# 13 case
on the disputed property. The inspection team submitted
Petitioner: ALEJANDRO DANAN et al.
versus
Respondents: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and
ESTRELLA ARRASTIA,
G.R. No. 132759
October 25, 2005
Justice Tinga
DOCTRINE: that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an
injustice against the landowner.
Facts:
 Sometime in 1976, a certain Rustico Coronel leased the
subject property for a period of twelve (12) years or until
the crop year 1987 to 1988. Then, persons claiming to be
farmers and residents of Barangay Lourdes and
Barangay San Rafael signed a joint resolution as
members of the Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa
Agrikultura ("AMA") to enter and lease the subject
property from the Arrastia heirs. They entered the
disputed land and planted various crops thereon. This
culminated in a violent confrontation on May 21, 1988
that led to the filing of criminal charges against AMA
members.
 On June 2, 1988, the AMA filed a complaint with
petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory
Board (DARAB), praying that respondent Arrastia be
prevented from destroying standing crops on the
disputed property and from fencing said property and that
petitioners be allowed to continue with their farming
thereon. On August 15, 1988, the DARAB ordered the
DAR Regional Director to conduct an ocular inspection
an Ocular/Investigation Report stating that there were no
substantially significant plantings on the disputed
property. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
("MARO") of Lubao, Pampanga also submitted a report
recommending the disqualification of private petitioners
from availing of the benefits under the CARP.
 On October 5, 1988, the DARAB issued an order denying
AMA's motion for authority to cultivate and the order
became final and executory on July 29, 1989.
 Arrastia instituted an action against private petitioners for
violation of Section 73(b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657
on October 9, 1989 and the trial court, sitting as a special
agrarian court ("SAC"), issued a temporary restraining
order. Subsequently a preliminary injunction, both
enjoining private petitioners from entering and cultivating
the disputed property was issued to the latter.
 On November 29, 1989, private petitioners filed a
complaint for injunction and damages before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
("PARAD") against Arrastia, alleging that they were
actual tillers of the disputed property who were forcibly
evicted by Arrastia from their tenanted lots through the
use of armed men. The matter was referred to BARC but
the dispute could not be settled amicably per
recommendation of BARC Officials.
 On the basis of the reports submitted by BARC officials
and private petitioners' affidavits, the hearing officer
issued on December 9, 1990 an order granting a
preliminary injunction in favor of petitioners and the
PARAD also directed the MARO to act on the petition for
the coverage of the disputed property under the CARP.
 On January 30, 1991, Arrastia filed an omnibus motion in
DARAB Case No. 0001, questioning the jurisdiction of
the hearing officer to issue an order of injunction. The
DARAB denied said motion and subsequently issued the
writ of injunction on September 22, 1992.
  Arrastia filed an answer in DARAB Regional Case No.
161-P' 89, interposing the defense that the disputed land
was not devoted to agriculture and that private petitioners
were not tenants thereof.
 After due hearing, the PARAD rendered a decision in
DARAB Regional Case No. 161-P' 89 on May 13, 1993,
declaring that the subject property is covered by the
CARP and that private petitioners are qualified
beneficiaries of the program. The adjudicator also issued
an injunction prohibiting Arrastia from disturbing private
petitioners' occupation of the property.
 Arrastia appealed the aforementioned decision to
petitioner DARAB. The appeal was docketed as DARAB
Case No. 1551. On March 28, 1994, the DARAB
rendered its decision modifying the appealed judgment.
 Aggrieved, Arrastia elevated the controversy to the Court
of Appeals, which reversed and set aside the decision of
the DARAB.
Issue:
 Whether or not private petitioners are qualified
beneficiaries under the CARP?
Held:
 The Court affirms factual findings and conclusions of the
Court of Appeals.
 The appellate court's conclusion that private petitioners
committed particular violations warranting their
disqualification from the CARP is based on the MARO
report which has not been disputed by all the private
petitioners. The MARO who prepared the report enjoys
the presumption of regularity in the performance of her
functions. Absent any showing that the Court of Appeals
committed grave abuse of discretion in giving evidentiary
weight to said report, said factual findings are generally
deemed conclusive on this Court, which is not a trier of
facts.
 Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land
does not automatically convert a tiller or farmworker into
an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws.
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are:
o (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
o (2) the subject is agricultural land;
o (3) there is consent among the parties;
o (4) the purpose is agricultural production;
o (5) there is personal cultivation; and
o (6) there is sharing of harvests.
All these requisites must concur in order to create a
tenancy relationship between the parties. In the case at
bar, it has not been sufficiently established that private
petitioners' occupation and cultivation of the disputed
property was with the consent of the landowners.
 As borne by the case records, respondent Arrastia owns
only 4.4630 hectares of the subject property, which is
below the retention limit under Section 6 of R.A. No.
6657 granting a right of retention of up to a maximum of
five (5) hectares of agricultural land in favor of a
landowner whose property may be acquired for
distribution to agrarian reform beneficiaries.
 Consequently, a landowner may keep his entire covered
landholding if its aggregate size does not exceed the
retention limit of five (5) hectares. His land will not be
covered at all by the operation land transfer program
although all requisites for coverage are present.
 The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed
right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. It
serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land
acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and
the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social
justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against
the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is
land which is not supposed to anymore leave the
 landowner's dominion, thus sparing the government from
the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the
landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless
process. For as long as the area to be retained is
compact or contiguous and 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, 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.
 Therefore, there is no legal and practical basis to order
the commencement of the administrative proceedings for
the placement of respondent Arrastia's land under the
CARP since her property's land area falls below the
retention limit of five (5) hectares.
WHEREFORE, both petitions in G.R No. 132759 and
G.R. No. 132866 are DENIED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 33796 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against private petitioners.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
#7 case
Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos v. E.M.
Ramos and Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 131481, March 16, 2011
FACTS:
In 1965, EM Ramos and Sons, Inc (EMRASON) acquired a 372-
hectare land in Brgy. Langkaan, Municipality of Dasmariñas,
Cavite.
The Municipality of Dasmariñas, Cavite passed Municipal
Ordinance 1 entitled “An Ordinance Providing Subdivision
Regulation and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof”
sometime in 1971, in accordance with the Local Autonomy Act
(R.A. 2264).
EMRASON applied for authorization to develop its 372-hectare
land into a residential subdivision named "Traveller's Life
Homes" in 1972. The said municipality’s Council passed
Municipal Ordinance 29-A on May 1972 which approved
EMRASON’s application. However, due to some unexpected
problems, EMRASON’s implementation of their subdivision
project was delayed.
Meanwhile, R.A. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988, CARL for brevity) became effective on 15 June
1988.
On September 23, 1988, the Municipal Mayor of Dasmariñas,
Cavite told EMRASON the approval for its 372 hectares
property in Barrios Bukal and Langkaan, Dasmariñas, Cavite to
be developed into a residential, industrial, commercial and golf
course project. The conversion was done in conformity with the
approved Development Plan of Municipality of Dasmariñas,
Cavite.
Then the Aquino government planned conversion of the
tenanted neighboring property of the National Development
Company (NDC) into an industrial estate managed through a
joint venture scheme of NDC and Marubeni Corporation. As part
of the conversion, each tenant-farmer who opted to remain at
the NDC property will receive three (3) hectares of land as
compensation. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was
tasked to acquire additional lands from nearby areas since NDC
property’s size turned out insufficient for both demands of the
proposed industrial project and for the government’s made
commitment to the tenant-farmers of giving them a new land.
Thus, EMRASON’s land was earmarked for the said acquisition.

On August 29, 1990, Office of Agrarian Reform Secretary
Benjamin Leong sent out the first of four batches of acquisition
notices of EMRASON’s property covering 303.38545 hectares
of land at Barangay Langkaan, Dasmariñas, Cavite.
EMRASON protested to these notices.
The Department of Agrarian Reform Region IV’s Legal Division
through its Hearing Officer Victor Baguilat, through its 28 August
1992 decision, declared all the notices of acquisitions null and
void because the properties subject of acquisition proceedings
are exempted from CARP coverage, pursuant to DOJ Opinion
No. 44 (1990) of then Sec. Franklin Drilon. The said DOJ
Opinion stated that lands already converted to non-agricultural
uses before effectivity of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
are no longer covered by agrarian reform.
DAR objected to Baguilat’s decision as well as the opinion of
Sec. Drilon since it maintains that it has to provide the members
of Buklod ng Maqbubukid Sa Lupaing Ramos (BUKLOD) three
(3) hectares of land as tenant-farmers of the NDC property.
The Court of Appeals via its 26 March 1997 decision ruled in
favor of EMRASON and against BUKLOD, stating that the land
was already converted or classified as residential by the
Municipality of Dasmariñas prior to Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law’s effectivity in 1988.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals was right in ruling that the
land owned by EMRASON, Inc was not covered by
agrarian reform since it was classified as non-
agricultural/residential lands by Municipal Ordinance 29-
A?
Legal Provisions cited:
Municipal Ordinance 29-A made by the Municipality of
Dasmarinas which says, “ ‘Resolved, as it is hereby resolved, to
approve the application for subdivision containing an area of
Three Hundred Seventy-Two (372) Hectares situated in Barrios
Bocal and Langkaan, named as Traveller's Life Homes.’
Resolved that the Municipal Ordinance regarding subdivision
regulations existing in this municipality shall be strictly followed
by the subdivision”.
Section 3 of the Local Autonomy Act (R.A. No. 2264), which
empowers a Municipal Council “to adopt zoning and subdivision
ordinances or regulations” for the municipality where it belongs.
Section 4 of R.A. 6657 or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) of 1988 which says that agrarian reform shall "cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all
public and private agricultural lands.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of EMRASON, Inc. It stated
that the lands involved in the present case are not subject to
agrarian reform since it was classified as residential land by
Municipal Ordinance 29-A of Municipality of Dasmariñas prior to
the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
It also reiterated the ruling in Natalia vs. Department of Agrarian
Reform that since a special law classified the land for
residential, commercial, or industrial use, that land or property
cannot be anymore subject to agrarian reform. The Court also
used sec. 3 of RA 2264 or Local Autonomy Act to validate
EMRASON’s application via Ordinance 29-A made by the
Municipality of Dasmariñas, Cavite.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Option 2
Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos v. E.M. Ramos
and Sons, Inc., G.R. No. 131481, March 16, 2011
Facts:  On June 15. 1988, Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as
At the core of the controversy are several parcels of unirrigated
land (303.38545 hectares) which from part of a larger expanse
with an area of 372 hectares situated at Barangay Langkaan,
Dasmarinas,Cavite. Originally owned by the Manila Golf and
Country Club, the property was acquired by the repondent
EMRASON in 1965 for the purpose of developing the same into
a residential subdivision known as Traveller's Life Homes.
Sometime in 1971, the Municipal Council of Dasmarinas,
Cavite, acting pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 2264,
otherwise known as the "Loval Autonomy Act", enacted
Municipal Ordinance No. 1, hereinafter referred to as Ordinance
No. 1, enitled "An Ordinance Providing Subdivision Regulation
and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof."
In May, 1972, [respondent] E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc., applied
for an authority to convert and development its aforementioned
372-hectare property into a residential subdivision, attaching to
the aplication detailed development plans and development
proposals from Bancom Development Corporation and San
Miguel Corporation. Acting thereon the Municipal Council of
Dasmarinas, Cavite passed on July 9, 1972 Municipal
Ordinance No. 29-A (Ordinance "No. 29-A, for brevity),
approving EMRASON's application. Subsequently, EMRASON
paid the fees, dues and licenses needed to proceed with
property development. It appears, however, that the actual
implementation of the subdivision project suffered delay owing
to the confluence of events. Among these was the fact that the
property in question was then mortgaged to, and the titles
thereto were in the possession of, the Overseas Bank of Manila,
which during the period material was under liquidation.
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL, took effect,
ushering in a new process of land classification, acquisition and
distribution.
On September 23, 1988, the Municipal Mayor of Dasmarinas,
Cavite addressed a letter to EMRASON.
On August 29, 1990, then OAR Secretary Benjamin Leong sent
out the first of four batches of notices of acquisition, each of
which drew protest from EMRASON. All told, these notices
covered 303.38545 hectares of land situated at
BarangayLangkaan, Dasmarinas, Cavite owned by EMRASON.
In the meantime, EMRASON filed with the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), Region IV,
Pasig, Metro Manila, separate petitions to nullify the first three
sets of the above notices. Collectively docketed as DARAB
Case No. IV-Ca-0084-92, these petitions were subsequently
referred to the Office of the Regional Director, Region IV, which
had jurisdiction thereon. In his referral action, the Provincial
Agrarian Adjudicator directed the DAR Region IV, through its
Operations Division, to conduct a hearing and/or investigation lo
determine whether or not the subject property is covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and, if not,
to cancel the notices of acquisition.
Forthwith, the DAR Regional office conducted an on-site
inspection of the subject property.
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 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 o
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.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.
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.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
ofSupreme 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not subject property could be placed under the
CARP.
HELD:
No. Section 4, Chapter II of the CARL, as amended,24
particularly defines the coverage of the CARP, to wit:
SEC. 4. Scope. - The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as
provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
including other lands of the public domain suitable for
agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a
total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for
acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of
forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken
after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account
ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have
determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits
as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be
raised thereon.
A comprehensive inventory system in consonance with the
national land use plan shall be instituted by the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local
Government Code, for the purpose of properly identifying and
classifying farmlands within one (1) year from effectivity of this
/Vet. without prejudice to the implementation of the land
acquisition and distribution." (Emphases supplied.)Section 3(c),
Chapter I of the CARL further narrows down the definition of
agricultural land that is subject to CARP to "land devoted to
agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."
The CARL took effect on June 15, 1988. To be exempt from the
CARP, the subject property should have already been
reclassified as residential prior to said date.
The Court reiterates that since July 9, 1972, upon approval of
Resolution No. 29-A by the Municipality of Dasmarinas, the
subject property had been reclassified from agricultural to
residential. The tax declarations covering the subject property,
classifying the same as agricultural, cannot prevail over
Resolution No. 29-A.Since the subject property had been
reclassified as residential land by virtue of Resolution No. 29-A
dated July 9, 1972, it is no longer agricultural land by the time
the CARL took effect on June 15, 1988 and is, therefore,
exempt from the CARP.