Alsl Case Digests For Atty Mancols Syllabus

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
ALSL CASE Digests (for Atty. Mancol's Syllabus)
Agrarian Law (Arellano University)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|7637309
CASE DIGESTS FOR ATTY. GEFER MANCOL’S AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION SYLLABUS (CHAPTER IV: R.A. 6657 as amended)
CASE CASE TOPIC FACTS ISSUE HELD
NO.
1. Association of Transfer of In G.R. No. 79744: WON CARL violates due NO. The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property
Small Landowners Private and On September 3, 1986, the petitioner process because expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator
in the Philippines Public Lands to protested the erroneous inclusion of his landowner is divested of only upon full payment of the just compensation.
v. Secretary of Farmer small landholding under Operation Land his property even before Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here
Agrarian Reform, Beneficiaries transfer and asked for the recall and actual payment to him in and in other democratic jurisdictions.
G.R. No. 78742, cancellation of the Certificates of Land full of just compensation,
Jul 14, 1989, Transfer in the name of the private in contravention of a well- It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation
175 SCRA 343 respondents. accepted principle of of tenant-farmer as October 21, 1972 and declared that he
En Banc The petitioner contends that the issuance of eminent domain shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land consisting of
Cruz, J. E.0. Nos. 228 and 229 shortly before a family-sized farm except that "no title to the land owned by
Congress convened is anomalous and him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had
arbitrary, besides violating the doctrine of become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers'
separation of powers. cooperative." It was understood, however, that full payment
The petitioner also invokes his rights not to of the just compensation also had to be made first,
be deprived of his property without due conformably to the constitutional requirement.
process of law and to the retention of his
small parcels of riceholding as guaranteed When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:
under Article XIII, Section 4 of the
Constitution All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners
as of October 21, 1972 of the land they acquired by virtue of
Presidential Decree No. 27.
it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired

under the said decree, after proof of full-fledged membership
in the farmers' cooperatives and full payment of just
compensation. Hence, it was also perfectly proper for the
Order to also provide in its Section 2 that the "lease rentals
paid to the landowner by the farmer- beneficiary after October
21, 1972 (pending transfer of ownership after full payment of
just compensation), shall be considered as advance payment
for the land."
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of

possession and ownership of the land to the government on
Compiled by Antonio T. Delgado (2020). All are sourced from lawphil.net, unless otherwise indicated. Page 1 of 121

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
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. No outright change of ownership is contemplated
either.
Hence, the argument that the assailed measures violate due

process by arbitrarily transferring title before the land is fully
paid for must also be rejected.
2. Roxas & Co. v. CA Transfer of Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic 1. WON acquisition NO.
G.R. No. 127876, Private and corporation and is the registered owner of proceedings over the
Dec 17, 1999, Public Lands to three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, three haciendas were
321 SCRA 106 Farmer Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the valid and in accordance
En Banc Beneficiaries Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. with law
Melo, J.
Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, 2. WON, assuming the NO. The failure of respondent DAR to comply with the
petitioner filed with respondent DAR a haciendas may be requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does
voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway reclassified from not give this Court the power to nullify the CLOA's already
pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. agricultural to non- issued to the farmer beneficiaries. To assume the power is to
Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later agricultural, SC has the short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to run
placed under compulsory acquisition by power to rule on this issue its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance
respondent DAR in accordance with the to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.
CARL.
Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657
[from Roxas & Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 127876, Dec 17, 1999;
Note: some parts of the procedure outlined herein are already outdated]
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, viz:
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
a). After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and
post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a
corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer.
c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in
favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other
interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR
of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
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.
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of the land acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 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.
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 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

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
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. 50 But where, to carry out
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 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. 54 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 may 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
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

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
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.
Clearly then, the notice requirements under the CARL are not confined to the Notice of Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. They also include the Notice of Coverage first laid down
in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. This Notice of Coverage does not merely notify the
landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention right; it also notifies him, pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990, that a public
hearing, shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and other
pertinent matters. Under DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, the Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the
other representatives may be present.
3. Daez v. CA Retention Rights Eudosia Daez was the owner of a 4.1685- 1. WON land owner can YES. Petitioner heirs of Eudosia Daez may exercise their right
G.R. No. 133507, Sec. 6 hectare riceland in Barangay Lawa, still exercise their right of of retention over the subject 4.1685 riceland.
Feb 17, 2000, Meycauayan, Bulacan which was being retention over subject In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the
325 SCRA 856 cultivated by respondents Macario Soriente, 4.1685 ha riceland despite Phil., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform 23 , we held that
(2000) Rogelio Macatulad, Apolonio Mediana and the fact that a previous landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights
Second Division Manuel Umali under a system of share- decision denying petition under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to the new retention rights
De Leon, Jr., J. tenancy. The said land was subjected to the for exemption under PD under R.A. No. 6657 24 . We disregarded the August 27, 1985
Operation Land Transfer Program under 27 had long been deadline imposed by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of
Presidential Decree No. 27 as amended by executory. 1985 on landowners covered by OLT. However, if a landowner
Letter of Instruction Armed with an affidavit, filed his application for retention after August 27, 1985 but he
allegedly signed under duress by the had previously filed the sworn statements required by LOI Nos.
respondents, stating that they are not share 41, 45 and 52, he is still entitled to the retention limit of seven
tenants but hired laborers, Eudosia Daez (7) hectares under P.D. No. 27. 25 Otherwise, he is only
applied for the exemption of said riceland entitled to retain five (5) hectares under R.A. No. 6657.
from coverage of P.D. No. 27 due to non-
tenancy as well as for the cancellation of the Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657, which provides, viz.:chanrob1es virtual
CLTs issued to private respondents. The 1aw library
application of the petitioner was denied.
Exemption of the 4.1685 riceland from SECTION 6. Retention Limits — Except as otherwise provided
coverage by P.D. No. 27 having been finally in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly,
denied her, Eudosia Daez next filed an any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
application for retention of the same vary according to factors governing a viable family-size, such
riceland, this time under R.A. No. 6657. as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil
fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
On March 22, 1994, DAR Region III OIC- Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall
Director Eugenio B. Bernardo allowed retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3)
Eudosia Daez to retain the subject riceland hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner,
but he denied the application of her eight subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least
(8) children to retain three (3) hectares each fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the
for their failure to prove actual tillage of the land or directly managing the farm; Provided, That landowners
land or direct management thereof as whose land have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
required by law. They appealed to DAR shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them
Secretary. thereunder, further, That original homestead grantees or
direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead
DAR Secretary affirmed the decision of the at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same
regional director. They appealed to the areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
Office of the President (OP).
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be
Office of the President ruled in favor of Daez compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner.
or her heirs and rendered judgment Provided, however, That in case the area selected for
authorizing the retention of the 4.1685 retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have
hectares of land. The application of the the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a
children was still denied. Hence the appeal beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with
in CA. similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to
remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a lease
CA reversed and set aside the decision of holder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
the Office of the President. Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another
agricultural land, he loses his right as a lease holder to the land
retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this
option within a period of one (1) year from the time the
landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or

farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall
be respected.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease,

management contract or transfer of possession of private
lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this
Act shall be null and void; Provided, however, That those
executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered
with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months
after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Register of
Deeds shall inform the DAR within thirty (30) days of any
transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5)
hectares" 26 .
defines the nature and incidents of a landowner’s right of

retention. For as long as the area to be retained is compact or
contiguous and it does not exceed the retention ceiling of five
(5) hectares, a landowner’s choice of the area to be retained,
must prevail. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 4, series of
1991, 27 which supplies the details for the exercise of a
landowner’s retention rights, likewise-recognizes no limit to
the prerogative of the landowner, although he is persuaded to
retain other lands instead to avoid dislocation of farmers.
Without doubt, this right of retention may be exercised over

tenanted land despite even the issuance of Certificate of Land
Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. 28 What must be
protected, however, is the right of the tenants to opt to either
stay on the land chosen to be retained by the landowner or be
a beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar or
comparable features.
2. WON distinction NO. Exemption and retention in agrarian reform are two (2)
between exemption from distinct concepts. Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an
agrarian reform coverage application for exemption and an application for retention are
and the right of retention one and the same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
of landowners is only a judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent institution
matter of semantics that of the other. There was, thus, no procedural impediment to
an adverse decision in the the application filed by Eudosia Daez for the retention of the
former will foreclose subject 4.1865-hectare riceland, even after her appeal for
further action to enforce exemption of the same land was denied in a decision that
the latter considering that became final and executory.
they constitute separate
and distinct causes of P.D. No. 27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer
action and, therefore, (OLT) Program, covers tenanted rice or corn lands. The
enforceable separately requisites for coverage under the OLT program are the
and in sequel. following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops;
and (2) there must be a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy
obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner
may apply for exemption. If either of these requisites is
absent, the land is not covered under OLT. Hence, a landowner
need not apply for retention where his ownership over the
entire landholding is intact and undisturbed.
P.D. No. 27 grants each tenant of covered lands a five (5)-

hectare lot, or in case the land is irrigated, a three (3)-hectare
lot constituting a family size farm. However, said law allows a
covered landowner to retain not more than seven (7) hectares
of his land if his aggregate landholding does not exceed
twenty-four (24) hectares. Otherwise, his entire landholding is
covered without him being entitled to any retention right 20 .
Consequently, a landowner may keep his entire covered

landholding if its aggregate size does not exceed the retention
limit of seven (7) hectares. In effect, his land will not be
covered at all by the OLT program although all requisites for
coverage are present. LOI No. 474 clarified the effective
coverage of OLT to include tenanted rice or corn lands of
seven (7) hectares or less, if the landowner owns other
agricultural lands of more than seven (7) hectares. The term

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
"other agricultural lands" refers to lands other than tenanted

rice or corn lands from which the landowner derives adequate
income to support his family.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary
Thus, on one hand, exemption from coverage of OLT lies if: (1)
the land is not devoted to rice or corn crops even if it is
tenanted; or (2) the land is untenanted even though it is
devoted to rice or corn crops.
On the other hand, the requisites for the exercise by the

landowner of his right of retention are the following: (1) the
land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be a
system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein; and
(3) the size of the landholding must not exceed twenty-four
(24) hectares, or it could be more than twenty-four (24)
hectares provided that at least seven (7) hectares thereof are
covered lands and more than seven (7) hectares of it consist of
"other agricultural lands" .
Clearly, then, the requisites for the grant of an application for

exemption from coverage of OLT and those for the grant of an
application for the exercise of a landowner’s right of retention,
are different.
4. Rodriguez v. Retention Rights On May 22, 2003, respondent Teresita V. WON there is tenancy NO. Agricultural tenancy relationship does not exist in the
Salvador Sec. 6 Salvador filed a Complaint for Unlawful relationship between the instant case.
G.R. No. 171972, Detainer, docketed as Civil Case No. 330, parties.
Jun 08, 2011, against petitioners Lucia (Lucia) and Agricultural tenancy exists when all the following requisites
651 SCRA 429 Prudencia Rodriguez, mother and daughter, are present:
(2011) respectively before the Municipal Trial Court 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
First Division (MTC) of Dalaguete, Cebu. Respondent lessee;
Del Castillo, J. alleged that she is the absolute owner of a 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
parcel of land covered by Original Certificate 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship;

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
of Title (OCT) No. P27140 issued by virtue of 4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
Free Patent No. (VII5) 2646 in the name of production;
the Heirs of Cristino Salvador represented by 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
Teresita Salvador; that petitioners acquired agricultural lessee; and
possession of the subject land by mere 6) the harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or
tolerance of her predecessors-in-interest; agricultural lessee.
and that despite several verbal and written
demands made by her, petitioners refused The statements in the affidavits presented by the petitioners
to vacate the subject land. are not sufficient to prove the existence of an agricultural
On July 10, 2003, the preliminary conference tenancy.
was terminated and the parties were
ordered to submit their respective position As correctly found by the CA, the element of consent is
papers together with the affidavits of their lacking.43 Except for the self-serving affidavit of Lucia, no
witnesses and other evidence to support other evidence was submitted to show that respondent’s
their respective claims. predecessors-in-interest consented to a tenancy relationship
On September 10, 2003, the MTC with petitioners. Self-serving statements, however, will not
promulgated a Decision finding the suffice to prove consent of the landowner; independent
existence of an agricultural tenancy evidence is necessary.44
relationship between the parties, and
thereby, dismissing the complaint for lack of Aside from consent, petitioners also failed to prove sharing of
jurisdiction. harvest.1avvphil The affidavits of petitioners’ neighbors
Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal with declaring that respondent and her predecessors-in-interest
the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On January received their share in the harvest are not sufficient.
12, 2004, the RTC rendered a Decision Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other
remanding the case to the MTC for evidence to show that there was sharing of harvest45 and that
preliminary hearing to determine whether there was an agreed system of sharing between them and the
tenancy relationship exists between the landowners.46
parties. Petitioners moved for
reconsideration arguing that the purpose of As we have often said, mere occupation or cultivation of an
a preliminary hearing was served by the agricultural land will not ipso facto make the tiller an
parties’ submission of their respective agricultural tenant.47 It is incumbent upon a person who
position papers and other supporting claims to be an agricultural tenant to prove by substantial
evidence. evidence all the requisites of agricultural tenancy

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On June 23, 2004, the RTC granted the

reconsideration and affirmed the MTC
Decision dated September 10, 2003.
Respondent sought reconsideration but it
was denied by the RTC.
Thus, respondent filed a Petition for Review
with the CA. the CA rendered judgment in
favor of respondent. It ruled that no tenancy
relationship exists between the parties
because petitioners failed to prove that
respondent or her predecessors-in-interest
consented to the tenancy relationship. The
CA likewise gave no probative value to the
affidavits of petitioners’ witnesses as it
found their statements insufficient to
establish petitioners’ status as agricultural
tenants. If at all, the affidavits merely
showed that petitioners occupied the
subject land with the consent of the original
owners. And since petitioners are occupying
the subject land by mere tolerance, they are
bound by an implied promise to vacate the
same upon demand by the respondent.
Failing to do so, petitioners are liable to pay
damages.
[Source:
http://mycasedigestcompilation.blogspot.co
m/2018/08/rodriguez-vs-salvador-gr-no-
171972-june.html]
5. Alita v. CA Exemptions and The subject matter of the case consists of WON lands obtained NO. We agree with the petitioners in saying that P.D. 27
G.R. No. 78517, Exclusions two (2) parcels of land, acquired by private through homestead decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of
Feb 27, 1989, Sec. 10 respondents' predecessors-in-interest patent are covered by the the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they
through homestead patent under the till is a sweeping social legislation, a remedial measure

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
170 SCRA 706 provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Agrarian Reform under promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the
(1989) Said lands are situated at Guilinan, P.D. 27. Constitution. However, such contention cannot be invoked to
Second Division Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur. defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land
Paras, J. Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141. Thus,
Private respondents herein are desirous of
personally cultivating these lands, but The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and
petitioners refuse to vacate, relying on the protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of
provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and land where he may build a modest house for himself and
appurtenant regulations issued by the then family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform (DAR for short), satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to
now Department of Agrarian Reform (MAR their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence
for short). is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live with
a certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the
On June 18, 1981, private respondents (then State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness
plaintiffs), instituted a complaint against is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right.
Hon. Conrado Estrella as then Minister of (Patricio v. Bayog, 112 SCRA 45)
Agrarian Reform, P.D. Macarambon as
Regional Director of MAR Region IX, and In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the
herein petitioners (then defendants) for the superiority of the homesteaders' rights over the rights of the
declaration of P.D. 27 and all other Decrees, tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In point is
Letters of Instructions and General Orders Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
issued in connection therewith as which provides:
inapplicable to homestead lands.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian
Defendants filed their answer with special reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance
and affirmative defenses of July 8, 1981. with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural
resources, including lands of public domain under lease or
Subsequently, on July 19, 1982, plaintiffs concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
filed an urgent motion to enjoin the homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
defendants from declaring the lands in indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
litigation under Operation Land Transfer and
from being issued land transfer certificates Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated
to which the defendants filed their Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act
opposition dated August 4, 1982. No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead

On November 5, 1982, the then Court of patents like those of the property in question, reading,
Agrarian Relations 16th Regional District,
Branch IV, Pagadian City (now Regional Trial Section 6. Retention Limits. ...
Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch XVIII)
rendered its decision dismissing the said ... Provided further, That original homestead grantees or their
complaint and the motion to enjoin the direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead
defendants was denied. at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same
areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.'
On January 4, 1983, plaintiffs moved to
reconsider the Order of dismissal, to which
defendants filed their opposition on January
10, 1983.
Thus, on April 29, 1986, the Regional Trial

Court issued the aforequoted decision
prompting defendants to move for a
reconsideration but the same was denied in
its Order dated June 6, 1986.
On appeal to the respondent Court of

Appeals, the same was sustained in its
judgment.
6. Natalia Realty v. Exemptions and Petitioner Natalia is the owner of three WON lands already NO. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover,
DAR Exclusions contiguous parcels of land located in classified for residential, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced,
G. R. No. 103302, Sec. 10 Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal. commercial or industrial all public and private agricultural lands." As to what
Aug 12, 1993, On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation use, as approved by the constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land
225 SCRA 278 No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land Housing and Land Use devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not
(1993) located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Regulatory Board and its classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
En Banc Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to precursor agencies prior industrial land." 16 The deliberations of the Constitutional
Bellosillo, J. absorb the population overspill in the to 15 June 1988, are Commission confirm this limitation. "Agricultural lands" are
metropolis which were designated as the covered by R.A. 6657, only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural
Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The Natalia otherwise known as the lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and
residential lands."

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
properties are situated within the areas Comprehensive Agrarian

proclaimed as townsite reservation. Reform Law of 1988. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped
EDIC, developer of Natalia, applied for and portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any
was granted preliminary approval and language be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots
locational clearances by the Human were intended for residential use. They ceased to be
Settlements Regulatory Commission. agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the
Petitioners were likewise issued Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in
development permits after complying with question continued to be developed as a low-cost housing
the requirements. Thus the Natalia subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be gleaned
properties later became the Antipolo Hills from the fact that SAMBA members even instituted an action
Subdivision. to restrain petitioners from continuing with such
On 15 June 1988, CARL was enacted. development. The enormity of the resources needed for
DAR, through MARO, issued a Notice of developing a subdivision may have delayed its completion but
Coverage on the undeveloped portions of this does not detract from the fact that these lands are still
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL.
consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares.
Natalia and EDIC protested to this. Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside
Members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously
Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA), filed a converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of
complaint against Natalia and EDIC before CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. In
the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of
petitioners from developing areas under Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, 18 DAR
cultivation by SAMBA members. itself defined "agricultural land" thus —
DAR Regional ruled by temporarily
restraining petitioners from further . . . Agricultural lands refers to those devoted to agricultural
developing the subdivision. activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or
Petitioners elevated their cause to DARAB forest by the Department of Environment and Natural
but the latter merely remanded the case to Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not
the Regional Adjudicator for further classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by
proceedings the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its
Natalia wrote respondent Secretary of preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for
Agrarian Reform reiterating its request to residential, commercial or industrial use.
set aside the Notice of Coverage. Neither

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
respondent Secretary nor respondent Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June
Director took action on the protest-letters. 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was
Hence, this petition. therefore error to include the undeveloped portions of the
Natalia’s contention: Subject properties Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.
already ceased to be agricultural lands when
they were included in the areas reserved by
presidential fiat for townsite reservation.
OSG’s contention: The permits granted
petitioners were not valid and binding
because they did not comply with the
implementing Standards, Rules and
Regulations of P.D. 957, otherwise known as
"The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers'
Protective Decree," in that no application for
conversion of the NATALIA lands from
agricultural to residential was ever filed with
the DAR. In other words, there was no valid
conversion
[Source:
https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2015/05/natali
a-realty-inc-and-estate.html]
7. Luz Farms v. Exemptions and On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was approved by WON Sections 3(b), 11, 13 NO. The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional
Secretary of Exclusions the President of the Philippines, which and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word
Agrarian Reform Sec. 10 includes, among others, the raising of (the Comprehensive "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of
G.R. No. 86889, livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. Agrarian Reform Law of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry
Dec 04, 1990, 1988), insofar as the said industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated
192 SCRA 51 (1990) Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged law includes the raising of agrarian reform program of the Government.
En Banc in the livestock and poultry business, avers livestock, poultry and
Paras, J. that it would be adversely affected by the swine in its coverage as The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as
enforcement of sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), well as the Implementing defined under Section 166 of R.A. 3844, as land devoted to any
17 and 32 of the said law. Hence, it prayed Rules and Guidelines growth, including but not limited to crop lands, saltbeds,
that the said law be declared promulgated in fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August
unconstitutional. The mentioned sections of accordance therewith are 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 11).
the law provies, among others, the product- constitutional.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
sharing plan, including those engaged in The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of
livestock and poultry business. the word "agriculture." Commissioner Jamir proposed to insert
the word "ARABLE" to distinguish this kind of agricultural land
Luz Farms further argued that livestock or from such lands as commercial and industrial lands and
poultry raising is not similar with crop or residential properties because all of them fall under the
tree farming. That the land is not the general classification of the word "agricultural". This proposal,
primary resource in this undertaking and however, was not considered because the Committee
represents no more than 5% of the total contemplated that agricultural lands are limited to arable and
investments of commercial livestock and suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include
poultry raisers. That the land is incidental commercial, industrial and residential lands (Record,
but not the principal factor or consideration CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 30).
in their industry. Hence, it argued that it
should not be included in the coverage of RA It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of
6657 which covers “agricultural lands”. R.A. 6657 which includes "private agricultural lands devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising" in the
[Source: definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that
https://dennieidea.wordpress.com/2016/10 the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be
/28/luz-farms-v-sec-of-dar-gr-86889/] 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.
8. DAR v. Sutton Exemptions and The case at bar involves a land in Aroroy, WON DAR A.O. No. 9, YES. In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is
G.R. No. 162070, Exclusions Masbate, inherited by respondents which series of 1993, which invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to
Oct. 19, 2005, 473 Sec. 10 has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf prescribes a maximum regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of
SCRA 392 (2005) breeding. On October 26, 1987, pursuant to retention limit for owners agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for
En Banc the then existing agrarian reform program of of lands devoted to their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987
Puno, J. the government, respondents made a livestock raising, is Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude,
voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their unconstitutional. inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and
landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of poultry- raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that
certain incentives under the law. livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and
On June 10, 1988, CARL took effect. do not fall within the definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural
In view of the Luz Farms ruling, respondents activity." The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different
filed with petitioner DAR a formal request to from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an
withdraw their VOS as their landholding was agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in this
devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as:

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
thus exempted from the coverage of the animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers
CARL. and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors,
MARO inspected respondents’ land and exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for
found that it was devoted solely to cattle- feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas
raising and breeding. He recommended to and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete
the DAR Secretary that it be exempted from ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses,
the coverage of the CARL. sprayers, and other technological appurtenances.15
DAR ignored their request
DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock
provided that only portions of private farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the
agricultural lands used for the raising of coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in
livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15, issuing the assailed A.O.
1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of
the CARL. In determining the area of land The subsequent case of Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR16 reiterated
to be excluded, the A.O. fixed the following our ruling in the Luz Farms case. In Natalia Realty, the Court
retention limits, viz: 1:1 animal-land ratio. held that industrial, commercial and residential lands are not
DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order covered by the CARL.17 We stressed anew that while Section 4
partially granting the application of of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover all public
respondents for exemption from the and private agricultural lands, the term "agricultural land"
coverage of CARL. Respondents moved for does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential,
reconsideration. They contend that their commercial or industrial. Thus, in Natalia Realty, even portions
entire landholding should be exempted as it of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision, which are arable yet still
is devoted exclusively to cattle-raising. Their undeveloped, could not be considered as agricultural lands
motion was denied. subject to agrarian reform as these lots were already classified
Office of the President affirmed the order of as residential lands.
DAR
On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in A similar logical deduction should be followed in the case at
favor of the respondents. It declared DAR bar. Lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry and swine
A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, void for being contrary have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, lands and
to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional thus exempt from agrarian reform.
Commission to exclude livestock farms from
the land reform program of the government.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
[https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2015/05/dar-
vs-delia-sutton.html]
9. Milestone Farms, Exemptions and Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) WON lands devoted to YES. The Court held that it is established that that issues of
Inc. v. Office of the Exclusions was incorporated with the Securities and livestock farming within Exclusion and/or Exemption are characterized as Agrarian Law
President Sec. 10 Exchange Commission on January 8, 1960. the meaning of Luz farms Implementation (ALI) cases which are well within the DAR
G.R. No. 182332, Among its pertinent secondary purposes and Sutton, and which are Secretary’s competence and jurisdiction.
Feb 23, 2011, are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle, thereby exempt from carl
644 SCRA 2 17 pigs, and other livestock; to acquire lands by coverage, are Precisely, it is the DAR Secretary who is vested with such
(2011) purchase or lease, which may be needed for nevertheless subject to jurisdiction and authority to exempt and/or exclude a property
Second Division this purpose; and to sell and otherwise DAR’s continuing from CARP coverage based on the factual circumstances of
Nachura, J. dispose of said cattle, pigs, and other verification as to use, and, each case and in accordance with law and applicable
livestock and their produce when advisable on the basis of such jurisprudence.
and beneficial to the corporation; (2) to verification, may be
breed, raise, and sell poultry; to purchase or ordered reverted to
acquire and sell, or otherwise dispose of the agricultural classification
supplies, stocks, equipment, accessories, and compulsory
appurtenances, products, and byproducts of acquisition
said business; and (3) to import cattle, pigs,
and other livestock, and animal food
necessary for the raising of said cattle, pigs,
and other livestock as may be authorized by
law.
On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform
law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL), took effect, which
included the raising of livestock, poultry, and
swine in its coverage. However, on
December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting en
banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform that
agricultural lands devoted to livestock,
poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Program (CARP).
Thus, in May 1993, petitioner applied for the
exemption/exclusion of its several
properties from the coverage of the CARL,
pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of
this Court in Luz Farms.
Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
issued Administrative Order No. 9, Series of
1993 (DAR A.O. No. 9), setting forth rules
and regulations to govern the exclusion of
agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry,
and swine raising from CAR coverage. Thus,
on January 10, 1994, petitioner
redocumented its application pursuant to
DAR A.O. No. 9.
Acting on the said application, the DARs
Land Use Conversion and Exemption
Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted
an ocular inspection on petitioners property
and arrived with a recommendation for the
exemption of petitioners 316.0422hectare
property from the coverage of CARP.
Adopting the LUCECs findings and
recommendation, DAR Regional Director
Percival Dalugdug (Director Dalugdug)
issued an Order dated June 27, 1994,
exempting petitioners 316.0422 hectare
property from CARP.
The Southern Pinugay Farmers MultiPurpose
Cooperative, Inc. (Pinugay Farmers),
represented by Timiano Balajadia, Sr.
(Balajadia), moved for the reconsideration

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
of the said Order, but the same was denied

by Director Dalugdug in his Order dated
November 24, 1994. Subsequently, the
Pinugay Farmers filed a letterappeal with
the DAR Secretary.
Correlatively, on June 4, 1994, petitioner
filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against
Balajadia and company before the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of TeresaBaras,
Rizal. The MCTC ruled in favor of petitioner,
but the decision was later reversed by the
Regional Trial Court, Ultimately, the case
reached the CA, which, in its Decision dated
October 8, 1999, reinstated the MCTCs
ruling, ordering Balajadia and all defendants
therein to vacate portions of the property.
In its Resolution dated July 31, 2000, the CA
held that the defendants therein failed to
timely file a motion for reconsideration,
given the fact that their counsel of record
received its October 8, 1999 Decision;
hence, the same became final and
executory.
In the meantime, R.A. No. 6657 was
amended by R.A. No. 7881, which was
approved on February 20, 1995. Private
agricultural lands devoted to livestock,
poultry, and swine raising were excluded
from the coverage of the CARL. On October
22, 1996, the factfinding team formed by
the DAR Undersecretary for Field Operations
and Support Services conducted an actual
headcount of the livestock population on
the property. The headcount showed that

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
there were 448 heads of cattle and more

than 5,000 heads of swine.
On January 21, 1997, then DAR Secretary
Ernesto D. Garilao (Secretary Garilao) issued
an Order exempting from CARP only
240.9776 hectares of the 316.0422 hectares
previously exempted by Director Dalugdug,
and declaring 75.0646 hectares of the
property to be covered by CARP.
Secretary Garilao opined that, for private
agricultural lands to be excluded from CARP,
they must already be devoted to livestock,
poultry, and swine raising as of June 15,
1988, when the CARL took effect. He found
that the Certificates of Ownership of Large
Cattle submitted by petitioner showed that
only 86 heads of cattle were registered in
the name of petitioners president, Misael
Vera, Jr., prior to June 15, 1988; 133 were
subsequently bought in 1990, while 204
were registered from 1992 to 1995.
Secretary Garilao gave more weight to the
certificates rather than to the headcount
because the same explicitly provide for the
number of cattle owned by petitioner as of
June 15, 1988.
Applying the animalland ratio (1 hectare for
grazing for every head of
cattle/carabao/horse) and the
infrastructureanimal ratio (1.7815 hectares
for 21 heads of cattle/carabao/horse, and
0.5126 hectare for 21 heads of hogs) under
DAR A.O. No. 9, Secretary Garilao exempted
240.9776 hectares of the property.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, however, Secretary Garilao
denied petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed its Memorandum
on Appeal before the Office of the President
(OP). On February 4, 2000, the OP rendered
a decision reinstating Director Dalugdugs
Order dated June 27, 1994 and declared the
entire 316.0422hectare property exempt
from the coverage of CARP.
However, on separate motions for
reconsideration of the aforesaid decision
filed by farmergroups Samahang AnakPawis
ng Lagundi (SAPLAG) and Pinugay Farmers,
and the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
of DAR, the OP issued a resolution dated
September 16, 2002, setting aside its
previous decision and a new one entered
REINSTATING the Order dated 21 January
1997 of then DAR Secretary Ernesto D.
Garilao.
On April 29, 2005, the CA found that, based
on the documentary evidence presented,
the property subject of the application for
exclusion had more than satisfied the animal
-and and infrastructure-animal ratios under
DAR A.O. No. 9. The CA also found that
petitioner applied for exclusion long before
the effectivity of DAR A.O. No. 9, thus,
negating the claim that petitioner merely
converted the property for livestock,
poultry, and swine raising in order to
exclude it from CARP coverage.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Meanwhile, six months earlier, or on

November 4, 2004, without the knowledge
of the CA as the parties did not inform the
appellate court then DAR Secretary Rene C.
Villa (Secretary Villa) issued DAR Conversion
Order No. CON04100016 (Conversion
Order), granting petitioners application to
convert portions of the 316.0422hectare
property from agricultural to residential and
golf courses use.
On the CAs decision of April 29, 2005,
Motions for Reconsideration were filed by
farmergroups, namely: the farmers
represented by Miguel Espinas (Espinas
group), the Pinugay Farmers, and the
SAPLAG. The farmergroups all claimed that
the CA should have accorded respect to the
factual findings of the OP. Moreover, the
farmergroups unanimously intimated that
petitioner already converted and developed
a portion of the property into a
leisureresidentialcommercial estate known
as the Palo Alto Leisure and Sports Complex
(Palo Alto).
With the CA now made aware of these
developments, particularly Secretary Villas
Conversion Order of November 4, 2004, the
appellate court had to acknowledge that the
property subject of the controversy would
now be limited to the remaining 162.7373
hectares. In the same token, the Espinas
group prayed that this remaining area be
covered by the CARP.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
CA amended its decision and the 162.7373

hectare agricultural portion is declared
covered by CARP. Petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration but was denied.
[Source:
m/2018/08/milestone-farms-vs-office-of-
president.html]
10. Central Mindanao Exemptions and CMU is an agricultural university. From its WON subject land is NO. The 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB and
University v. Exclusions beginning, the school was the answer to the covered by CARP affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated August
DARAB Sec. 10 crying need for training people in order to 20, 1990, is not covered by the CARP because:
G.R. No. 100091, develop the agricultural potential of the 1. It is not alienable and disposable land of the public
Oct 22, 1992, island of Mindanao. Those who planned and domain;
215 SCRA 86 (1992) established the school had a vision as to the 2. The CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific limits
En Banc future development of that part of the as determined by Congress;
Campos, Jr., J. Philippines. 3. It is private land registered and titled in the name of its
Pres. Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation No. lawful owner, the CMU;
(Compare with the 476, withdrawing from sale or settlement 4. It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A. 6657
case of DAR v. and reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural because the lands are actually, directly and exclusively used
DECS) College, a site which would be the future and found to be necessary for school site and campus,
campus of what is now the CMU. including experimental farm stations for educational purposes,
In the course of the cadastral hearing of the and for establishing seed and seedling research and pilot
school's petition for registration of the production centers
aforementioned grant of agricultural land,
several tribes belonging to cultural
communities, opposed the petition claiming
ownership of certain ancestral lands forming
part of the tribal reservations. Some of the
claims were granted so that what was titled
to the present petitioner school was
reduced from 3,401 hectares to 3,080
hectares.
In 1984, the CMU approved Resolution No.
160, adopting a livelihood program called

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
"Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program" under

which the land resources of the University
were leased to its faculty and employees.
This arrangement was covered by a written
contract. Under this program the faculty and
staff combine themselves to groups of five
members each, and the CMU provided
technical know-how, practical training and
all kinds of assistance, to enable each group
to cultivate 4 to 5 hectares of land for the
lowland rice project. Each group pays the
CMU a service fee and also a land use
participant's fee. The contract prohibits
participants and their hired workers to
establish houses or live in the project area
and to use the cultivated land as a collateral
for any kind of loan. It was expressly
stipulated that no landlord-tenant
relationship existed between the CMU and
the faculty and/or employees. This
particular program was conceived as a multi-
disciplinary applied research extension and
productivity program to utilize available
land, train people in modern agricultural
technology and at the same time give the
faculty and staff opportunities within the
confines of the CMU reservation to earn
additional income to augment their salaries.
When petitioner Dr. Leonardo Chua became
President of the CMU in July 1986, he
discontinued the Agri-Business Management
and Training Project, due to losses incurred
while carrying on the said project. Some
CMU personnel, among whom were the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
complainants, were laid-off when this

project was discontinued.
Another project was launched o develop
unutilized land resources, mobilize and
promote the spirit of self-reliance, provide
socio-economic and technical training in
actual field project implementation and
augment the income of the faculty and the
staff. This has the same nature as of the
Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program with an
express provision that there would be no
tenant-landlord relationship.
The contract expired. Some were renewed,
some were not. The non-renewal of the
contracts, the discontinuance of the rice,
corn and sugar cane project, the loss of jobs
due to termination or separation from the
service and the alleged harassment by
school authorities, all contributed to, and
precipitated the filing of the complaint.
DARAB found that the private respondents
were not tenants and cannot therefore be
beneficiaries under the CARP. At the same
time, the DARAB ordered the segregation of
400 hectares of suitable, compact and
contiguous portions of the CMU land and
their inclusion in the CARP for distribution to
qualified beneficiaries.
Complainants Obrique, et al. claimed that
they are tenants of the CMU and/or landless
peasants claiming/occupying a part or
portion of the CMU.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
[Source:
https://lexphil.blogspot.com/2015/05/centr
al-mindanao-university-vs-darab.html]
11. DAR v. DECS Exemptions and Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D consists of WON the subject NO. Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands
G.R. No. 158228, Exclusions an aggregate area of 189.2462 hectares properties are exempt which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the
Mar 23, 2004, Sec. 10 located at Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros from the coverage of purposes of their exemption, viz:
426 SCRA 217 Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Republic Act No. 6657,
(2004) Negros Occidental, respectively. On October otherwise known as the xxxxxxxxx
First Division 21, 1921, these lands were donated by Comprehensive Agrarian
Ynares-Santiago, J. Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS. Reform Law of 1988 c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
Titles were transferred in the name of (CARL) necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses,
respondent DECS. including experimental farm stations operated by public or
DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural private schools for educational purposes, … , shall be exempt
Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years, from the coverage of this Act.
commencing from crop year 1984-1985 to
crop year 1993-1994. The contract of lease xxxxxxxxx
was subsequently renewed for another 10
agricultural crop years, commencing from Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be
crop year1995-1996 to crop year 2004-2005. exempt from the coverage: 1) the land must be "actually,
June 10, 1993: Eugenio Alpar et.al, claim to directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;" and
be permanent and regular farm workers of 2) the purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including
the subject lands, filed a petition for experimental farm stations operated by public or private
Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program schools for educational purposes."
(CARP) coverage with the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante The importance of the phrase "actually, directly, and
After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, exclusively used and found to be necessary" cannot be
sent a “Notice of Coverage” to respondent understated, as what respondent DECS would want us to do by
DECS, stating that the lands are covered by not taking the words in their literal and technical definitions.
CARP and inviting its representatives for a The words of the law are clear and unambiguous. Thus, the
conference with the farmer beneficiaries. "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is
Then, MARO Piñosa submitted his report to applicable in this case. Where the words of a statute are clear,
OIC-PARO Stephen M. Leonidas, who plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal
recommended to the DAR Regional Director meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
the approval of the coverage of the We are not unaware of our ruling in the case of Central
landholdings. Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform
August 7, 1998: DAR Regional Director Adjudication Board, wherein we declared the land subject
Andres approved the recommendation and thereof exempt from CARP coverage. However, respondent
directed Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to DECS’ reliance thereon is misplaced because the factual
facilitate acquisition and distribution of circumstances are different in the case at bar.
landholdings to qualified beneficiaries.
DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Firstly, in the CMU case, the land involved was not alienable
Agrarian Reform which affirmed the Order and disposable land of the public domain because it was
of the Regional Director. reserved by the late President Carlos P. Garcia under
Aggrieved DECS filed a petition for certiorari Proclamation No. 476 for the use of Mindanao Agricultural
with the Court of Appeals, which set aside College (now CMU). In this case, however, the lands fall under
the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian the category of alienable and disposable lands of the public
Reform. Hence, the instant petition for domain suitable for agriculture.
review.
Secondly, in the CMU case, the land was actually, directly and
[Source: exclusively used and found to be necessary for school sites and
https://www.scribd.com/document/156708 campuses. Although a portion of it was being used by the
076/DAR-v-DECS-Digest] Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Phils., Inc.)
under a "Management and Development Agreement", the
undertaking was that the land shall be used by the Philippine
Packing Corporation as part of the CMU research program,
with direct participation of faculty and students. Moreover,
the land was part of the land utilization program developed by
the CMU for its "Kilusang Sariling Sikap Project" (CMU-KSSP), a
multi-disciplinary applied research extension and productivity
program. Hence, the retention of the land was found to be
necessary for the present and future educational needs of the
CMU. On the other hand, the lands in this case were not
actually and exclusively utilized as school sites and campuses,
as they were leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation, not for
educational purposes but for the furtherance of its business.
Also, as conceded by respondent DECS, it was the income from
the contract of lease and not the subject lands that was

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
directly used for the repairs and renovations of the schools in

the locality.
12. Roxas & Co. v. Exemptions and Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is WON PP 1520 reclassified NO. PP 1520 did not automatically convert the agricultural
DAMBA-NFSW Exclusions the registered owner of three haciendas. On in 1975 all lands in the lands in the three municipalities including Nasugbu to non-
G.R. No. 149548, Sec. 10 July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Maragondon-Ternate- agricultural lands.
Dec 04, 2009, Philippines formally convened and took over Nasugbu tourism zone to PP 1520 merely recognized the "potential tourism value" of
607 SCRA 33 (2009) legislative power from the President. This non- agricultural use to certain areas within the general area declared as tourism
En Banc Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the exempt Roxas & Co.’s zones. It did not reclassify the areas to non-agricultural use.
Carpio-Morales, J. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) three haciendas in It bears emphasis that a mere reclassification of an agricultural
of 1988. The Act was signed by the President Nasugbu from CARP land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its
on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, coverage use since there is still that process of conversion before one is
1988. Before the law’s effectivity, on May 6, permitted to use it for other purposes.
1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent Roxas & Co. can only look to the provisions of the Tourism Act,
DAR a voluntary offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda and not to PP 1520, for possible exemption.
Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O.
No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were
later placed under compulsory acquisition
by DAR in accordance with the CARL. On
August 6, 1992 [Roxas & Co.], through its
President, sent a letter to the Secretary of
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.
The petitions nub on the interpretation of
Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1520 reads:
DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF
MARAGONDON AND TERNATE IN CAVITE
PROVINCE AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
NASUGBU IN BATANGAS AS A TOURIST

ZONE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed its application
for conversion of its three haciendas from
agricultural to non-agricultural on the
assumption that the issuance of PP 1520
which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a
tourism zone, reclassified them to non-
agricultural uses. Its pending application
notwithstanding, the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of
Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to the
farmer-beneficiaries in the three haciendas
including CLOA No. 6654 which was issued
on October 15, 1993 covering 513.983
hectares, the subject of G.R. No. 167505.
Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an
application for exemption from the coverage
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) of 1988 on the basis of PP
1520 and of DAR Administrative Order (AO)
No. 6, Series of 19943 which states that all
lands already classified as commercial,
industrial, or residential before the
effectivity of CARP no longer need
conversion clearance from the DAR.
[https://www.scribd.com/document/24677
8051/Roxas-vs-Co-vs-Damba-NFSW-2009-
Case-Digest]
13. Buklod ng Exemptions and At the core of the controversy are several WON subject property NO. Section 4, Chapter II of the CARL, as amended,24
Magbubukid v. Exclusions parcels of unirrigated land (303.38545 could be placed under the particularly defines the coverage of the CARP, to wit:
E.M. Ramos & Sons Sec. 10 hectares) which from part of a larger CARP
G.R. No. 131481, expanse with an area of 372 hectares SEC. 4. Scope. - The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
Mar 16, 2011, situated at Barangay Langkaan, Dasmarinas, 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
645 SCRA 401 Cavite. Originally owned by the MAnila Golf commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands
(2001) and Country Club, he property was aquired as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No.
First Division by the [herein repondent EMRASON] in 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for
Leonardo-De 1965 for the purpose of developing the agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a
Castro, J. same into a residential subdivision known as total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered
"Traveller's Life Homes". for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
Sometime in 1971, the Municipal Council of
DasmariÃ±as, Cavite, acting pursuant to More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 2264, otherwise
known as the "Loval Autonomy Act", (a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
enacteed Municipal Ordinance No. 1, devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of
hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No. 1, forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be
enitled "An Ordinance Providing Subdivision undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking
Regulation and Providing Penalties for into account ecological, developmental and equity
Violation Thereof." considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific
In May, 1972, [respondent] E.M. Ramos and limits of the public domain;
Sons, Inc., applied for an authority to
convert and development its (b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits
aforementioned 372-hectare property into a as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
residential subdivision, ataching to the
apllication detailed development plans and (c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or
development proposals from Bancom suitable for agriculture; and
Development Corporation and San Miguel
Corporation. Acting thereon the Municipal (d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
Council of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite passed on regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be
July 9, 1972 Municipal Ordinance No. 29-A raised thereon.
(Ordinance "No. 29-A, for brevity),
approving [EMRASON's] application. A comprehensive inventory system in consonance with the
Subsequently, [EMRASON] paid the fees, national land use plan shall be instituted by the Department of
dues and licenses needed to proceed with Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local
property development. Government Code, for the purpose of properly identifying and
It appears, however, that the actual classifying farmlands within one (1) year from effectivity of this
implementation of the subdivision project /Vet. without prejudice to the implementation of the land
suffered delay owing to the confluence of acquisition and distribution." (Emphases supplied.)

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
events. Among these was the fact that the

property in question was then mortgaged Section 3(c), Chapter I of the CARL further narrows down the
to, and the titles thereto were in the definition of agricultural land that is subject to CARP to "land
possession of, the Overseas Bank of Manila, devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not
which during the period material was under classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
liquidation. industrial land."
On June 15. 1988, Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive The CARL took effect on June 15, 1988. To be exempt from the
Agrarian Reform Law or CARL, took effect, CARP, the subject property should have already been
ushering in a new process of land reclassified as residential prior to said date.
classification, acquisition and distribution.
On September 23, 1988, the Municipal The Court reiterates that since July 9, 1972, upon approval of
Mayor of DasmariÃ±as, Cavite addressed a Resolution No. 29-A by the Municipality of Dasmarinas, the
letter to [EMRASON], stating in part, as subject property had been reclassified from agricultural to
follows: residential. The tax declarations covering the subject property,
classifying the same as agricultural, cannot prevail over
"In reply to your letter of June 2, 1988, we Resolution No. 29-A. The following pronouncements of the
wish to clarify that the Municipality of Court in the Patalinghug case are of particular relevance
Dasmarinas, Cavite, has approved the herein:
development of your property situated in
Barrios Bukal and Langkaan, Dasmarinas, The reversal by the Court of Appeals of the trial court's
Cavite, with a total area of 372 hectares, decision was based on Tepoot's building being declared for
more or less, into residential, industrial, taxation purposes as residential. It is our considered view,
commercial and golf course project. This however, that a tax declaration is not conclusive of (he nature
conversion conforms with the approved of the property for zoning purposes. A property may have
Development Plan of the Municipality of been declared by its owner as residential for real estate
Dasmarinas Cavite". taxation purposes but it may well be within a commercial
zone. A discrepancy may thus exist in the determination of the
On August 29, 1990, then OAR Secretary nature of property for real estate taxation purposes vis-a-vis
Benjamin Leong sent out the first of four the determination of a property for zoning purposes.
batches of notices of acquisition, each of
which drew protest from [EMRASON]. All xxxx
told, these notices covered 303.38545
hectares of land situated at Barangay

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Langkaan, Dasmarinas, Cavite owned by The trial court's determination that Mr. Tepoot's building is
[EMRASON]. commercial and, therefore, Sec. 8 is inapplicable, is
In the meantime, [EMRASON] filed with the strengthened by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlungsod has
Department of Agrarian Reform declared the questioned area as commercial or C-2.
Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region IV, Consequently, even if Tepoot's building was declared for
Pasig, Metro Manila, separate petitions to taxation purposes as residential, once a local government has
nullify the first three sets of the above reclassified an area as commercial, that determination for
notices. Collectively docketed as DARAB zoning purposes must prevail. While the commercial character
Case No. IV-Ca-0084-92, these petitions of the questioned vicinity has been declared thru the
were subsequently referred to the Office of ordinance, private respondents have failed to present
the Regional Director, Region IV, which had convincing arguments to substantiate their claim that
jurisdiction thereon. In his referral action, Cabaguio Avenue, where the funeral parlor was constructed,
the Provincial Agrarian Adjudicator directed was still a residential zone. Unquestionably, the operation of a
the DAR Region IV, through its Operations funeral parlor constitutes a "commercial purpose," as gleaned
Division, to conduct a hearing and/or from Ordinance No. 363
investigation lo determine whether or not
the subject property is covered by the Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program land by virtue of Resolution No. 29-A dated July 9, 1972, it is
(CARP) and, if not, to cancel the notices of no longer agricultural land by the time the CARL took effect on
acquisition. June 15, 1988 and is, therefore, exempt from the CARP.
Forthwith, the DAR regional office
conducted an on-site inspection of the
subject property.
In the course of the hearing, during which
[EMRASON] offered Exhibits :'A" to "UU-2"
as documentary evidence, [EMRASON]
received another set of notices of
acquisition. As lo be expected, [EMRASON]
again protested.
On August 28, 1992, the Legal Division of
DAR, Region IV, through Hearing Officer
Victor Baguilat, rendered a decision
declaring as null and void all the notices of
acquisitions, observing that the property

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
covered thereby is, pursuant to Department

of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, series of
1990, exempt from CARP.
The DOJ Opinion adverted to, rendered by
then Justice Secretary Franklin Drilon,
clarified that lands already converted to
non-agricultural uses before June 15, 1988
were no longer covered by CARP.
On September 3, 1992, the Region IV DAR
Regional Director motu propio elevated the
case to the Office of the Agrarian Reform
Secretary, it being his view that Hearing
Officer Baguilat's decision ran contrary to
the department's official position "to pursue
the coverage of the same properties and its
eventual distribution to qualified
beneficiaries particularly the Langkaan
farmers in fulfillment of the commitment of
the government to deliver to them the
balance of thirty-nine hectares x x x".
On January 6, 1993, the herein respondent
DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao [(DAR
Secretary Garilao)] issued an order affirming
the Notices of Acquisition and Directing the
OAR field officials concerned to pursue (he
coverage under RA 6657 of the properties of
E.M. Ramos & Sons, Inc. for which subject
Notices of Acquisition had been issued.
Its motion for reconsideration of the
aforesaid order having been denied by the
[DAR Secretary Garilao] in his subsequent
order of January 6, 1993, [EMRASON]
appealed to the Office of the President.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On February 7, 1996, the Office of the

President, through herein respondent
Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C.
Corona [(Deputy Executive Secretary
Corona)], rendered the herein assailed
decision x x x, dismissing [EMRASON's]
appeal.
Undaunted, [EMRASON] interposed a
motion for reconsideration, followed later
by another motion whereunder it invited
attention to legal doctrines involving land
conversion recently enunciated by no less
than the Office of the President itself.
On May 14, 1996, the [Deputy Executive
Secretary Corona] came out with his second
challenged issuance denying [EMRASON's]
aforementioned motion for reconsideration
x x x.
From the denial of its Motion for
Reconsideration by the OP, EMRASON filed a
Petition for Review with the Court of
Appeals.
On July 3, 1996, the Court of Appeals issued
a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which
enjoined then DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao
and Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C.
Corona from implementing the OP Decision
of February 7, 1996 and Resolution of May
14, 1996 until further orders from the court.
On September 17, 1996, the appellate court
issued a Resolution granting the prayer of
EMRASON for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
The DAR Secretary filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Resolution dated
September 17, 1996 of the Court of Appeals,
with the prayer that the writ of preliminary
injunction already issued be lifted, recalled
and/or dissolved.
At this juncture, the DAR had already
prepared Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) to distribute the subject
property to farmer-beneficiaries. However,
the writ of preliminary injunction issued by
the Court of Appeals enjoined the release of
the CLOAs. Buklod, on behalf of the alleged
300 farmer-beneficiaries of the subject
property, filed a Manifestation and Omnibus
Motion, wherein it moved that it be allowed
to intervene as an indispensable party in CA-
G.R. SP No. 40950; that the writ of
preliminary injunction be immediately
dissolved, having been issued in violation of
Section 55 of the CARL; and that the Petition
for Review of EMRASON be dismissed since
the appropriate remedy should have been a
petition for certiorari before the Supreme
Court.
The Court of Appeals allowed the
intervention of Buklod because -the latter's
participation was "not being in any way
prejudicial to the interest of the original
parties, nor will such intervention change
the factual legal complexion of the case."
The appellate court, however, affirmed the
propriety of the remedy availed by
EMRASON given that under Section 5 of

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Supreme Court Revised Administrative

Circular No. 1-95 dated May 16, 1995,
appeals from judgments or final orders of
the OP or the DAR under the CARL shall be
taken to the Court of Appeals, through a
verified petition for review; and that under
Section 3 of the same Administrative
Circular, such a petition for review may raise
questions of facts, law, or mixed questions
of facts and law.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals ruled in
favor of EMRASON because the subject
property was already converted/classified as
residential by the Municipality of
Dasmarinas prior to the effectivity of the
CARL.. The Court of Appeals further
observed that the subject property has
never been devoted to any agricultural
activity and is, in fact, more suitable for non-
agricultural purposes.
[Source:
m/2018/08/buklod-nang-magbubukid-sa-
lupaing-ramos.html]
14. Republic v. Exemptions and Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of WON the Lopez and Limot The Lopez lands of SNLABC are actually and directly being used
Salvador N. Lopez Exclusions land with an aggregate area of 160.1161 lands of SNLABC can be for livestock and are thus exempted from the coverage of the
Agri Business Corp. Sec. 10 hectares registered in the name of Salvador considered grazing lands CARL. However, the Limot lands of SNLABC are not actually
G.R. No. 178895, N. Lopez AgriBusiness Corporation. Said for its livestock business and directly being used for livestock and should thus be
Jan. 10, 2011, parcels of land are hereinafter described as and are thus exempted covered by the CARL.
639 SCRA 49 (2011) follows: from the coverage of the
Third Division CARL under the Court’s In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Sereno, J. ruling in Luz Farms v. DAR. Reform, the Court declared unconstitutional the CARL
provisions that included lands devoted to livestock under the
coverage of the CARP.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian

Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga In the instant case, the MARO in its ocular inspection found on
issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner the Lopez lands several heads of cattle, carabaos, horses,
with regards (sic) to the aforementioned goats and pigs, some of which were covered by several
landholdings which were subsequently certificates of ownership. There were likewise structures on
placed under Compulsory Acquisition the Lopez lands used for its livestock business, structures
pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive consisting of two chutes where the livestock were kept during
Agrarian Reform Law). nighttime. The existence of the cattle prior to the enactment
On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with of the CARL was positively affirmed by the farm workers and
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office the overseer who were interviewed by the MARO. Considering
(PARO), Davao Oriental, an Application for these factual findings and the fact that the lands were in fact
Exemption of the lots covered by TCT No. being used for SNLABC’s livestock business even prior to 15
T12637 and T12639 from CARP coverage. It June 1988, the DAR Regional Director ordered the exemption
alleged that pursuant to the case of Luz of the Lopez lands from CARP coverage. The Court gives great
Farms v. DAR Secretary said parcels of land probative value to the actual, on-site investigation made by
are exempted from coverage as the said the MARO as affirmed by the DAR Regional Director. The Court
parcels of land with a total area of 110.5455 finds that the Lopez lands were in fact actually, directly and
hectares are used for grazing and habitat of exclusively being used as industrial lands for livestock-raising.
petitioners 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos,
11 horses, 9 heads of goats and 18 heads of The tax declarations of the Lopez lands as agricultural lands
swine, prior to the effectivity of the are not conclusive or final, so as to prevent their exclusion
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law from CARP coverage as lands devoted to livestock-raising.
(CARL). Indeed, the MARO’s on-site inspection and actual investigation
On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, showing that the Lopez lands were being used for livestock-
the MARO conducted an onsite investigation grazing are more convincing in the determination of the
on the two parcels of land confirming the nature of those lands.
presence of the livestock as enumerated.
The Investigation Report dated March 9, In contrast, the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands
1993 stated: devoted to coconut trees and rubber and are thus not subject
to exemption from CARP coverage.
“Cognitive thereto, we are favorably
recommending for the exemption from the Verily, the MARO itself, in the Investigation Report cited by no
coverage of CARP based on LUZ FARMS as less than SNLABC, found that the livestock were only moved to
enunciated by the Supreme Court the herein the Limot lands sporadically and were not permanently

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Lot No. 1293-B Psd-65835 under TCT No. designated there. The DAR Secretary even described SNLABC’s
T12639 except Lot No. 1298, Cad. 286 of TCT use of the area as a "seasonal extension of the applicant’s
No. T12637 which is already covered under ‘grazing lands’ during the summer." Therefore, the Limot lands
the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Scheme cannot be claimed to have been actually, directly and
and had already been valued by the Land exclusively used for SNLABC’s livestock business, especially
Valuation Office, Land Bank of the since these were only intermittently and secondarily used as
Philippines.” grazing areas. The said lands are more suitable -- and are in
fact actually, directly and exclusively being used -- for
On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T12635 covering agricultural purposes.
Lots 1454A & 1296 was cancelled and a new
one issued in the name of the Republic of
the Philippines under RP T16356. On
February 7, 1994, petitioner through its
President, Salvador N. Lopez, Jr., executed a
letteraffidavit addressed to the respondent
Secretary requesting for the exclusion from
CARP coverage of Lots 1454A and 1296 on
the ground that they needed the additional
area for its livestock business. On March 28,
1995, petitioner filed before the DAR
Regional Director of Davao City an
application for the exemption from CARP
coverage of Lots 1454A and 1296 stating
that it has been operating grazing lands even
prior to June 15, 1988 and that the said two
(2) lots form an integral part of its grazing
land.
The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting
the properties, issued an Order dated March
5, 1997 denying the application for
exemption of Lots 1454A and 1296 on the
ground that it was not clearly shown that
the same were actually, directly and
exclusively used for livestock raising since in

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
its application, petitioner itself admitted

that it needs the lots for additional grazing
area. The application for exemption,
however of the other two (2) parcels of land
was approved.
On its partial motion for reconsideration,
petitioner argued that Lots 1454A & 1296
were taken beyond the operation of the
CARP pursuant to its reclassification to a
Pollutive Industrial District (Heavy Industry)
per Resolution No. 39 of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Mati, Davao Oriental, enacted on
April 7, 1992. The DAR Regional Director
denied the Motion.
The petitioner appealed the Regional
Directors Orders to respondent DAR. On
June 10, 1998, the latter issued its assailed
Order affirming the Regional Directors ruling
on Lots 1454A & 1296 and further declared
Lots 1298 and 1293B as covered by the
CARP.
On October 17, 2002, petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration was denied by respondent
prompting the former to file the instant
petition.
The Court of Appeals partially granted the
SNLABC Petition and excluded the two (2)
parcels of land (Transfer Certificate of Title
[TCT] Nos. T12637 and T12639) located in
Barrio Don Enrique Lopez (the Lopez lands)
from coverage of the CARL.
However, it upheld the Decisions of the
Regional Director and the DAR Secretary
denying the application for exemption with

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
respect to Lots 1454A and 1296 (previously

under TCT No. T12635) in Barrio Limot (the
Limot lands). These lots were already
covered by a new title under the name of
the Republic of the Philippines (RP T16356).
The DAR and SNLABC separately sought a
partial reconsideration of the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals, but their
motions for reconsideration were
subsequently denied.
[Source:
m/2018/08/dar-vs-salvador-n-lopez-
agribusiness.html]
15. Province of Exemptions and On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang WON the expropriation of NO. It is true that local government units have no inherent
Camarines Sur v. Exclusions Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines agricultural lands by local power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when
CA Sec. 10 Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of government units is expressly authorized by the legislature (City of Cincinnati v.
G.R. No. 103125, 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to subject, to the prior Vester, 28l US 439, 74 L.ed. 950, 50 SCt. 360). It is also true
May 17, 1993, purchase or expropriate property approval of the Secretary that in delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature
222 SCRA 173 contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in of the Agrarian Reform, as may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the
(1993) order to establish a pilot farm for non-food the implementator of the exercise thereof by the local governments (Joslin Mfg. Co. v.
First Division and non-traditional agricultural crops and a agrarian reform program Providence, 262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684). While
Quiason, J. housing project for provincial government such delegated power may be a limited authority, it is
employees. complete within its limits. Moreover, the limitations on the
exercise of the delegated power must be clearly expressed,
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations.
through its Governor, Hon. Luis R.
Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant
expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local Government Code,
and Efren N. San Joaquin. which provides:
The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the A local government unit may, through its head and acting
complaints on the ground of inadequacy of pursuant to a resolution of its sanggunian exercise the right of
the price offered for their property.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
eminent domain and institute condemnation proceedings for

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss public use or purpose.
and authorized the Province of Camarines
Sur to take possession of the property upon Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that
the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the local government, units must first secure the approval of the
amount of P5,714.00, the amount Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from
provisionally fixed by the trial court to agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute
answer for damages that private the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no
respondents may suffer in the event that the provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by
court issued a writ of possession in an order local government units to the control of the Department of
dated January18, 1990. Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law that the Court of
Appeals could cite to justify the intervention of the
Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his Department of Agrarian Reform in expropriation matters is
Comment to the petition, the Solicitor Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which
General stated that under Section 9 of the reads:
Local Government Code, there was no need
for the approval by the Office of the Sec. 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5)
President of the exercise by the Sangguniang years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically
Panlalawigan of the right of eminent feasible and sound for, agricultural purposes, or the locality
domain. However, the Solicitor General has become urbanized and the land will have a greater
expressed the view that the Province of economic value for residential, commercial or industrial
Camarines Sur must first secure the approval purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the
of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and
plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or
for use as a housing project. conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the
beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
The Court of Appeals set aside the order of
the trial court, allowing the Province of The opening, adverbial phrase of the provision sends signals
Camarines Sur to take possession of private that it applies to lands previously placed under the agrarian
respondents' lands and the order denying reform program as it speaks of "the lapse of five (5) years from
the admission of the amended motion to its award."
dismiss. It also ordered the trial court to
suspend the expropriation proceedings until

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
after the Province of Camarines Sur shall The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4
have submitted the requisite approval of the (k) and 5 (1) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987,
Department of Agrarian Reform to convert cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of
the classification of the property of the Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of
private respondents from agricultural to agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted
non-agricultural land. by the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the
[Source: Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to
http://eightsubjects.blogspot.com/2013/08/ approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for
province-of-camarines-sur-vs-ca.html] residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is
limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the
land owners or tenant beneficiaries.
Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political

subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted by
implication (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d.
817, 219 NYS 2d. 241).
To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local

government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands
needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools,
hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use
of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because
all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the
land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of
Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for
a public purpose or public use.
Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government

unit that shall determine whether the use of the property
sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an
expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such
legislative determination and will intervene only when a
particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the
public use (United States Ex Rel Tennessee Valley Authority v.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Welch, 327 US 546, 90 L. ed. 843, 66 S Ct 715; State ex rel Twin

City Bldg. and Invest. Co. v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 1, 174 NW
885, 8 ALR 585).
16. Hacienda Luisita v. Land Valuation Before the Court are the Motion to Clarify WON in determining the We maintain that the date of "taking" is November 21, 1989,
PARC Sec. 17 and Reconsider Resolution of November 22, just compensation, the the date when PARC approved HLI’s SDP per PARC Resolution
G.R. No. 171101 2011 dated December 16, 2011 filed by date of "taking" is No. 89-12-2, in view of the fact that this is the time that the
April 24, 2012 petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) and November 21, 1989, when FWBs were considered to own and possess the agricultural
670 SCRA 392 the Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification PARC approved HLI’S SDP lands in Hacienda Luisita. To be precise, these lands became
(2012) dated December 9, 2011 filed by private [stock distribution plan] subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the stock
En Banc respondents. "in view of the fact that distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is,
Velasco, Jr., J. HLI maintains that the Notice of Coverage this is the time that the November 21, 1989. Thus, such approval is akin to a notice of
issued on January 2, 2006 may, at the very FWBS were considered to coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition.
least, be considered as the date of "taking" own and possess the
as this was the only time that the agricultural lands in In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Livioco, the Court held that
agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita were Hacienda Luisita" "the ‘time of taking’ is the time when the landowner was
placed under compulsory acquisition in view deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when
of its failure to perform certain obligations title is transferred to the Republic." It should be noted,
under the SDP. January 2, 2006, was the however, that "taking" does not only take place upon the
date when the Notice of Coverage was issuance of title either in the name of the Republic or the
issued by the DAR pursuant to PARC beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
Resolution No. 2006-34-01 (CARP). "Taking" also occurs when agricultural lands are
recalling/revoking the approval of the SDP. voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for
Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, as in
Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA) contends that if the instant case. Thus, HLI’s submitting its SDP for approval is
HLI or Tadeco is, at all, entitled to just an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural lands of
compensation, the "taking" should be Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP. However, it was the
reckoned as of November 21, 1989, the date PARC approval which should be considered as the effective
when the SDP was approved, and the date of "taking" as it was only during this time that the
amount of compensation should be PhP government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these
40,000 per hectare as this was the same lands.
value declared in 1989 by Tadeco to ensure
that the FWBs will not control the majority
stockholdings in HLI.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
17. Land Bank v. Land Valuation Respondents, heirs of the deceased 1. WON since the The Court has repeatedly held that if just compensation was
Dumlao Sec. 17 Florentino G. Dumlao, were the co-owners properties were acquired not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be
G.R No. 167809 of several parcels of agricultural land with an pursuant to PD No. 27, the computed in accordance with said law, although the property
Nov. 27, 2008 aggregate area of 32.2379 hectares situated formula for computing was acquired under PD No. 27.
572 SCRA 108 at Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. just compensation In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao, the Court ruled
(2008) The properties were placed under Operation provided by said decree that taking into account the passage of RA No. 6657 in 1988
Third Division Land Transfer by the Department of and EO No. 228 should pending the settlement of just compensation, it is that law
Reyes, R.T., J. Agrarian Reform (DAR). However, the apply. which applies to landholdings seized under PD No. 27, with
definite time of actual taking was not stated. said decree and EO No. 288 having only suppletory effect.
Pursuant to PD No. 27 and Executive Order
(EO) No. 228, a preliminary valuation was Guided by this precept, just compensation for purposes of
made by the DAR on the landholdings agrarian reform under PD 27 should adhere to Section 17 of
covered by TCT Nos. 41504 and T-1180 with RA 6657.
a total area of 16.3939 hectares.
Finding the valuation to be correct, Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through
petitioner bank informed respondents of the Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended
said valuation. Payments were then by AO No. 11, Series of 1994,72 the pertinent portions of
deposited in the name of the landowners. which provide:
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands

covered by [Voluntary Offer to Sell] or [Compulsory
Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the
claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where: LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are
present, relevant and applicable.
A.1 When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are
applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
A.2 When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are
LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
A.3 When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is
LV = MV x 2
In no case shall the value of the land using the formula MV x 2

exceed the lowest value of land within the same estate under
consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in
that order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt
of claimfolder.
2. WON October 21, 1972 2. NO. The "taking" of the properties for the purpose of
(when PD 27 was issued) computing just compensation should be reckoned from the
should be deemed as the date of issuance of emancipation patents, and not on October
date of taking of the 21, 1972, as petitioner insists. The nature of the land at that
subject properties. time determines the just compensation to be paid.
It is undisputed that emancipation patents were issued to the

farmer-beneficiaries. However, their issuance dates are not
shown. As such, the trial court should determine the date of
issuance of these emancipation patents in order to ascertain

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
the date of taking and proceed to compute the just

compensation due to respondents, in accordance with RA No.
6657.
18. Land Bank v. Land Valuation Domingo and Mamerto Soriano 1. WON just 1. YES. If just compensation is not settled prior to the passage
Soriano Sec. 17 (respondents) are the registered owners of compensation should be of Republic Act No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance
G.R. No. 180772 several parcels of rice land situated in Oas, computed in accordance with the said law, although the property was acquired under
May 06, 2010 Albay. Out of the 18.9163 hectares of land with Republic Act No. Presidential Decree No. 27.
620 SCRA 347 owned by the respondents, 18.2820 6657, although the
(2010) hectares were placed under the Operations property was acquired The formula outlined in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series
Second Division Land Transfer and the CARP pursuant to under Presidential Decree of 1998 should be applied in computing just compensation,
Perez, J. Presidential Decree No. 274 and Republic No. 27. thus:
Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where: LV = Land Value
The LBP pegged the value of 18.0491 CNI = Capitalized Net Income
hectares of land at ₱482,363.957 CS = Comparable Sales
(₱133,751.65 as land value plus ₱348,612.30 MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
incremental interest), while the remaining
0.2329 hectare was computed at ₱8,238.94. As much as this Court would like to determine the proper
Not satisfied with the valuation, valuation based on the formula cited above, the records of this
respondents, on 23 November 2000, case are bereft of adequate data. To write finis to this case, we
instituted a Complaint for judicial uphold the amount derived from the old formula. However,
determination of just compensation with since the application of the new formula is a matter of law and
the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, thus, should be made applicable, the parties are not precluded
sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC). from asking for any additional amount as may be warranted by
Respondents alleged that they are entitled the new formula.
to an amount of not less than ₱4,500,000.00
as just compensation. 2. WON petitioners 2. YES. The concept of just compensation embraces not only
SORIANOs are entitled to the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the
On 21 February 2005, the SAC rendered a the 6% compounded owners of the land, but also payment within a reasonable time
judgment, ordering LBP to pay the interest per annum from from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation
respondents ₱894,584.94. the date of taking on 21 cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is
October 1972 until full made to suffer the consequences of being immediately
deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
payment of the just more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope
compensation. with his loss. To condition the payment upon LBP’s approval
and its release upon compliance with some documentary
requirements would render nugatory the very essence of
"prompt payment." Therefore, to expedite the payment of just
compensation, it is logical to conclude that the 6% interest
rate be imposed from the time of taking up to the time of full
payment of just compensation.
19. Land Bank v. Orilla Land Valuation Spouses Placido and Clara Orilla WON good reasons exist YES. The expropriation of private property under RA 6657 is a
G.R. No. 157206, Sec. 17 (respondents) were the owners of Lot No. 1, to justify the grant by the revolutionary kind of expropriation, being a means to obtain
Jun 27, 2008, 11-12706, situated in Bohol, containing an SAC of the motion for social justice by distributing land to the farmers, envisioning
556 SCRA 102 area of 23.3416 hectares. execution pending appeal freedom from the bondage to the land they actually till. As an
(2008) In November 1996, DAR-PARO of Bohol sent exercise of police power, it puts the landowner, not the
Third Division respondents a Notice of Land Valuation and government, in a situation where the odds are practically
Nachura, J. Acquisition informing them of the against him. He cannot resist it. His only consolation is that he
compulsory acquisition of 21.1289 hectares can negotiate for the amount of compensation to be paid for
of their landholdings pursuant to the CARL the property taken by the government. As expected, the
for P371,154.99 as compensation based on landowner will exercise this right to the hilt, subject to the
the valuation made by the Land Bank of the limitation that he can only be entitled to "just compensation."
Philippines (petitioner). Clearly therefore, by rejecting and disputing the valuation of
Respondents rejected the said valuation. the DAR, the landowner is merely exercising his right to seek
Provincial DARAB) conducted a summary just compensation.
hearing on the amount of just compensation
and affirmed the valuation made by the
petitioner.
Respondents filed an action for the

determination of just compensation before
the Regional Trial Court (as a Special
Agrarian Court [SAC]) of Tagbilaran City.
November 20, 2000, SAC rendered decision

fixing the just compensation at

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
P1,479,023.00 (equivalent to P7.00 per

square meter for 21.1289 hectares).
On December 11, 2000, petitioner filed a

Notice of Appeal.
On December 15, 2000, respondents filed a

Motion for Execution Pending Appeal,
claiming that the total amount adjudged by
the SAC as just compensation, could then be
withdrawn.
Meanwhile, on December 18, 2000, the DAR

filed its own Notice of Appeal.
On December 21, 2000, the SAC issued an

Order granting the Motion for Execution
Pending Appeal.
20. Land Bank v. Land Valuation Respondents are registered owners of a WON CA committed YES. While the determination of just compensation is
Barrido Sec. 17 parcel of land situated in Barangay serious errors of law when essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a
G.R. No. 183688, Apologista, Sara, Iloilo. it affirmed the said Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion
Aug. 18, 2010, On April 30, 2003, the government decision and order of the by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically
628 SCRA 454 expropriated a portion of the property trial court that fixed the identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian
(2010) under the Land Reform Program. just compensation which Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in
Second Division Petitioner offered respondents a total is not in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an
Nachura, J. amount of ₱60,385.49 as just compensation, the provisions of R.A. No. administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option
but respondents rejected the offer. 6657 as translated into a but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the
Respondents instituted an original action basic formula under DAR agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the
before the RTC for the judicial Administrative Order NO. determination of just compensation.
determination of just compensation. 5, Series of 1998.
RTC adopted a different formula in
determining land valuation by considering
the average between the findings of the DAR
using the formula laid down in E.O. 228 and

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
the market value of the property as stated in

the tax declaration.
21. Land Bank v. Land Valuation Respondent Conrado O. Colarina manifested WON the lower courts’ NO. The factors for the determination of just compensation in
Colarina Sec. 17 his voluntary offer to his sell three (3) computation of just Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, and consequently converted into
G.R. No. 176410, parcels of agricultural land to the DAR for compensation for the a formula in A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by A.O.
Sep. 1, 2010, coverage under CARL. subject properties is No. 11, Series of 1994, is mandatory. Land Bank of the
629 SCRA 614 correct. Philippines v. Sps. Banal, as affirmed by our subsequent
(2010) Disappointed with the low valuation by rulings, did not equivocate.
Second Division petitioner and the DAR, respondent filed a
Nachura, J. Complaint before the RTC, Branch 3, We note that A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992 (as amended by A.O.
Legazpi, Albay, for the judicial determination No. 11, Series of 1994) has been superseded by A.O. No. 5,
of just compensation. Series of 1998. However, A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998, is not
applicable to the present case as the subject properties were
During pre-trial, LBP manifested that the assessed and valued prior to its effectivity.
subject properties may be reassessed and
revaluated based on the new guidelines set However, the RTC, as well as the CA, was gravely mistaken in
forth in DAR A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994. using respondent’s valuation of the properties contained in
The respondent, to support his valuation of Oliva’s appraisal report. Oliva’s appraisal report did not attach
the subject properties, presented in pertinent documents thereto, considering that, as he had
evidence his own testimony and that of testified, he used the productivity approach.
Carlito M. Oliva (Oliva), then Assistant
Provincial Assessor of Camarines Sur and Thus, replacing the valuation of the subject properties
President of the Camarines Chapter of the pursuant to the determination of petitioner where the LV was
National Real Estate Association. pegged using the formula {CNI x 90%} + {MV x 2}, we arrive at
Thereafter, the SAC rendered a decision a different amount.
reconciling the conflicting evidence of the
parties. The SAC followed the formula of the
LBP and its land use classification of the
subject properties; the appraisal report on
the valuation thereof.
Both parties appealed to the CA. The

appellate court affirmed the ruling of the
SAC

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
22. Land Bank v. Land Valuation Respondent Leonila P. Celada owns WON the SAC a quo erred YES. The SAC erred in setting aside petitioner’s valuation of
Celada Sec. 17 agricultural in Calatrava, Carmen, Bohol in fixing the just respondent’s land on the sole basis of the higher valuation
G.R. No. 164876, identified in 1998 by the DAR as suitable for compensation of the land given for neighboring properties.
Jan. 23, 2006, compulsory acquisition under the CARP. based not on its actual
479 SCRA 495 LBP valued respondent's land at P2.1105517 land use but on the We note that it did not apply the DAR valuation formula since
(2006) per square meter for an aggregate value of valuation of neighboring according to the SAC, it is Section 17 of RA No. 6657 that
First Division P299,569.61. The DAR offered the same lands. "should be the principal basis of computation as it is the law
Ynares-Santiago, J. amount, but it was rejected. governing the matter". The SAC further held that said Section
The matter was referred to DARAB Region 17 "cannot be superseded by any administrative order of a
VII-Cebu City, for summary administrative government agency", thereby implying that the valuation
hearing on determination of just formula under DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998
compensation. (DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998), is invalid and of no effect.
While the DARAB case was pending,
respondent filed, on February 10, 2000, a While SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the
petition for judicial determination of just land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use
compensation against LBP, the DAR and the and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) declaration and the assessments made by the government
of Carmen, Bohol, before the Regional Trial assessors to determine just compensation, it is equally true
Court of Tagbilaran City. that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by
SAC set aside petitioner's valuation of the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of
respondent's land on the sole basis of the RA No. 6657. As the government agency principally tasked to
higher valuation given for neighboring implement the agrarian reform program, it is the DAR’s duty
properties. The SAC based its valuation of to issue rules and regulations to carry out the object of the
P354,847.50 solely on the observation that law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998 precisely "filled in the details" of
there was a 'patent disparity between the Section 17, RA No. 6657 by providing a basic formula by which
price given to respondent and the other the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. The
landowners. SAC was at no liberty to disregard the formula which was
devised to implement the said provision.
23. Land Bank v. Land Valuation On May 14, 1993, private respondents filed WON RTC erred in NO. Land Bank’s contention that the property was acquired for
Natividad Sec. 17 a petition before the trial court for the declaring that PD 27 and purposes of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the time of
G.R. No. 127198, determination of just compensation for their Executive Order No. 228 the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be
May 16, 2005, agricultural lands situated in Arayat, (EO 228) are mere based on the value of the property as of that time and not at
458 SCRA 441 Pampanga, which were acquired by the guidelines in the the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office
(2005) determination of just of the President, Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Second Division government pursuant to Presidential Decree compensation, and in ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on
Tinga, J. No. 27 (PD 27) relying on private the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the
respondents’ evidence of payment of just compensation.
After trial, RTC rendered judgment in favor the valuation of the
of respondents, ordering DAR and petitioner properties at the time of Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian
LBP to pay private respondents the amount possession in 1993 and reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to
of P30.00 per square meter as just not on Land Bank’s be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering
compensation. evidence of the value the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the
thereof as of the time of completion of this process, the just compensation should be
In petition for review, Land Bank contends acquisition in 1972. determined and the process concluded under the said law.
that the property was acquired for purposes Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228
of agrarian reform on October 21, 1972, the having only suppletory effect
time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just
compensation should be based on the value
of the property as of that time
24. Lubrica v. Land Land Valuation Petitioners own parcels of agricultural lands WON the court a quo has YES. The Natividad case reiterated the Court’s ruling in Office
Bank Sec. 18 in Mindoro Occidental which were placed decided the case in a way of the President v. Court of Appeals that the expropriation of
G.R. No. 170220, under land reform pursuant to PD 27. not in accord with the the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No.
Nov. 20, 2006, The land was thereafter subdivided and latest decision of the 27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the
507 SCRA 415 distributed to farmer beneficiaries. Supreme Court in the case payment of just compensation judicially determined.
(2006) of Land Bank of the
First Division Petitioners rejected Land Bank’s valuation of Philippines vs. Hon. Eli Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco,
Ynares-Santiago, J. their properties: P5,056,833.54 for the G.C. Natividad, et al., G.R. Sr. v. Court of Appeals, we held that expropriation of
311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31) and No. 127198, prom. May landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the
P1,512,575.05 for the 128.7161 hectares. 16, 2005 effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of
just compensation.
On January 29, 2003, the PARAD fixed the
preliminary just compensation at In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of their
P51,800,286.43 for the 311.7682 hectares properties in 1972 but have yet to receive the just
(TCT No. T-31) and P21,608,215.28 for the compensation therefor. The parcels of land were already
128.7161 hectares. subdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries thereby
immediately depriving petitioners of their use. Under the
LBP filed for judicial determination of just circumstances, it would be highly inequitable on the part of
compensation before RTC. the petitioners to compute the just compensation using the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of
RTC ordered LBP to deposit the amounts the payment, considering that the government and the
provisionally determined by the PARAD as farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land
there is no law which prohibits LBP to make although ownership thereof have not yet been transferred in
a deposit pending the fixing of the final their names. Petitioners were deprived of their properties
amount of just compensation. without payment of just compensation which, under the law,
is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away from
CA initially upheld RTC decision. its owners. The transfer of possession and ownership of the
land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by
However, CA, in its Amended Decision, held the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by
that the immediate deposit of the the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until
preliminary value of the expropriated then, title remains with the landowner.
properties is improper because it was
erroneously computed. Citing Gabatin v.
Land Bank of the Philippines, it held that the
formula to compute the just compensation
should be: Land Value = 2.5 x Average Gross
Production x Government Support Price.
Specifically, it held that the value of the
government support price for the
corresponding agricultural produce (rice and
corn) should be computed at the time of the
legal taking of the subject agricultural land,
that is, on October 21, 1972 when
landowners were effectively deprived of
ownership over their properties by virtue of
P.D. No. 27. According to the Court of
Appeals, the PARAD incorrectly used the
amounts of P500 and P300 which are the
prevailing government support price for
palay and corn, respectively, at the time of
payment, instead of P35 and P31, the
prevailing government support price at the
time of the taking in 1972.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
25. Association of Land Valuation In G.R. No. 79777, the subjects of this WON Sec. 18 of RA 6657 is NO. It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional
Small Landowners Sec. 18 petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by unconstitutional insofar as medium for the payment of just compensation is money and
in the Philippines four tenants and owned by petitioner it requires the owners of no other. And so, conformably, has just compensation been
v. Secretary of Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare the expropriated paid in the past solely in that medium. However, we do not
Agrarian Reform riceland worked by four tenants and owned properties to accept just deal here with the traditional excercise of the power of
G.R. No. 79310, by petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. The compensation therefor in eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where
Jul 14, 1989, tenants were declared full owners of these less than money, which is only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to
175 SCRA 343 lands by E.O. No. 228 as qualified farmers the only medium of be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps
(1989) under P.D. No. 27. payment allowed local purpose.
En Banc
Cruz, J. Petitioners are questioning constitutionality What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of
of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229. expropriation.
Moreover, the just compensation
contemplated by the Bill of Rights is payable The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural
in money or in cash and not in the form of lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they
bonds or other things of value. are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their
owners.
However, in an amended petition,
petitioners contended that P.D. No. 27, E.O. the Court hereby declares that the content and manner of the
Nos. 228 and 229 (except Sections 20 and just compensation provided for in the aforequoted Section
21) have been impliedly repealed by R.A. 18 of the CARP Law is not violative of the Constitution. We do
No. 6657. Nevertheless, this statute should not mind admitting that a certain degree of pragmatism has
itself also be declared unconstitutional influenced our decision on this issue, but after all this Court is
because it suffers from substantially the not a cloistered institution removed from the realities and
same infirmities as the earlier measures. demands of society or oblivious to the need for its
enhancement.
Section 18 of the CARP Law providing in full
as follows: Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is
not always required to be made fully in money, we find further
SEC. 18. Valuation and Mode of that the proportion of cash payment to the other things of
Compensation. — The LBP shall compensate value constituting the total payment, as determined on the
the landowner in such amount as may be basis of the areas of the lands expropriated, is not unduly
agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR oppressive upon the landowner. It is noted that the smaller
and the LBP, in accordance with the criteria the land, the bigger the payment in money, primarily because

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and the small landowner will be needing it more than the big
other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may landowners, who can afford a bigger balance in bonds and
be finally determined by the court, as the other things of value. No less importantly, the government
just compensation for the land. financial instruments making up the balance of the payment
are "negotiable at any time." The other modes, which are
The compensation shall be paid in one of the likewise available to the landowner at his option, are also not
following modes, at the option of the unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP
landowner: bonds, other properties or assets, tax credits, and other things
of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation.
(1) Cash payment, under the following terms
and conditions:
(a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares,

insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned
— Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the
balance to be paid in government financial
instruments negotiable at any time.
(b) For lands above twenty-four (24)

hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares —
Thirty percent (30%) cash, the balance to be
paid in government financial instruments
negotiable at any time.
(c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and

below — Thirty-five percent (35%) cash, the
balance to be paid in government financial
instruments negotiable at any time.
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or

controlled corporations, LBP preferred
shares, physical assets or other qualified
investments in accordance with guidelines
set by the PARC;

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
(3) Tax credits which can be used against

any tax liability;
(4) LBP bonds

26. Land Bank v. CA, Land Valuation Private respondents are landowners whose WON private respondents YES. The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of
Yap, et al Sec. 18 landholdings were acquired by the DAR and are entitled to withdraw compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and
G.R. No. 118712, subjected to transfer schemes to qualified the amounts deposited in determination of just compensation under Section 18 is
Oct. 6, 1995, beneficiaries under the CARL. trust in their behalf unacceptable. To withhold the right of the landowners to
249 SCRA 149 pending the final appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as
(1995) Petitioners assail decision of CA which ruled resolution of the cases compensation for their properties simply because they
Second Division as follows: involving the final rejected the DAR's valuation, and notwithstanding that they
Francisco, J. valuation of their have already been deprived of the possession and use of such
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the properties properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain.
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus is
hereby GRANTED:
a) DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of

1990 is declared null and void insofar as it
provides for the opening of trust accounts in
lieu of deposits in cash or bonds;
b) Landbank is ordered to immediately

deposit — not merely "earmark", "reserve"
or "deposit in trust" — with an accessible
bank designated by DAR in the names of the
following [private respondents] the
following amounts in cash and in
government financial instruments — within
the parameters of Sec. 18 (1) of RA 6657:
P 1,455,207.31 Pedro L. Yap
P 135,482.12 Heirs of Emiliano Santiago
P 15,914,127.77 AMADCOR;

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
c) The DAR-designated bank is ordered to

allow the [private respondents] to withdraw
the above-deposited amounts without
prejudice to the final determination of just
compensation by the proper authorities; and
27. Land Bank v. CA Land Valuation Private respondent Jose Pascual owned WON the landowner, the NO. A perusal of the law however shows that the consent of
and Pascual Sec. 18 three (3) parcels of land located in Gattaran, DAR, the Land Bank and the farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing the
G.R. No. 128557, Cagayan. Pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228, the the farmer-beneficiary vinculum juris for the proper compensation of the landowner.
Dec. 29, 1999, DAR placed these lands under its Operation must all agree to the value Section 18 of RA 6657 states —
321 SCRA 629 Land Transfer (OLT). of the land as determined
(1999) On 11 June 1992 the PARAD ruled in favor of by Land Bank Sec. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. — The LBP
Second Division private respondent and ordered petitioner shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be
Bellosillo, J. LBP to pay private respondent a total agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP in
amount of P1,961,950.00. Private accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17
respondent accepted the valuation. and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally
Petitioner LBP having refused to comply determined by the court as the just compensation for the land
with its obligation despite the directive of (emphasis supplied).
the Secretary of the DAR and the various
demand letters of private respondent Jose As may be gleaned from the aforementioned section, the
Pascual, the latter finally filed an action for landowner, the DAR and the Land Bank are the only parties
Mandamus in the Court of Appeals to involved. The law does not mention the participation of the
compel petitioner to pay the valuation farmer-beneficiary.
determined by the PARAD.
CA ruled in respondent’s favor.
Petitioner LBP contends that CA cannot
issue the Writ of Mandamus because it
cannot be compelled to perform an act
which is beyond its legal duty. Petitioner
cites Sec. 2 of PD 251, which amended Sec.
75 of RA 3844, 34 which provides that it is
the duty of petitioner bank" (t)o finance
and/or guarantee the acquisition, under
Presidential Decree No. 85 dated December
25, 1972, of farm lands transferred to the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
tenant farmers pursuant to Presidential

Decree No. 27 (P.D. 27) dated October 21,
1972."
Petitioner further argues that for a financing
or guarantee agreement to exist there must
be at least three (3) parties: the creditor, the
debtor and the financier or the guarantor.
Since petitioner merely guarantees or
finances the payment of the value of the
land, the farmer-beneficiary’s consent, being
the principal debtor, is indispensable and
that the only time petitioner becomes
legally bound to finance the transaction is
when the farmer-beneficiary approves the
appraised land value. Petitioner fears that if
it is forced to pay the value as determined
by the DARAB, the government will suffer
losses as the farmer-beneficiary, who does
not agree to the appraised land value, will
surely refuse to reimburse the amounts that
petitioner had disbursed.
28. Santos v. Land Land Valuation Petitioner Edgardo Santos was owner of WON a trial court decision NO. The April 24, 1998 Order was not an illegal amendment of
Bank Sec. 18 properties which were taken by DAR under directing the payment of the August 12, 1997 judgment which had become final and
G.R. No. 137431 P.D. No. 27 in 1972. such compensation executory. The reason is that the Order did not revise, correct,
Sep 07, 2000 On August 12, 1997, RTC rendered "P45,698,805.34) PESOS, or alter the Decision. Rather, the Order iterated and made
340 SCRA 59 (2000) judgment: (1) fixing the amount of Philippine [c]urrency, in clear the essence of the final judgment.
Third Division P49,241,876.00 to be the just compensation the manner provided by
Panganiban, J. and (2) ordering LBP to pay [p]laintiff the R.A. 6657" was illegally However, it is clear from the August 12, 1997 judgment that
amount of P45,698,805.34 Philippine amended by an order, the compensation was to be paid "in the manner provided by
[c]urrency, in the manner provided by R.A. issued during the RA 6657."10 Pursuant to Section 18 of the same law, payment
6657, by way of full payment of the said just execution proceedings, was to be in cash and bonds, as indicated below:
compensation. that such amount shall be
paid in cash and bonds. "Section 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. -- The LBP
shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
A preliminary valuation in the amount of agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and LBP, in
P3,543,070.66 had in fact been previously accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and
released by the Land Bank in cash and bond 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally
On December 24, 1997 LBP released the determined by the court, as the just compensation for the
amount of P3,621,023.01 in cash and Land land.
Bank Bond No. AR-0002206 in the amount of
P41,128,024.81 to the petitioner. "The compensation shall be paid in one of the following
Petitioner filed a motion for the issuance of modes, at the option of the landowner:
an alias writ of execution before the
Regional Trial Court, praying that the (1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions
payment of the compensation be in
proportion of P8,629,179.36 in bonds and (a) For lands above fifty(50) hectares, insofar as the excess
P32,499,745 in cash, alleging that the cash hectarage is concerned.
portion should include the amounts in the
Decision representing the interest Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in
payments. government financial instruments negotiable at any time
The Regional Trial Court issued an Order on
March 20, 1998 for the Land Bank to release (b) For lands above twenty-four (24) hectares and up to fifty
the balance of P41,128,024.81 from the (50) hectares
garnished amount in cash or certified check.
Land Bank moved for a reconsideration. Thirty-percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in
Regional Trial Court presided over by a new government financial instruments negotiable at anytime."
judge, resolved the two motions on April 24,
1998. It held that the payment of just Respondent bank was obliged to follow the mandate of the
compensation must be computed in the August 12, 1997 judgment. Hence, its compliance with the
manner provided for in Section 18, Republic Writ of Execution and the Notice of Garnishment ought to
Act No. 6657. have been construed as an agreement to pay petitioner in the
The CA upheld the questioned April 24, 1998 manner set forth in Republic Act No. 6657. Its compliance was
Order of the trial court. not an undertaking to pay in cash because such act would have
been a deviation from the dictum of the final judgment, to
which execution must conform. Paying in cash, as petitioner
demands, is not compatible with such judgment.
29. Land Bank v. CA Land Valuation Private respondent Jose Pascual owned WON CA cannot enforce NO. Petitioner's contention that Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD 946,
and Pascual Sec. 18 three (3) parcels of land located in Gattaran, PARAD's valuation since it which provides that the valuation of lands covered by PD 27 is

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
G.R. No. 128557 Cagayan. Pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228, the cannot make such under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian
Dec. 29, 1999 DAR placed these lands under its Operation determination for want of Reform, is still in effect cannot be sustained. It seems that the
321 SCRA 629 Land Transfer (OLT). jurisdiction hence void Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred in issuing Memorandum
(1999) On 11 June 1992 the PARAD ruled in favor of Circular No. I, Series of 1995, directing the DARAB to refrain
Second Division private respondent and ordered petitioner from hearing valuation cases involving PD 27 lands. For on the
Bellosillo, J. LBP to pay private respondent a total contrary, it is the DARAB which has the authority to determine
amount of P1,961,950.00. Private the initial valuation of lands involving agrarian reform
respondent accepted the valuation. although such valuation may only be considered preliminary as
Petitioner LBP having refused to comply the final determination of just compensation is vested in the
with its obligation despite the directive of courts.
demand letters of private respondent Jose WON CA erred in ruling YES. At first glance it would seem that private respondent’s
Pascual, the latter finally filed an action for that private respondent lands are indeed covered by AO No. 13. However, Part IV
Mandamus in the Court of Appeals to can avail of the 6% shows that AO No. 13 provides a fixed formula for determining
compel petitioner to pay the valuation compounded interest the Land Value (LV) and the additional interests it would have
determined by the PARAD. prescribed for unpaid earned. In the decision of PARAD, however, the Land Value
CA ruled in respondent’s favor. landowners by (LV) of private respondent’s property was computed by using
The appellate court also required petitioner Administrative Order No. the GSP for 1992, which is P300.00 per cavan of palay and
LBP to pay a compounded interest of 6% per 13, Series of 1994 P250.00 per cavan of corn.
annum in compliance with DAR The purpose of AO No. 13 is to compensate the landowners
Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994. for unearned interests. 53 Had they been paid in 1972 when
As to its coverage, the Order states: These the GSP for rice and corn was valued at P35.00 and P31.00,
rules and regulations shall apply to respectively, and such amounts were deposited in a bank, they
landowners: (1) whose lands are actually would have earned a compounded interest of 6% per annum.
tenanted as of 21 October 1972 or Thus, if the PARAD used the 1972 GSP, then the product of
thereafter and covered by OLT; (2) who (2.5 x AGP x P35 or P31) could be multiplied by (1.06)n to
opted for government financing through determine the value of the land plus the additional 6%
Land Bank of the Philippines as mode of compounded interest it would have earned from 1972.
compensation; and, (3) who have not yet However, since the PARAD already increased the GSP from
been paid for the value of their land. P35.00 to P300.00/cavan of palay and from P31.00 to
P250.00/cavan of corn, there is no more need to add any
interest thereon, muchless compound it. To the extent that it
granted 6% compounded interest to private respondent Jose
Pascual, the Court of Appeals erred.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
30. Mango v. Barbin Land Valuation On 11 November 1994, respondent Juana Z. WON the Emancipation NO. Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform
G.R. No. 173923 Sec. 18 Barbin filed with the Provincial Agrarian Patents and Transfer beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of
Oct. 12, 2009 Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Camarines Certificates of Title issued agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR
603 SCRA 232 Norte an action for Cancellation of to petitioners which were Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994, which was issued
(2009) Emancipation Patents, Disqualification of already registered with in March 1994, enumerates the grounds for cancellation of
Third Division Tenant-Beneficiary, Repossession and the Register of Deeds registered Emancipation Patents or Certificates of
Carpio, J. Damages. Respondent alleged that she is the have already become Landownership Award:
owner in fee simple of an irrigated riceland indefeasible and can no
located in Barangay Guinacutan, Vinzons, longer be cancelled. Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs [Emancipation
Camarines Norte, with an area of 4.7823 Patents] or CLOAs [Certificates of Landownership Award] may
hectares, and that Augusto Mago, Crispin include but not be limited to the following:
Mago, Ernesto Mago, and Pedro Mago were
tenants of the subject landholding. 1. Misuse or diversion of financial and support services
Respondent further alleged that petitioners extended to the ARB [Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries]; (Section
violated the terms of their leasehold 37 of R.A. No. 6657)
contracts when they failed to pay lease
rentals for more than two years, which is a 2. Misuse of the land; (Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
ground for their dispossession of the
landholding. 3. Material misrepresentation of the ARB’s basic qualifications
On the other hand, petitioners alleged that as provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27,
the subject landholding was placed under and other agrarian laws;
the Operation Land Transfer program of the
government pursuant to PD 27. 4. Illegal conversion by the ARB; (Cf. Section 73, Paragraphs C
Respondent’s original title was then and E of R.A. No. 6657)
cancelled and the subject landholding was
transferred to petitioners who were issued 5. Sale, transfer, lease or other forms of conveyance by a
Emancipation Patents by the DAR. The beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right
Transfer Certificates of Title issued to over the land acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in
petitioners emanating from the order to circumvent the provisions of Section 73 of R.A. No.
Emancipation Patents were registered with 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian laws. However, if the
the Registry of Deeds. Petitioners averred land has been acquired under P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228,
that prior to the issuance of the ownership may be transferred after full payment of
Emancipation Patents, they already amortization by the beneficiary; (Sec. 6 of E.O. No. 228)
delivered their lease rentals to respondent.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
They further alleged that after the issuance 6. Default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of three (3)
of the Emancipation Patents, the subject consecutive amortizations in case of voluntary land
landholding ceased to be covered by any transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous
leasehold contract. events and force majeure; (Emphasis supplied)
In the Decision dated 30 January 1997,
Department of Agrarian Reform 7. Failure of the ARBs to pay for at least three (3) annual
Adjudication Board (DARAB): amortizations to the LBP, except in cases of fortuitous events
1. ordered the Register of Deeds of and force majeure; (Section 26 of RA 6657)
Camarines Norte to cancel EP Nos. 745, 747,
and 749 issued in the name of Augusto 8. Neglect or abandonment of the awarded land continuously
Mago, Ernesto Mago, and Pedro Mago for a period of two (2) calendar years as determined by the
respectively, and Secretary or his authorized representative; (Section 22 of RA
2. directed the Municipal Agrarian Reform 6657)
Officer of Vinzons, Camarines Norte, to
reallocate the subject lands to qualified 9. The land is found to be exempt/excluded from P.D. No.
beneficiaries. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP coverage or to be part of the
DARAB held that when the subject landowner’s retained area as determined by the Secretary or
landholding was placed under the Operation his authorized representative; and
Land Transfer, the tenancy relationship
between the parties ceased and the tenant- 10. Other grounds that will circumvent laws related to the
beneficiaries were no longer required to pay implementation of agrarian reform program.
lease rentals to the landowner. However,
when petitioners entered into an agreement In this case, petitioners entered into an agreement with
with respondent for a direct payment respondent for a direct payment scheme embodied in the
scheme embodied in the Deeds of Transfer, Deeds of Transfer. However, petitioners failed to pay the
petitioners obligated themselves to pay amortizations to respondent landowner in accordance with
their amortizations to respondent who is the their agreed direct payment scheme.
landowner. CA held that the mere issuance
of an Emancipation Patent to a qualified In the first place, the Emancipation Patents and the Transfer
farmer-beneficiary is not absolute and can Certificates of Title should not have been issued to petitioners
be attacked anytime upon showing of any without full payment of the just compensation. Under Section
irregularity in its issuance or non-compliance 2 of Presidential Decree No. 266, the DAR will issue the
with the conditions attached to it. The Emancipation Patents only after the tenant-farmers have fully
Emancipation Patent is subject to the complied with the requirements for a grant of title under PD

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
condition that amortization payments be 27. Although PD 27 states that the tenant-farmers are already
remitted promptly to the landowner and deemed owners of the land they till, it is understood that full
that failure to comply with this condition is a payment of the just compensation has to be made first before
ground for cancellation. title is transferred to them. Thus, Section 6 of EO 228 provides
that ownership of lands acquired under PD 27 may be
transferred only after the agrarian reform beneficiary has fully
paid the amortizations.
31. Padua v. CA Land Pepito Dela Cruz, et al. (Dela Cruz, et al.) WON petitioner’s status in NO. That view is incorrect. The statutory mechanism for the
G.R. No. 153456 Redistribution were tenants of Lot Nos. 68 and 90 of the relation to Lot No. 90 was acquisition of land through agrarian reform requires full
Mar 02, 2007 Sec. 22, 23, 24 Dolores Ongsiako Estate in Anao, Tarlac. no longer that of a mere payment of amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be
517 SCRA 232 In 1966, potential agrarian reform issued a CLOA or EP, which, in turn, can become the basis for
(2007) Dela Cruz, et al. agreed to donate said farmer-beneficiary but a issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate of
Third Division properties to the municipality on the civil law vendor dealing title. As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying
AUSTRIA- condition that these be used as school sites. directly with the LBP in amortization on Lot No. 90 to LBP, his status in relation to said
MARTINEZ, J. The project did not materialize Dela Cruz, et the payment of property remains that of a mere potential farmer-beneficiary
al. asked that the properties be returned to amortizations on the whose eligibilities DAR may either confirm or reject. In fact,
them. However, they found out that Mayor property. under Section 2 (d) of Administrative Order No. 06-00, DAR
Cruz had distributed Lot No. 68 to Flor has authority to issue, recall, or cancel a CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA
Labagnoy (Labagnoy) and Lot No. 90 to issued to potential farmer-beneficiaries but not yet registered
Edwin Cruz (Cruz) who were each issued a with the Register of Deeds.
Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT).
Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over
his interest in Lot No. 90 on the basis of
which DAR Regional Office III issued an
Order dated December 7, 1987 cancelling
the CLT of Cruz and declaring Lot No. 90
open for disposition.
On November 7, 1989, then DAR Secretary
Miriam Defensor Santiago 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).

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On July 2, 1995 DAR Secretary Garilao issued

Order cancelling the Order of Award dated
November 7, 1989 issued in favor of Roberto
Padua and directing the Regional Director to
cause the restoration of possession of said
lot in favor of Dela Cruz, et al. All payments
made by Roberto Padua on account of said
lot as rentals for the use thereof are
forfeited in favor of the government.
32. Pasco v. Pison- Land Respondent, Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Whether or not one who YES. The issuance of a Notice of Coverage is merely a
Arceo Agri. Dev. Redistribution Development Corporation, is the registered has been identified by the preliminary step for the State’s acquisition of the land for
Corp. Sec. 24 owner of a parcel of land in Negros Department of Agrarian agrarian reform purposes and it does not automatically vest
G.R. No. 165501 Occidental containing more than 100 Reform (DAR) as potential title or transfer the ownership of the land to the government.
Mar 28, 2006 hectares. Constructed on respondent’s agrarian reform A Notice of Coverage does not ipso facto render the land
485 SCRA 514 parcel of land are houses which are beneficiary may be subject thereof a land reform area, since during a field
(2006) occupied by its workers. Petitioners, ceased ejected from the land investigation the DAR and Land Bank of the Philippines would
Third Division to be employed by respondent by 1987, where he is identified as make a determination as to whether, among other things, "the
CARPIO petitioners were asked to vacate the house such, by the landowner, land will be placed under agrarian reform, the land’s suitability
MORALES,J. they were occupying but they refused, who has already been to agriculture."
hence, respondent filed a complaint for notified by the DAR of the The owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his
unlawful detainer against them before the coverage of his land by land.
MTCC in Talisay City. the Comprehensive As for the registration of petitioners as potential CARP
Agrarian Reform Program beneficiaries, the same does not help their cause. As
On June 30, 2000, the MTCC of Talisay of the government. "potential" CARP beneficiaries, they are included in the list of
rendered judgment in favor of respondent. those who may be awarded land under the CARP. Nothing in
the records of the case shows that the DAR has made an
On August 23, 2000, the Municipal Agrarian award in favor of petitioners, hence, no rights over the land
Reform Office (MARO) of Talisay City sent a they occupy can be considered to have vested in their favor in
Notice of Coverage advising respondent that accordance with Section 24 of the CARL which reads: “The
its parcel of land is now covered under rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence
Republic Act 6657. from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him…”
On August 24, 2000 petitioners appealed the

MTCC decision in the Unlawful Detainer

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Case to the RTC, raising for the first time

that, respondent’s hacienda is covered by
the CARL and they are qualified beneficiaries
thereunder; whether they are qualified
beneficiaries is material to the
determination of whether they are planters
or builders or sowers in bad faith; "upon
knowledge that the land subject of the
unlawful detainer case is a[n] hacienda, it is
within the sound discretion of the judge to
clarify from the parties whether or not the
subject land is covered by [CARL] and
whether or not the defendants are qualified
agrarian reform beneficiaries"; "it is
mandatory on the part of the courts to take
judicial notice of agrarian laws"; and the
unlawful detainer case, at all events, was
prematurely filed as respondent’s right to
eject them would arise only after they are
reimbursed of their expenses in repairing
the house and, therefore, the MTCC has no
jurisdiction yet to order their ejectment.
On December 5, 2000, the RTC of Bacolod

City affirmed the decision of MTCC Talisay,
with modification. Petitioners moved to
reconsider, but were denied.
Hence, they elevated the case to the CA.

On August 27, 2003, the appellate court
denied petitioners’ petition.
In the meantime, the MARO of Talisay City

issued on August 24, 2004 a Certification

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
that herein petitioner Jesus Pasco is

registered as potential Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) beneficiary
in the land owned by respondent.
33. Estribillo v. DAR Land The petitioners, with the exception of two, WON the EPs are ordinary YES. Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation
G.R. No. 159674, Redistribution are the recipients of Emancipation Patents titles which become Patents are as indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration
Jun 30, 2006, 494 Sec. 22, 23, 24 (EPs) over parcels of land located at indefeasible one year proceedings. After complying with the procedure, therefore, in
SCRA 218 (2006) Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur. after their registration Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known
First Division The two other petitioners, Emma Gonzaga as the Property Registration Decree (where the DAR is
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. and Ana Patiño, are the surviving spouses of required to issue the corresponding certificate of title after
deceased recipients of EPs. granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied with
Presidential Decree No. 27), the TCTs issued to petitioners
The parcels of land described above, the pursuant to their EPs acquire the same protection accorded to
subject matters in this Petition, were other TCTs. "The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and
formerly part of a forested area which have incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date
been denuded as a result of the logging of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, x x
operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, x. Lands covered by such title may no longer be the subject
Inc. (HMI). matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to
another person.
In 1956, HMI acquired such forested area The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land Ownership
through Sales Patent No. 2683. Award (CLOAs) in Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), are enrolled in the Torrens
On 21 October 1972 PD 27 was issued system of registration. The Property Registration Decree in
mandating that tenanted rice and corn lands fact devotes Chapter IX on the subject of EPs. Indeed, such EPs
be brought under OLT and awarded to and CLOAs are, in themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as
farmer-beneficiaries. certificates of title issued in registration proceedings.
HMI requested that 527.8308 hectares of its

landholdings be placed under the coverage
of OLT. Receiving compensation therefor,
HMI allowed petitioners and other
occupants to cultivate the landholdings so
that the same may be covered under said
law.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
From 1984 to 1988, the corresponding TCTs

and EPs covering the entire 527.8308
hectares were issued to petitioners, among
other persons.
In December 1997, HMI filed with the

Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(RARAD) of CARAGA, Region XIII, 17
petitions seeking the declaration of
erroneous coverage under PD 27 of
277.5008 hectares of its former
landholdings. HMI claimed that said area
was not devoted to either rice or corn, that
the area was untenanted, and that no
compensation was paid therefor. HMI also
sought for the cancellation of the EPs
covering the disputed 277.5008 hectares
which had been awarded to petitioners.
On 27 November 1998, after petitioners

failed to submit a Position Paper, the RARAD
rendered a Decision declaring as void the
TCTs and EPs awarded to petitioners
because the land covered was not devoted
to rice and corn, and neither was there any
established tenancy relations between HMI
and petitioners when Presidential Decree
No. 27 took effect on 21 October 1972.
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, but the same was denied.
Petitioners appealed to the DARAB, which

affirmed the RARAD Decision ruling that the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
EP "is a title issued through the agrarian

reform program of the government. Its
issuance, correction and cancellation is
governed by the rules and regulations issued
by the Secretary of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR). Hence, it is not the
same as or in the same category of a Torrens
title."
Petitioners proceeded to CA with Petition

for Review on Certiorari, which was denied.
34. Estate of Vda. De Land Encarnacion Vda. De Panlilio is the owner of 1. WON there is valid YES, the subject land was properly covered by PD 27 since
Panlilio v. Dizon Redistribution the disputed landholdings over a vast tract waiver through Panlilio surrendered said lot to the DAR for coverage under PD
G.R. No. 148777, Sec. 22, 23, 24 of land, with an aggregate area of 115.41 the January 12, 1977 27 pursuant to her January 12, 1977 Affidavit.
Oct. 18, 2007, 536 hectares called Hacienda Masamat located Affidavit While PD 27 clearly applies to private agricultural lands
SCRA 565 (2007) in Masamat, Mexico, Pampanga. primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of
On April 19, 1961, Panlilio entered into a sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed
contract of lease over the said landholdings estate or not, it does not preclude nor prohibit the disposition
with Paulina Mercado, wife of Panlilio’s of landholdings planted with other crops to the tenants by
nephew, covering agricultural years from express will of the landowner under PD 27.
1961 to 1979.
Sometime in 1973, pursuant to the OLT 2. WON CA acted with YES. Thus, PD 27 is clear that after full payment and title to the
under PD 27, the Department of Agrarian grave abuse of discretion land is acquired, the land shall not be transferred except to the
Reform (DAR) issued thirty eight (38) in declaring the transfer heirs of the beneficiary or the Government. If the
Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) to made by the private amortizations for the land have not yet been paid, then there
Panlilio’s tenants. respondents to third can be no transfer to anybody since the lot is still owned by
On November 26, 1973, lessee Paulina persons valid the Government. The prohibition against transfers to persons
Mercado filed a letter-complaint with the other than the heirs of other qualified beneficiaries stems
DAR questioning the issuance of CLTs to from the policy of the Government to develop generations of
Panlilio’s tenants, alleging, among others, farmers to attain its avowed goal to have an adequate and
that the DAR should not have issued the sustained agricultural production.
CLTs since the land involved was principally Thus, it is plain to see that Sec. 6 of EO 228, part of which
being planted with sugar and was outside reads “Ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiary may
the coverage of PD 27. She claimed that be transferred after full payment of amortizations,” principally

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
respondents surreptitiously planted palay deals with payment of amortization and not on who qualify as
(rice plant) instead of sugar in order to bring legal transferees of lands acquired under PD 27.
the land within the purview of the law. After
proper investigation, the DAR concluded
that the CLTs were "properly and regularly
issued."
Paulina Mercado likewise filed a similar

complaint with the Court of Agrarian
Relations (CAR) at San Fernando, Pampanga.
On December 4, 1976, the tenants of the

portion of the land planted with sugar cane
petitioned the DAR to cause the reversion of
their sugarland to riceland so that it may be
covered by the Agrarian Reform Law. The
petition was with the conformity of Panlilio.
On January 12, 1977, Panlilio executed an

Affidavit, partly quoted as follows: “That it is
my desire that my entire subject property
which is referred to as Hacienda Masamat
be placed under the coverage of P.D. 27
without exception and that thereafter the
same be sold to tenant-petitioners.”
On January 20, 1977, by virtue of the said

Affidavit, the DAR Secretary ordered the
distribution of all land transfer certificates.
On March 17, 1978, CAR dismissed

complaint of Paulina Mercado (lessee) on
the basis of the action of the DAR Secretary.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On December 29, 1986, Panlilio died.
In 1993, the DAR issued Emancipation

Patents (EPs) to the tenants of Panlilio.
In June 1994, Bacolod City RTC, Branch 49

appointed petitioner George Lizares as
executor of the estate of Panlilio.
On February 28, 1994, petitioner Lizares

filed complaint with PARAD, Region III, for
annulment of coverage of landholdings
under PD 27.
On April 10, 1995, petitioner filed with the

PARAD three more complaints for
cancellation of EPs. Upon petitioner’s
motion, all the cases were consolidated.
On November 14, 1995, PARAD dismissed

Lizares’ complaint on the strength of the
January 12, 1977 Affidavit of Panlilio. In
addition, the PARAD relied on the report of
the DAR and the Bureau of Lands personnel
that the subject landholding is devoted to
palay. And, finally, PARAD applied the
equitable remedy of laches, in that Panlilio
failed during her lifetime to bring to the
attention of the DAR and CAR her February
3, 1977 Affidavit31 ostensibly revoking her
previous January 12, 1977 Affidavit.
The DARAB likewise disregarded petitioner

Lizares’ Motion for Reconsideration.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On April 11, 2000, CA sustained petitioner’s

position, but reversed its decision on
November 29, 2000.
35. Caballes v. DAR Improvement of The landholding subject of the controversy, WON private respondent NO. Private respondent cannot avail of the benefits afforded
G.R. No. 78214, the Leasehold which consists of only sixty (60) square Abajon is an agricultural by RA 3844, as amended. To invest him with the status of a
Dec. 5, 1988, 168 Relationship meters (20 meters x 3 meters) was acquired tenant even if he is tenant is preposterous.
SCRA 254 (1988) Sec. 12 by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes, cultivating only a 60-
Second Division Determination of the latter being the petitioner herein, by square meter (3 x 20 Section 2 of said law provides:
SARMIENTO, J. Lease Rentals virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July meters) portion of a
24, 1978 executed by Andrea Alicaba commercial lot of the It is the policy of the State:
Millenes This landholding is part of Lot No. petitioner.
3109-C, which has a total area of about 500 (1) To establish cooperative-cultivatorship among those who
square meters, situated at Lawaan Talisay, live and work on the land as tillers, owner-cultivatorship and
Cebu. The remainder of Lot No. 3109-C was the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine
subseconsequently sold to the said spouses agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in
by Macario Alicaba and the other members agriculture to industrial development;
of the Millenes family, thus consolidating
ownership over the entire (500-square xxx xxx xxx
meter) property in favor of the petitioner.
RA 3844, as amended, defines an economic family-size farm as
In 1975, before the sale in favor of the "an area of farm land that permits efficient use of labor and
Caballes spouses, private respondent capital resources of the farm family and will produce an
Bienvenido Abajon constructed his house on income sufficient to provide a modest standard of living to
a portion of the said landholding, paying a meet a farm family's needs for food, clothing, shelter, and
monthly rental of P2.00 to the owner, education with possible allowance for payment of yearly
Andrea Millenes. The landowner likewise installments on the land, and reasonable reserves to absorb
allowed Abajon to plant on a portion of the yearly fluctuations in income."
land, agreeing that the produce thereof
would be shared by both on a fitfy-fifty The private respondent only occupied a miniscule portion (60
basis. From 1975-1977, Abajon planted corn square meters) of the 500-square meter lot. Sixty square
and bananas on the landholding. In 1978, he meters of land planted to bananas, camote, and corn cannot
stopped planting corn but continued to by any stretch of the imagination be considered as an
plant bananas and camote. During those economic family-size farm. Surely, planting camote, bananas,

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
four years, he paid the P2.00 rental for the and corn on a sixty-square meter piece of land can not
lot occupied by his house, and delivered produce an income sufficient to provide a modest standard of
50% of the produce to Andrea Millenes. living to meet the farm family's basic needs. The private
respondent himself admitted that he did not depend on the
Sometime in March 1979, after the property products of the land because it was too small, and that he took
was sold, the new owners, Arturo and on carpentry jobs on the side. Thus, the order sought to be
Yolanda Caballes, told Abajon that the reviewed is patently contrary to the declared policy of the law
poultry they intended to build would be stated above.
close to his house and pursuaded him to
transfer his dwelling to the opposite or The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are:
southern portion of the landholding. Abajon
offered to pay the new owners rental on the 1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant;
land occupied by his house, but his offer was 2. The subject is agricultural land;
not accepted. Later, the new owners asked 3. There is consent;
Abajon to vacate the premises, saying that 4. The purpose is agricultural production;
they needed the property. But Abajon 5. There is personal cultivation; and
refused to leave. 6. There is sharing of harvests.
On April 1, 1982, the landowner, Yolanda All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy
Caballes, executed an Affidavit stating that relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not
immediately after she reprimanded Abajon make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof,
for harvesting bananas and jackfruit from or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so because
the property without her knowledge, the unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant,
latter, with malicious and ill intent, cut down he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the
the banana plants on the property worth Land Reform Program of the Government under existing
about P50.00. A criminal case for malicious tenancy laws.
mischief was filed against Abajon.
Therefore, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to
Regional Director of MAR Regional VII, establish a tenancy relationship. Certainly, it is not unusual for
issued a certification dated January 24, a landowner to accept some of the produce of his land from
1983, stating that said Criminal Case was not someone who plants certain crops thereon. This is a typical
proper for hearing on the bases of the and laudable provinciano trait of sharing or patikim, a native
following findings: way of expressing gratitude for favor received. This, however,
does not automatically make the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
That herein accused is a bona-fide tenant of specially when the area tilled is only 60, or even 500, square
the land owned by the complaining witness, meters and located in an urban area and in. the heart of an
which is devoted to bananas; industrial or commercial zone at that. Tenancy status arises
only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been given its
That thin case is filed patently to harass possession for the primary purpose of agricultural production.
and/or eject the tenant from his The circumstances of this case indicate that the private
farmholding, which act is prohibited by law; respondent's status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by
and the owner out of benevolence or compassion to live in the
premises and to have a garden of some sort at its
That this arose out of or is connected with southwestern side rather than a tenant of the said portion.
agrarian relations.
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.
36. Gelos v. CA Improvement of The subject land is a 25,000 square meter WON petitioner is a NO. It is not the nature of the work involved but the intention
G.R. No. 86186, the Leasehold farmland situated in Cabuyao, Laguna, and tenant of the private of the parties that determines the relationship between them.
May 08, 1992, 208 Relationship belonging originally to private respondent respondent and entitled
SCRA 608 (1992) Sec. 12 Ernesto Alzona and his parents in equal to the benefits of tenancy [Six requisites of tenancy relationship enumerated]
First Division Determination of shares. On July 5, 1970, they entered into a laws and not only a hired
CRUZ, J. Lease Rentals written contract with petitioner Rafael Gelos laborer whose right to The indications of an employer-employee relationship are:
employing him as their laborer on the land occupy the subject land 1) the selection and engagement of the employee;
at the stipulated daily wage of P5.00. ended with the 2) the payment of wages;
The contract of employment dated July 5, termination of their 3) the power of dismissal; and
1970, written in Tagalog and entitled contract of employment 4) the power to control the employee's conduct –– although
"Kasunduan ng Upahang Araw," provides the latter is the most important element.
that "ang Ikalawang Panig (meaning Gelos)
ay may ibig na magpaupa sa paggawa sa Tenancy relationship is distinguished from farm employer-
halagang P5.00 sa bawa't araw, walong oras farm worker relationship in that: "In farm employer-farm
na trabaho" (The Second Party desires to worker relationship, the lease is one of labor with the
lease his services at the rate of P5.00 per agricultural laborer as the lessor of his services and the farm
day, eight hours of work) and that employer as the lessee thereof. In tenancy relationship, it is

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
"Ipinatatanto ng Ikalawang Panig na siya ay the landowner who is the lessor, and the tenant the lessee of
hindi kasama sa bukid kundi upahan lamang agricultural land. The agricultural worker works for the farm
na binabayaran sa bawa't araw ng kanyang employer and for his labor be receives a salary or wage
paggawa sa bukid na nabanggit.'' (The regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the
Second Party makes it known that he is not a other hand, the tenant derives his income from the
farm tenant but only a hired laborer who is agricultural produce or harvest."
paid for every day of work on the said farm.)
Here, the private respondent, instead of receiving payment of
On September 4, 1973, after Alzona had rentals or sharing in the produce of the land, paid the
bought his parents' share and acquired full petitioner lump sums for specific kinds of work on the subject
ownership of the land, he wrote Gelos to lot or gave him vales, or advance payment of his wages as
inform him of the termination of his services laborer thereon.
and to demand that he vacate the property.
Gelos refused and continued working on the
land.
On October 1, 1973, Gelos went to the Court

of Agrarian Relations and asked for the fixing
of the agricultural lease rental on the
property. He later withdrew the case and
went to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform,
which granted his petition.
For his part, Alzona filed a complaint for

illegal detainer against Gelos in the
Municipal Court of Cabuyao, but this action
was declared "not proper for trial" by the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform because of the
existence of a tenancy relationship between
the parties. Alzona was rebuffed for the
same reason when he sought the assistance
of the Ministry of Labor and later when he
filed a complaint with the Court of Agrarian
Relations for a declaration of non-tenancy

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
and damages against Gelos. On appeal to

the Office of the President, however, the
complaint was declared proper for trial and
so de-archived and reinstated.
RTC found Gelos to be a tenant of the

subject property and entitled to remain
thereon as such.
CA reversed RTC decision.

37. Gabriel v. Improvement of The plaintiff seeks to eject the defendant WON the relationship NO. There are important differences between a leasehold
Pangilinan the Leasehold from the fishpond described in the between the appellee and tenancy and a civil law lease. The subject matter of leasehold
G.R. No. L-27797, Relationship complaint which is under lease to the said appellant is a leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land; that of civil law lease
Aug. 26 1987, 58 Sec. 12 defendant, who, however, refuses to vacate. tenancy and not a civil law may be either rural or urban property. As to attention and
SCRA 590 (1974) Determination of Instead, he has impugned the jurisdiction of lease cultivation, the law requires the leasehold tenant to personally
Second Division Lease Rentals this Court contending that the action should attend to, and cultivate the agricultural land, whereas the civil
ZALDIVAR, J. have been filed with the Court of Agrarian law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing
Relations, which has original and exclusive leased. As to purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is
jurisdiction, as their relationship is one of devoted to agriculture, whereas in civil law lease, the purpose
leasehold tenancy. may be for any other lawful pursuits. As to the law that
governs, the civil law lease is governed by the Civil Code,
After the motion to dismiss was denied on whereas leasehold tenancy is governed by special laws.
the basis of the allegations of the complaint,
the parties were ordered to adduce [Six requisites of tenancy relationship enumerated]
evidence for the purpose of determining
which Court shall take cognizance of the The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate
case. family to work the land. Thus Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No.
1199, as amended, defines a "tenant" as a person who,
It appears that the fishpond is presently in himself and with the aid available from within his immediate
the possession of the defendant, who farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed
originally leased it from the father of the by, another, with the latter's consent for purposes of
plaintiff. Upon the death of the said father, production sharing the produce with the landholder under the
the fishpond was inherited by the plaintiff. It share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price
is now covered by T.C.T. No. 1634 and is certain in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
registered in her name. It contains an area tenancy system. Section 8 of the same Act limits the relation
of 169,507.00 square meters. The rental is of landholder and tenant to the person who furnishes the land
on a yearly basis. and to the person who actually works the land himself with
the aid of labor available from within his immediate farm
It also appears that the defendant has household. Finally, Section 4 of the same Act requires for the
ceased to work personally with the aid of existence of leasehold tenancy that the tenant and his
helpers the aforecited fishpond since 1956 immediate farm household work the land.
he became ill and incapacitated. His
daughter, Pilar Pangilinan, took over. She A person, in order to be considered a tenant, must himself and
testified that she helps her father in with the aid available from his immediate farm household
administering the leased property, cultivate the land. Persons, therefore, who do not actually
conveying his instructions to the workers, work the land cannot be considered tenants; and he who hires
Urbano Maninang, Isidro Bernal and others whom he pays for doing the cultivation of the land,
Marciano Maninang. The names of Ire, Juan ceases to hold, and is considered as having abandoned the
and Aguedo Viada have been mentioned as land as tenant within the meaning of sections 5 and 8 of
the laborers who were paid for the repair of Republic Act. No. 1199, and ceases to enjoy the status, rights,
the dikes. Bernardo Cayanan, a nephew of and privileges of one.
the defendant, acts as the watcher. He has
lived separately since he got married.
Excepting Pilar Pangilinan. who is residing
near the fishpond, the other children of the
defendant are all professions; a lawyer, an
engineer, and a priest all residing in Manila.
None of these persons has been seen
working on the fishpond.
Court of First Instance of Pampanga

concluded that no tenancy relationship
exists between the plaintiff and the
defendant as defined by Republic Act No.
1199, as amended. A reconsideration by the
defendant having been denied, he appealed
to the CA.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
CA certified appeal from CFI decision to the

SC for the reason that the jurisdiction of an
inferior court is involved.
38. Hacienda Luisita v. Variations in In 1957, the Spanish owners of the WON PARC has YES. Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the
PARC Land Acquisition Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas jurisdiction to recall or authority to approve the plan for stock distribution of the
G.R. No. 171101, Sec. 31 (Tabacalera) sold to Tarlac Development revoke HLI’s SDP corporate landowner belongs to PARC. However, contrary to
Jul 05, 2011, 653 Corporate Corporation (TADECO) Hacienda Luisita and petitioner HLI’s posture, PARC also has the power to revoke
SCRA 154 (2011) Landowners their controlling interest in the sugar mill the SDP which it previously approved. It may be, as urged, that
(SDO) within the hacienda. The Philippine RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do
Government, through the Central Bank of not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an
the Philippines, aided the buyer to obtain a approved SDP. Such power or authority, however, is deemed
dollar loan from a US bank. Also, the GSIS possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary
Board of Trustees extended loan in favour of implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute
TADECO with a condition that said lots shall is as much a part of it as that which is expressed.
be divided at cost to the tenants, should Following the doctrine of necessary implication, it may be
there be any, under Land Tenure Act. In stated that the conferment of express power to approve a
1963, the Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA plan for stock distribution of the agricultural land of corporate
3844) was enacted, abolishing share tenancy owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the
and converting it to leasehold tenancy. approval of the plan.
Subsequently, Congress passed the Code of
Agrarian Reform (RA 6389) declaring the [Note: Read ruling on "Man Days" and the Mechanics of Stock
entire country a land reform area. A month Distribution]
after the declaration of Martial Law in 1972,
President Marcos allowed tenant-farmers to
purchase the land they tilled or to change
from shared-tenancy to fixed-rent leasehold
tenancy. In 1980, the Martial Law
Administration filed a suit before the RTC of
Manila against TADECO to surrender
Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform (now the DAR) for its distribution to
farmers. The RTC ordered TADECO to
surrender the hacienda to the MAR.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Then during the time of President Corazon

C. Aquino, after Marcos was ousted, she
instituted Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) and created the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) as its policy-
making body, thru RA 6657 (CARP Law of
1988) ushering a new process of land
classification, acquisition, and distribution.
Consequently, the CA dismissed the case the
Marcos administration initially instituted
and won against TADECO, et al. However,
the dismissal was conditioned that there be
an approval of a stock distribution plan
(SDP) to be submitted, approved by PARC,
and implemented as an alternative mode of
land distribution, and failure to comply will
cause the revival of previous decision.
Thereafter, the Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI)
was formed as a spin-off corporation to
facilitate the SDP.
In 1989, about 93% of the Farmworkers-
beneficiaries (FWBs) accepted and signed
the proposed SDOP. Then, Stock Distribution
Option Agreement (SDOA) was entered into
by TADECO/HLI and 5,848 qualified FWBs. A
referendum conducted by DAR showed that
5,177 FWBs out of 5,315 participants opted
to receive shares in the HLI.
A petition (Petisyon) was then filed for the
revocation and nullification of the SDOA and
the distribution of the lands. The Petisyon
was filed by the AMBALA (composing about
80% of the 5,339 FWBs of Hacienda Luisita).
DAR constituted a Special Task Force to

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
attend to the issues relating to the SDP of

HLI and the latter found that HLI failed to
comply with their undertakings.
On December 22, 2005, PARC affirmed the
recommendation of DAR to recall/revoke
the SDOP of TADECO/HLI and the land be
placed under compulsory coverage or
mandated land acquisition.
39. [39], CREBA v. Conversion of Petitioner CREBA is the umbrella WON DAR AO No. 01-02, NO. Section 65 of RA 6657 provides that “After the lapse of
Secretary of Agricultural organization of some 3,500 private as amended, was made in five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be
Agrarian Reform, Lands corporations, partnerships, single violation of Section 65 of economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or
G.R. No. 183409, Sec. 65 proprietorships and individuals directly or Republic Act No. 6657, as the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a
Jun 18, 2010, 621 indirectly involved in land and housing it covers even those non- greater economic value for residential, commercial or
SCRA 295 (2010) development, building and infrastructure awarded lands and industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the
First Division construction, materials production and reclassified lands by the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected
PEREZ, J. supply, and services in the various related LGUs or by way of parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the
fields of engineering, architecture, Presidential Proclamations reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition:
community planning and development on or after 15 June 1988 Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his
financing. obligation.”
On 28 February 2002, the Secretary of Conversion and reclassification differ from each other.
Agrarian Reform issued another Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of
Administrative Order, i.e., DAR AO No. 01- agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR
02, entitled "2002 Comprehensive Rules on while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural
Land Use Conversion," which further lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as
amended DAR AO No. 07-97 and DAR AO residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the
No. 01-99, and repealed all issuances land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for
inconsistent therewith. The aforesaid DAR land use conversion. In view thereof, a mere reclassification of
AO No. 01-02 covers all applications for an agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner
conversion from agricultural to non- to change its use. He has to undergo the process of conversion
agricultural uses or to another agricultural before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other
use. purposes.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Thereafter, on 2 August 2007, the Secretary Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact that DAR’s
of Agrarian Reform amended certain conversion authority can only be exercised after the effectivity
provisions of DAR AO No. 01-02 by of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. The said date
formulating DAR AO No. 05-07, particularly served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification or
addressing land conversion in time of rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer require any DAR
exigencies and calamities. conversion clearance or authority. Thereafter, reclassification
of agricultural lands is already subject to DAR’s conversion
To address the unabated conversion of authority. Reclassification alone will not suffice to use the
prime agricultural lands for real estate agricultural lands for other purposes. Conversion is needed to
development, the Secretary of Agrarian change the current use of reclassified agricultural lands.
Reform further issued Memorandum No. 88
on 15 April 2008, which temporarily
suspended the processing and approval of
all land use conversion applications.
40. [40], Sta. Rosa Conversion of Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development WON the property in In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, the
Realty Agricultural Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the question is covered by Court held that lands classified as non-agricultural prior to the
Development Lands registered owner of two parcels of land, CARP despite the fact that effectivity of the CARL may not be compulsorily acquired for
Corporation vs. Sec. 65 situated at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, the entire property distribution to farmer beneficiaries.
Court of Appeals Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and formed part of a
G.R. No. 112526 84891, with a total area of 254.6 hectares. watershed area prior to However, more than the classification of the subject land as
October 12, 2001 The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were the enactment of R. A. No. PARK is the fact that subsequent studies and survey showed
367 SCRA 175 declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance 6657 that the parcels of land in question form a vital part of a
FIRST DIVISION adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in watershed area.
PARDO, J. 1979, as certified by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board. Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that
On December 12, 1989, Secretary of during the DARAB hearing, petitioner presented proof that the
Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted
sent two (2) notices of acquisition to the land from the coverage of CARL.
petitioner, stating that petitioner's
landholdings had been placed under the Hence, the Court remanded the case to the DARAB for re-
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. evaluation and determination of the nature of the parcels of
On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to land involved to resolve the issue of its coverage by the
the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
its property under the aforesaid land titles

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
were exempt from CARP coverage because In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR
they had been classified as watershed area to supposed farmer beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed
and were the subject of a pending petition by the temporary restraining order issued on December 15,
for land conversion. 1993, which shall remain in effect until final decision on the
On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan case.
of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution
voiding the zoning classification of the land
at Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that
the land is now classified as agricultural
land.
41. [41], Ros v. DAR, Conversion of Petitioners are the owners/developers of WON the reclassification NO. The authority of the DAR to approve conversions of
G.R. No. 132477, Agricultural several parcels of land located in Arpili, of the subject lands to agricultural lands covered by Rep. Act No. 6657 to non-
Aug. 31, 2005, 468 Lands Balamban, Cebu. By virtue of Municipal industrial use by the agricultural uses has not been pierced by the passage of the
SCRA 471 (2005) Sec. 65 Ordinance No. 101 passed by the Municipal Municipality of Balamban, Local Government Code. The Code explicitly provides that
Council of Balamban, Cebu, these lands Cebu pursuant to its "nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or
were reclassified as industrial lands. authority under Section modifying in any manner the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657."
On 03 April 1995, the Provincial Board of 20(a) of Republic Act No.
Cebu approved Balamban’s land use plan 7160 or the Local After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known
and adopted en toto Balamban’s Municipal Government Code of 1991 as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, agricultural
Ordinance No. 101 with the passage of (the "LGC") has the effect lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of
Resolution No. 836-95 and Provincial of taking such lands out of conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR.
Ordinance No. 95-8, respectively. As part of the coverage of the CARL However, agricultural lands already reclassified before the
their preparation for the development of and beyond the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657 are exempted from
the subject lands as an industrial park, jurisdiction of the DAR conversion.
petitioners secured all the necessary permits
and appropriate government certifications.
Despite these permits and certifications,

petitioner Matthias Mendezona received a
letter from Mr. Jose Llames, Director of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Regional Office for Region 7, informing him
that the DAR was disallowing the conversion
of the subject lands for industrial use and

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
directed him to cease and desist from

further developments on the land to avoid
the incurrence of civil and criminal liabilities.
Petitioners filed with the RTC of Toledo City

a Complaint dated 29 July 1996 for
Injunction with Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction. RTC, ruling that it is the DAR
which has jurisdiction, dismissed the
Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
CA affirmed RTC decision.

42. [42], Chamber of Conversion of The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued, on WON [DAR AO NO. 01-02, NO. DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, providing that the
Real Estate and Agricultural 29 October 1997, DAR AO No. 07-97, as amended] violate[s] the reclassification of agricultural lands by LGUs shall be subject to
Builders Lands entitled "Omnibus Rules and Procedures local autonomy of local the requirements of land use conversion procedure or that
Associations, Inc. v. Sec. 65 Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands government units. DAR’s approval or clearance must be secured to effect
Secretary of to Non-Agricultural Uses," which reclassification, did not violate the autonomy of the LGUs.
Agrarian Reform, consolidated all existing implementing
G.R. No. 183409, guidelines related to land use conversion. The power of the LGUs to reclassify agricultural lands is not
Jun 18, 2010, 621 The aforesaid rules embraced all private absolute. The authority of the DAR to approve conversion of
SCRA 295 (2010) agricultural lands regardless of tenurial agricultural lands covered by Republic Act No. 6657 to non-
FIRST DIVISION arrangement and commodity produced, and agricultural uses has been validly recognized by said Section 20
PEREZ, J. all untitled agricultural lands and agricultural of Republic Act No. 7160 by explicitly providing therein that,
lands reclassified by Local Government Units "nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or
(LGUs) into non-agricultural uses after 15 modifying in any manner the provisions of Republic Act No.
June 1988. 6657."
Subsequently, on 30 March 1999, the Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact that DAR’s
Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued DAR AO conversion authority can only be exercised after the effectivity
No. 01-99, entitled "Revised Rules and of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. The said date
Regulations on the Conversion of served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification or
Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses," rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer require any DAR
amending and updating the previous rules conversion clearance or authority. Thereafter, reclassification

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
on land use conversion. Its coverage of agricultural lands is already subject to DAR’s conversion
includes the following agricultural lands, to authority. Reclassification alone will not suffice to use the
wit: (1) those to be converted to residential, agricultural lands for other purposes. Conversion is needed to
commercial, industrial, institutional and change the current use of reclassified agricultural lands.
other non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to
be devoted to another type of agricultural
activity such as livestock, poultry, and
fishpond ─ the effect of which is to exempt
the land from the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) those
to be converted to non-agricultural use
other than that previously authorized; and
(4) those reclassified to residential,
commercial, industrial, or other non-
agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988
pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act No.
7160 and other pertinent laws and
regulations, and are to be converted to such
uses.
On 28 February 2002, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform issued another
Administrative Order, i.e., DAR AO No. 01-
02, entitled "2002 Comprehensive Rules on
Land Use Conversion," which further
amended DAR AO No. 07-97 and DAR AO
No. 01-99, and repealed all issuances
inconsistent therewith. The aforesaid DAR
AO No. 01-02 covers all applications for
conversion from agricultural to non-
agricultural uses or to another agricultural
use.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
43. [43], Fortich v. Conversion of This case involves a 144-hectare land WON the final and NO. When the Office of the President issued the Order dated
Corona, G.R. No. Agricultural located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, executory Decision dated June 23,1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final
131457, April 24, Lands owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. March 29,1996 converting and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a motion for
1998, 289 SCRA 624 Sec. 65 Management and Development Corporation the land in question from reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction
(1998) (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. agricultural to agro- to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision, the pertinent
SECOND DIVISION industrial can still be portions of which read:
MARTINEZ, J. In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple substantially modified by
plantation to the Philippine Packing the Win-Win Resolution. “After a careful evaluation of the petition vis--vis the grounds
Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, upon which the denial thereof by Secretary Garilao was based,
Inc. (DMPI), a multinational corporation, for we find that the instant application for conversion by the
a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Municipality of Sumilao, Bukidnon is impressed with merit. To
Producer and Growers Agreement duly be sure, converting the land in question from agricultural to
annotated in the certificate of title. The agro-industrial would open great opportunities for
lease expired in April, 1994. employment and bring about real development in the area
towards a sustained economic growth of the municipality. On
In October, 1991, during the existence of the the other hand, distributing the land to would-be beneficiaries
lease, the Department of Agrarian Reform (who are not even tenants, as there are none) does not
(DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare guarantee such benefits.
property under compulsory acquisition and
assessed the land value at P2.38 million. Nevertheless, on the issue that the land is considered a prime
agricultural land with irrigation facility it maybe appropriate to
In February, 1992, NQSRMDC sought and mention that, as claimed by petitioner, while it is true that
was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board there is, indeed, an irrigation facility in the area, the same
(DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian merely passes thru the property (as a right of way) to provide
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case water to the ricelands located on the lower portion thereof.
No. X-576, a writ of prohibition with The land itself, subject of the instant petition, is not irrigated
preliminary injunction. as the same was, for several years, planted with pineapple by
the Philippine Packing Corporation.
Provincial Development Council (PDC) of
Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O. On the issue that the land has long been covered by a Notice
Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6, dated of Compulsory Acquisition (NCA) and that the existing policy
January 7, 1993, designating certain areas on withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not
along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the applicable, suffice it to state that the said NCA was declared
null and void by the Department of Agrarian Reform

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the Adjudication Board (DARAB) as early as March 1, 1992.
subject property is situated. Deciding in favor of NQSRMDC, the DARAB correctly pointed
out that under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6657, the subject property
On March 4, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan could not validly be the subject of compulsory acquisition until
of Sumilao, Bukidnon enacted Ordinance No. after the expiration of the lease contract with Del Monte
24 converting or re-classifying 144 hectares Philippines, a Multi-National Company, or until April 1994, and
of land in Bgy. San Vicente, said ordered the DAR Regional Office and the Land Bank of the
Municipality, from agricultural to Philippines, both in Butuan City, to `desist from pursuing any
industrial/institutional activity or activities covering petitioners land.
On 12 October 1993, the Bukidnon Neither can the assertion that there is no clear and tangible
Provincial Land Use Committee approved compensation package arrangements for the beneficiaries
the said Ordinance. Accordingly, on 11 hold water as, in the first place, there are no beneficiaries to
December 1993, the instant application for speak about, for the land is not tenanted as already stated.
conversion was filed by Mr. Gaudencio
Beduya in behalf of NQSRMDC/BAIDA Nor can procedural lapses in the manner of
(Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Development identifying/reclassifying the subject property for agro-
Association). industrial purposes be allowed to defeat the very purpose of
the law granting autonomy to local government units in the
On November 14, 1994, the DAR, thru management of their local affairs. Stated more simply, the
Secretary Garilao, invoking its powers to language of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, supra, is clear and
approve conversion of lands under Section affords no room for any other interpretation. By unequivocal
65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued an Order denying legal mandate, it grants local government units autonomy in
the instant application for the conversion of their local affairs including the power to convert portions of
the subject land from agricultural to agro- their agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their
industrial and, instead, placed the same utilization and disposition to enable them to attain their fullest
under the compulsory coverage of CARP and development as self-reliant communities.’’
directed the distribution thereof to all
qualified beneficiaries.
Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon

appealed the order of denial to the Office of
the President and prayed for the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
conversion/reclassification of the subject

land.
To prevent the enforcement of the DAR

Secretary’s order, NQSRMDC, on June 29,
1995, filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari, prohibition with
preliminary injunction.
On October 23, 1995, CA issued a Resolution

ordering the parties to observe status quo
pending resolution of the petition.
In resolving the appeal, the Office of the

President, through then Executive Secretary
Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in OP
Case No. 96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996,
reversing the DAR Secretary’s decision and
approving the conversion of a one hundred
forty-four (144)-hectare land from
agricultural to agro-industrial/institutional
area.
On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a motion for

reconsideration of the OP decision.
NQSRMDC found out that the DAR, without

giving just compensation, caused the
cancellation of NQSRMDCs title on August
11, 1995 and had it transferred in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines.
Thereafter, on September 25, 1995, DAR
caused the issuance of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00240227 and

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
had it registered in the name of 137 farmer-

beneficiaries.
On April 10, 1997, NQSRMDC filed a

complaint with the RTC of Malaybalay,
Bukidnon (Branch 9) for annulment and
cancellation of title, damages and injunction
against DAR and 141 others. RTC issued TRO
against DAR and 141 others.
On June 23, 1997, an Order was issued by

then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres
denying DARs motion for reconsideration for
having been filed beyond the reglementary
period of fifteen (15) days. The said order
further declared that the March 29, 1996 OP
decision had already become final and
executory.
On October 9, 1997 alleged farmer-

beneficiaries protested the March 29, 1996
Decision of the Office of the President
This led the Office of the President, through

then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C.
Corona, to issue the so-called Win-Win
Resolution on November 7, 1997,
substantially modifying its earlier Decision
after it had already become final and
executory. The said Resolution modified the
approval of the land conversion to agro-
industrial area only to the extent of forty-
four (44) hectares, and ordered the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
remaining one hundred (100) hectares to be

distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
44. Vda. de Tangub vs. Resolution of Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, WON the Regional Trial YES. RA 6657 echoes the provisions of Section 17 of
Court of Appeals Agrarian Disputes now deceased, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City was Presidential Decree No. 229, supra, investing the Department
UDK No. 9864 Sec. 50, 51, 52, Court of Lanao del Norte in March, 1988, correct in dismissing of Agrarian Reform with original jurisdiction, generally, over all
191 SCRA 885 , 53 "an agrarian case for damages by reason of Agrarian Case No. 1094. cases involving agrarian laws, although, as shall shortly be
December 03, 1990 the(ir) unlawful dispossession . . .was pointed out, it restores to the Regional Trial Court, limited
FIRST DIVISION tenants from the landholding" owned by the jurisdiction over two groups of cases. Section 50 reads as
NARVASA, J. Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil. follows:
Several persons were also impleaded as
defendants, including the Philippine "SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is
National Bank, it being alleged by the hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
plaintiff spouses that said bank, holder of a adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
mortgage on the land involved, had caused original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
foreclosure thereof, resulting in the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under
acquisition of the property by the bank as the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture
the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, [DA] and the Department of Environment and Natural
and in the sale by the latter, some time Resources [DENR].
later, of portions of the land to the other
persons named as its co-defendants (all It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and
employees of the National Steel evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all cases,
Corporation), and it being prayed that disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner,
mortgage and the transactions thereafter employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every
made in relation thereto be annulled and case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of
voided. the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of
procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive
In an Order rendered on August 24, 1988, determination of every action or proceeding before it.
respondent Judge Felipe G. Javier, Jr.
dismissed the complaint. He opined that by It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer
virtue of Executive Order No. 229 "providing oaths, take testimony, require submission of reports, compel
the mechanisms for the implementation of the production of books and documents and answers to
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform interrogatories and issue subpoena and subpoena duces
Program approved on July 24, 1987" — tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly
Executive No. 129-A approved on July 26, deputized officers. It shall likewise have the power to punish

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
1987, as well as the Rules of the direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject
Adjudication Board of the Department of to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
Agrarian Reform, jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court over agrarian cases had been Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers "special
transferred to the Department of Agrarian jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are Regional
Reform. Trial Courts designated by the Supreme Court — at least one
(1) branch within each province — to act as such. These
CA upheld decision of Trial Court. Regional Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have,
according to Section 57 of the same law, original and exclusive
jurisdiction over:
1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to

land-owners," and
2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under . . [the] Act."
It is relevant to mention in this connection that —
(1) appeals from decisions of the Special Agrarian Courts "may

be taken by filing a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt or notice of the
decision, . ." [Sec. 60]and
(2) appeals from any "decision, order, award or ruling of the

DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to
the application, implementation, enforcement, or
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian
reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by Certiorari*
except as otherwise provided . . . within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of a copy thereof," the "findings of fact of the DAR
[being] final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence."
[Sec. 54]
Hence, the DAR has original, exclusive jurisdiction over

agrarian disputes, except on the aspects of (a) just

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
compensation; and (b) criminal jurisdiction over which regular

courts have jurisdiction. Here, the case concerns the rights of
the plaintiffs as tenants on agricultural land, not involving the
"special jurisdiction" of said Trial Court acting as a Special
Agrarian Court, it clearly came within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform, or more
particularly, the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board,
established precisely to wield the adjudicatory powers of the
Department.
*[This mode of appeal is sui generis. It is the only instance

when an appeal by Certiorari may be taken to the Court of
Appeals. Heretofore, appeals by Certiorari were authorized
only when taken to the Supreme Court.]
45. [45], Sta. Rosa Resolution of The Canlubang Estate in Laguna is a vast WON DARAB has NO. There is no question that the power to determine
Realty Agrarian Disputes landholding previously titled in the name of jurisdiction to pass upon whether a property is subject to CARP coverage lies with the
Development Sec. 50, 51, 52, the late Speaker and Chief Justice Jose Yulo, the issue of whether the DAR Secretary. Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that:
Corporation vs. 53 Sr. Within this estate are two parcels of land SRRDC properties are
Amante (hereinafter referred to as the "subject subject to CARP coverage SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby
G.R. No. 112526 Agrarian dispute property") covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
453 SCRA 432 , cases 84891 measuring 254.766 hectares and part agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original
March 16, 2005 of Barangay Casile, subsequently titled in jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of
the name of Sta. Rosa Realty Development agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
Corporation (SRRDC), the majority jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the
stockholder of which is C.J. Yulo and Sons, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
Inc.
The DAR’s jurisdiction under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 is
On December 6, 1985, Amante, et al., who two-fold. The first is essentially executive and pertains to the
are the private respondents in G.R. No. enforcement and administration of the laws, carrying them
112526 and petitioners in G.R. No. 118838, into practical operation and enforcing their due observance,
instituted an action for injunction with while the second is judicial and involves the determination of
damages in the Regional Trial Court of rights and obligations of the parties.
Laguna (Branch 24) against Luis Yulo, SRRDC,
and several SRRDC security personnel,

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
docketed as Civil Case No. B-2333. Amante, Pursuant to Section 50 of RA 6657, the DAR adopted the
et al. alleged that: they are residents of DARAB Revised Rules, Rule II (Jurisdiction of the Adjudication
Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna, which Board), which of which provides:
covers an area of around 300 hectares; in
1910, their ancestors started occupying the SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. – The
area, built their houses and planted fruit- Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary
bearing trees thereon, and since then, have jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
been peacefully occupying the land; some adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and
time in June 3, 1985, SRRDC’s security matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
people illegally entered Bgy. Casile and Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act
fenced the area; SRRDC’s men also entered No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic
the barangay on November 4, 1985, cut Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389,
down the trees, burned their huts, and Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their
barred the lone jeepney from entering the implementing rules and regulations.
Canlubang Sugar Estate; as a result of these
acts, Amante, et al. were deprived of Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be
possession and cultivation of their lands. limited to the following:
While the injunction and ejectment cases a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons
were still in process, it appears that in engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural land covered
August, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and
Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of other agrarian laws;
Coverage to SRRDC.
b) Cases involving the valuation of land, and determination
On December 12, 1989, Secretary of and payment of just compensation, fixing and collection of
Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization
sent two (2) notices of acquisition to payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the
petitioner, stating that petitioner’s Land Bank;
landholdings covered by TCT Nos. T-81949
and T-84891, containing an area of 188.2858 c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of orders or
and 58.5800 hectares, valued at decisions of DAR officials other than the Secretary, lease
P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments under the
respectively, had been placed under the administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP;
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
d) Cases arising from, or connected with membership or

On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a representation in compact farms, farmers’ cooperatives and
petition to the Board for the latter to resolve other registered farmers’ associations or organizations, related
SRRDC’s petition for exemption from CARP to land covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
coverage before any administrative
valuation of their landholding could be had e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure,
by the Board. pre-emption and redemption of agricultural lands under the
coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws;
On December 19, 1991, the DARAB
promulgated a decision, affirming the f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer
dismissal of the protest of SRRDC against the (CLT), Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and
compulsory coverage of the property Emancipation Patent (EP) and the administrative correction
thereof;
SRRDC had filed with the CA a petition for
review of the DARAB’s decision. On g) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or
November 5, 1993, the CA affirmed the concerns referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR.
decision of DARAB.
Provided, however, that matters involving strictly the
administrative implementation of the CARP and other agrarian
laws and regulations, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 06-00,89 which

provides for the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law
Implementation (ALI) Cases, govern the administrative
function of the DAR. Under said Rules of Procedure, the DAR
Secretary has exclusive jurisdiction over classification and
identification of landholdings for coverage under the CARP,
including protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for
lifting of coverage. Section 2 of the said Rules specifically
provides, inter alia, that:

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
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 and 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;…
Here, SRRDC questions the DARAB’s jurisdiction to entertain

the question of whether the subject property is subject to
CARP coverage. As the DARAB succinctly pointed out, it was
SRRDC that initiated and invoked the DARAB’s jurisdiction to
pass upon the question of CARP coverage. It was SRRDC’s own
act of summoning the DARAB’s authority that cured whatever
jurisdictional defect it now raises. It is elementary that the
active participation of a party in a case pending against him
before a court or a quasi-judicial body, is tantamount to a
recognition of that court’s or body’s jurisdiction and a
willingness to abide by the resolution of the case and will bar

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
said party from later on impugning the court’s or body’s

jurisdiction.
46. [46], Department Resolution of Private respondent Roberto J. Cuenca is the WON the issues raised in YES. All controversies on the implementation of the
of Agrarian Reform Agrarian Disputes registered owner of a parcel of land the complaint filed by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) fall under
vs. Cuenca Sec. 50, 51, 52, designated as Lot No. 816-A and covered by private respondent, which the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
G.R. NO. 154112 53 TCT No. 1084, containing an area of 81.6117 seeks to exclude his land even though they raise questions that are also legal or
439 SCRA 15 , hectares, situated in Brgy. Haguimit, La from the coverage of the constitutional in nature. All doubts should be resolved in favor
September 23, Carlota City and devoted principally to the CARP, is an agrarian of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original
2004 planting of sugar cane. reform matter and within authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters.
THIRD DIVISION the jurisdiction of the
PANGANIBAN, J. On 21 September 1999, Noe Fortunado, DAR, not with the trial Two basic rules have guided this Court in determining
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) court jurisdiction in these cases. First, jurisdiction is conferred by
of La Carlota City issued and sent a NOTICE law. And second, the nature of the action and the issue of
OF COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca jurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of the
placing the above-described landholding complaint and the character of the relief sought. The defenses
under the compulsory coverage of R.A. 6657 resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss are
disregarded; otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would
On 29 September 1999, private respondent depend entirely upon the whim of the defendant.
Cuenca filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 63, La Carlota City, a complaint [Reiterates ruling in Vda. de Tangub vs. CA]
against Noe Fortunado and Land Bank of the
Philippines for ‘Annulment of Notice of Here, the propriety of the Notice relates to the
Coverage and Declaration of implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial
Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405, Series of jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted
1990, With Preliminary Injunction and from its authority by the simple expediency of appending an
Restraining Order.’ allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is
clearly agrarian.
On 05 October 1999, MARO Noe Fortunado
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on …in case of doubt, the jurisprudential trend is for courts to
the ground that the court a quo has no refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that
jurisdiction over the nature and subject demand the special competence of administrative agencies,
matter of the action, pursuant to R.A. 6657. "even if the question[s] involved [are] also judicial in
character," as in this case.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On 12 January 2000, the respondent Judge

issued a Temporary Restraining Order
directing MARO and LBP to cease and desist
from implementing the Notice of Coverage.
On 14 January 2000, MARO Fortunado filed

a Motion for Reconsideration of the order
granting the TRO contending inter alia that
the DAR, through the MARO, in the course
of implementing the Notice of Coverage
under CARP cannot be enjoined through a
Temporary Restraining Order in the light of
Sections 55 and 68 of R.A. 6657. The motion
was denied.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

[thereafter filed before the CA] a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, assailing the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by respondent
Judge on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
"It is the submission of the petitioner that

the assailed order is ‘in direct defiance… of
Republic Act 6657, particularly Section 55
and 68’ thereof, which read:
‘SECTION 55. NO RESTRAINING ORDERS OR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS – No court in
the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to
issue any restraining order or writ of
preliminary injunction against the PARC or
any of its duly authorized or designated

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
agencies in any case, dispute or controversy

arising from, necessary to, or in connection
with the application, implementation, or
enforcement or interpretation of this Act
and other pertinent laws on agrarian
reform.’
‘SECTION 68 – IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT

AGENCIES FROM COURT’S INTERFERENCE –
No injunction, Restraining Order, prohibition
or mandamus shall be issued by the lower
court against the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of
Agriculture (DA), the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),
and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the
implementation of their program.’
Petitioner contends that by virtue of the

above provisions, all lower courts, such as
the court presided over by respondent
Judge, ‘are barred if not prohibited by law to
issue orders of injunctions against the
Department of Agrarian Reform in the full
implementation of the Notice of Coverage
which is the initial step of acquiring lands
under R.A. 6657.’
Petitioner also contends that the nature and

subject matter of the case below is purely
agrarian in character over which the court a
quo has no jurisdiction and that therefore, it
had no authority to issue the assailed
injunction order.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Stressing that the issue was not simply the

improper issuance of the Notice of
Coverage, but was mainly the
constitutionality of Executive Order No. 405,
the CA ruled that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) had jurisdiction over the case.
47. Cabral vs. Court of Resolution of On January 16, 1990, petitioner Victoria WON the DAR Regional NO. Whatever jurisdiction the Regional Director may have had
Appeals Agrarian Disputes Cabral filed a petition before the Barangay Director of Region III acted over the cancellation of emancipation patents, it lost with the
G.R. No. 101974 Sec. 50, 51, 52, Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) for the with jurisdiction when it passage of subsequent laws.
July 12, 2001 53 cancellation of the Emancipation Patents took cognizance of and
361 SCRA 122 and Torrens Titles issued in favor of private resolved the conversion And it is amply clear from these provisions that the function of
FIRST DIVISION respondents. The patents and titles covered application and/or the Regional Office concerns the implementation of agrarian
KAPUNAN, J. portions of the property owned and cancellation of CLT/EP reform laws while that of the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD is the
registered in the name of petitioner. petition of petitioner- adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
appellant
Petitioner alleged therein that she was the The first is essentially executive. It pertains to the enforcement
registered owner of several parcels of land and administration of the laws, carrying them into practical
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) operation and enforcing their due observance. Thus, the
No. 0-1670 of the Registry of Deeds of Regional Director is primarily tasked with "[i]mplement[ing]
Bulacan, among which is a parcel of land laws, policies, rules and regulations within the responsibility of
described therein as Lot 4 of Plan Psu- the agency," as well as the "agency program in the region."
164390. The petition further averred that as
early as July 1973, petitioner applied with The second is judicial in nature, involving as it does the
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) determination of rights and obligations of the parties. To aid
for the reclassification or conversion of the the DARAB in the exercise of this function, the Rules grant the
land for residential, commercial or industrial Board and Adjudicators the powers to issue subpoenas and
purposes. The application for conversion, injunctions, to cite and punish for contempt, and to order the
however, was not acted upon. Instead, on execution of its orders and decision, among other powers. The
April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents, and, Rules also contain very specific provisions to ensure the
thereafter, Transfer Certificates of Title, orderly procedure before the DARAB, RARADs and PARADs.
were issued in favor of private respondents.
We hold that the DAR Regional Office has no jurisdiction over
the subject case.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On January 19, 1990, petitioner filed with

the DAR itself another petition for the
cancellation of the same Emancipation
Patents and Torrens Titles.
On February 11, 1990, Regional Director

Eligio Pacis issued an order dismissing the
petition for cancellation of Emancipation
Patents. The Regional Director likewise
denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration dated July 11, 1990.
Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for

certiorari in the Court of Appeals
questioning the jurisdiction of the Regional
Director and claiming denial of due process.
On January 8, 1991, the appellate court
dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied.
48. Isidro vs. Court of Resolution of Private respondent Natividad Gutierrez is WON the Municipal Trial YES. An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to
Appeals Agrarian Disputes the owner of a parcel of land with an area of Court has the jurisdiction tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
G.R. No. 105586 Sec. 50, 51, 52, 4.5 hectares located in Barrio Sta. Cruz, in this case stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture,
December 15, 1993 53 Gapan, Nueva Ecija. including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or
228 SCRA 503 representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
SECOND DIVISION In 1985, Aniceta Garcia, sister of private changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such
PADILLA, J. respondent and also the overseer of the tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to
latter, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to compensation of lands acquired under Republic Act No. 6657
occupy the swampy portion of the and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from
abovementioned land, consisting of one (1) landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian
hectare, in order to augment his reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the
(petitioner’s) income to meet his family’s proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
needs. The occupancy of a portion of said landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
land was subject to the condition that

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
petitioner would vacate the land upon It is irrefutable in the case at bar that the subject land which
demand. Petitioner occupied the land used to be an idle, swampy land was converted by the
without paying any rental and converted the petitioner into a fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is
same into a fishpond. an agricultural land.
But a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically
In 1990, private respondent through her make such case an agrarian dispute upon which the DARAB
overseer demanded from petitioner the has jurisdiction.
return of the land, but the latter refused. [Reiterates essential requisites of tenancy relationship]
The fact remains that the existence of all the requisites of a
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed tenancy relationship was not proven by the petitioner. In the
by private respondent against petitioner absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful
before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal
Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Petitioner set up the Trial Court.
following defenses: (a) that the complaint
was triggered by his refusal to increase his
lease rental; (b) the subject land is a
fishpond and therefore is agricultural land;
and (c) that lack of formal demand to vacate
exposes the complaint to dismissal for
insufficiency of cause of action.
On 30 May 1991, MTC dismissed the

complaint, ruling that the land is agricultural
and therefore the dispute over it is agrarian
which is under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of agrarian
relations as provided in Sec. 12(a) of
Republic Act No. 946 (now embodied in the
Revised Rules of Procedure of the
Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board).
Private respondent filed an appeal before

the RTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, which

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
affirmed MTC’s decision in toto. Private

respondent appealed to CA.
On 27 February 1992, CA reversed and set

aside the decision of the RTC, ordering
petitioner to vacate the parcel of land in
question and surrender possession thereof
to private respondent, and to pay private
respondent the sum of P5,000.00 as and for
attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but
was denied.
49. [49], Heirs of the Resolution of The subject of the controversy is a parcel of WON CA erred in ruling NO. In the case of Morta v. Occidental, Et Al., this Court held:
Late Herman Rey Agrarian Disputes land in Parulan, Plaridel, Bulacan which was that PARAD has For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a
Santos vs. Court of Sec. 50, 51, 52, levied on execution by the Municipal Trial jurisdiction over the tenancy relationship between the parties.
Appeals 327 SCRA 53 Court of Plaridel, Bulacan on October 24, ancillary matter/s raised Petitioners and private respondent have no tenurial,
293 , 1989. In accordance with said levy on by intervenor in DARAB leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could
G.R. No. 109992 execution, the subject land was sold at Case No. 369-BUL ‘92 have brought this controversy under the ambit of the agrarian
March 07, 2000 public auction on September 20, 1990 with reform laws. Consequently, the DARAB has no jurisdiction over
FIRST DIVISION Herman Rey Santos, now substituted by his the controversy and should not have taken cognizance of
YNARES-SANTIAGO, heirs represented by his widow Arsenia private respondent’s petition for injunction in the first place.
J. Garcia Vda. de Santos, as the sole bidder for
P34,532.50. ["Agrarian dispute" is defined under Section 3(d) of Republic
Act No. 6657 (CARP Law), see definition in Isidro vs. CA]
Santos registered the Deed of Sale with the Clearly, no agrarian dispute is involved in this case. In fact,
Register of Deeds of Bulacan on October 15, both are contending parties for the ownership of the subject
1990, after private respondent Exequiel property.
Garcia failed to exercise his right of Significantly, DARAB admitted that the issue before the
redemption within the reglementary period. Regional Trial Court was one of ownership.
On April 1, 1992, private respondent filed a The issue of who can harvest the mangoes and when they can
Petition for Injunction and Damages with an be harvested is an incident ancillary to the main petition for
application for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. As such, it is dependent on the main case.
injunction with the DARAB, praying that Inasmuch as the DARAB has no jurisdiction to hear and decide

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
petitioner be enjoined from preventing the controversy between the parties, necessarily, the motion
private respondent from gathering the for intervention loses the leg on which it can stand. This issue,
mango fruits lest they "over-mature and after all, can be resolved by the trial court, which has the
become useless." jurisdiction to order the gathering of the mango fruits and
depositing the proceeds with it, considering that an action has
The Provincial Adjudicator Erasmo SP. Cruz already been filed before it on the specific issue of ownership.
of the DARAB issued an order on April 3,
1992, allowing the gathering of the mango
fruits and directing that the proceeds
thereof be deposited with the Adjudication
Board.
Subsequently, on April 27, 1992, private

respondent filed a Petition for Consignation
before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, in
an apparent attempt to redeem his land.
This petition was dismissed.
Meanwhile, one Pantaleon Antonio filed on

May 18, 1992 a motion to intervene with the
DARAB claiming that "he is affected in his
rights and interests as the party who tended
and had the mango trees bear fruits this
season."
On May 7, 1992, private respondent filed a

complaint for Annulment/Cancellation of
Sale and Document, Redemption with
Damages and Preliminary Writ of Injunction
against Herman Rey Santos, the Deputy
Sheriff of Bulacan and the Register of Deeds
of Bulacan. 6

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Thereafter, on July 1, 1992, the Adjudication

Board suspended the hearing on Pantaleon
Antonio’s motion for intervention pending
the resolution of the ownership issue raised
in the above-mentioned complaint.
On July 8, 1992, intervenor Pantaleon

Antonio filed with the DARAB a Motion to
Withdraw Intervenor’s deposited share. The
motion was granted and intervenor
Pantaleon Antonio was allowed to withdraw
P87,300.00 out of P 174,600.00 harvest
proceeds in an Order dated November 18,
1992. Corollarily, the DARAB recognized
Pantaleon Antonio as the duly constituted
agricultural tenant of the subject land.
Court of Appeals affirmed the April 3, 1992

Order of the DARAB ordering the gathering
of the mango fruits and depositing with the
Board the proceeds thereof, and the
November 18, 1992 Order allowing the
withdrawal of intervenor’s share in the
proceeds and recognizing him as the duly
constituted agricultural tenant.
50. Sta. Ana vs. Carpo Resolution of Respondent Leon Carpo and his brother 1. WON the PARAD acted 1. YES. Issues with respect to the retention rights of the
572 SCRA 463 , Agrarian Disputes Francisco G. Carpo are the registered co- without jurisdiction when respondents as landowners and the exclusion/exemption of
G.R. No. 164340 Sec. 50, 51, 52, owners of a parcel of land situated at Sta. it held that the subject the subject land from the coverage of agrarian reform are
November 28, 2008 53 Rosa, Laguna with an area of 91,337 square land was no longer issues not cognizable by the PARAD and the DARAB, but by the
THIRD DIVISION meters, more or less. covered by our agrarian DAR Secretary because, as aforementioned, the same are
NACHURA, J. Agrarian Law A portion thereof, consisting of 3.5 hectares, laws because of the Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.
Implementation pertained to Leon and his wife, respondent retention rights of the
(ALI) Cases Aurora Carpo. It was devoted to rice and respondents. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from
corn production (subject land) and was resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
tenanted by one Domingo Pastolero been lodged in an administrative body of special competence.
(Domingo), husband of Adoracion Pastolero For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the
(Adoracion). When Domingo passed away, Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more specifically, in
Adoracion together with her son Elpidio the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
Pastolero, assumed the tenancy rights of (DARAB). Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi-
Domingo over the subject land. judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
However, on December 29, 1983, matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all matters involving the
Adoracion, by executing a notarized implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under
Pinanumpaang Salaysay with the conformity the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of
of Leon, and for a consideration of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural
P72,500.00, transferred her rights in favor of Resources.
petitioner Otilia Sta. Ana (petitioner) who,
together with her husband, Marciano de la Simply put, agrarian disputes, as defined by law and settled in
Cruz (Marciano), became the new tenants of jurisprudence, are within the primary and exclusive original
the subject land. jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB, while issues of
Circumstances transpired which abraded the retention and non-coverage of a land under agrarian reform,
relationship, and on December 1, 1989, among others, are within the domain of the DAR Secretary.
respondents filed Complaint for Ejectment
due to Non-Payment of Lease Rentals. Thus, Section 3, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure
provides:
Respondents alleged that it was their
agreement with petitioner and Marciano to SECTION 3. Agrarian Law Implementation Cases. – The
increase the existing rentals from 36 cavans Adjudicator or the Board shall have no jurisdiction over
to 45 cavans, and that, if respondents matters involving the administrative implementation of RA No.
wanted to repossess the property, they only 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
had to pay the petitioner the amount of Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as
P72,500.00, the same amount paid by the enunciated by pertinent rules and administrative orders,
latter to Adoracion. Respondents further which shall be under the exclusive prerogative of and
averred that despite repeated demands, cognizable by the Office of the Secretary of the DAR in
petitioner refused to pay the actual rentals accordance with his issuances, to wit:
from July 1985 to September 1989, in
violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 3.1 Classification and identification of landholdings for
817; and that the subject land had been coverage under the agrarian reform program and the initial
declared, upon the recommendation of the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Human Settlements Committee, suitable for issuance of CLOAs and EPs, including protests or oppositions
commercial and industrial purposes, per thereto and petitions for lifting of such coverage;
Zoning Ordinance of 1981 of the
Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. 3.2 Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion,
Respondents prayed that petitioner be qualification, or disqualification of potential/actual farmer-
ejected from the subject land and be beneficiaries;
directed to pay P75,016.00 as unpaid
rentals. 3.3 Subdivision surveys of land under CARP;
Petitioner and Marciano denied that there 3.4 Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals,
was an agreement to increase the existing Certificates of Land Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary
rental which was already fixed at 36 cavans Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview of Presidential
of palay, once or twice a year depending on Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall, or
the availability of irrigation water; that cancellation of EPs or CLOAs not yet registered with the
neither was there an agreement as to the Register of Deeds;
future surrender of the land in favor of the
respondents; that they did not refuse to pay 3.5 Exercise of the right of retention by the landowner;
the rentals because they even sent verbal
and written notices to the respondents, 3.6 Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10
advising them to accept the same; and that of RA 6657;
in view of the latter’s failure to respond,
petitioner and Marciano were compelled to 3.7 Application for exemption pursuant to Department of
sell the harvest and to deposit the proceeds Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44 (1990);
thereof in Savings Account No. 9166 with
the Universal Savings Bank at Sta. Rosa, 3.8 Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for
Laguna under the names of Leon and livestock, swine, and poultry raising;
Marciano. As their special affirmative
defense, petitioner and Marciano claimed 3.9 Cases of exemption/exclusion of fish pond and prawn
that Marciano is a farmer-beneficiary of the farms from the coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881;
subject land pursuant to P.D. 27. Petitioner
and Marciano prayed for the outright 3.10 Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for land subject of
dismissal of the complaint and for the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA)
declaration of Marciano as full owner of the found unsuitable for agricultural purposes;
subject land.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
3.11 Application for conversion of agricultural land to

PARAD held that petitioner should be residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural
ejected for non-payment of lease rentals. It uses and purposes including protests or oppositions thereto;
also ruled that the subject land is not
covered by P.D. No. 27, R.A. No. 6657, and 3.12 Determination of the rights of agrarian reform
E.O. No. 228, not on the basis of the beneficiaries to homelots;
allegation in the complaint, but on the
respondents' right of retention: 3.13 Disposition of excess area of the tenants/farmer-
beneficiary's landholdings;
“The intent of the defendant to subject the
said area under PD 27 should pass the 3.14 Increase in area of tillage of a tenant/farmer-beneficiary;
criteria set. Foremost is the determination
of the aggregate riceland of plaintiff. He 3.15 Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR
must have more than seven (7) hectares of and its predecessors; or
land principally devoted to the planting of
palay. Area over seven (7) hectares shall be 3.16 Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns
the one to be covered by PD 27 on referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR.
Operation Land Transfer (OLT). In the case at
bar, defendants failed to prove that plaintiff 2. WON CA acted without
has more than the required riceland. In fact jurisdiction when it ruled 2. YES. The CA ruled that the land had ceased being
the subject 3.5 hectares are jointly owned that the land had become agricultural on the basis of a mere vicinity map, in open
by two. Hence, coverage for OLT is remote. non-agricultural based on disregard of the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, since the
a zoning ordinance of issue was within the province of the Secretary of DAR.
Defendant claimed that plaintiff is covered 1981– on the strength of a
by LOI 474, and therefore, he is zero mere vicinity map
retention of area. In reference to said law,
wherein it provides landowner with other
agricultural land of more than 7 hectares, or
have other industrial lands from where he
and his family derived resources, then, the
owner cannot retain any riceland. However,
this is not applicable in the instant case, as
the defendant failed to prove that plaintiff

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
has other source of income from where they

will derive their sustenance.”
DARAB set aside PARAD’s decision, ruling

that petitioner and Marciano did not
deliberately fail to pay said rentals
CA reversed DARAB ruling and affirmed the

factual findings of the PARAD. The CA,
however, also held that the subject land had
already become a residential, commercial
and industrial area based on the vicinity map
showing that the land was surrounded by
commercial and industrial establishments.
51. Laguna Estates Resolution of The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, WON the DARAB has NO. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over such issue. For DARAB
Development Agrarian Disputes are as follows: jurisdiction to grant to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy
Corporation vs. Sec. 50, 51, 52, private respondents who relationship between the parties.
Court of Appeals 53 "On 12 December 1989, some 234.76 are beneficiaries of an Obviously, the issue of a right of way or easement over private
335 SCRA 29 , hectares of agricultural land situated in agrarian reform program property without tenancy relations is outside the jurisdiction
G.R. No. 119357 Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna belonging or tenants of adjoining of the DARAB. This is not an agrarian issue. Jurisdiction is
July 05, 2000 to the Sta. Rosa Realty Development landholdings a right of vested in a court of general jurisdiction.
FIRST DIVISION Corporation ("SRRDC", hereafter) was way over petitioners
PARDO, J. placed by the Department of Agrarian network of private roads
Reform (DAR), through its adjudicatory arm, intended for their
public respondent DARAB, under the exclusive use
compulsory acquisition scheme of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP), and subsequently, Certificates of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA’s) numbered
00130422, 00130423 and 00130424 with
TCT Nos. C-168, C-167 and C-169 334 were
issued and award to farmers-beneficiaries,
private respondents herein, namely: Rosa T.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Amante, et al., Rogelio O. Ayende, et al. and

Juan T. Amante, et al., respectively. The
compulsory acquisition and distribution of
the said 234.76 hectares of land in favor of
private respondents were effected by virtue
of the Decision dated 19 December 1991
issued by public respondent DARAB in
DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001-00,
entitled "Juan T. Amante, et al. vs. Sta. Rosa
Realty Development Corp."
"It appears that the aforesaid agricultural

lands in Bgy. Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna are
isolated and/or separated from the rest of
the municipality of Cabuyao, and the only
passage way or access road leading to said
private respondents’ agricultural lands is the
privately owned road network situated
within the premises of petitioners CSE and
LEDC. Subject to reasonable security
regulations, the subject road network is
open to the public. But after private
respondents were awarded the aforesaid
agricultural lands under the CARP Law,
petitioners CSE and LEDC prohibited and
denied private respondents from utilizing
the subject road network, thereby
preventing the ingress of support services
under the CARP Law, provisions for daily
subsistence to, and egress of farm produce
from, Bgy. Casile where the farmlands
awarded to private respondent are located.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On motion by private respondents, DARAB

issued an Order on 25 May 1993 directing
the unhampered entry and construction of
support services coming from the national
government, and other provisions for the
use and benefit of private respondents in
Bgy. Casile, and giving private respondents a
right of way over the subject road network
owned by petitioners.
52. Alangilan Realty & Resolution of Petitioner is the owner/developer of a WON the power to classify NO. The exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify
Development Agrarian Disputes 17.4892-hectare land in Barangays Alangilan lands is essentially a landholdings for coverage under the CARP is reposed in the
Corporation vs. Sec. 50, 51, 52, and Patay in Batangas City (Alangilan legislative function that DAR Secretary. The matter of CARP coverage, like the instant
Office of the 53 landholding). On August 7, 1996, petitioner exclusively lies with the case for application for exemption, is strictly part of the
President filed an Application and/or Petition for legislative authorities, and administrative implementation of the CARP, a matter well
616 SCRA 633 , Exclusion/Exemption from Comprehensive thus, when the within the competence of the DAR Secretary.
G.R. No. 180471 Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Coverage Sangguniang Bayan of
March 26, 2010 of the Alangilan landholding with the Batangas City declared the As we explained in Leonardo Tarona, et al. v. Court of Appeals
THIRD DIVISION Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Alangilan landholding as (Ninth Division), et al.: The power to determine whether a
NACHURA, J. the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). It residential in its 1994 property is subject to CARP coverage lies with the DAR
averred that, in 1982, the Sangguniang Ordinance, its Secretary pursuant to Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657. Verily, it is
Bayan of Batangas City classified the subject determination was explicitly provided under Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB
landholding as reserved for residential under conclusive and cannot be Revised Rules that matters involving strictly the administrative
a zoning ordinance (1982 Ordinance), which overruled by the DAR implementation of the CARP and other agrarian laws and
was approved by the Human Settlement Secretary regulations, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
Regulatory Commission. It further alleged cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR.
that, on May 17, 1994, the Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Batangas City approved the Finally, it is well settled that factual findings of administrative
City Zoning Map and Batangas agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by
Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial
Ordinance (1994 Ordinance), reclassifying evidence. The factual findings of the DAR Secretary, who, by
the landholding as residential-1. Petitioner reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific
thus claimed exemption of its landholding matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and,
from the coverage of the CARP. without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified,
or reversed.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On May 6, 1997, then DAR Secretary Ernesto

Garilao issued an Order denying petitioner's
application for exemption. The DAR
Secretary noted that, as of February 15,
1993, the Alangilan landholding remained
agricultural, reserved for residential. It was
classified as residential-1 only on December
12, 1994 under Sangguniang Panlalawigan
Resolution No. 709, series of 1994. Clearly,
the subject landholding was still agricultural
at the time of the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL), on June 15, 1988. The
qualifying phrase reserved for residential
means that the property is still classified as
agricultural, and is covered by the CARP.
Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration

which the DAR Secretary denied.
On appeal, the Office of the President (OP)

affirmed the decision of the DAR Secretary.
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but
OP denied it.
Petitioner went up to the CA via a petition

for review on certiorari, assailing the OP
decision. CA dismissed the petition.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
but the CA denied it.
53. Concha vs. Rubio Resolution of The controversy involves the determination WON the DARAB is NO. In Lercana v. Jalandoni, this Court was categorical in ruling
617 SCRA 22 , Agrarian Disputes of who between petitioners and clothed with jurisdiction that the identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are
G.R. No. 162446 respondents are qualified to become to resolve the issue matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
March 29, 2010 Sec. 50, 51, 52, beneficiaries over a portion of land involving the identification the CARP, a matter exclusively cognizable by the Secretary of
THIRD DIVISION 53 registered in the name of Lilia E. Gala, Luisita and selection of qualified the Department of Agrarian Reform, and beyond the
PERALTA, J. E. Gala and Teresita E. Gala, respectively, farmer-beneficiaries of a jurisdiction of the DARAB.
with an aggregate area of 33.5006 hectares, land covered by the CARP
more or less. The finding of the MARO declaring petitioners as beneficiaries
of the land in dispute must, therefore, be accorded respect. It
PARAD dismissed the case, ruling that it had should also be equally binding on the DARAB for the simple
no authority to rule on the selection of reason that the latter has no appellate jurisdiction over the
farmer-beneficiaries, as the same was a former: The DARAB cannot review, much less reverse, the
purely administrative matter under the administrative findings of DAR. Instead, the DARAB would do
jurisdiction of the DAR. well to defer to DAR’s expertise when it comes to the
identification and selection of beneficiaries, as it did in Lercana
DARAB set aside PARAD decision. where this Court noted with approval that, in the dispositive
portion of its decision, left to the concerned DAR Offices the
CA reversed and set aside DARAB decision. determination of who were or should be agrarian reform
beneficiaries. In fact, this course of action available to the
Respondents then filed a Motion for DARAB is now embodied in Rule II of its 2003 Rules of
Reconsideration, which the CA granted, Procedure, thus:
reinstating DARAB decision.
Section 5. Referral to Office of the Secretary (OSEC). − In the
event that a case filed before the Adjudicator shall necessitate
the determination of a prejudicial issue involving an agrarian
law implementation case, the Adjudicator shall suspend the
case and, for purposes of expediency, refer the same to the
Office of the Secretary or his authorized representative in the
locality x x x.
54. Philippine Role of SAC in Petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank owned WON a petition for the NO. The pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
Veterans Bank vs. Land Valuation four parcels of land in Tagum, Davao, which judicial fixing of just
Court of Appeals and Penal are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title compensation before SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Power of the DAR. — The DAR is
322 SCRA 139 , Provisions Nos. T-38666, T-38667, T-6236, and T- Special Agrarian Court hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
G.R. No. 132767 Sec. 56, 57 27591. The lands were taken by the should be [filed] within adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
January 18, 2000 Department of Agrarian Reform for the period provided in original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
Second Division distribution to landless farmers pursuant to Rule XIII, Section 11 of the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under
Mendoza, J. the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law DARAB Rules of Procedure the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
(R.A. No. 6657). Dissatisfied with the and before the decision of (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
valuation of the land made by respondents the DAR Provincial Resources (DENR) . . . .
Land Bank of the Philippines and the Adjudicator becomes final
Department of Agrarian Reform and executory? SECTION 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian
Adjudication Board (DARAB), petitioner filed Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
a petition for a determination of the just [Alternative: WON DAR petitions for the determination of just compensation to
compensation for its property. The petition adjudicators have no landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under
was filed on January 26, 1994 with the jurisdiction to determine this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum, the just compensation for before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.
Davao, which on February 23, 1995, the taking of lands under
dismissed the petition on the ground that it the Comprehensive The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases
was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary Agrarian Reform Program, under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from
period for filing appeals from the orders of because such jurisdiction submission of the case for decision.
the DARAB. is vested in Regional Trial
Courts designated as There is nothing contradictory between the provision of §50
Special Agrarian Courts granting the DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and
and, therefore, a petition adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original
for the fixing of just jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of
compensation can be filed agrarian reform," which includes the determination of
beyond the 15-day period questions of just compensation, and the provision of §57
of appeal provided from granting Regional Trial Courts "original and exclusive
the decision of the DAR] 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.
Under R.A. No. 6657, the Land Bank of the Philippines is
charged with the preliminary determination of the value of
lands placed under land reform program and the
compensation to be paid for their taking. It initiates the
acquisition of agricultural lands by notifying the landowner of
the government’s intention to acquire his land and the
valuation of the same as determined by the Land Bank. Within
30 days from receipt of notice, the landowner shall inform the
DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. In the event

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
the landowner rejects the offer, a summary administrative

proceeding is held by the provincial (PARAD), the regional
(RARAD) or the central (DARAB) adjudicator, as the case may
be, depending on the value of the land, for the purpose of
determining the compensation for the land. The landowner,
the Land Bank, and other interested parties are then required
to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land.
The DAR adjudicator decides the case within 30 days after it is
submitted for decision. If the landowner finds the price
unsatisfactory, he may bring the matter directly to the
appropriate Regional Trial Court.
To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly §50

thereof, Rule XIII, §11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure
provides:
Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of

Just Compensation. — The decision of the Adjudicator on land
valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just
compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall
be brought directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as
Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one
motion for reconsideration.
As we held in Republic v. Court of Appeals, this rule is an

acknowledgment by the DARAB that the power to decide just
compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No.
6657 is vested in the courts. It is error to think that, because of
Rule XIII, §11, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to
the courts to decide petitions for determination of just
compensation has thereby been transformed into an appellate
jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with settled
principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
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, but such determination is subject to challenge in the
courts.
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less

"original and exclusive" because the question is first passed
upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not a
continuation of the administrative determination. For that
matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is
final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts
cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the
guarantors of the legality of administrative action.
Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court was

filed beyond the 15-day period provided in Rule XIII, §11 of the
Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, the trial court correctly
dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed
the order of dismissal.
55. Land Bank of the Role of SAC in After compulsory acquisition by the WON the PARAD, in this NO. Finally and most importantly, we find petitioner not
Philippines vs. Land Valuation Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), on case, gravely abused its entitled to the grant of a writ of certiorari by the appellate
Martinez and Penal November 16, 1993, of respondent discretion when it issued a court because the Office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse
530 SCRA 158 , Provisions Martinez’s 62.5369-hectare land in Barangay writ of execution despite its discretion when it undertook to execute the September 4,
G.R. No. 169008 Sec. 56, 57 Agpudlos, San Andres, Romblon, pursuant to the pendency of LBP's 2002 decision. Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of
August 14, 2007 Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive petition for fixing of just Procedure, which was then applicable, provides that:
En Banc Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), compensation with the
Nachura, J. petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) SAC Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and
offered ₱1,955,485.60 as just compensation. Payment of Just Compensation. - The decision of the
Convinced that the proffered amount was Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination
unjust and confiscatory, respondent and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to
rejected it. the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial
Thus PARAD conducted summary Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen
administrative proceedings for the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
preliminary determination of just (15) days from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be
compensation in accordance with Section 16 entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.
(d) of the CARL.
In a September 4, 2002 judgment, PARAD In Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals and in
ordered LBP to pay petitioner the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica,
recomputed amount of Php12,179,492.50. we explained the consequence of the said rule to the effect
LBP filed with RTC petition for fixing just that the adjudicator's decision on land valuation attains finality
compensation 26 days after it received a after the lapse of the 15-day period. Considering therefore
copy of PARAD’s decision. that, in this case, LBP's petition with the SAC for the fixing of
On November 11, 2003, granted just compensation was filed 26 days after its receipt of the
respondent’s motion for the issuance of a PARAD's decision, or eleven days beyond the reglementary
writ of execution. period, the latter had already attained finality. The PARAD
On February 23, 2004, Office of the PARAD could very well issue the writ of execution.
ordered the issuance of a writ of execution.
LBP, on March 12, 2004, moved to quash the
said February 23, 2004 PARAD resolution.
On April 6, 2004, even as the motion to
quash was yet unresolved, LBP instituted a
petition for certiorari before the CA.
CA found LBP guilty of forum-shopping for
not disclosing the pendency of the Motion
to Quash and dismissed the petition.
56. Land Bank of the Role of SAC in Respondent Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz are WON CA erred in adopting YES. The Court held in Celada that the formula outlined in DAR
Philippines vs. Land Valuation Anicia Cruz-Papa, Resurreccion Cruz- SAC ruling that it was A.O. No. 5, series of 1998 should be applied in computing just
Heirs of Eleuterio and Penal Pagcaliwagan, Antonio D. Cruz, Lourdes constrained to adopt the compensation.
Cruz Provisions Cruz-Doma, Lorna Cruz-Felipe, Mamerto D. finding of the PARAD
567 SCRA 31 , Sec. 56, 57 Cruz, Eduardo D. Cruz and Victoria Cruz- which did not adhere to In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, because the trial
G.R. No. 175175 Dumlao. Eleuterio Cruz is the registered the formula prescribed in court therein based its valuation upon a different formula and
September 29, owner of an unirrigated riceland situated in regulations issued by the did not conduct any hearing for the reception of evidence, the
2008 Lakambini, Tuao, Cagayan of which 13.5550 DAR Court ordered a remand of the case to the SAC for trial on the
hectares was placed by the government merits.
under the coverage of the operation land
transfer program under Presidential Decree Hence, the Court ordered that Agrarian Case No. 0058 is
(P.D.) No. 27. REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Petitioner pegged the value of the acquired City, Cagayan, which is directed to determine with dispatch
landholding at P106,935.76 based on the the just compensation due respondents strictly in accordance
guidelines set forth under P.D. No. 277 and with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228.
Respondents rejected petitioner’s valuation
and instituted an action for a summary
proceeding for the preliminary
determination of just compensation before
the PARAD.
A perusal of the PARAD's Decision dated 23
November 1999, which mandated payment
of just compensation in the amount of
P80,000.00 per hectare, reveals that the
PARAD did not adhere to the formula
prescribed in any of the aforementioned
regulations issued by the DAR or was at least
silent on the applicability of the
aforementioned DAR regulations to the
question of just compensation. The PARAD
decision also did not refer to any evidence in
support of its finding.
The SAC, meanwhile, referred to DAR A.O.

No. 6, series of 1992, as amended, as the
controlling guideline in fixing just
compensation. Pertinently, to obtain the
land value, the formula under said
regulation requires that the values for the
Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales
and Market Value based on the tax
declaration must be shown. Moreover, said
formula has been superseded by DAR A.O.
No. 05, series of 1998, which also requires
values for Capitalized Net Income,

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
Comparable Sales and Market Value, the

same parameters laid down in the prior
regulation.
Stating that no evidence was presented by

respondents on the aforementioned
parameters, the SAC ruled that it was
constrained to adopt the finding of the
PARAD, which fixed the value of the land at
P80,000.00 per hectare. On appeal, the CA
adopted the same finding.
57. Land Bank of the Role of SAC in Respondent Leonila P. Celada owns WON the SAC a quo erred NO. In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the
Philippines vs. Land Valuation agricultural in Calatrava, Carmen, Bohol in assuming jurisdiction landowner filed an action for determination of just
Celada and Penal identified in 1998 by the DAR as suitable for over the petition for compensation without waiting for the completion of the
479 SCRA 495 , Provisions compulsory acquisition under the CARP. determination of just DARAB’s re-evaluation of the land. The Court nonetheless held
G.R. No. 164876 Sec. 56, 57 LBP valued respondent's land at P2.1105517 compensation while therein that the SAC acquired jurisdiction over the action for
January 23, 2006 per square meter for an aggregate value of administrative the following reason:
First Division P299,569.61. The DAR offered the same proceedings is on-going
Ynares-Santiago, J. amount, but it was rejected. before the DARAB, Region It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special
The matter was referred to DARAB Region VII, Cebu City. Agrarian Court, has ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
VII-Cebu City, for summary administrative petitions for the determination of just compensation to
hearing on determination of just landowners.’ This ‘original and exclusive’ jurisdiction of the
compensation. RTC would be undermined if the DAR would vest in
While the DARAB case was pending, administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation
respondent filed, on February 10, 2000, a cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of
petition for judicial determination of just administrative decision. Thus, although the new rules speak of
compensation against LBP, the DAR and the directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 that
of Carmen, Bohol, before the Regional Trial the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases
Court of Tagbilaran City. is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the
adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the
RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57
and therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by
private respondent is valid.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property

under RA No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of eminent
domain by the State. The valuation of property or
determination of just compensation in eminent domain
proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested
with the courts and not with administrative agencies.
Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of
respondent’s petition for determination of just compensation.
58. Land Bank of the Role of SAC in Private respondent Jose Pascual owned WON private respondent NO. Although it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 provides that
Philippines vs. Land Valuation three (3) parcels of land located in Gattaran, should have filed a case the Special Agrarian Courts shall have jurisdiction over the
Court of Appeals and Penal Cagayan. Pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228, the with the Special Agrarian final determination of just compensation cases, it must be
and Pascual Provisions DAR placed these lands under its Operation Court for the final noted that petitioner never contested the valuation of the
321 SCRA 629 , Sec. 56, 57 Land Transfer (OLT). determination of just PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its decision became
G.R. No. 128557 On 11 June 1992 the PARAD ruled in favor of compensation. final and executory. There was therefore no need for private
December 29, 1999 private respondent and ordered petitioner respondent Pascual to file a case in the Special Agrarian Court.
LBP to pay private respondent a total
amount of P1,961,950.00. Private
respondent accepted the valuation.
Petitioner LBP having refused to comply
with its obligation despite the directive of
demand letters of private respondent Jose
Pascual, the latter finally filed an action for
Mandamus in the Court of Appeals to
compel petitioner to pay the valuation
determined by the PARAD.
CA ruled in respondent’s favor.
Petitioner LBP asserts that a writ of
mandamus cannot be issued where there is
another plain, adequate and complete
remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Petitioner claims that private respondent
had three (3) remedies. The first remedy

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
was to ask the sheriff of the DARAB to

execute the ruling of PARAD by levying
against the Agrarian Reform Fund for so
much of the amount as would satisfy the
judgment. Another remedy was to file a
motion with the DAR asking for a final
resolution with regard to the financing of
the land valuation. Lastly, private
respondent could have filed a case in the
Special Agrarian Court for the final
determination of just compensation.
59. Land Bank of the Role of SAC in Respondents Arlene de Leon and Bernardo WON CA erred in ruling NO. The case at bar requires an interpretation of Sections 60
Philippines vs. De land valuation de Leon are the registered owners of a that Section 60 of RA 6657 and 61 of RA 6657. The said provisions provide that:
Leon and penal parcel of land situated at San Agustin, provides the proper mode
388 SCRA 537 , provisions Concepcion, Tarlac which was voluntarily for the review of the Section 60. Appeals, - An appeal may be taken from the
G.R. No. 143275 Sec. 58, 59, 60 offered for sale to the government at decisions of the Special decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing a petition for
September 10, P50,000.00 per hectare. DAR made a Agrarian Courts despite review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from
2002 counter offer of P17,656.20 per hectare, or a Section 61 of RA 6657 receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall
Third Division total amount of P884,877.54, but the same which expressly mandates become final.
Corona, J. was rejected. Another offer was made by that the rules of court
DAR increasing the amount to shall govern the review of Section 61.- Procedure in Review. Review by the Court of
P1,565,369.35. In view of the respondents’ the decisions of the appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall be
failure to respond to the new offer made by Special Agrarian Courts by governed by the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals,
DAR, the DARAB took cognizance of the case the Court of Appeals however, may require the parties to file simultaneous
pursuant to Sec. 16 (d) of RA 6657. memoranda within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice,
Subsequently, the DARAB issued an Order after which the case is deemed submitted for decision.
directing LBP to recompute the value of the
subject property in accordance with DAR Respondent spouses point to Section 60 of RA 6657 to support
Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992. their view that the mode of appeal initiated by petitioner LBP
LBP arrived at the recomputed value of the was erroneous. On the other hand, petitioner LBP believes
aggregate amount of P2,491,731.65 which that the mode of appeal it used is permissible under Section
respondents again rejected. 61 of the same law.
On October 27, 1994, LBP filed with RTC
petition to fix just compensation.

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
On December 19, 1997, RTC fixed just What indeed is the proper mode of appeal from decisions of
compensation as follows: the Regional Trial Courts, sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, in
a. P1,260,000.00 for the 16.69 hectares of the determination of just compensation an appeal by way of a
riceland; petition for review or an ordinary appeal?
b. P2,957,250.00 for the 30.4160 hectares of
sugarland. Section 2 of Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
On March 17, 1998, the DAR filed in the CA a Procedure provides for three modes of appeal, to wit:
petition for review of the decision of the
SAC. Sec. 2. Modes of Appeal.
Petitioner LBP also initiated in the CA an
appeal of the same decision of the SAC by (a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
filing a notice of appeal. cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
CA dismissed the ordinary appeal instituted original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal
by petitioner LBP, reasoning that “the mode with the court which rendered the judgment or final order
of appeal followed by the petitioner was appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
erroneous considering that Section 60 of RA party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special
6657, otherwise known as the proceedings and other cases or multiple or separate appeals
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the
mandates that appeals from decisions of record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
Special Agrarian Courts should be by
petition for review. Therefore, the notice of (b) Petition for Review. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
appeal filed by LBP was ineffectual and did cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
not stop the running of the period of appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in
appeal.” accordance with Rule 42.
(c) Appeal by Certiorari. In all cases where only questions of

law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme
Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with
Rule 45.
A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper

procedure in effecting an appeal from decisions of the
Regional Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian Courts in cases
involving the determination of just compensation to the

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
landowners concerned. Section 60 of RA 6657 clearly and

categorically states that the said mode of appeal should be
adopted. There is no room for a contrary interpretation.
Where the law is clear and categorical, there is no room for
construction, but only application.
60. Limkaichong vs. Petitioner Jocelyn Limkaichong was the WON the trial court's NO. We cannot fairly and properly hold that the petitioner's
Land Bank of the registered owner of agricultural lands with a dismissal of her petition complaint for the determination of just compensation should
Philippines total area of 19.6843 hectares situated in because of her failure to be barred from being tried and decided on that basis. The
799 SCRA 139 Villegas, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental placed file it before the prevailing rule at the time she filed her complaint on August
G.R. No. 158464 under CARP coverage. decision/order of the 19, 1999 was that enunciated in Republic v. Court of Appeals
August 02, 2016 On May 28, 1999, the DARAB issued its DARAB became final and on October 30, 1996. The pronouncement in Philippine
En Banc order affirming the valuation of the lands executory pursuant to Veterans Bank was promulgated on January 18, 2000 when
Bersamin, J. upon finding the valuation earlier rejected Section 51 of R.A, No. the trial was already in progress in the RTC, At any rate, it
by petitioner as consistent with existing 6657 was fair and proper. would only be eight years afterwards that the Court en banc
administrative guidelines on land valuation. unanimously resolved the jurisprudential conundrum through
On August 19, 1999, the petitioner filed in its declaration in Land Bank v. Martinez that the better rule
the RTC in Dumaguete City a complaint for was that enunciated in Philippine Veterans Bank, The Court
the fixing of just compensation for her lands. must, therefore, prospectively apply Philippine Veterans Bank.
On June 7, 2001, the RTC as the SAC granted The effect is that the petitioner's cause of action for the
the respondents' motion to dismiss. Citing proper valuation of her expropriated property should be
Section 51 and Section 5416 of R.A. No. allowed to proceed. Hence, her complaint to recover just
6657 and Section 11 of Rule XIII of the 1994 compensation was properly brought in the RTC as the SAC,
DARAB Rules of Procedure, it held that the whose dismissal of it upon the motion of Land Bank should be
petitioner's complaint should have been undone.
filed within 15 days from notice of the
assailed order. It dismissed her argument
that the case was anchored on violations of
her constitutional rights to due process and
just compensation, declaring that the
controlling ruling was Philippine Veterans
Bank v. Court of Appeals, not Republic v.
Court of Appeals. Thus, applying the ruling in
Philippine Veterans Bank, the RTC concluded
that dismissal was proper because she had

lOMoARcPSD|7637309
NO.
filed Civil Case No. 12558 beyond the

statutory 15-day period.
CA affirmed the RTC decision.

Alsl Case Digests For Atty Mancols Syllabus

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

Alsl Case Digests For Atty Mancols Syllabus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|7637309

ALSL CASE Digests (for Atty. Mancol's Syllabus)

Agrarian Law (Arellano University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired

The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the

Hence, the argument that the assailed measures violate due

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease,

defines the nature and incidents of a landowner’s right of

Without doubt, this right of retention may be exercised over

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

P.D. No. 27 grants each tenant of covered lands a five (5)-

Consequently, a landowner may keep his entire covered

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

"other agricultural lands" refers to lands other than tenanted

On the other hand, the requisites for the exercise by the

Clearly, then, the requisites for the grant of an application for

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

On June 23, 2004, the RTC granted the

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead

Thus, on April 29, 1986, the Regional Trial

On appeal to the respondent Court of

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

properties are situated within the areas Comprehensive Agrarian

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

of the said Order, but the same was denied

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

there were 448 heads of cattle and more

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Petitioner filed a Motion for

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Meanwhile, six months earlier, or on

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

CA amended its decision and the 162.7373

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

"Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program" under

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

complainants, were laid-off when this

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

directly used for the repairs and renovations of the schools in

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

NASUGBU IN BATANGAS AS A TOURIST

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Jaylord Dela Cruz (jaylorddc04@gmail.com)