Landbank vs.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Bord, GR 183279

Facts:

Private respondents, namely, the heirs of Vicente, Romeo, and Cesar, all surnamed Adaza, were owners of a tract of land with an
area of 359 hectares situated in Zamboanga del Norte, of which the DAR identified a 278.4092-hectare portion as suitable for
compulsory acquisition under the CARP. In August 1991, the DAR sent out a notice of coverage. The claim folder profile was then
endorsed to petitioner LBP to determine the value of the land. The DAR then subdivided the property into smaller lots and, in
December 1992, distributed them to identified beneficiaries. Pursuant to the pertinent provision of the then governing 2003 DARAB
Rules of Procedure in relation to Section 16(d) of RA 6657 in case of contested valuation, the PARAD of Zamboanga del Norte
conducted a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation. In the course of the hearing and on its preliminary
estimation that the computation was unconscionably low, the PARAD, by Order of December 22, 2003, asked the LBP to undertake
another landsite inspection and recomputation of the value of the subject landholding in accordance with the latest formula on land
valuation.

The Adazas found the reevaluated amount level still too low, prompting them to appeal to the DARAB. Pending resolution of their
appeal, the Adazas interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation on August 9, 2005, seeking the release to them of the
amount representing the difference between the initial valuation and the second valuation. The Adazas alleged having long been
dispossessed of the subject property, while the farmer-beneficiaries installed on it are enjoying full possession of it.

Issue:

Whether or not the DARAB can order the release to the landowners, by way of execution pending appeal, of the incremental
difference of a landbank recomputation upheld in a decision of the DAR adjudicator a quo within the purview of section 16, et seq. of
RA. 6657 and its implementing rules.

Ruling:

Three points need to be emphasized at the outset. 

First, the amount of PhP 3,426,153.80 the Adazas want to be released pending appeal, or pending final determination of just
compensation, to be precise, was arrived at by LBP, its re-evaluation efforts taken pursuant to Executive Order No. 405. After
effecting the transfer of titles from the landowner to the Republic of the Philippines, the [LBP] shall inform the DAR of such fact in
order that the latter may proceed with the distribution of the lands to the qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries x x x.

Second, the LBP, no less, had asked the PARAD to adopt LBP’s recomputed value of PhP 3,426,153.80 as just compensation for
the subject property.

And third, the Adazas’ landholding had already been distributed before full payment of just compensation could be effected. In fact,
the Adazas have been deprived of the beneficial use and ownership of their landholding since 1992 and have received only PhP
786,564.46 for their 278.40-hectare CARP-covered lands.

In light of the foregoing considerations, it is but just and proper to allow, with becoming dispatch, withdrawal of the revised
compensation amount, albeit protested. The concept of just compensation contemplates of just and timely payment; it embraces not
only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the landowner, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time
from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot, asLand Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals instructs, be
considered "just," for the owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to
wait for years before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.

Department of Agrarian Reform; GR No. 176549

Facts:

The land in dispute is originally part of the agricultural land owned by Roman De Jesus. Petitioner Pablo Mendoza became the
tenant of the land by virtue of a Contrato King Pamamuisan executed between him and Roman. On November 7, 1979, Roman died
leaving the entire 73.3157 hectares to his surviving wife Alberta Constales, and their two sons Mario and Antonio De Jesus. On
June 26, 1986, Mario sold approximately 70.4788 hectares to respondent Romeo C. Carriedo.

The area sold to Carriedo included the land tenanted by Mendoza (TCT No. 17680). Mendoza alleged that the sale took place
without his knowledge and consent. Carriedo sold all of these landholdings to the Peoples’ Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PLFI),
except the land tenanted by Mendoza.

The landholding covered by TCT No. 17680 with an area of 12.1065 hectares was divided into sub-lots. 7.1065 hectares was
transferred to Bernabe Buscayno et al. through a Deed of Transfer under PD No. 27. And the remaining lots consisting of
approximately 5.0001 hectares and which is the land being occupied by Mendoza, were registered in the name of Carriedo.
Carriedo then filed a Complaint for Ejectment and Collection of Unpaid Rentals against Mendoza. A decision was rendered in favor
of Carriedo and declared him as the absolute owner of the five(5) hectare land. Mendoza then filed a Petition for Redemption. The
CA ruled that Carriedo’s ownership of the land had been conclusively established and even affirmed by this Court.

Mendoza, his daughter Corazon Mendoza and Orlando Gomez filed a Petition for Coverage of the land under RA No. 6657. They
claimed that they had been in physical and material possession of the land as tenants since 1956, and made the land productive.
However, the CA declared the land as Carriedo’s retained area.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether Carriedo has the right to retain the land.

Ruling:

YES, Carriedo did not waive his right of retention over the land.

The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes landowner retention rights under Article XIII, Section 4. Further, Sec.6 of RA No. 6657
implements this directive, thus:

Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any
public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as
commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)
created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.

To interpret Section 6 of RA No. 6657, DAR issued Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003 (DAR AO 02-03), which provides for
the instances when a landowner is deemed to have waived his right of retention. Petitioners claim that Carriedo lose his right of
retention by disposing of his agricultural land on the ground of paragraph 4 Section 6 of RA No. 6657 (6.4 Execution of a Landowner
Tenant Production Agreement and Farmer’s Undertaking (LTPA-FU) or Application to Purchase and Farmer’s Undertaking (APFU)
covering subject property).

However, Section 6 clearly shows that the disposition of agricultural land is not an act constituting waiver of the right of retention.
Thus, as correctly held by the CA, Carriedo “[n]ever committed any of the acts or omissions above-stated (DAR AO 02-03). Not
even the sale made by the herein petitioner in favor of PLFI can be considered as a waiver of his right of retention. Likewise, the
Records of the present case is bereft of any showing that the herein petitioner expressly waived (in writing) his right of retention as
required under sub-section 6.3, section 6, DAR Administrative Order No. 02-S.2003.”

Under the facts of this case, the reasonable reading of Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of RA No. 6657 clearly do not provide that a sale or
disposition of land in excess of 5 hectares results in a forfeiture of the five hectare retention area. In relation to the constitutional
right of retention, the consequence of nullity pertains to the area/s which were sold, or owned by the transferee, in excess of the 5-
hectare land ceiling.

Thus, the CA was correct in declaring that the land is Carriedo’s retained area. Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 imposes a penalty
where none was provided by law. As a necessary consequence of the invalidity of Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 for being ultra vires,
we hold that Carriedo did not waive his right to retain the land, nor can he be considered to be in estoppel.