cannot be considered as falling within the
category of reclassified lands as envisioned in Section 3 (c) of R.A. 6657.
Since the subject land has the agricultural nature because of its long history as sugar land, the
property in question can be properly subjected to CARP. It was not reclassified nor converted
from agricultural to non-agricultural use with the approval of the HLURB prior to the effectivity
of the CARL on June 15, 1988.
20

Section 3 - JD4202 - Group 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 3 - JD4202 - Group 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

B. What is an ‘Agricultural land?

4. Section 3 (a), (b), and (e), RA No. 6657

Related Case: Sec. 3 (b) and (c) of RA 6657:

Mateo vs. Court of Appeals

1. On the issue of jurisdiction.

“Sec. 4. Scope.—The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover,

The Court of Appeals found in favor of CDC and held:

WHEREFORE, Petition is denied and the decision of the CA is affirmed.

7. Republic Act No. 7881

○ SECTION 65-A. Conversion into Fishpond and Prawn Farms. – No

8. Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, et al. vs CA G.R No. 149621, May 5, 2006

You might also like