BATAS KASAMBAHAY R.A. 10361 Q: What are the conditions for working children?
Q: Who are considered as kasambahay under R.A. 10361?
A: Kasambahay refers to any person engaged in domestic
work within an employment relationship, whether live-in or
live-out arrangement.
Q: If we are to dig deeper in the meaning of a kasambahay,
what does household, within an employment relationship
and household mean?
A: Domestic work refers to work performed in or for a
household.
Within an employment relationship means that a domestic
worker should be hired specifically to perform household
work.
Household refers to the immediate members of the family
or the occupants of the house who are directly and regularly
provided services by the kasambahay.
Q: Who are considered as kasambahay under R.A. 10361?
any person engaged in domestic work within an
employment relationship, whether live-in or live-out
arrangement, such as, but not limited to, general house
help, yaya, cook, gardener, or laundry person
Q: Who are those not covered by R.A. 10361?
A: Service providers – any person or entity that carries an
independent business and undertakes to perform job, work
or service on his/her own for a household, according to his
or her own manner and method and free from the control
and direction of the employer in all matters in connection
with the performance of the work except as to the results
thereof,
family drivers,
children under foster arrangement – refers to children who
are living with a family or household of relative/s and are
provided, that the foster family and foster care
arrangements are in compliance with R.A. 101655
otherwise known as Foster Care Act of 2012
and or, any other person who performs work occasionally
and not on an occupational and regular basis
Q: What is the employable age for a kasambahay?
A: the minimum employment age of a kasambahay is 15
years of age. It is generally prohibited and unlawful to
employ any person below 15 years of age as a kasambahay.
This is pursuant to R.A. 9231 or the special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and
Discrimination Act.
A: Working children shall not be subject to work for more
than 8 hours a day and beyond 40 days a week, work
between 10:00pm and 6:00am of the following day and
work which is hazardous or likely to be harmful to the
health, safety, or morals of children, as defined under
existing laws and regulations.
Working Children shall be entitled to minimum wage, and
all benefits provided under this act which includes access to
education and training
Q: How can a Kasambahay be hired?
A: A kasambahay can be hired directly, or through a licensed
private employment agency.
Q: Who is an employer?
A: An employer refers to any person who engages and
controls the services of a kasambahay and is a party to the
employment contract
Q: What is a Private Employment Agency?
A: It refers to any individual, partnership, corporation or
entity licensed by the Department of Labor and
Employment to engage in the requirement and placement
of Kasambahay for local employment.
Q: Who are liable for the wages and other benefits of the
kasambahay?
A: The Private Employment Agencies are jointly and
severally liable with the employer for all the wages and
other benefits due a domestic worker.
Q: Are the recruitment and Finder’s fees chargeable to the
kasambahay?
A: No. Regardless of whether the kasambahay was hired
through a private employment agency or a third party, any
recruitment or finder’s fee should not be charged against
the domestic worker.
Q: What are the grounds in a case where the employer
shall be entitled to a qualified replacement from the
Private Employment Agency?
A: Within one month from the day the kasambahay reports
for work, the employer shall be entitled to a qualified
replacement at no additional costs if any of the following
grounds occur:
a. The kasambahay is found to be suffering from an
incurable or contagious disease; or mental illness as
certified by a competent or government physician
1
b. The kasambahay abandons the job without justifiable
cause, voluntarily resigns, commits theft or any other
analogous acts prejudicial to the employer or his/her family
or;
c. The kasambahay is physically or mentally incapable of
discharging the minimum requirements of the job, as
specified in the employment contract.
Q: What should be included in the employment contract
between the employer and the kasambahay?
A: The following should be included:
a. Duties and responsibilities of the kasambahay;
b. Period of employment;
c. Compensation;
d. Authorized deductions;
e. Hours of work and proportionate additional
payment;
f. Rest days and allowable leaves;
g. Board, lodging and medical attention;
h. Agreements on deployment expenses, if any;
i. Loan agreement;
j. Termination of employment; and
k. Any other lawful condition agreed upon by both
parties.
Take note that the contract should be executed prior to the
commencement of the service.
It must also be written in a language or dialect understood
both by the kasambahay and the employer. The
kasambahay should also be given a copy of the contract.
Q: What if the kasambahay is below 18 years of age?
A: If the kasambahay is below 18 years of age, the
employment contract shall be signed by his or her parent or
lawful guardian on his or her behalf
Q: What are Rights and Privileges of a Kasambahay?
A: The following are the Rights and Privileges of a
Kasambahay:
a. Minimum Wage
b. Other Mandatory Benefits
c. Freedom from employer’s interference in
wage disposal;
d. Coverage under the SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-
IBIG laws;
e. Standard of treatment; Treated with respect;
not subject to any abuse or any form of
violence
f. Board, lodging, and medical attendance;
should be provided at least 3 adequate meals
a day, given humane sleeping condition and
appropriate rest and medical assistance
g. Right to privacy; covers all forms of
communications
h. Access to outside communication; during free
time kasambahay should be granted access to
outside communication
i. Access to education and training; shall be
afforded the opportunity to finish basic
education (elementary and secondary
education)
j. Right to form, join, or assist labor organization;
kasambahay has the right to hoin a labor
organization of his or her choosing for
purposes of mutual aid and collective
negotiation
k. Right to be provided a copy of employment
contract
l. Right to Certificate of Employment; given upon
termination of contract
m. Right to terminate employment based on just
cause; and (discussed further)
n. Right to exercise religious beliefs and cultural
practices.
Q: What are the Mandatory Benefits a kasambahay is
entitled to?
A: The kasambahay is entitled to the following benefits:
• Monthly minimum wage;
• Daily rest period of 8 (total) hours;
• Weekly rest period of 24 (uninterrupted) hours
• 5 days annual service incentive leave with pay; a
kasambahay who has rendered at least one year
of service shall be entitled to an annual service
leave of at least 5 days with pay
• 13th month pay; a kasambahay who has rendered
at least one month of service is entitled to 13th
month pay which shall not be less than 1/12 of his
or her total basic salary in a calendar year; shall be
paid not later than DEC 24 of every year or upon
separation from employment
• SSS benefit, PhilHealth benefit, and Pag-IBIG
benefit.
Q: What is the minimum wage for kasamabahays in NCR,
cities and first class municipalities, and in other
municipalities?
A: The minimum wage for a kasmabahay employed in NCR
shall not be less than Php 2,500.00, for a kasmabahay
employed in other cities and first class municipalities Php
2,000.00 and for other municipalities Php 1,500.00.
2
Q: How many months of service is the kasambahay
required to have before he or she is covered by the SSS,
PhilHealth, and Pag-IBIG? What are the benefits he or she
is entitled to?
A: The kasambahay is required to have at least one month
of service to be covered. He or She is entitled to Sickness,
Maternity, Disability, Retirement, Death, and Funeral for
the SSS and Inpatient hospital care and outpatient care for
PhilHealth
Mandatory premium payments or contributions shall be
shouldered by the employer. However if the kasambahay is
receiving a monthly payment of Php 5,000.00 and above the
kasambahay shall pay the proportionate share in the
premium payments or contributions as provided for by the
law
In the event the kasambahay avails of certain loan privileges
from PAG-IBIG Fund which require payment of additional or
upgraded contributions, the said additional or upgraded
contributions shall be shouldered solely by the kasambahay
Q: What are the obligations of domestic workers?
A: Domestic Workers are obligated to:
• Render satisfactory service at all times
• Observe the terms and conditions of the
employment contract
• Refrain from publicly disclosing any
communication or information pertaining to the
employer or members of the household during and
after employment
Q: What are the prohibited activities of employers?
A: The following are prohibited activities of employers:
• Prohibition on Debt Bondage
o Debt Bondage refers to the rendering of
service by the domestic worker as a
security or payment for a debt where the
length and nature of service is not clearly
defined or when the value of service is not
reasonably applied in the payment of the
debt.
• Prohibition in Interference in the Disposal of Wages
o The employer cannot interfere with the
freedom of any domestic worker to
dispose of the latter’s wages.
• Prohibition against withholding of wages
o The wages shall be paid at least once a
month and directly to the domestic
worker.
o The employer cannot induce the domestic
worker ro give up any part of the wages by
force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by
any other means whatsoever.
• Additional Prohibition Regarding Wages
o No payment by means of promissory
notes, vouchers, coupons, tokens, tickets,
chits, or any object other than cash shall
be allowed.
• Additional Prohibition Regarding Deposits for Loss
or Damage
o The employer cannot oblige the domestic
worker to make deposits to answer for loss
or damage to tools, materials, furniture,
and equipment in the household.
Q: What are some of the provisions that protect the
employer?
A: The following are provisions protecting the employer:
a. Prohibition against privileged information; All
communication and information pertaining to the
employer or members of the household shall be
treated as privileged and confidential and shall
not be publicly disclosed by the kasambahay
during and after employment
b. Employer may require certain pre-employment
documents prior to engagement; : Prior to
employment, the employer may require the
following from the kasambahay: Medical
certificate or health certificate issued by a local
government health officer; Barangay and police
clearance; NBI clearance; and Duly authenticated
birth certificate or, if not available, voter’s
identification card, baptismal record, or passport
showing the kasambahay’s age
c. Employers are assured of quality services through
DOLE-TESDA training, assessment, and certification
of kasambahay;
d. Forfeiture of 15-day unpaid salary should the
kasambahay leave the residence of the employer
without any justifiable reason; and
e. Right to terminate the employment on justifiable
grounds.
Q: What are the rules in termination of employment when
there is just cause?
3
A: When there is just cause, the domestic worker or the
employer can terminate employment relations at any time.
Q: What if there is no just cause?
A: The domestic worker or the employer can terminate
employment relations at the end of the stipulated period in
which if the period is specified, the kasambahay and
employer may mutually agree to pre-terminate the
contract. NEXT SLIDE
If no period is specified, either party may give notice to end
the relationship 5 days before intended date of termination
Q: May the kasambahay initiate the termination of
employment? What are the grounds if ever?
A: Yes. The kasambahay may terminate the employment
relationship at anytime before the expiration of the
contract for any of the following causes:
a. Verbal or emotional abuse of the kasambahay;
b. Inhuman treatment including physical abuse;
c. Commission of a crime or offense against the
kasambahay;
d. Violation by the employer of the terms and
conditions of the employment contract
e. and other standards set forth under the law;
f. Any disease prejudicial to the health of the
kasambahay, the employer, or
g. member/s of the household; and
h. Other causes analogous to the foregoing
Q: If the kasambahay leaves without just cause, what
happens?
A: If the kasamabahay leaves without just cause, any unpaid
salary due, not exceeding the equivalent 15 days’ work shall
be forfeited. The employer may also recover from the
kasambahay the deployment expenses if the service has
been terminated within 6 months of employment
Q: How about the employer? May he or she terminate the
employment of the kasambahay? What are the just
causes?
A: Yes, the employer may also terminate such employment
before the expiration of the contract under the following
grounds:
a. Misconduct or willful disobedience by the
kasambahay of the lawful order of the employer in
connection with the former’s work;
b. Gross or habitual neglect or inefficiency by the
kasambahay in the performance of duties;
c. Fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed by the
employer on the kasambahay;
d. Commission of a crime or offense by the
kasambahay against the person of the employer or
any immediate member of the employer’s family;
e. Violation by the kasambahay of the terms and
conditions of the employment contract and other
standards set forth under the law;
f. Any disease prejudicial to the health of the
kasambahay, the employer, or member/s of the
household; and
g. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Q: What in the event the kasamabahay is dismissed other
than the causes stated?
A: If the employer dismissed the kasambahay for reasons
other than the causes given, he or she shall pay the
kasambahay the earned compensation plus indemnity in
the amount equivalent to 15 days of work.
BONUS QUESTION: IS PREGNANCY AND OR MARRIAGE OF
THE KASAMBAHAY A VALID GROUND FOR TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT BY THE EMPLOYER
NO IT IS CONSIDERED AS INVALID GROUND FOR
TERMINATION UNDER SECTION 4 RULE VII OF THE IRR OF
THIS ACT
Q: What are declared unlawful acts under R.A. No. 10361?
A: The following are declared unlawful acts:
a. Employment of children below 15 years of age (Sec
16)
b. Withholding of the kasambahay’s wages (Sec 28)
c. Interference in the disposal of the kasambahay’s
wages (Sec 27)
d. Requiring deposits for loss or damage (Sec 14)
e. Placing the kasambahay under debt bondage (Sec
15) and
f. Charging another household for temporarily
performed tasks (Sec 23)
Q: In the event that there has been commission of the
unlawful acts, what are the penalties provided in the act?
A: Unlawful acts are punishable with an administrative fine
ranging from P 10,000 to P40,000 to be imposed by the
DOLE Regional Offices. This is Without prejudice to the filing
4
of the appropriate civil and/or criminal action by the
aggrieved party.

QUESTIONS:
Are extended familied considered as part of the definition
of household?
Yes, the definition included extended families as long as
they are occupants of the house who are directly and
regularly provided services by the kasambahay
What is a live-out arrangement?
Arrangement whereby the kasambahay works within the
employer’s household but does not reside therein
If the service incentive was not used can it be carried over
in the next year? And if not, can it be convertible to cash?
No. the service incentive cannot be carried over the next
year and it is also not convertible to cash.

5
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM ACT OF 1997
R.A 8291
What is the basis of the enactment of the GSIS Law?
- The Government Insurance System was created by
the Commonwealth Act No. 186.
Why was GSIS created?
- The GSIS was created as a social insurance fund for
all employees of the Philippine Government.
Who are the members of the Board of Trustees? (5 pts)
A. President
B. General Manager of GSIS
C. 8 appointed members
a. 1 of whom shall either be the President of
Public School Teachers Association
(PPSTA) or President of Philippine
Association of School Superintendents
(PASS)
b. 1 member of legal profession who shall be
member of GSIS at the time of
D. appointment
a. 2 members representing organization of
government employees or retirees
b. 4 members banking, finance, investment
and insurance sectors
Who are the compulsory members under the GSIS?
- Membership in the GSIS shall be compulsory for all
employees receiving compensation who have not reached
the compulsory retirement age, irrespective of
employment status, except members of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, subject
to the condition that they must settle first their financial
obligation with the GSIS, and contractual who have no
employer-employee relationship with the agencies they
serve. Except for the members of the judiciary and
constitutional commissions who shall have life insurance
only.
What if the member is over 65?
- Employees who have reached the retirement age
of 65 or more shall also be covered, subject to the following
rules:
1. An elective official who at the time of election to
public office is below 65 years of age and will be 65 years or
more at the end of his term of office, including the period/s
of his re-election to public office thereafter without
interruption.
2. Appointive officials who, before reaching the
mandatory age of 65, are appointed to government position
by the President of the Republic of the Philippines and shall
remain in government service at age beyond 65.
3. Contractual employees including casuals and other
employees with an employee-government agency
relationship are also compulsorily covered, provided they
are receiving fixed monthly compensation and rendering
the required number of working hours for the month.
What are the two classes of membership?
- REGULAR MEMBERS – are those employed by the
government of the Republic of the Philippines, national or
local, legislative bodies, government-owned and controlled
corporations (GOCC) with original charters, government
financial institutions (GFIs), except uniformed personnel of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National
Police, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP)
and Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), who are required by
law to remit regular monthly contributions to the GSIS.
- SPECIAL MEMBERS - are constitutional
commissioners, members of the judiciary, including those
with equivalent ranks, who are required by law to remit
regular monthly contributions for life insurance policies to
the GSIS in order to answer for their life insurance benefits
defined under RA 8291.
What are the statuses of membership?
- ACTIVE MEMBER – a member of the GSIS, whether
regular or special, who is still in the government service and
together with the government agency to which he belongs,
is required to pay the monthly contribution.
6
- INACTIVE MEMBER- a member who is separated
from the service either by resignation, retirement,
disability, dismissal from the service, retrenchment or, who
is deemed retired from the service under this Act.
Resources (DENR), and members of the Philippine Coast
Guard;
B. Employees who are not receiving a fixed monthly
compensation and do not have monthly regular hours of
work; and

Who are considered employers under the GSIS? C. Contractual employees who do not have employer-
employee relationship.
- The employers under GSIS are the following:

A. National Government, its political subdivisions,

agencies or instrumentalities; What is the effect of separation of employment?

B. Government Owned and Controlled Corporations - When a member is separated from employment,
(GOCCs) with charters; he/she shall continue to be a member, and shall be entitled
to whatever benefits he has qualified to in the event of any
C. Constitutional Commissions; and
contingency compensable under this act.
D. Judiciary.

What is the contribution of the member and the

Who are considered employees under the GSIS? employer?

A. Any person who receives compensation while in the It shall be mandatory for the member and employer to pay
service of an employer, whether by election or the monthly contributions specified in the following
appointment, irrespective of status of appointment; schedule:

B. Barangay officials; and Monthly Compensation Percentage of Monthly

Compensation Payable by
C. Sanggunian officials.
Member Employer

I. Maximum Average
Who are the compulsory members?
Monthly Compensation
A. All employees receiving compensation who have not
reached the compulsory retirement age, irrespective of (AMC) Limit and Below 9.0% 12.0%
employment status;

B. Members of the judiciary and constitutional

II. Over the Maximum AMC Limit III
commissions (only for life insurance);
— Up to the Maximum

AMC Limit 9.0% 12.0%

Who is not covered under GSIS?
— In Excess of the
A. Uniformed personnel:
AMC Limit 2.0% 12.0%
1. Philippine National Police (PNP);

2. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP);

3. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP);
4. Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), including the forest
rangers of the Department of Environment and Natural
- Members of the judiciary and constitutional
commissioners shall pay three percent (3%) of their
monthly compensation as personal share, and their
employers a corresponding three percent (3%) share for
their life insurance coverage.

7
What happens if the agency fails to remit to the GSIS?
- Agencies shall be charged interests as may be
prescribed by the Board but not less than two percent (2%)
simple interest per month. Such interest shall be paid by the
employers concerned.
What is Government Guarantee?
- The government of the Republic of the Philippines
guarantees the fulfillment of the obligations of the GSIS to
its members as and when they fall due.
What is Monthly Pension?
- The monthly pension is equal to:
A. 37.5% of the revalued average monthly
compensation; plus
B. 2.5% of said revalued average monthly
compensation for each year of service in excess of 15 years;
Provided that the basic monthly pension does not exceed
90% of the average monthly compensation.
How much is the monthly pension?
A. Shall not be less than Php 1,300; and
B. For those who have rendered at least 20 years of service
after the effectivity of this Act, shall not be less than Php
2,400 a month.
What is Separation Benefit?
- Separation Benefit is given to the employees who
have not reached the retirement age of 60 but have been
separated from service.
Who is eligible to apply for the benefit?
A. A member who has been in the service for at least
three years but less than 15 years, and below 60 years of
age;
B. A member who has been in the service for at least
15 years and is below 60 years of age.
What is Unemployment or Involuntary Separation
Benefit?
- This is paid when a permanent government
employee, who have paid the required 12 months
integrated contributions, is involuntarily separated from
the service as a result from reorganization.
- It is a form of monthly cash payment equivalent to
50% of the average monthly compensation.
- The benefit depends on the length of service and
ranges from two months to. Maximum of 6 months.
How can we determine the schedule of unemployment
benefits?
- If the contribution of the member is more than 1
year but less than 3 years, the duration of the benefit is 2
months
- If the contribution of the member is more than 3
years but less that 6 years, the duration of the benefit is 3
months;
- If the contribution of the member is more than 6
years but less that 9 years, the duration of the benefit is 4
months;
- If the contribution of the member is more than 9
years but less than 11 years, the duration of the benefit is 5
months;
- If the contribution of the member is more than 11
years but less than 15 years, then the duration of the
benefit is 6 months.
Who is eligible for Retirement Benefits?
A. A member who rendered at least 15 years of
service and must at least 60 years old upon retirement; and
B. Member must not be a permanent total disability.
What is the compulsory retirement age?
- The compulsory retirement age is 65 years with at
least 15 years of service;
8
Does the member have options on how they would receive
the retirement benefit?
- Yes, the options are:
A. Option 1: 5-year Lump Sum and Old Age Pension
– This means that the retiree can get their 5-year pension in
advance. The Lump Sum is equal to 60 months of the Basic
Monthly Pension (BMP) payable at the time of the
retirement. After 5 years, the retiree will start receiving
their monthly pension.
B. Option 2: Cash payment and Basic Monthly
Pension – This means that the retiree will receive a cash
payment equivalent to 18 times the BMP payable upon
retirement and then a monthly pension for life, payable
immediately after the retirement date.
What are the different disabilities?
A. Total disability;
B. Permanent total disability;
C. Temporary total disability;
D. Permanent partial disability.
What is Disability?
- Disability means any loss or impairment of the
normal function of the physical and/or mental capacity of a
member which reduces or eliminates his ability to continue
with his current gainful occupation.
What is Total Disability?
- Total disability means the complete incapacity to
continue with his present employment due to the loss or
impairment of the normal functions of the physical or
mental capacity of the member.
What is Permanent Total Disability?
- Permanent total disability arises when the recovery
from impairment is medically remote.
What is Temporary Total Disability?
- Temporary total disability arises when the
impaired physical and/or mental faculties can be
rehabilitated and or restored to their normal functions.
What is Permanent Partial Disability?
- Permanent partial disability arises when the
member, although there is irrevocable loss or impairment
of certain portion/s of the physical faculties, is able to
pursue gainful occupation.
What are the injuries that are deemed as Permanent Total
Disability?
A. Complete loss of both eyes;
B. Loss of two limbs at or above the ankle or wrists;
C. Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs;
D. Brain injury resulting to incurable imbecility or
insanity; and
E. Such other cases determined and approved by the
GSIS.
When is a member eligible for Permanent Disability
Benefit?
- Members who become permanently and totally
disabled are entitled to the benefit when:
A. He is in the service at the time when the disability
occurred;
B. If separated from the service, he has paid at least
36 months contributions within the five-year period
immediately preceding the disability; or have at least paid
180 months contributions prior to the disability provided
that;
1. He is gainfully employed prior to the
commencement of disability resulting in loss of income;
2. He is not registered in any other social insurance
institution; and
3. He is not receiving any other pension either from
GSIS or another local or foreign institution or organization.\
9
When is the Disability Benefit suspended?
- The Disability benefit is suspended shall be
suspended when;
A. He is re-employed;
B. He recovers from his disability as determined by
the GSIS;
C. He fails to present himself for medical examination
when required by GSIS;
D. He is receiving any other pension either from GSIS
or another local or foreign institution or organization.
When is the Disability Benefit forfeited?
- The disability benefit of a member may be forfeited
when he refuses or deliberately fails:
A. To have himself medically treated by a physician
when required by the GSIS;
B. To take the prescribed medications;
C. To have himself confined in a hospital without
justifiable reason when such confinement is required by the
GSIS;
D. To avail himself of such rehabilitation facilities as
may be duly recommended by the GSIS;
E. To observe such precautionary and/or preventive
measures prescribed by a physician or expressly required of
him to prevent the aggravation or continuance of his
disability
- Upon compliance with the requirements, his
benefits shall be resumed is he is still qualified.
Can Temporary Total Disability benefit be extended?
- Yes. The payment for Temporary Total Disability
benefit may be extended by the GSIS up to a maximum of
240 days, subject to medical evaluation.
What is Survivorship Benefit?
- Survivorship benefit is extended to the qualified
dependents of the deceased GSIS pensioner or member. It
shall consist of
A. The basic survivorship pension which is 50% of the
basic monthly pension; and
B. The dependent children’s pension (below 18 years
old) not exceeding 50% of the Basic Monthly Pension.
Who is eligible for Survivorship Benefits?
- When a member or pensioner dies, the primary
beneficiaries or secondary beneficiaries, shall be entitled to
the applicable survivorship benefits.
Who are the primary beneficiaries?
A. The legitimate spouse, until he/she remarries, or
co-habits/ engages in common-law relationship; and
B. The dependent legitimate, legally adopted or
legitimated children, including illegitimate children, who
have not reached the age or majority, or, have reached the
age of majority but incapacitated and incapable of self-
support due to a mental or physical defect acquired prior to
age of majority.
Who are the secondary beneficiaries?
A. The dependent parents;
B. The legal heirs.
How much is the survivorship benefit if the deceased is an
active member?
- If the member was in the service and has rendered
at least 15 years of creditable service:
A. His primary beneficiaries shall receive survivorship
pension and cash payment equivalent to 18 x BMP; or
B. In the absence of the primary beneficiaries, the
secondary beneficiaries shall receive the cash payment
equivalent to 18 x BMP; or
C. In the absence of the secondary beneficiaries, the
legal heirs shall receive the cash payment equivalent to 18
x BMP.
- If the member was in the service with less than 15
years of creditable service, his primary beneficiaries shall
10
receive 100% of the AMC for every year of creditable
service.
How much is the survivorship benefit if the deceased is an
Inactive member?
- If the deceased inactive member has at least 15
years of creditable service, the primary beneficiaries shall
receive survivorship pension only.
A. if the deceased member has at least 3 years but
less than 15 years of creditable service, and were less than
60 years old at the time of death, the primary beneficiaries
shall receive 100% of the AMC for every year of creditable
service;
B. if the deceased member who has less than 15 years
of creditable service but were at least 60 years old at the
time of separation and have received the corresponding
What are the conditions to entitlement to survivorship
separation benefit, SHALL NOT be entitled to survivorship
benefits?
benefits
1. If the deceased member has not yet received his
separation benefit within 4 yeas after his/her separation,
the primary beneficiaries shall receive the cash benefit
equivalent to 100% of the member’s AMC for every year of
creditable service, but not less than Php 12,000.
When shall a survivorship benefit be given?
A. When the dependent spouse is the only survivor,
he shall receive the basic survivorship pension;
B. When only the dependent children are the
survivors, they shall be entitled only to the
dependent children’s pension equivalent to 10% of
the BMP for every dependent child, not exceeding
five (5), counted from the youngest and without
substitution;
C. When the survivors are the dependent spouse and
the dependent children, the dependent spouse
shall receive the basic survivorship pension for life
or until he remarries or cohabits, and the
dependent children shall receive the dependent
children’s pension.
D. When the dependent spouse and dependent
children are already receiving the basic
survivorship pension and dependent children’s
pension, respectively, any subsequent death,
emancipation or disqualification of any one of
them shall not entitle the other beneficiaries to the
forfeited share.
E. In the absence of a natural guardian, the guardian
de facto of dependent children, as well as the
physically or mentally incapacitated dependent
children, must file a Petition for Guardianship to be
able to claim the survivorship benefits on behalf of
the dependent children.
F. When the pensioner dies within the 5-year period
after receiving the five-year lump sum, the
survivorship pension shall be paid only after the
end of the said five-year period. However, filing a
claim for survivorship benefit should be done
before the end of the 4-year prescription period.
- The primary and secondary beneficiaries, except
dependent children, shall be entitled to applicable
survivorship benefits, subject to the following:
A. Not engaged in any gainful occupation as
defined in Sec 2 (p) of RA 8291;
B. The surviving spouse and the deceased
member were living together as husband
and wife;
C. Not gainfully engaged in a business or
economic activity (self-employed);
D. Employed/engaged in a business or
economic activity but receiving income
less than the minimum compensation of
government employees.
E. Not receiving any other pension from the
GSIS or another local or foreign institution
or organization; and
F. In the case of the dependent spouse,
payment of the basic survivorship pension
shall discontinue when he remarries,
cohabits, or engages in common-law
relationship.
11
 - The foregoing conditions, except the last
one, must be present immediately
preceding the death of the member or
pensioner.
What are funeral benefits?
- Funeral benefit is intended to help defray the
expenses incident to the burial and funeral of the
deceased member, pensioner or retiree under RA
660, RA 1616, PD 1146 and RA 8291. It is payable
to any qualified individual, in accordance with the
following order of priority:
A. Legitimate spouse,
B. Legitimate child who spent for the funeral
services, or
C. Any other person who can show
incontrovertible proof that he shouldered
the funeral expenses of the deceased
How much is the funeral benefit?
- The amount of funeral benefit are as follows:
A. The prevailing amount approved by the
Board of Trustees at the time of death of
the member or pensioner.
B. For uniformed members of the PNP, BJMP
and BFP, the amount of funeral benefit is
fixed at P10,000.00.
What are the conditions to be entitled to funeral benefits?
- Funeral benefit shall be paid upon the death of:
A. an active member; or
B. a member who has been separated from
the service with more than 15 years of
creditable service, but entitled to future
separation or retirement benefits; or
C. old age or disability pensioner; or
D. a retiree who at the time of his retirement
is at least 60 years of age and with at least
20 years of service but who opts to retire
under RA 1616 on or after June 24, 1997;
or
E. a member who retired under RA 1616
prior to June 24, 1997 with at least twenty
(20) years of service, regardless of age.
What happens if a member is only 50 years old when he
retired?
- The member is entitled to separation benefit
because he did not meet the required age or
service. Such benefit is in a corm of Cash Payment
payable when he reaches the age of 60.
What happens if a member is 60 years old when he was
separated from service and he had at least 3 but less than
15 years of service?
- The member is entitled to a Cash Payment of 100%
of his AMC times PPP. The total of which shall not
be less than Php 12,000. This is payable when the
member reaches 60 years old.
What happens if a member is at least 60 years old when
he was separated from service and had at least 3 but less
than 15 years of service?
- The member is entitled to a Cash Payment of 100%
of his AMC times PPP. The total of which shall not
be less than Php 12,000.
What happens if a member is below 60 years old, but he
had at least 15 years of service?
- The member is entitled to a Cash Payment of 18
times his BMP in addition to the monthly pension
for life. The cash payment shall be payable upon
separation from service.
12

What if a member is involuntarily separated from service?
- A member that is involuntary separated from
service is entitled to the Unemployment Benefit if:
- He is a permanent government employee
who has paid the required integrated
contributions (employer and employee
share) for 12 months, AND he was
INVOLUNTARILY separated from the
service.
How much is the amount payable under Unemployment
Benefit?
- %0% of his AMC, which is payable monthly.
Is the benefit under unemployment benefit for life?
- No. it depends on the length of service, and the
benefit ranges from 2 months up to 6 months.
What if a member was not separated from service, either
voluntarily or involuntarily but was disabled instead?
- The member is entitled to Disability Benefits. This
will also depend if it is a Permanent Total Disability,
Permanent Partial Disability, or Temporary Total
Disability.
How is Permanent Total Disability Computed?
- If a member is in ACTIVE service at the time of the
disability, and has paid 180 monthly
contributions, he is entitled to a CASH BENEFIT
equal to 18 times his BMP, in addition to his basic
monthly pension for life which will start upon his
retirement.
- If a member is in active service at the time of
disability and has paid less than 180 monthly
contributions, he is entitled to his basic monthly
pension for life which will start upon his
retirement.
- If a member is already separated from service at
the time of disability and had at least 36 monthly
contributions within the 5-year period
immediately preceding the PTD, OR paid at least
180 monthly contributions, he is entitled to his
basic monthly pension for life, which will start from
the date of disability.
How is Permanent Partial Disability Computed?
- If a member is in active service at the time of
disability, or if he is separated from the service
and had
- at least 36 monthly contributions within
the 5-year period immediately preceding
the PPD, or
- paid at least 180 monthly contributions
How is Temporary Total Disability Computed?
- If a member is in active service at the time of
disability, or if he is separated from the service
and had
- at least 36 monthly contributions within
the 5-year period immediately preceding
the TTD, or
- paid at least 180 monthly contributions
How much is the funeral benefit that the heirs of the
member get?
- General rule is that the prevailing amount
approved by the Board which is Php 20,000.
- For uniformed members of the PNP, BJMP, and
BFP, the amount is fixed at Php 10,000.
How is Survivorship Benefit computed?
- If a member was in active service and has at least
15 years of service:
- His primary beneficiaries shall receive a
survivorship pension equal to his BSP,
which is 50% of his BMP and the
dependent’s pensions which is equal to
10% of the BMP. On top of that, there is a
13
 Cash Payment which is equivalent to 18
times his BMP.
- In the absence of the primary
beneficiaries, the secondary beneficiaries
shall receive a cash payment equivalent to
18 times his BMP; or
- In the absence of the secondary
beneficiaries, the legal heirs shall receive a
cash payment equivalent to 18 times his
BMP.
- If a member was in active service and has worked
for at least 3 but less than 15 years:
- His primary beneficiaries shall receive a
cash payment of 100% of his AMC times
PPP. The total of which shall not be less
than Php 12,000.
- In the absence of the primary
beneficiaries, the secondary beneficiaries
shall receive 100% of his AMC time PPP.
The total of which shall not be less that
Php 12,000
- If the only survivors are the dependent
children, they shall be entitled to the basic
survivorship pension, as long as they are
qualified. The dependent children’s
pension is equivalent to 10% of the BMP
for every dependent child not exceeding 5.
- If a member was separated from service when he
died and has worked for at least 15 years:
- His primary beneficiaries shall receive a
survivorship pension equivalent to BSP,
which is 50% of the BMP and the
dependent’s pension which is equal to
10% of the BMP.
- If a member was separated from service and has
worked for at least 3 but less than 15 years and is
BELOW 60 years old at the time of his death, his
beneficiaries shall receive a cash payment of 100%
of his AMC times PPP. The total of which shall not
be less than Php 12,000.
- If a member was separated from service and has
worked for at least 3 but less than 15 years and is
AT LEAST 60 years old at the time of his death, his
beneficiaries shall receive a cash payment of 100%
of his AMC times PPP. The total of which shall not
be less than Php 12,000.
- If a member was separated from service and has
worked for at least 3 but less than 15 years and
HAS NOT YET RECEIVED HIS SEPARATION BENEFIT,
the total shall not be less than Php 12,000.
CASES
GSIS v CSC
Facts: Respondent Belo held the position of Vice-Governor
of Capiz continuously between January 5, 1972 up to
February 1, 1988. From January 25, 1972 up to December
31, 1979, she held office by virtue of an election and was
paid a fixed salary. From December 31, 1979 up to February
1, 1988, she held the position of Vice Governor of Capiz in a
holdover capacity, broken down into two periods:
1. A period in which she was paid on a per diem basis from
December 31, 1976 to December 31, 1979; and
2. A period in which she was paid a fixed salary — from
January 1, 1980 to February 1,1988.
ISSUE:
Whether or not per diems are compensation within the
meaning of sec 1(c) of RA 1573 which amended sec1(c) of
the government insurance act
HELD:
NO. (c) Salary, pay or compensation shall be construed as to
exclude all bonuses, per diems, allowances and overtime
pay, or salary, pay or compensation given to the base pay of
the position or rank as fixed by law or regulations.
A per diem is a daily allowance given for each day an officer
or employee of government is away from his home base
according to the Government Service Insurance Law which
means that the per diems received by Belo during the
period that she acted in holdover capacity obviously were
in the nature of compensation or remuneration for her
services as Vice Governor of the Province of Capiz. Hence,
the time he was paid on a per diem basis is creditable for
purposes of retirement.
BERONILLA v GSIS
14
Facts: In his life, retirment and civil service examination
applications, Beronilla indicated that he was born on
January 14, 1898. He requested the Commissioner of Civil
Service, thru the Auditor General, that his date of birth
indicated in the records be changed to January 14, 1900. He
claimed it was only in 1955 when he discovered that his true
date of birth is January 14, 1900.
The General Manager of the System approved his request.
However, the Board adopted the disputed resolution
without even notifying petitioner and without giving him
any opportunity to be heard regarding the same.
Issue:
Whether or not GSIS Board of Trustees acted within its
powers when it reversed the approval by General Manager
Andal of petitioner's request for the change of his date of
birth.
Held:
Yes. The Board of Trustees directly manages the System
and the General Manager is only the chief executive officer
of the Board. In the exercise of its power to adopt rules and
regulations for the administration of the System and the
transaction of its business, the Board may lodge in the
General Manager the authority to act on any matter the
Board may deem proper, but in no wise can such
conferment of authority be considered as a full and
complete delegation resulting in the diminution, much less
exhaustion, of the Board's statutorily-based prerogative
and responsibility to manage the affairs of the System.
The petition is DISMISSED.
Dionisio Rabor v. CSC
FACTS:
Dionisio Rabor entered the government service when he
was 55 years old. When he reached the age of 68, he was
advised by an official of the Office of the Mayor of Davao
City, to apply for retirement benefits. Rabor then exhibited
a “Certificate of Membership” issued by the GSIS and at the
bottom of the said certificate is a request to extend his
service to comply with the 15 -year-service requirement.
After his petitions was denied multiple times, he sought for
reconsideration but this time, he invoked the decision in the
case of Cena v. CSC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the case of Cena v. CSC be applied to grant
his extension of service.
HELD:
The court held that the doctrine in the case of Cena v. CSC
should be modified to the extent that the Civil Service
Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1990, specifically
paragraph (1) is valid and effective, but should be read
together with Section 11 (b) of P.D. No. 1146. This simply
means that the agency concerned is the discretionary
authority to allow or disallow the extension of service of an
official or employee who have reached the compulsory age
of 65 without completing the 15-year-service requirement.
Regarding Memorandum Circular No. 65, the court held
that Cena interpreted this as only to those who have
reached the compulsory age of 65 and has acquired 15
years of government service, therefore it shall be deemed
as merely orbiter.
The Court affirmed the decision of Director Cawad,
dismissing Rabor’s appeal.
Rufina Tancinco v. GSIS
FACTS:
SPO1 Eddie Tancinco was a member of the NCR Security
Protection Group of the Philippine National Police and was
assigned as part of the close-in security detail of the then
Vice-President Estrada.
Unfortunately, SPO1 Tancinco was shot dead by five
unidentified armed men. His wife, Rufina Tancino, failed a
claim for benefits before the GSIS but it was denied on the
ground that there was no proof that SPO1 Tancino’s death
was work-related. She then appealed on the Employees’
Compensation Commission, but it was dismissed for lack of
merit.
Rufina then filed a petition for review before the Appellate
Court, but it was dismissed for the following ground: (a) the
certification of non-forum shopping was defective; (b) the
certified true copies of material portions of the record were
not attached; and (c) the petition failed to state all the
material dates which would establish the timeliness
thereof. She then filed another motion in the second
assailed resolution, but the appellate court also denied it
15
since it was filed 7 months after she received the notice of
judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave
abuse of discretion.
Whether or not the death of SPO1 Tancinco was
compensable.
HELD:
First, according to Section 1 of Rule 45 of the former Revised
Rules of Court, an appeal from a decision must be made
within 15 days from notice of the judgment. In the case at
bar, the petitioner filed her motion 7 months after the
receipt, thereby rendering the said resolution final and
executory.
Second, under Rule III of the Amended Rules on Employees’
Compensation, for an injury or death to be compensable,
the following conditions shall be satisfied: (a) The employee
must have been injured at the place where his work
requires him to be; (2) the employee must have been
performing his official functions; and (3) if the injury is
sustained elsewhere, the employee must have been
executing an order for the employer.
The above-mentioned requirements are not met.
As part of the former Vice-President’s security detail, he
was required to guard him wherever the Vice-President
would go, however, at the time of his death, Vice-President
Estrada was away, therefore he is not in a place where his
work requires him to be. The second condition was also not
met since he was at his home and was off-duty. Him
repairing a service vehicle did not constitute as a part of his
“official function”.
The court emphasized here that not all deaths of policemen
are compensable. Although the 24-hour duty was extended
to such officers, is not a blanket license to benefit them in
all situations that may give rise to their deaths, thus the 24-
hour duty should only be applied to all acts and
circumstances which, although not an official line of duty,
are nonetheless basically police service in character.
The third condition was also not satisfied since the
petitioner has the burden of proof to prove that her
husband was executing an order from his superiors.
The Court then declared that SPO1 Eddie Tancinco’s death
is not compensable.
GSIS v. Reynaldo Palmiery
FACTS:
Reynaldo Palmiery began his service as a Laborer in the
Philippine Veterance Administration. After 25 years, he
retired as a manager of the Development Bank of the
Philippines when the bank was re-organized. Subsequently,
he received a gratuity benefit and a refund of his
contributions.
On January 2, 1987, he was appointed as a Manager III in
the SSS and continued to work there until his retirement.
After 4 years, he was appointed as a member of the GSIS
Board of trustees and later on was appointed as the GSIS
Executive Vice-President.
After 3 years, he refunded to the GSIS the amount he
received before and requested that his monthly pension be
suspended.
Upon reaching the compulsory age, he applied for
retirement benefits under R.A. No. 8291, but it was denied
by the GSIS on the ground that the guidelines under PPG
No. 183-06 states that the government employees who re-
enter on or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 8291, cannot
claim their previous years of service upon retirement.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Reynaldo’s previous years in government
should be included in the computation for his retirement
benefit.
HELD:
The Court held in the affirmative. Reynaldo’s previous years
should be included in the computation. Thus, the GSIS
should give full credit to Reynaldo’s years of service.
The GSIS argued that the provision in Section 12(g) of C.A.
No. 186, which allows for the refund of previously received
benefits, is no longer found in the present law, thus, this
recourse is not available to those who re-entered
government service after the effectivity of R.A. 8291.
The Court does not agree. It held that although
Section 12(g) of C.A. No. 186 explicitly provides for giving
full credit to the prior years of service upon the refund of
benefits previously received, the absence of a similar
provision in R.A. No. 8291 does not necessarily mean that
the law abandoned this policy.
16
The GSIS erroneously relied on the absence of this provision
to deny the claim of Reynaldo.

Notable, the GSIS did not dispute Reynaldo’s refund. The

GSIS accepted the amount and even issued a receipt in his
favor. Reynaldo’s request to suspend the payment of his
monthly pension was also granted and the amount he
received from the GSIS was refunded. In accepting his
refund and granting his suspension of monthly pension,
GSIS cannot subsequently apply PPG No. 183-06, which
adopts a new policy prejudicial to the retiree. In our
jurisdiction, the inflexible rule is that social legislation must
be liberally construed in favor of the beneficiaries. All
doubts should be resolved in favor of the retiree as the
person primarily intended to be benefited by this
legislation.

17
 Republic Act 7699

The Limited Portability Law What does totalization mean?

“An Act Instituting Limited Portability Scheme in the Social It refers to the process of adding up the periods of
Security Insurance Systems by Totalizing the Workersʹ creditable services or contributions under each of the
Creditable Services or Contributions in each of the Systems” Systems, for purposes of eligibility and computation of
benefits.

What is RA 7699 all about?

What is the formula for totalization?
In the event the employees transfer from the private sector
to the public sector, or vice-versa, their creditable Total years of service under GSIS + Total years of service
employment services and contributions are carried over under SSS
and transferred as well for the purpose of making them
eligible for a benefit at either SSS or GSIS.
What does Overlapping Periods mean?
How is this law beneficial for the employees? It refers to the periods during which a worker
simultaneously contributes to both Systems. This means
With the help of RA 7699, employees who do not have
that he is employed at both sectors.
enough years of service or contributions to qualify for
retirement and other benefits can still be given the chance
to avail of it.
What is the formula to get Creditable Services (CS)/Period
of Contributions (PC) in case there is/are overlapping
period/s (OP)?
Under this scheme, one may combine the years of service
in the private sector represented by the contributions to the Total years of service under GSIS + Total years of service
Social Security System (SSS) with the government service under SSS – Overlapping Period
and contributions to the GSIS to satisfy the required years
of service needed for a retirement benefit or other benefits.
What are the benefits under this law?

What are the objectives of the Limited Portability Law? 1. Old-age benefit

1. To promote the welfare of our workers by 2. Disability benefit

recognizing their efforts in productive endeavors; 3. Survivorship benefit
2. To improve their conditions by providing benefits 4. Sickness benefit
for their long years of contribution to the national
economy; 5. Medicare benefit, provided that the member shall
claim said benefit from the
3. To instiute a scheme for totalization and portability
of social security benefits with the view of 6. System where he was last a member, and
establishing within a reasonable period a unitary
7. Such other benefits common to both System that
social security system
may be availed of through

8. totalization.
Who does portability means?

It refers to the transfer of funds for the account and benefit

Who are the covered workers?
of a worker who transfers from one system to the other.

18
 1. those who transfers employment from one sector
to another
2. those employed in both sectors (GSIS or SSS)
What will happen to the covered workers’ creditable
services or contributions in both systems?
1. It will be credited to his service or contribution
record in each of the Systems
2. It will be totalized for purposes of old-age,
disability, survivorship and other benefits in case
the covered member does not qualify for such
benefits in either or both Systems without
totalization.
What are the considered creditable services for the public
sector?
1. All previous services rendered by an
official/employee pursuant to an appointment
whether permanent, provisional or temporary;
2. All previous services rendered by an
official/employee pursuant to a duly approved
appointment to a position in the Civil Service with
compensation or salary.
3. The period during which an official/employee was
on authorized sick leave of absence without pay
not exceeding one year;
4. The period during which an official/employee was
out of the service as a result of illegal termination
of his service as finally decided by the proper
authorities; and
5. All previous services with compensation or salary
rendered by elective officials.
If the covered worker worked at both sectors, does it
mean that totalization would automatically apply to his
contributions?
No, he cannot just add up the years of his service or
contributions. There are still certain instances or rules to be
followed where totalization applies.
When does totalization apply?
a) If a worker is not qualified for any benefits from
both Systems; or
b) If a worker in the public sector is not qualified for
any benefits from the GSIS; or
c) If a worker in the private sector is not qualified for
any benefits from the SSS
Is the process of totalization and the processing of benefits
exclusive to those contributions paid by such member
personally?
No, both the contributions paid by such member personally
and those that were paid by his employers to both Systems
shall be considered in the processing of benefits which he
can claim from either or both Systems.
If the covered worker worked for both sectors
simultaneously for 3 years, does it mean the he will get 6
years of service if we will apply totalization?
No, in this case, overlapping periods exist. Overlapping
periods of membership shall be credited only once for
purposes of totalization.
Can the covered worker claim the full amount of his
benefits under this law?
No, the amount of benefits he can claim is in proportion to
the number of contributions he actually remitted to the
System.
Can he claim benefits from either or both Systems?
Yes, provided the he qualifies for a benefit in that system
after totalization. If after totalization, he still did not meet
the required number of contributions or years of services
then he cannot claim a benefit under that system.
Can the provisions of this act affect those benefits a
covered worker can enjoy?
No, nothing in RA 7699 shall be construed to diminish or
reduce the benefits being enjoyed by a covered worker
19
arising from existing laws, issuances, and company policies
or practices or agreements between the employer and the
employees.
When shall the System/s release the money benefit?
The System or Systems responsible for the payment of
money benefits due a covered worker shall release the
same within fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the
claim, subject to the submission of the required documents
and availability of complete employee/employer records in
the System.
What are the responsibilities of SSS and GSIS under this
law?
1. the recording and documentation of the creditable
services and/or periods of contributions of the
members respectively.
2. accreditation of services or periods
contributions of the members
3. complaints and questions relative to the creditable
service or periods of contributions as well as
computation of benefits shall be brought before
the System concerned and shall be resolved in
accordance with the policies and procedures
adopted by the said System
EXAMPLES:
Example 1. Overlapping Periods
X worked at the private sector for 10 years and spent
another 10 years at the public sector. During those years,
he simultaneously worked for both sectors for 3 years.
What would be his total years of service when totalization
is to be applied?
X would have a total of 17 years of service when totalization
is applied.
Total years of service under GSIS (10) + Total years of service
under SSS (10) – Overlapping Period (3)
10 + 10 – 3 = 17
Example 2
X worked for the government sector for 5 years and then
worked for the private sector for 5 years, or 60 months for
each of the systems (GSIS and SSS), then he migrated and
did not continue his contributions to SSS as a voluntary
member. Can totalization be applied in this case?
Yes because his years of service were not enough to qualify
as a pensioner under SSS and GSIS. For this instance,
totalization can be applied. Applying totalization in this
case, he would have a total of 10 years of service.
5 years or 60 m (SSS) + 5 years or 60 m (GSIS) = 10 years
of service
of
Would he qualify for a benefit after totalization?
Yes, SSS requires 120 months or 10 years to qualify for
benefit. Thus, he would qualify as a pensioner at SSS.
However, GSIS requires at least 180 months or 15 years of
government service. He is still short of 5 years. He would
not qualify as a pensioner under the GSIS.
Would he be getting the full amount of benefit?
No, the amount to be given to him is proportional to the
amount he contributed. Since he had 5 years of service to
SSS, that is equivalent to 60 months. The ratio would then
be 60/120 or 50%, so SSS will give him 50% of the pension
he would have gotten based on the AMSC (Average
Monthly Salary Credit) in the SSS.
Example 3
X has 10 years of government service and 7 years of private
sector employment. Can totalization be applied?
Yes, because he is not qualified for benefits from both
systems.
Would he qualify for a benefit after totalization?
20
Yes. Applying totalization in the case at bar, he would have
a total of 17 years of service, making him qualified as a
pensioner at both systems.
7 (SSS) + 10 (GSIS) = 17 years of service
by Respondent in the retrenchment of Dr. Buena and Mrs.
Reyes, petitioner filed a complaint at the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) for the full payment of his
retirement benefits. He contends that his service with DOH
should have been included in the computation of his years
of service.

How much can he get both systems?

The amount is proportional to the amount he contributed ISSUE:

to the System. Since he spent 7 years of employment at
private sector, the pension for SSS will be 7/10 or 70% of
the pension she would have gotten based on her AMSC.
For GSIS, since he 10 years of employment at private sector,
he will receive 10/15 or 2/3 (or 66.667%) of the pension he
would have received.
Whether or not for the purpose of computing an
employee’s retirement pay, prior service rendered in a
government agency (DOH) can be tacked in and added to
the creditable service later acquired in a government-
owned and controlled corporation without original charter
(PNOC)?

RULING:

RELATED CASE: No, totalization of service credits is only resorted to when

the retiree does not qualify for benefits in either or both of
CAYO G. GAMOGAMO the Systems. Here, petitioner is qualified to receive benefits
vs. granted by the Government Security Insurance System
(GSIS), if such right has not yet been exercised. Under the
PNOC SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT CORP GSIS, he is specifically entitled to Old Age Pension.
G.R. No. 141707 May 7, 2002

SEC. 12 Old Age Pension. — (a) xxx

FACTS: (b) A member who has rendered at least three years but less
than fifteen years of service at the time of separation shall,
On 23 January 1963, Petitioner was first employed with the
upon reaching sixty years of age or upon separation after
Department of Health (DOH) as Dental Aide. He remained
age sixty, receive a cash payment equivalent to one
employed at the DOH for fourteen years until he resigned.
hundred percent of his average monthly compensation
On 9 November 1977, petitioner was hired as company
dentist by LUSTEVECO, a private domestic corporation.
Subsequently, respondent PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation acquired and took over the shipping business
of LUSTEVECO, and petitioner was among those who opted
to be absorbed by the Respondent. Sometime in 1995,
petitioner requested to be included in the next
retrenchment schedule. However, his request was turned
down. Eventually, petitioner retired after serving the
Respondent and LUSTEVECO for 17 years and 4 months
upon reaching his 60th birthday. He received a retirement
pay which is equivalent to one month pay for every year of
service and other benefits. The cases of Dr. Rogelio T. Buena
and Mrs. Luz C. Reyes, who were holding permanent/non-
redundant positions but were willing to be retrenched
under the program were retrenched and paid a 2-month
separation pay for every year of service under Respondent’s
Manpower Reduction Program. In view of the action taken
21
RA 9679 Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) Law of 3. Employees of an employer who is granted a waiver
2009 (Pag-IBIG Fund) or suspension of coverage by the Fund under R.A.
9679
What is RA 9679 all about? 4. Leaders and members of religious groups
RA 9679 is an act that provides for a tax-exempt mutual 5. A member separated from employment or ceased
provident savings system that is suitable for the needs of to be self-employed
the employed, and to motivate them to have a housing plan 6. Public officials or employees who are not covered
and provide for their housing needs, through a membership by the GSIS (eg. barangay officials)
in the Home Development Mutual Fund.
What about foreign government and international
What are the objectives of the Home Development Mutual organizations?
Fund Law of 2009? - For any foreign government, international organization or
1. To improve the quality of life of its citizens by their wholly-owned instrumentality employing workers in
providing them with sufficient shelter the Philippines or employing Filipinos outside of the
2. To provide for an integrated nationwide provident Philippines, they may enter into an agreement with the
savings system Fund for the inclusion of their employees as members of the
3. To provide housing through mobilization of funds Fund; Provided, that the terms of such agreement shall
for shelter finance conform with the provisions of R.A. 9679 and these Rules
on coverage and amount of payment of contributions and
Who are under the Mandatory Coverage of Employees? benefits; Provided, finally, that the provisions of the said Act
1. All employees compulsorily covered by the SSS shall be supplementary to any such agreement.
2. All employees who are subject to mandatory
coverage by the GSIS When is the effective date of coverage?
3. Uniformed members of the Armed Forces of the
Mandatory Coverage Voluntary Coverage
Philippines, the Bureau of Fire Protection, the
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Employer = First day of - Actual date of
Philippine National Police business operation registration
4. Filipinos employed by foreign-based employers
Employee = Date of
employment
What is Mandatory Coverage of Employers?
1. Employers of employees compulsorily covered by Actual Membership
the SSS - Upon remittance of the initial contribution and
2. Employers of employees subject of mandatory not at registration.
covered by the GSIS
3. AFP, BFP, BJMP, and the PNP
1. Employees and January 1, 2010
employers who are not
Who are under the Voluntary Coverage? subject of mandatory
1. Spouses who devote full time to the managing the coverage prior to R.A.
household and family affairs 9679 and its Rules
- Unless they also engage in another vocation or 2. Uniformed members of
employment which is subject to mandatory the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, the Bureau of
coverage
Fire Protection, the
2. Filipino employees of foreign government or Bureau of Jail
international organization, or their wholly owned Management and
instrumentality based in the Philippines Penology, and the
Philippine National Police

22
 When can the membership in the fund be terminated?
3. Filipinos employed by
foreign based employers - Membership in the Fund shall be terminated anytime
upon the occurrence of any of the following, provided that
Employers whose After the expiration the member’s financial obligations with the Fund are first
coverage had been of suspension or fully settled:
previously suspended or waiver of coverage
a. Membership Term Maturity;
waived under P.D. 1572
b. Death;
c. Retirement;
Registration d. Permanent Total Disability or Insanity;
Employers New employers -shall register e. Permanent departure from the country;
prior to the start of their f. Termination from the service by reason of health;
business operations g. Other causes as may be provided for by the Board of
Trustees
Voluntary Coverage prior to RA
9679
Will resignation or suspension from employment cause a
- Before January 1, 2010, unless
a different date is set by the termination of Membership?
Board by resolution. A: NO. It shall not constitute a ground for termination of
membership. Such occurrences shall only result in
suspension of contributions.
Employees All mandatorily covered
employees
- Registered within 30 days from What is the age of compulsory retirement in the PAG-IBIG
the start of their business Fund?
operations. - 65 years old

New Employees When may a member retire early?

- registered within 30 days from The member may opt for early retirement, ONLY if he or she
start of their employment.
is NOT a member-borrower under the following
Self - Subject to Compulsory circumstances:
Employed Coverage 1) Actual Retirement from the SSS or GSIS, or from
- Register within 30 days from government service by provision of law
the start of self-employment. 2) Retirement under a separate employer provident
or retirement plan. Provided, that the member is at
If the self-employed is required
least forty-five (45) years of age at the time of
to secure licenses or permits
- Register prior to engaging in retirement;
self-employment. 3) Upon reaching the age of 60

What if a member who availed of the early retirement

What is the Period of Membership?
- 20 years
- It shall start on the first day of the month to which the
member’s initial contribution to the fund applies.
What are the Required Monthly Contributions at the Time
of Maturity?
- 240 Monthly Contributions
returns to work wherein, he or she is again mandatorily
covered, what will happen?
- In this case, then the member shall continue to be
mandatorily covered by the Fund and his or her employer is
mandated to continue deducting and remitting the
employee’s required contribution together with the
corresponding employer’s contribution.
What are the disabilities that are deemed permanent in
the PAG-IBIG Fund?
23
 1. Temporary total disability lasting continuously for
more Is there a difference between voluntary and self-employed
than 120 days members regarding contribution rates?
2. Complete loss of sight of both eyes - No, there is no difference. The same rates shall apply for
3. Loss of two limbs at or over the ankle or wrist the self-employed and voluntary members.
4. Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs
5. Brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility or May an employer deduct directly or indirectly from the
insanity compensation of its employees covered by the fund or
6. Other cases adjudged as such by a duly licensed otherwise recover from them?
physician approved by the Board - NO, An employer shall NOT deduct, directly or indirectly,
from the compensation of its employees covered by the
What will happen to the existing membership and Fund, or otherwise recover from them, the employer’s
coverage established under P.D. No. 1752? contribution with respect to such employees
- These shall be transferred, continued, and integrated into
the new Fund established under R.A. No. 9679. What is the Employer’s Fiduciary Obligation in the PAG-
IBIG Fund?
What will happen to the Rights, Duties, Penalties, - This fiduciary relationship is BOTH to the Fund and the
Proceedings under P.D. 1752? member as regards the following:
- These shall continue to subsist and shall be enforced under 1. Member’s contribution
the provisions of R.A. 9679 2. Required employer contribution
3. Remittance to the fund
What are the Rates of Contribution in PAG-IBIG? 4. Collection and remittance of the member’s loan
amortizations or payments to the Fund when the
Rate
same is made through salary deductions
Employees earning 1%
LESS than P1,500 What is the method of collection and payment of the
contributions?
Employees earning 2%
- Monthly contributions of the members are collected
MORE than P1,500
through payroll deductions by their employers.
Employers 2% What if a member avails of any loan from the Fund and the
member consents in writing to amortize or pay the same
Full-Time Spouse Basis is the half of the
through salary deductions?
monthly compensation
income of the - the employer shall be duty-bound to faithfully implement
employed spouse the same and shall continue to do so until the loan is fully
paid. - Until the loan is fully paid, the employer shall not
Member with Multiple Percentage of his or her discontinue the salary deductions without the prior written
Employers monthly compensation consent of the Fund.
per employer
- For this purpose, the employer shall likewise act as agent
both of the Fund and the employee.
May a member be allowed to contribute more than what
is required? What happens when the member resigns?
- YES, a member is allowed to contribute more than what is - the employer shall be bound to inform the Fund of such
required herein should he or she so desires. resignation or separation immediately upon notice thereof,
but not later than thirty (30)days from the effectivity of said
What is the Maximum Monthly Compensation in the resignation or separation
Computation of Contributions?
- NOT more than P5,000 When shall remittance be made?
24
GR: All employers within 15 days from the date that such - 20 years from the time delinquency is known or the
was collected assessment made by the Fund, or when the benefit accrues.
XPN:
1. Another period was agreed upon by the employer When shall self-employed or voluntary members remit
and the Fund their contributions?
2. Within such periods as the Fund may prescribe - Monthly contributions shall be made on a monthly or
quarterly basis
When shall remittance be made by Filipinos employed by Quarterly Basis
foreign based employers? - payments must be remitted before the 10th day of the
- their remittance schedule may be different based on the: beginning month of the succeeding quarter.
1. Nature of their Contracts Monthly Basis
2. Manner of their deployment abroad - It shall be made directly to the fund before the 10th day of
the following calendar month.
What is the Penalty for Non-Payment of the Contributions
or Loan Amortizations or Payments? What is the effect of Leave Without Pay, Suspension, or
- 3% per month of the amounts payable from the date of Resignation to the Payment of Contributions or Loan
contributions or loan amortizations or payments fall due Amortizations to the PAG-IBIG Fund of the member?
until paid.
- Penal sanctions shall be given for late payments or delayed
Member- Member -
remittance of ALL government instrumentalities and Saver Borrower
agencies, and GOCCs.
- Heads of offices and agencies shall be administratively Leave without Suspended Continued
liable for non-remittance of the contributions. Pay or
Suspension
from
Employment

Will failure or refusal of the employer to pay or remit Resignation Ceased Continued
contributions prejudice the right of covered employees as
regards the benefits of PAG-IBIG Fund? What is the effect of Leave Without Pay, Suspension, or
- NO, Failure or refusal of the employer to pay or to remit Resignation to the employer’s Payment of Contributions
the contributions herein prescribed shall NOT prejudice the or Loan Amortizations to the PAG-IBIG Fund of the
right of the covered employee to the benefits under this member-borrower?
Act.

Can there be retroactive payment of contributions in the Duty of Employer

PAG-IBIG FUnd? Leave without Pay or Suspended
GR: No retroactive payment of contributions shall be Suspension from
allowed Employment
XPN: Unremitted collections that are paid by employer
Resignation Cease
What if the employer refuses or neglects to pay the - For both cases, the employer must inform the Fund of the
contributions? leave, suspension, or resignation within 30 days from the
- The contributions will be collected by the Fund in the same first day of the leave, suspension, or resignation.
manner with tax collections
May the employer’s mandatory coverage under the Fund
When shall the right to institute necessary action be be waived or suspended?
commenced against the employer?
25
-Yes,the Board may, by rules or resolution, waive or
suspend an employer’s mandatory coverage under the
Fund by reason of nature of employment, condition of
business, ability to make contributions and other
reasonable considerations.
Are Pag-IBIG contributions and benefit payments tax-
exempt?
-Yes, all laws to the contrary notwithstanding, all
contributions collected and all accruals thereto and income
or investment earnings therefrom, shall be exempt from
any tax, assessment, fee, charge, or customs or import duty,
and all benefit payments made by the Fund shall be exempt
from all kinds of taxes, fees or charges, and shall not be
liable to attachments, garnishments, levy or seizure by or
under any legal or equitable process.
What are the benefits that a Pag-IBIG member can avail
of?
-Savings, Dividends, Short-Term Loans, Housing Loans, and
Death Benefits.
What is the Pag-IBIG Regular Savings Program?
-It is a convenient savings facility where a member’s
monthly savings or contributions go. The monthly
contributions earn dividends. It is is a fast, easy and
affordable way for a member to save for his future needs.
-The contributions that a member makes together with the
employer counterpart are credited to his TAV.
How much should a member save monthly?
-The monthly Pag-IBIG Savings is pegged at just Php100.
This savings rate is based on the corresponding provisions
of Republic Act No. 9679.
When can a member withdraw his/her Pag-IBIG Regular
Savings?
-A member may withdraw his TAV or savings after 20 years
of membership with the Fund and after having made a total
of 240 monthly contributions
-Retirement
-Separation from service due to health reasons
-Permanent departure from the country
-Permanent and total disability or insanity
-Upon death
-Critical illness of the member or any of his immediate
family members, as certified by a licensed physician.
What is the MP2 Savings Program?
-MODIFIDIED PAGIBIG II is a special voluntary savings facility
with a 5-year maturity, designed for Pag-IBIG Fund
members who wish to save more and earn even higher
dividends, in addition to their Pag-IBIG Regular Savings.
-MP2 savings earn tax-free dividends, at a rate higher than
the dividend rate of the Pag-IBIG Fund Regular Savings
Program.
How much is the monthly contribution for MP2?
-The minimum contribution is ₱500 per month but you can
also choose to make a one-time remittance.
-The MP2 monthly contribution has no limit.
When can a member receive his/her MP2 Dividends?
-Upon full withdrawal of MP2 Savings after its 5-year
maturity period
-Through annual pay-out
Can a member withdraw MP2 savings before it reaches the
five-year maturity period?
-Yes, you can also withdraw your savings in a lump sum
before it matures in cases of:
● Total disability or insanity
● Separation from service by reason of
health
● Death or the member or an immediate
family member
● Unemployment due to layoff and/or
closure of the company
● Retirement (if a member is not yet retired)
● Critical illness of the member
● The OFW member goes back to the
Philippines
What are Dividends?
-The member’s contributions, inclusive of employee’s and
employer’s contributions, shall earn dividends which shall
be distributed annually and credited to his or her TAV.
What are the Short-Term Loans that Pag-IBIG members
can avail of?
-Calamity Loan
-Multi-Purpose Loan
What is a Calamity Loan?
26
-a cash loan facility to assist members who reside in areas ● Has no outstanding Pag-IBIG Fund Short-Term Loan
declared under a state of calamity and are affected by (STL) in arrears at the time of loan application;
disasters. ● Has no Pag-IBIG Fund Housing Loan that was
-has an interest rate of 5.95% per annum. foreclosed, cancelled, bought back due to default,
-The loan is payable within 24 months and has a deferred or subjected to dacion en pago.
first payment.
Does the Pag-IBIG Fund Housing Loan carry insurance?
How much may a member borrow for a calamity loan? -Yes. Pag-IBIG Fund Housing Loan shall be covered by a
-An eligible member can loan up to 80 percent of his or her Mortgage Redemption Insurance (MRI) or a Sales
TAV. Redemption Insurance (SRI), whichever is applicable, as
well as a Fire and Allied Perils Insurance (FAPI).
Until when can an eligible member avail of the loan?
-Within a period of 90 days from the declaration of a state
of calamity. What is the interest rate for housing loans?
-The interest rate shall be based on the member’s chosen
re-pricing period under the Full Risk-Based Pricing
What is a Multi-Purpose Loan? Framework.
-It is a cash loan that qualified members may secure to assist
them with any immediate financial need. Interest Rate
-The interest rate is 10.5% per annum. Period
-The loan is payable within 24 months.
1 year 5.375%
What is the Pag-IBIG Housing Loan? 3 years 6.375%
-It allows a member to borrow up to six million pesos to 5 years 7.270%
purchase a residential lot, a house and lot or a 10 years 8.035%
condominium unit. You may also secure a loan for house
15 years 8.585%
construction, home improvement or renovation or even to
20 years 8.8%
refinance an existing housing loan.
-A member of good standing shall be eligible to apply for 25 years 9.05%
housing loans, under such terms and conditions as may be 30 years 10%
authorized by the Board, considering ability to pay.
-The maximum payment period for the loan is thirty (30)
years. What are death benefits?
-Upon the death of a member, his legal heirs shall be
Who is eligible for Housing Loans? entitled to receive the applicable death benefit in addition
-The Pag-IBIG Fund Housing Loan Program is available to all to the deceased member's TAV.
active Pag-IBIG Fund members, who have satisfied the -The release of a member’s provident benefit claims shall
following requirements: be in accordance with the laws on succession.
● At least 24 monthly savings. Lump sum payment of
the required 24 months savings is allowed; How much can a legal heir claim for death benefit?
● Not more than 65 years old, and not more than 70 -The maximum Death Benefit is 6,000 pesos.
years old maturity of the date of loan application; ● For active members at the time of death - P6,000
● Has the legal capacity to acquired and encumber regardless of the amount of TAV
real property;
● Passed satisfactory background/credit and ● For inactive members at the time of death - the
employment/business checks of Pag-IBIG Fund; amount is equivalent to the member's TAV or
P6,000, whichever is lower.
27
Can members choose to withdraw their contributions
before the 20-year maturity period?
-Yes, those who become members of the Fund after the
effectivity of R.A. 9679 shall have the option to withdraw
his or her TAV on the 15th year of continuous membership.
Provided, that said member has no outstanding housing
loan with the Fund at the time of withdrawal.

Are Pag-IBIG savings portable?

-Yes, they are portable. A member who transfers to another
employer or who becomes self-employed carries with him
his TAV.

Are the benefits under Pag-IBIG government-guaranteed?

-Yes, the benefits prescribed under R.A. 9679 shall not be
diminished, hence, said benefits are guaranteed by the
Government. The Government accepts the general
responsibility for the solvency of the fund.

28
R.A. No. 11223 - Universal Health Care Act
Q: What law institutes a Universal Health Care for All
Filipinos and prescribes reforms in the health care system?
A: Republic Act No. 11223 or the Universal Health Care Act
of 2018.
Q: To what constitutional provision is R.A. 11223 based?
A: Section 15, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
Q: What are the objectives of the enactment of R.A.
11223?
A:
• Realize universal health care in the country.
• Ensure that all filipinos are guaranteed equitable
access to quality and affordable health care goods
and services and protected against financial risks.
• Ensure that all filipinos are health literate, provided
with healthy living conditions, and protected from
hazards and risks that could affect their health.
• Ensure that all Filipinos will have access to a
comprehensive set of quality and cost-effective,
promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and
palliative health services without causing financial
hardship.
• Prioritize the needs of the population who cannot
afford quality health services.
Q: Who are direct and indirect contributors (with respect
to R.A. 11223)?
A:
• Direct contributors refer to those who have the
capacity to pay premiums, are gainfully employed
and are bound by an employer-employee
relationship, or are self-earning, professional
practitioners, migrant workers, including their
qualified dependents, and lifetime members.
• Indirect Contributors refer to all others not
included as direct contributors, as well as their
qualified dependents, whose premium shall be
subsidized by the national government including
those who are subsidized as a result of special laws.
Q: When can a situation be considered an emergency?
A:
• It is when the condition or state of a patient,
wherein based on the objective findings of a
prudent medical officer on duty, there is
immediate danger and where delay in initial
support and treatment may cause loss of life or
permanent disability to the patient, or in the case
of a pregnant woman, permanent injury or loss of
her unborn child, or a non-institutional delivery.
Q: What is a health care provider?
A:
• It refers to any of the following:
• A health facility which may be public or
private, devoted primarily to the provision
of services for health promotion,
prevention, diagnosis, treatment,
rehabilitation and palliation of individuals
suffering from illness, disease, injury,
disability, or deformity, or in need of
obstetrical or other medical and nursing
care;
• A health care professional who may be a
Doctor of Medicine, nurse, midwife,
dentist, or other allied professional or
practitioner duly licensed to practice in the
Philippines;
• A community-based health care
organization, which is an association of
members of the community organized for
the purpose of improving the health status
of that community; or
• Pharmacies or drug outlets, laboratories
and diagnostic clinics.
Q: What are Population-based and Individual-based
health services?
A:
• Population-based health services refer to
interventions such as health promotion, disease
surveillance, and vector control, which have
population groups as recipients.
• Individual-based health services refer to services
which can be accessed within a health facility or
remotely that can be definitively traced back to one
(1) recipient, has limited effect at a population level
and does not alter the underlying cause of illness
such as ambulatory and inpatient care, medicines,
laboratory tests and procedures.
Q: What is Primary Care?
A: Refers to initial-contact, accessible, continuous,
comprehensive and coordinated care that is accessible at
the time of need including a range of services for all
presenting conditions, and the ability to coordinate
referrals to other health care providers in the health care
delivery system, when necessary.
Q: What is a Local Health System and what is its purpose?
29

A: It refers to all health offices, facilities and services,
human resources, and other operations relating to health
under the management of LGUs. Its purpose is to promote,
restore or maintain health.
Q: Who are responsible for the integration of Local Health
Systems?
A: The DOH, DILG, PhilHealth, and LGUs. They shall
endeavor to integrate all local health systems into province-
wide and ciy-wide health systems.
Q: What is the role of DOH with respect to the integration
of local health systems?
A: The DOH shall provide necessary support, assistance, and
incentives to LGUs in integration of local health systems.
Such assistance includes financial and non-financial grants.
Q: Who is responsible for health service delivery and
health systems management of the province-wide health
system?
A: The Provincial Health Office, headed by a Provincial
Health Officer.
Q: What is the composition of a Provincial Health Office?
Explain.
• It shall have two (2) Divisions: (1) the Health Service
Delivery Division; and (2) the Health Systems
Support Division.
• The Health Service Delivery Division, which is
headed by an Assistant Provincial Health Officer
(PHO) , refers to the management of the health
servive delivery operations of primary health care
provider networks, hospitals, and other health
facilities, clinical services, and public health
programs.
• The Health Systems Support Division, headed by
another PHO, refers to the management of health
financing, health information system, procurement
and supply chain for health products and services,
local regualtion, etc.
Q: Who is responsible for health service delivery and
health systems management of the city-wide health
system?
A: The City Health Office, headed by a City Health Officer.
Q: What is the composition of a City Health Office?
Explain.
• It shall have two (2) Divisions: (1) the Health Service
Delivery Division; and (2) the Health Systems
Support Division.
• The Health Service Delivery Division, which is
headed by an Assistant City Health Officer, refers
to the management of the health servive delivery
operations of primary health care provider
networks, hospitals, and other health facilities,
clinical services, and public health programs.
• The Health Systems Support Division, headed by
another Assistant CHO, refers to the management
of health financing, health information system,
procurement and supply chain for health products
and services, local regualtion, etc.
Q: What is the composition of the Provincial and City
Health Boards?
A:
• Chairperson
• Vice Chairperson
• Members
Q: What are the functions of the Provincial and City Health
Boards?
• Set the overall health policy directions and
strategic thrusts including the development and
implementation of the integrated strategic and
investment plans of the province-wide and city
wide health systems.
• Oversee and coordinate the integration and
delivery of health services across the health care
continuum for the province-wide and city-wide
health systems.
• Exercise admistrative and teachnical supervision
over health facilities and health human resources
within their respective territorial jurosdiction.
• Manage the Special Health Fund (SHF).
Q: What is a Special Health Fund (SHF)?
A: Resources which are intended for health services
provided by the province-wide and city-wide health
systems.
Q: What are the sources of the SHF?
A: Financial grants and subsidies from national government
agencies such as the DOH, income from PhilHealth
payments, and grants and donations from Non-
Governmental Organizations.
Q: How should the SHF be allocated?
A: It should be allocated for:
• Population-based and individual-based health
services;
• Capital Investments
30
 • Health system operating costs;
• Remuneration of additional health workers; and
• Incentives for all health workers.
Q: What are the 3 coverage dimensions of the Universal
Health Care?
A: Population, Service, and Financial Coverage
Q: Who are the persons covered under the UHC Act?
A: Under Sec. 5 of the UHC Act, it states that every Filipino
citizen shall be automatically included into the National
Health Insurance Program.
Q: What are the health services included?
A: Every Filipino shall be granted immediate eligibility and
access to preventive, promotive, curative, rehabilitative,
and palliative care for medical, dental, mental and
emergency health services.
Q: What are the benefits included under the
Comprehensive Outpatient Benefits?
A: These include, but not limited to, services of health care
professionals, diagnostic, laboratory, dental, personal
preventive services, and prescription drugs.
Q: What are the duties of a primary care provider?
A: Such primary care provider would act as the navigator,
coordinator, and initial and continuing point of contact in
the health care delivery system
Q: Who shall finance the population-based health
services?
A: The national government through the DOH and provided
free of charge at point of service
Q: Who shall finance the individual-based health services?
A: such shall be financed primarily through prepayment
mechanisms such as social health insurance, private health
insurance, and HMO plans
Q: What is a PhilHealth Rating System?
A: It is a rating system under an incentive scheme to
acknowledge and reward health facilities that provide
better service quality, efficiency, and equity.
Q: What is the objective of the prescribed mark-ups for
drugs, medical devices and supplies?
A: The objective is to protect patients from excessive and
unnecessary charges.
Q: What is the Mandatory Provision of Fairly Priced
Generics?
A: Drug outlets shall be required at all times to make
available and offer fairly priced generic equivalent of all
drugs in the DOH Primary Care Formulary
Q: Under the UHC regulations, how will it achieve equity?
A: The DOH shall develop a system to prioritize the
processing of application and issuance of License to
Operate and Certificate of Accreditation for health facilities
in Geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas
Q: What is the National Health Insurance Program?
A: It is the compulsory health insurance program of the
government as established in the Act, which shall provide
universal health insurance coverage and ensure affordable,
acceptable, available and accessible health care services for
all citizens of the Philippines.
Q: What is the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(PhilHealth)?
A: It is a government corporation attached to the
Department of Health. It administers the National Health
Insurance Program, which was established to provide
health insurance coverage and ensure affordable and
accessible health care services for all Filipinos.
Q: Who are the PhilHealth Board of Directors?
A: 5 ex-officio members
1. Secretary of Health
2. Secretary of Social Welfare and Development
3. Secretary of Budget and Management
4. Secretary of Finance
5. Secretary of Labor and Employment
Three Expert Panel Members
- should be with expertise in public health
management, finance, and health economics and
one of which should be a woman.
Five Sectoral Panel Members
- representing the direct contributors, indirect
contributors, employers group, health care
providers, elected local chief executives and two of
which should be women
31

Q: Who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of
PhilHealth
A: appointed by the President of the Philippines which shall
be selected from the Board’s non-ex officio members
Q: Who are the members under the Universal Health Care
Law?
A: Direct Contributors and Indirect Contributors including
their qualified dependents
Q: Who are the Qualified Dependents
A:
1. Legal spouse who is not an active member
2. Unmarried and unemployed legitimate,
illegitimate children and legally adopted or
stepchildren below 21 years of age
3. Foster children as defined in the Foster Care Act of
2012
4. Parents who are 60 years old and above not
otherwise an enrolled member
Q: Who are the direct contributors?
A: those who have the capacity to pay premiums, who are
bound by employer-employee relationship, or are self-
earning individuals
- refer to those members in the formal sector wherein
employees are with formal employment characterized by
the existence of employer-employee relationship, which
include but not limited to:
1. Govt. employees regardless of their employment
status
2. Private employees
3. All other workers rendering services whether in
government or private offices
4. Household or Kasambahay as defined in
Kasambahay
5. Law RA 10361
6. Family drivers
Q: Who are the indirect contributors
A: refers to all others not included as direct contributors and
their qualified dependents whose premiums shall be
subsidized by the national government such as but not
limited to:
1. Indigents identified by the DSWD
2. Beneficiaries of 4Ps
3. Senior citizens who are not currently covered by
the program
4. PWDs as defined in the Act Expanding the Benefits
and Privileges of Persons with Disability
5. All Filipinos aged 21 years and above without
capacity to pay premiums
6. Sangguniang Kabataan officials
7. Those previously identified at point-of-service or
during registration, members previously sponsored
by LGUs and those who are not yet in the
PhilHealth database and are financially capable to
pay premiums
Q: Who are the other members under the National Health
Insurance Program:
A:
1. Members in the informal sector which refers to all
other workers who are not covered by formal
contracts or agreements or who have no
employee-employer relationship and whose
premium contributions are self-paid, and with
capacity to pay premiums, such as:
a. Individuals not identified as indigents by
the DSWS
b. Migrant workers as defined in Migrant
Workers Act
c. Self-earning individuals
d. Professional practitioners
e. Filipino with dual citizenship
f. Naturalized Filipino citizens
g. Filipinos living abroad
h. Citizens of other countries working or
residing in the Philippines
2. Lifetime members as defined in the National Health
Insurance Act
3. All Filipinos aged 21 years and above who have the
capacity to pay premiums
4. Sponsored Members
Q: What is the Health Promotion Bureau?
A: It is responsible for health policies that are inclined
towards prevention; the formulation of health promotion
roadmap; provide support to research and development;
consider policy coordination among national government,
local government unit and private sector
Q: How does the Department of Health strengthen the
primary aim to promote health?
A: (1) Appropriate human resources; (2) Allocate 1% of its
budget; (3) The DOH shall allocate 1% of its budget to fund
programs and benefits (4) Involvement of provinces and
cities (5) cooperation of Deped, CHED and Tesda
Q: How will the Department of Health monitor and
evaluate health conditions of households?
32
A: The Philippine Statistics Authority shall conduct a
household survey annually by which the Department of
Health shall publish provincial burden of disease estimates
to support LGUs in tracking progress of health outcomes
Q: What is Health Impact Assessment?
A: WHO defines it as “a combination of procedures,
methods and tools by which a policy, program or project
may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a
population.” The DOH in coordination with the NEDA, DILG,
DENR and LGUS shall ensure that health impact assessment
is conducted. HIA’s overall objective is to provide decision-
makers with sound information on the health implications
of a policy, program or project.
Q: What is Health Technology Assessment?
A: Health Technology Assessment Council shall be created
within the DOH and it shall be composed of health experts
and shall transition into an independent entity from DOH to
an agency of DOST within 5 years after its establishment.
The HTAC will be responsible for assessing the safety and
effectiveness of health technology, devices, medicines,
vaccines, health procedures, and other health-related
advances developed to solve health problems.
Q: Who are eligible for health benefit packages?
A: Every member shall be granted immediate eligibility for
health benefit packages without need of presenting the
PhiliHealth id card. Those who are not in the PhilHealth
databases shall be duly registered by health care facilities.
Q: Are contributors who failed to pay contribution not
eligible?
A: No, it does not prevent eligibility. Provided, that
employers and self-employed direct contributors shall be
required to pay all missed contributions with interest,
compounded monthly: (1) At least three percent for
employers of private and government sector; (2) Not
exceeding 1.5% for self-earning individuals, land-based
migrant workers and Filipinos abroad.
Failure by the employer and self-employed to pay premium
contribution shall constitute an offense as provided for
under Section 38 of this Act
Q: What are Co-Payments and Co-Insurance
A: The law also states that if patients need to pay for extra
expenses, their “co-payment” – or what is paid on top of
basic services – should be regulated by the DOH in public
hospitals. This means that you should know what to expect
in terms of bills, as opposed to being shocked after
treatment.
Q: What are the terms inscribed in the No Co-payment
Policy?
A:
(1) No other fees or expenses shall be charged to all
members
(2) Members shall have all necessary services and
complete quality care
(3) In the absence of available beds, members who
opted for basic accommodation shall be entitled to
no-copayment
(4) For every change in level of care, members shall be
considered as one from basic accommodation.
Q: To whom shall computation for direct contributions
apply?
A:
1. Self-earning individuals and practicing
professionals
2. Kasambahay
3. Overseas Filipino Workers
4. Persons with disability
5. All Filipinos aged 21 years and above
Q: What are Program Reserve Funds?
A: Philhealth shall set aside a portion of its revenues as
reserve funds and any excess shall be used to increase the
benefits. Moreover, any unused portion of the reserve
funds shall be placed in the Investment Reserve Fund.
Q: What are the two classifications of health services in
the Philippines?
A:
1. Population-based health services
2. Individual-based health services
Q: When is a health service classified as Population-based?
A: Health services shall be classified as population-based
health services if it is:
1. intended to be received by populations or
identified groups of people, of which outcomes
contribute to the general public health, safety and
protection; and
2. rendered in response to a public health emergency
or disaster or any circumstance of equal
magnitude, such as diseases for elimination, that
has affected, or can potentially affect, a
population.
Q: The DOH shall endeavor to contract province-wide and
city-wide health systems, including the BARMM through a
legal instrument for the delivery of population-based
health services. Province-wide and city-wide health
systems shall have the following minimum population-
based health service components:
A:
1. A primary care provider network
33
 2. Accurate, sensitive and timely epidemiologic
surveillance systems
3. Proactive, effective and evidence-based health
promotion programs or campaigns
4. Proactive, effective and evidence-based health
promotion programs or campaigns
5. Timely, effective, and efficient preparedness and
response to public health emergencies and
disasters
Q: When is a health service classified as Individual-based?
A: Health services shall be classified as population-based
health services if it:
1. is definitively traced back to one (1) recipient
2. has limited effect at a population level, and
3. does not alter the underlying cause of illness.
Q: PhilHealth shall endeavor to contract public, private, or
mixed health care provider networks through service-level
agreements for the delivery of individual-based health
services. The contracted networks shaH provide
individual-based primary to tertiary health care services
with the following minimum components:
A:
1. An access to all levels of the health care provider
networks
2. A primary care provider network
3. A patient navigation and coordination system
4. Patient records management system
5. Provider payment mechanism
6. Networks exhibiting proof of legal personality
7. Mechanism of pooled fund management in the
network.
Q: Who finances services which meet both population-
based and individual-based health services criteria, or
neither of the criteria?
A: Services that meet both population-based and individual-
based health services criteria, or neither of the criteria, shall
retain its current financing mechanism; Prorided, That
these health services shall be subject to assessments by the
DOH in determining the most efficient financing
mechanism; Provided, further, That DOH and PhilHealth
shall issue the guidelines for implementing this provision.
Q: Expansion of Degree and Non-Degree Training
Programs. The CHED, TESDA, PRC and DOH shall develop
and plan the expansion of existing and new allied and
health-related degree and training programs based on the
health needs of the population especially those in GIDAs.
The PRC and its accredited organizations shall:
A:
-Review and update, the accreditation standards and
admission policies or requirements for medical residency
and sub-specialty training to support reducing trainee
attrition rates
The CHED and TESDA shall:
-Develop support programs to assist graduates acquire
necessary and relevant qualifications, such as professional
licenses for practice or civil service eligibility for those who
wish to be employed in government
- Promote and support the establishment of medical and
health science schools and technology vocational training
providers in regions where health care professionals and
health care workers are inadequate.
The DOH shall:
-Assist national government agencies, LGUs, and the private
sector in the establishment of accredited programs for
medical residency and subspecialty training, and
specialization tracks for allied health professions.
Expansion of Scholarships for Health
The DOH and CHED shall:
-Increase production of health professionals and health
managers through the expansion and redirection of
government-funded scholarship programs.
source funds for government funded scholarship grants
which include full or supplementary payment for subsidies
to complete tuition fees and other school fees such as living,
book and uniform allowances; and require corresponding
return service obligation to national or local government.
Provided, that bona fide residents of underserved and
unserved areas or members of indigenous peoples shall be
prioritized for scholarship grants
Q: Who must enter into a return service agreement (RSA)?
A: All graduates of allied and health-related courses who are
recipients of governmentfunded scholarship programs, as
described in Section 25 of these Rules, must enter into a
return service agreement (RSA) with both the academic or
training institution or training facility and the DOH.
Q: What is the required duration of the service?
A: Graduates entering into an RSA shall be required to serve
in one of the DOH-specified priority health facilities or fields
of practice, within the public sector in the Philippines, on a
full-time basis for at least three (3) full years, within one (1)
year upon graduation or acquiring the necessary license to
practice; Provided, That those who will serve for additional
two (2) years shall be provided with additional incentives as
determined by the DOH.
34
Q: How is noncompliance tracked?
A: The DOH and academic or trammg institutions, whether
public or private, with government-funded scholarship
programs shall set up a monitoring system to track
scholarship recipients and graduates and monitor
compliance to return service and assess effectivity of the
RSA
The DOH, CHED, and PRC shall develop guidelines for
noncompliance and mechanisms to define obligations for
recipients of scholarship grants who fail to render return
service.
Q: Graduates of allied and health-related courses who are
recipients of government funded scholarship programs
shall be:
A:
1. prioritized for government employment and
training opportunities, including permanent
positions under province-wide or citywide health
systems, positions for medical residency and sub-
specialty training, and specialization tracks for
allied health professions in government facilities,
and
2. shall receive standard compensation and benefits
based on prevailing national rates for civil servants.
Q: Any health care provider contracted for the provision of
population-based health services, who violates any of the
provision in their respective contract shall be:
A: subject to sanctions and penalties under each respective
contract without prejudice to the right of the government
to institute any criminal or civil action before the proper
judicial body;
That individuals or corporate personalities may file
complaints to the DOH regarding any violation of said
contract and that the DOH may pursue complaints as
necessary.
Q: Offenses committed by a health care provider for
unethical acts, abuse of authority vested upon the health
care provider, or performance of a fraudulent act shall be:
A: Penalized a fine of Two hundred thousand pesos (Php
200,000.00) for each count, or suspension of contract up to
three (3) months or the remaining period of its contract or
accreditation, whichever is shorter, or both, at the
discretion of PhilHealth, taking into consideration the
gravity of the offense.
If the health care provider is a juridical person:
Its officers and employees or other representatives found
to be responsible, who acted negligently or with intent, or
have directly or indirectly caused the commission of the
violation shall be liable.
If the offender is a Recidivist:
The offender may no longer be contracted as participants
of the Program.
Q: A member who commits any violation of the Act; fails
to pay all missed contributions with an interest,
compounded monthly, as provided in Section 9 of the Act;
or, knowingly and deliberately cooperates or agrees,
whether explicitly or implicitly, to the commission of a
violation by a contracted health care provider or
employer, as defined in this provision, including the filing
of a fraudulent claim for benefits or entitlement under the
Act, shall be:
A: Punished, after due notice and hearing, by a fine of Fifty
thousand pesos (Php 50,000.00) for each count or
suspension trom availment of the benefits of the Program
for not less than three (3) months but not more than six (6)
months, or both, at the discretion of PhilHealth.
Q: Any employer, officer, or responsible employee shall be
punished, after due notice and hearing with a fine of Fifty
thousand pesos (Php 50,000.00) for every violation per
affected employee, or imprisonment of not less than six
(6) months but not more than one (1) year, or both such
fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court if
he/she deliberately or through inexcusable negligence
commits the following:
A:
1. Failure or Refusal to Register Employees
2. Failure or Refusal to Deduct Contributions
3. Failure or Refusal to Accurately and Timely Remit
Contributions
4. Failure to Refusal to Submit Report
5. Presumption of Misappropriation
And shall be liable of misappropriation of funds, and be
immediately obligated to return or remit the amount for:
6. Unlawful Deduction
Q: Any director, officer or employee of PhilHealth who:
A:
1. Without prior authority or contrary to the
provisions of the Act or these Rules, wrongfully
receives or keeps funds or property payable or
deliverable to PhilHealth, and who appropriates
and applies such fund or property for personal use;
or shall willingly or negligently consents either
expressly or implicitly to the misappropriation of
funds or property without objecting to the same
and promptly reporting the matter to proper
authority
35
 • shall be punished, after due notice and
hearing, with a fine equivalent to triple the
amount misappropriated per count and
suspension for three (3) months without
pay;
2. Commits an unethical act, abuse of authority, or
performs a fraudulent act
shall be administratively liable, after due notice and
hearing, to pay a fine of Two hundred thousand pesos (Php
200,000.00) or suspension for three (3) months without
pay, or both, at the discretion of PhilHealth, taking into
consideration the gravity of the offense. The same shall also
constitute a criminal violation punishable by imprisonment
for six (6) months and one (1) day up to six (6) years, upon
discretion of the court without prejudice to criminal

36
 EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION AND STATE INSURANCE
FUND
(P.D. No. 626)
Q: What is the Employees’ Compensation and State
Insurance Fund?
A: It is a program designed to provide benefits to workers
in the event of work-connected sickness, injury, or death.
Moreover, it was established to promote and develop a tax-
exempt employees’ compensation program whereby
employees and their dependents, in the event of work-
connected disability or death, may promptly secure
adequate income benefit, and medical or related benefits.
Q: What is the composition of the Employees’
Compensation Commission?
A: The Commission is composed of five ex-officio members:
1. Secretary of Labor and Employment as Chairman
2. GSIS General Manager
3. SSS Administrator
4. Chairman of the Philippine Medical Care
Commission
5. Executive Director of the ECC Secretariat
NOTE: The Vice Chairman of the Commission shall be
alternated each year between the GSIS General Manager
and the SSS Administrator. In case of absence, any Member
may designate an official of the institution he serves on full-
time basis as his representative to act on his behalf.
There are also two appointive members: one of whom shall
represent the employees, while the other, the employers;
they are to be appointed by the President of the Philippines
for a term of six (6) years, and shall have at least five (5)
years experience in workmen’s compensation or social
security programs.
Q: Who has jurisdiction over cases under this Title?
A: The System has original and exclusive jurisdiction to
settle any dispute arising from this Title with respect to
coverage, entitlement to benefits, collection, and payment
of contributions and penalties thereon, or any other related
matter, subject to appeal to the Commission, which shall
decide appealed cases within 20 working days from the
submission of the evidence.
Q: What is the purpose of the State Insurance Fund?
A: The State Insurance Fund is used exclusively for payment
of the benefits under this Title, and no amount thereof shall
be used for any other purpose. All amounts accruing to said
fund, which is established in the SSS and GSIS, respectively,
shall be deposited with any authorized depository bank
approved by the Commission, or invested with due and
prudent regard for the liquidity needs of the System.
Q: Is coverage in the State Insurance Fund compulsory?
A: Yes.
Q: Who are compulsory covered?
A: As a general rule, those covered by the State
Insurance Fund are:
1. Every employer including those in public
sector (GSIS) and the private sector (SSS)
2. Every employee not over 60 years of age
As an exemption:
An employee over 60 years of age can still
be compulsory covered, provided that they have
been paying contributions to the System prior to
the age of 60 to qualify for the retirement or life
insurance benefit administered by the System and
has not been compulsory retired.
Q: What about in cases of Foreign Employment?
A: Filipinos working abroad in the service of an
employer, as previously defined, shall also be covered by
the System. This means that they are entitled to the same
benefits as are provided for employees working in the
Philippines. So likewise, Filipinos employed abroad are also
entitled, as an example, to payment of medical services
even if the same is rendered or provided in such place of
employment. The payment of these medical services or the
likes, of course, is in accordance to and subject to the
limitations fixed by law.
Q: When are you compulsory covered?
A: If you are an employer, you are compulsory
covered from the first day of your operation.
If you are an employee, you are compulsory
covered from the first day of your employment.
Q: How do you register for the ECP?
A: As a general rule, the manner by which you can
register is:
If you are an employer, you shall register by
accomplishing the prescribed forms.
37
 If you are an employee, you are likewise required
to accomplish the prescribed forms, but through your
employer.
The process of registration differs depending on
whether you belong to the public sector or the private
sector.
Q: When do you need to register?
A: Firstly, for employers working in the public sector
or those covered by the GSIS law.
Registration will depend on the date of the start of
their operations.
1. If you are an employer that started operations
before January 1, 1975 shall register not later than March
31, 1975
2. If your operations started on or after January 1,
1975 shall register within one month from the first day of
operation
For employees in the public sector, every employee
shall be registered through his employer within one month
from the date of employment.
Secondly, in the private sector or those covered by
the SSS law, different guidelines apply. If you are an
employee or employer already registered in the system, you
do not need to register again. This is because you are
considered to be automatically registered to the ECP.
However, if you are an employer in the private sector not
yet registered, you shall register not later than the first day
of operation; and if you are an employee in the private
sector not yet registered, you shall register not later than
the date of employment.
Further, in case the employee has not yet been
registered, he shall be reported by his employer according
to the following guidelines:
(1) Every employer already registered need not
register again, for he is automatically registered.
(2) Every newly hired employee shall be reported
by his employer not later than 30 days from the date of
employment; and
(3) Every employee shall be deemed as having been
duly reported for coverage if the System has received a
written communication about him from his employer or an
EC contribution paid in his name by his employer, before a
compensable contingency occurs.
Q: What if an employer fails or refuses to register its
employees?
A: The employer or responsible official who
committed the violation shall be punished with a fine of not
less than P1,000 nor more than P10,000 and/or
imprisonment for the duration of the violation or non-
compliance or until such time that rectification of the
violation has been made, at the discretion of the Court.
In case a compensable contingency occurs after 30
days from employment and before the System receives any
report for coverage about the employee or EC contribution
on his behalf, his employer shall be liable to the System for
the lump sum equivalent of the benefits to which he or his
dependents may be entitled.
Q: How do you know if an injury or sickness is
compensable?
A: For an injury or sickness and the resulting disability
or death to be compensable:
1. The injury and the resulting disability or
death to be compensable, it MUST be the
result of accident arising out of and in the
course of employment.
2. The sickness and the resulting disability or
death to be compensable, it MUST the
result of an occupational disease specified
by law with the conditions set therein
satisfied
In both cases, it must be in connection with work
and it must occur on or after January 1, 1975 and of course,
the resulting disability or death shall be compensable under
the Amended Rules.
Q: What are the conditions that must be satisfied for an
occupational disease and the resulting disability or death
to be compensable?
A: ALL of the following conditions must be satisfied:
(1) The employee’s work and/or the working
conditions must involve risk/s that caused the development
of the illness
(2) The disease was contracted as a result of the
employee’s exposure to the described risks
(3) The disease was contracted within a period of
exposure and under such other factors necessary to
contract it
(4) There was no deliberate act on the part of the
employee to disregard the safety measures or ignore
established warning or precaution
Q: What happens when the disability or death is caused by
a third person?
A: In cases where the disability or death is caused by
circumstances creating a legal liability against a third party,
the disabled employee or the dependents in case of his
death shall still be paid by the System. This is without
prejudice to the State pursuing damages against the third
person, on behalf of the disabled employee or the
38
dependents in case of his death. Should the System recover
from the third person damages in excess of those paid or
allowed under this program, such excess shall be delivered
to the disabled employee or other persons entitled hereto,
after deducting the cost of proceedings and expenses of the
System.
Q: When will the obligation to remit cease?
A: When a covered employee dies during employment, or is
separated from employment, his employer’s obligation to
pay the monthly contribution arising from that employment
shall cease on the last day of the month of contingency.

Q: Who pays the contributions under the Employee’s
Compensation Program?
A: These contributions are paid in their entirety by the
employer.
Q: May the employer deduct the amount of contributions
from the wage or salary of the employee?
A: NO. Any contract or device for the deduction of any
portion thereof from the wages or salary of the employees
shall be considered null and void.
Q: When will the obligation to remit be suspended?
A: When a covered employee becomes disabled during
employment, his employer’s obligation to pay the monthly
contribution arising from that employ- ment shall be
suspended during such months that he is not receiving
salary or wages.
Q: Would the employees and their dependents still be
entitled to the benefits under the Employees’
Compensation Program (ECP) if the employer fails to remit
contributions?

Q: How much is the monthly contribution for employees
in the public sector?
A: 1% of the basic salary or P 100, whichever is lower.
Q: How much is the contribution for employees in the
private sector?
A: YES. Notwithstanding the failure to pay of the employers,
employees and dependents are still entitled to receive the
benefits that have accrued to them under the ECP. The
System (SSS or GSIS) shall pay the employee or his
dependents all benefits due them under PD 626, as
amended, without prejudice on its part to proceed against
the erring employer.

A: Q: To whom shall the employer be liable for his/her failure

to remit the required contribution?
Monthly
Range of Employer’s
Salary
Compensation Contribution A: To the System — i.e. either the SSS or GSIS as the case
Credit
may be.
₱ 900 - ₱ 1,000 -
₱ 10 Q: How much is the liability of the employer?
₱ 14,749 ₱14,500

₱ 14, 750 and ₱ 15,00 A: The employer is liable for the amount benefits which may
₱ 30 have been paid to his employees or their dependents. Any
above and above
benefit and expenses to which such employer is liable shall
constitute a preferred lien on all his property, real or
personal, over any
Q: When should an employer remit contributions? credit except taxes.

A: The obligation of the employer to remit Employees’
Compensation (EC) contribution to the system begins as of
the last day of the month when an employee's compulsory
coverage takes effect and every month thereafter for as
long as the employee has earnings.
Q: May the contribution be refunded?
A: NO. Once the contribution is remitted, no refund is
allowed under the Rules.
Q: What is the effect of lump-sum payment of the amount
of liability?
A: The payment by the employer of the lump sum
equivalent of such liability shall absolve him from the
payment of the delinquent contributions due and payable
during the calendar year of the contingency and penalty
thereon with respect to the employee concerned, but said
employer shall be subject to criminal liability.
Q: What is the penalty for non-remittance of contribution?
39

A: Fine of not less than P1,000 nor more than P10,000
and/or imprisonment for the duration of the violation or
non-compliance or until such time that a rectification of the
violation has been made, at the Court’s discretion.
If any contribution is not paid to the SSS as prescribed under
these Rules, the employer shall pay besides the
contribution a penalty thereon of 3 percent a month from
the date of the contribution falls due until paid.
The day of injury or sickness which caused the disability
shall be vested as the reckoning date for the purpose of
computing the average monthly sala-ry credit.
Employees covered under the GSIS
In the case of the GSIS, the AMSC is the quotient after
dividing the aggregate compensations received by the
member or employee for the last three years immediately
preceding his death, permanent disability, injury or
sickness, by the number of months he received said
compensation, or ₱ 3,000, whichever is smaller.

Q: What is the Monthly Salary Credit (MSC)?

Q: How is the Average Daily Salary Credit (AMSC)
A: It is the wage base for contributions or the actual salary, obtained?
as provided in Section 1 of Rule V of the Amended Rules on
Employees’ compensation. A:
Employees covered under the SSS
Q: What is the MSC if earnings are derived from more than For SSS, in general, the ADSC is the result obtained by
one employment? dividing the sum of the 6 highest monthly salary credits in
the 12-month period immediately preceding the semester
A: It shall be determined on the basis of the aggregate of sickness by 180
earnings from all employments, but not exceeding ₱ 1,000
in the case of SSS and ₱ 3,000 in the case of GSIS. If the injury falls within 12 calendar months from the month
of coverage, it is the result obtained by dividing the sum of
Q: What are wages or salary? all monthly salary credits by 30 and by the number of
A: Insofar as they refer to the computation of benefits, it months of coverage, excluding the month of injury.
means the monthly remuneration as defined in Republic Act
No. 1161, as amended, for SSS and Presidential Decree No. If the injury falls within the month of coverage, it is the
1146, as amended, for GSIS, respectively, except that part actual salary received during the calendar month or its
in excess of ₱ 3,000. corresponding monthly salary credit divided by 30.
Employees covered under the GSIS
In the case of the GSIS, the ADSC shall be determined as
Q: How is the Average Monthly Salary Credit (AMSC) follows:
obtained?
Salary or wage is ADSC
A:
based on:
Employees covered under the SSS
For SSS, in general, the AMSC is the result obtained by Hourly rate hourly rate times the
dividing the sum of the monthly salary credits in the 60- number of hours
month period immediately preceding the semester of required to work
death, or permanent disability, injury or sickness, by the during the month of
number of months of coverage in the same period. contingency divided
by 22
If death or permanent disability falls within 18 months from
the month of coverage, it is the result obtained by dividing Daily rate the daily rate times
the sum of all monthly salary credits paid prior to the month the number of days
of death or permanent disability by the number of calendar required to work per
months of coverage in the same period. month divided by 22

If the death or permanent disability falls within the month Monthly rate monthly rate divided
of coverage, it is the actual salary received during the by 22
calendar month or its corresponding monthly salary credit.

40
If the employee has worked for less than one month, his
daily salary credit is the actual daily wage or salary of the
monthly wage or sala-ry divided by the actual number of
days worked during the month of contingency.
Q: What is the replacement ratio?
A: In the case of the SSS, it is the sum of the twenty percent
and the quotient obtained by dividing 300 by the sum of 340
and the average monthly salary credit.
Q: How is the credited years of service obtained?
A:
For a member covered prior to January 1975
1975 minus the calendar year of coverage, plus the number
of calendar years in which six or more contributions have
been paid from January 1975 up to the calendar year
containing the semester prior to the contingency.
For a member covered in or after January 1975
the number of calendar years in which six or more
contributions have been paid from the year of coverage up
to the calendar year containing the semester prior to the
contingency.
Q: How is the monthly income benefit obtained?
A:
Employees covered under the SSS
In the case of the SSS, it is the amount equivalent to one
hundred fifteen percent of the sum of:
The average monthly salary credit multiplied by the
replacement ratio and one and a half percent of the average
monthly salary credit for each credited year of service in
excess of ten years;
Provided, That the monthly income benefit shall in no case
be less than ₱ 250. Provided, however, that the monthly
pension of surviving pensioners shall be increased
automatically and simultaneously to the extent that 15%
difference in monthly income benefit between EC and GSIS,
be maintained.
In the case of the GSIS, the monthly income benefit shall be
the basic monthly pension as defined in PD 1146 plus
twenty percent thereof, but shall not be less than ₱ 250, nor
more than the actual salary at the time of contingency.
Q: What are the reckoning dates of the three-year
prescriptive period to avail of the benefits under
Employees’ Compensation?
A:
a. Sickness - The three year prescriptive period shall
be reckoned from the time the employee lost his
earning capacity
b. Injury - from the time it was sustained
c. Death - from the time of death of the covered
employee
d. Period of Filing in case of Presumptive Death - the
beneficiaries may file their claims for EC death with
funeral benefits within the three-year prescriptive
period from the time the missing person has been
presumed dead after the lapse of four years from
the occurrence of the incident.
e. The three-year prescriptive period for filing of
claim for EC Permanent Total Disability (PTD)
benefits should be reckoned from the time the
employee was terminated from his employment
due to illness;
f. The three-year prescriptive period on claims for
Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits for
multiple confinements for the same illness should
be counted from the last confinement or from the
last time the employee was unable to report for
work due to the same illness, whichever is
applicable.
Q: What are the conditions to be entitled to medical
services, appliances and supplies?
A: Any employee shall be entitled to such medical services,
appliances and supplies as the nature of his disability and
the progress of his recovery may require, if all of the
following conditions are satisfied.
(1) He has been duly reported to the System;
(2) He sustains an injury or contracts sickness; and
(3) The System has been duly notified of the injury
or sickness.
Q: What is the period of entitlement for medical services,
appliances and supplies?
A: The medical services, appliances and supplies shall be
provided to the afflicted employee beginning on the first
day of the injury or sickness, during the subsequent period
of his disability, and as the progress of his recovery may
require.
41
Q: What is the extent of medical services under
Employees’ Compensation?
A: The employee is entitled to the benefits only for the ward
services of an accredited hospital and accredited physician.
Q: What is the period of entitlement for rehabilitation
services?
A: Rehabilitation services shall be provided during the
period of the disability as the nature and progress of the
recovery of the Persons with Work-Related Disability
(PWRDs) may require as determined by the rehabilitation
experts. Rehabilitation services shall be suspended or
terminated upon refusal of the PWRD to continue
rehabilitation.
Q: What are the limitations to the liability of the System
for the payment of rehabilitation services?
A: The System shall not be responsible for the payment of
rehabilitation services when the injury, sickness, disability
or death during the rehabilitation period of the PWRD is
occasioned by any of the following:
(1) Intoxication;
(2) Willful intent to injure oneself or another; and
(3) Notorious negligence
Q: What are the conditions for entitlement for Temporary
Total Disability?
A:
(1) He has been duly reported to the System;
(2) He sustains the temporary total disability as a
result of injury or sickness; and
(3) The System has been duly notified of the injury or
sickness which caused his disability
Q: When does the period of entitlement begin Temporary
Total Disability?
A: The income benefit shall be paid beginning on the first
day of such disability. If caused by an injury or sickness it
shall not be paid longer than 120 consecutive days except
where such injury or sickness still requires medical
attendance beyond 120 days but not to exceed 240 days
from onset of disability in which case benefit for temporary
total disability shall be paid.
However, the System may declare the total and permanent
status at any time after 120 days of continuous temporary
total disability as may be warranted by the degree of actual
loss or impairment of physical or mental functions as
determined by the System.
Q: How much can the employee get from this benefit?
A: An employee shall, for each day of such disability or
fraction, be paid an income benefit equivalent to ninety
percent of his average daily salary credit, subject to
following conditions:
(1) The daily income shall not be less than 110 pesos
nor more than 480 pesos
(2) The daily income benefit shall not be paid for
continuous period longer than 120 days for the
same disability, unless the injury or sickness
requires more extensive treatment that lasts
beyond 120 days, but not to exceed 240 days from
the onset of the disability
Q: What happens when after recovery there will be a
relapse or recurrence of illness which results in a
compensable disability?
A: After an employee has fully recovered from an illness as
duly certified to by the attending physician the period
covered by any relapse he suffers, or recurrence of his
illness, which results in disability and is determined to be
compensable, shall be considered independent of, and
separate from, the period covered by the original disability.
Such a period shall not be added to the period covered by
his original disability in the computation of his income
benefit for temporary total disability (TTD).
Q: What disabilities are considered permanent?
A:
(1) Temporary total disability continuously for more
than 120 days, except as provided for in Rule X;
(2) Complete Loss of Eye Sight;
(3) Loss of two limbs at or above the ankle or wrist;
(4) Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs;
(5) Brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility and
insanity
(6) Cases as determined by the System and approved
by the Commission
Q: When does the period of entitlement begin?
A: The full monthly income shall be paid for all compensable
months of disability. However, after the benefit under the
42
Employees’ Compensation shall have ceased, and if the One hand 39
employee is otherwise qualified for the benefits for the
same disability under another law administered by the One foot 31
System, he shall be paid in accordance with that law.
One leg 46
Q: Under what conditions shall the monthly income be
suspended? One ear 10

A: Both ears 20

Hearing of one ear 10

(1) Failure to present for examination; however,
compliance with the said requirement shall lift the Hearing of both ears 50
suspension and the obligation of the system to
return the suspended benefits (EC Resolution No. Sight of one eye 25
10)
(2) Failure to submit a quarterly medical report
Q: How much can the employee get from the benefit?
(3) Complete or full recovery
(4) Upon being gainfully employed A: The employee shall be paid a monthly income benefit for
the number of months indicated in such disability. If the
Q: Can dependent children receive benefit from the Total
indicated number of months exceeds twelve, the income
Permanent disability benefit?
benefit shall be paid in monthly pension. Otherwise, the
System may pay income benefit in lump sum or in monthly
A: Yes, each dependent child (but not exceeding five,
pension.
counted from the youngest, and without substitution) shall
be entitled to 10 percent of the monthly income benefit of
Difference between the SSS and ECP Benefits
the employee.

But this shall not apply to causes of action accrued before

May 1, 1978. SSS ECP

Q: When does the period of entitlement begin for

Permanent Partial Disability? Provides benefits Contingency
whether the must be work
A: It shall be provided beginning on the first month of such What? contingency arose related
disability, but not longer than the designated number of from work related
months for such disability: activity or not

Complete and permanent No. of Months Who? Covers private Private and
loss of the use of sectors only Public
Employees are
One thumb 10
covered
One index finger 8
From Deductible to the Paid solely by
One middle finger 6
where employee’s salary the employer
One ring finger 5 ? wage

One little finger 3 Q: Does an employee need to register for the Employees’
Compensation after registering for the SSS?
One big toe 6
A: No, only one registration is needed for both SSS and
Any toe 3
Employees’ Compensation.
One arm 50

43
Q: What are the conditions for the beneficiaries to be
entitled to the death benefit?
A:
(1) The employee has been duly reported to the System;
(2) He died as a result of an injury or sickness; and
(3) The System has been duly notified of his death, as well
as the injury or sickness which caused his death. His
employer shall be liable for the benefit if such death
occurred before the employee is duly reported for coverage
to the System.
Q: When shall it be paid?
A: For primary beneficiaries, it shall be paid beginning at the
month of death and shall continue to be paid for as long as
the beneficiaries are entitled thereto.
For secondary beneficiaries, the income benefit shall be
sixty (60) times the monthly income benefit of a primary
beneficiary which in no case be less than P 15,000.00, which
shall likewise be paid in monthly pension.
Q: Who are entitled to receive the funeral benefit?
A:
(1) the surviving spouse;
(2) the legitimate child who spent for the funeral services;
or
(3) any other person who can show incontrovertible proof
or proof of his having borne the funeral expenses.
Q: What are the conditions to qualify for the funeral
benefits?
A:
1. Death due to sickness- causal relationship between the
death and the working conditions of the covered member.
2. Death due to injury- causal relationship between the
death and the work-related accident.
3. Death of EC Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) or
Permanent Total Disability (PTD) pensioner-the cause of
death is a complication or natural consequence of
previously compensated PPD or PTD.
Q: Who are the primary beneficiaries?
A:
(1) The legitimate spouse until he remarries. The surviving
spouse found not to be living with the covered employee at
the time the employee died should be entitled to
employees’ compensation benefits provided that the
separation occurred owing to any of the following
circumstances:
1. refusal of the covered employee to continue living with
the surviving spouse; or the employee’s abandonment of
the said spouse, without justifiable or valid cause;
2. attempt of the covered employee against the life of the
surviving spouse, common child/children of the spouse;
3. commission of an act of sexual abuse against the
surviving spouse, common child/children or child/children
of the spouse by the covered employee;
4. the covered employee’s recurrent commission of physical
violence, or grossly, abusive conduct, against the surviving
spouse, common child/children or child/ children of the
spouse;
5. the covered employee’s infliction of physical violence, or
imposition of moral duress, to compel the surviving spouse,
common child/children or child/children of the spouse to
change their religious or political affiliation;
6. attempt of the covered employee to corrupt, or induce
the surviving spouse, common child/children or child/
children of the spouse to engage in prostitution, or to make
them connive with the employee in such an act of
corruption or inducement;
7. drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the covered
employee;
8. lesbianism or homosexuality of the covered employee;
9. contraction of bigamous marriages by the covered
employee, whether in the Philippines or abroad;
10. sexual infidelity or perversion of the covered employee;
11. the covered employee’s act of allowing the surviving
spouse, common child/children or child/children of the
spouse to be subjected to acts of lasciviousness; and
44
12. the covered employee’s contraction of serious, sexually
transmitted disease extra-maritally. (as provided under
Board Resolution No. 97-09-0500, Sept. 4, 1997)
(2) Legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or
acknowledged natural children, who are unmarried not
gainfully employed, not over 21 years of age, or over 21
years of age provided that he is incapacitated and incapable
of self - support due to physical or mental defect which is
congenital or acquired during minority; Provided, further,
that a dependent acknowledged natural child shall be
considered as a primary beneficiary only when there are no
other dependent children who are qualified and eligible for
monthly income benefit; provided finally, that if there are
two or more acknowledged natural children, they shall be
counted from the youngest and without substitution, but
not exceeding five.
Q: Who are the secondary beneficiaries?
A:
(1) The legitimate parents wholly dependent upon the
employee for regular support;
(2) The legitimate descendants and illegitimate children
who are unmarried, not gainfully employed, and not over
21 years of age, or over 21 years of age provided that he is
incapacitated and incapable of self- support due to physical
or mental defect which is congenital or acquired during
minority.
Q: What if there are no primary and secondary
beneficiaries?
A: If the deceased employee has no beneficiaries at the time
of his death, the death benefit shall accrue to the
Employees’ Compensation fund.
Q:What are the minimum requirements for Accreditation?
A: (1) A hospital may be accredited upon application if:
a. It is an institution primarily engaged in
providing to in-patients, by or under the
supervision of physicians, diagnostic and
therapeutic services for their medical
diagnosis, treatment and care;
b. It is adequately equipped with facilities for
physicians to treat injured or sick persons;
c. It maintains clinical records on all patients;
d. It has by-laws concerning its medical staff;
e. It provides 24-hour nursing services by
itself it is supervised by a registered
professional nurse; and has a licensed practical
nurse or registered professional nurse on duty
at all times;
f. It requires that every patient must be
under the care of a physician;
g. It is licensed by the DOH
h. It meets the health and safety
requirements of the DOH
i. It maintains a utilization review committee
j. And is a member in good standing of the
Philippine medical Association
(2) A Physician may be accredited for purposes of the ECP
upon his application if he is a doctor of medicine duly
licensed to practice in the Philippines and an active member
and in good standing of the Philippine Medical Association.
Q: What are the conditions on accredited hospitals or
rehabilitation facilities?
A: An accredited hospital or rehabilitation facility must:
(1) Not collect any amount for ward service from the
patient;
(2) Swear to provide adequate services on a non-
discriminating basis;
(3) Limit charges for ward rates approved by the
Commission, including, but not limited to,
Laboratory ward rates, laboratory facilities, x-rays,
stools, drugs, medical attendance and the Relative
Value Scale for surgical procedures;
(4) Abide by these rules on accreditation;
(5) Have its rules conform to the requirements of the
Commission;
(6) Subject its facilities to inspection at any time by
duly authorized representatives of the Commission
or the System
Q: What are the conditions on accredited physicians?
A: An accredited physician must:
(1) Not collect any amount for ward services from the
patient;
(2) Provide adequate services on a non-discriminating
basis;
(3) Abide by these rules on accreditation
Q: What is the definition of Emergency Services?
45
A: Those services which are necessary to prevent the death is found. Mere change of legal personality shall not defeat
or serious impairment of the health of the individual, and the disqualification imposed.
which necessitate the use of the most accessible hospital
available and equipped to furnish such services Q: When will disaccreditation be lifted?

Q: When does an emergency no longer exist? A: Disaccreditation shall be lifted only on application and
upon showing of good cause and effective upon approval by
the Commission. As soon as accreditation is duly restored,
A: An emergency no longer exists when it becomes safe the hospital or physician concerned shall be allowed to
from a medical standpoint to move the patient to an participate in the Employees’ Compensation Program.
accredited hospital, or to discharge him whichever occurs
first. Q: What shall be the liability of an employer who failed to
comply with any law or to install and maintain safety
Q: When will the employer cause the employee to be devices or to take precautions for the prevention of injury?
brought by a duly accredited physician or hospital?
A: Said employer shall pay the State Insurance Fund a
penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lump sum
A: Immediately upon knowledge by the employer of his
equivalent of the income benefit payable by the System to
employee’s injury or sickness at the workplace, he shall, in
the employee. All employers, especially those who should
addition to the medical and dental facilities which the
have been paying a rate of contribution higher than
pertinent provisions of the Code and these Rules on
required of them under this Title, are enjoined to undertake
Accreditation may require him to furnish, cause the
and strengthen measures for the occupational health and
employee to be brought by the fastest available means of
safety of their employees.
transportation to the duly accredited physician or hospital
nearest or most accessible to the employee’s place of work. The System shall determine for purposes of imposing the
penalty provided in Art. 200 of the Code, whether the
Q: What is the penalty for an accredited hospital or
employee’s sickness, injury or death was due to the failure
physician for violation of any conditions and/or
of the employer to comply with any health and safety law,
requirements?
or failure to install and maintain safety devices in
accordance with standards set by the Commission, or take
A: An accredited hospital or physician shall be disaccredited
other precautions for the prevention of the sickness, injury
for violation of any of the conditions and requirements
or death.
under Section 1 and 2 hereof without prejudice to the
imposition of penalties under Rule XIX if applicable or to any
other penalty which the Commission may impose.

Q: When will the cancellation of accreditation of a

physician or hospital be effective?

A: The cancellation or invalidation of accreditation of a

physician or hospital shall be effective on the date of notice
of the disaccreditation.

Q: Will mere change of legal personality defeat the

disqualification imposed?

A: In case of disaccreditation, the physician or the hospital

shall carry the disqualification wherever its physical identity

46
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW R.A. 6657
AGRARIAN REFORM
What is the History of Agrarian Reform?
The Agrarian Reform started way back during the
Pre-Spanish Period, then to the Spanish period, the First
Philippine Republic, American period, where the Torrens
system was first introduced, then the Commonwealth
period, where President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the
“Social Justice” program, then the Japanese Occupation,
then the Philippine Republic.
What is Jura Regalia?
Refers to the feudal principle that private title to
land must emanate, directly or indirectly, from the Spanish
crown with the latter retaining the underlying title. Lands
and resources not granted by the Crown remain part of the
public domain over which none but the sovereign holds
rights. Generally, under this concept, private title to land
must be traced to some grant, express or implied, from the
Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial
Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. In a
broad sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights
to which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives.
What is the difference between Land Reform and Agrarian
Reform?
Land Reform refers to the full range of measures
that may or should be taken to improve or remedy that
defects in the relations among men with respect to their
rights in land. Agrarian Reform embraces full range of
measures designed to improve the relationship between
landowner and stockholders, cooperatives and members,
and other farmers’ organizations including their economic,
social, and political relations with the community and the
government.
What is the first land reform measure enacted in the
Philippines?
Treaty of Paris where in the lands of the friars were
confiscated and was given to the Filipino peasants by the
Malolos Republic and the American Republic.
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
What is the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP)?
It is the redistribution of public and private
agricultural lands to farmers and farmworkers who are
landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement.
What is the timeline of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program?
On July 22, 1987, President Cory Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 131 which instituted the CARP and EO No.
229 which provided the mechanisms for the
implementation of CARP. In June 1988, the Congress
enacted RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law which became the governing law of agrarian reform in
the country. Under RA 6657, CARP was supposed to be
implemented only for 10 years or until 1998.
In February 1998, RA 8352 was enacted to extend
the implementation of CARP until 2009. On August 2008, RA
9700 was enacted and extended the implementation of
CARP to 2014. On June 2014, the implementation of CARP
ended.
What is the agrarian reform program founded on?
It is founded on the right of farmers and regular
farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm
workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.
What are the obligations of the State?
a. The State shall recognize the right of farmers,
farmworkers and landowners, as well as cooperatives and
other independent farmers' organizations, to participate in
the planning, organization, and management of the
program, and shall provide support to agriculture through
appropriate technology and research, and adequate
financial production, marketing and other support services.
b. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform, or
stewardship, whenever applicable, in accordance with law,
in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
including lands of the public domain, under lease or
concession, suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead rights of small settlers and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
c. The State may settle landless farmers and farmworkers in
its own agricultural estates, which shall be distributed to
them in the manner provided by law.
d. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence
fishermen, especially of local communities, to the
preferential use of communal marine and fishing resources,
47
both inland and offshore.
e. The State shall be guided by the principles that land has
a social function and land ownership has a social
responsibility
f. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest
the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote
industrialization, employment and privatization of public
sector enterprises.
g. The State may lease undeveloped lands of the public
domain to qualified entities for the development of capital
intensive farms, and traditional and pioneering crops
especially those for exports subject to the prior rights of the
beneficiaries under this Act.
What are the key objectives of CARP?
a. Equity: to enable participation of the large population of
the country in nation building by giving them the control
over the country’s land
b. Capability: to develop the capability of the farmers by not
just giving them lands but also providing for support
services
c. Sustainability: to adopt an ecosystem and stakeholders
approach to agrarian reform
DEFINITIONS
What is Agrarian Reform?
The redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or
fruits produced to farmers and regular farmworkers who
are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to
include the totality of factors and support services designed
to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other
arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of
lands, such as production or profitsharing, labor
administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks,
which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the
fruits of the lands they work.
What does Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or
Agricultural Activity mean?
The cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish,
including the harvesting of such farm products, and other
farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in
conjunction with such farming operations done by persons
whether natural or juridical.
What is an agricultural land?
It refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as
defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land.
What is an agrarian dispute?
a. any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise,
over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or
seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements
b. any controversy relating to compensation of lands
acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of
transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers,
tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether
the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm
operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor
and lessee.
What is an idle or abandoned land?
It refers to any agricultural land not cultivated,
tilled or developed to produce any crop nor devoted to any
specific economic purpose continuously for a period of
three (3) years immediately prior to the receipt of notice
of acquisition by the government, but does not include
land that has become permanently or regularly devoted to
non-agricultural purposes. It does not include land which
has become unproductive by reason of force majeure or
any other fortuitous event, provided that prior to such
event, such land was previously used for agricultural or
other economic purpose (Section 3(e), RA 6657).
Who is a farmer?
Refers to a natural person whose primary
livelihood is cultivation of land or the production of
agricultural crops, either by himself, or primarily with the
assistance of his immediate farm household, whether the
land is owned by him, or by another person under a
leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with
the owner thereof.
Who is a farmworker?
A natural person who renders services for value as
an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm
regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily,
48
weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis.
What are the types of farmworkers?
a. Regular farmworkers: a natural person who is employed
on a permanent bases by an agricultural enterprise or farm
b. Seasonal farmworkers: a natural person who is employed
on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent basis by an
agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or
a non-permanent laborer, such as “dumaan”, “sacada” and
the like.
c. Other farmworkers: a farmworker who does not fall
within the definition of a farmworker, regular farmworker
or a seasonal farmworker.
Who is a landless beneficiary?
One who owns less than three hectares of
agricultural land
COVERAGE
What are lands covered under CARP?
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.
More specifically:
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.
d. All private lands devoted to or suitable for
agriculture regardless of the agricultural products
raised or that can be raised thereon.
What are the Retention Limits?
No person may own or retain, directly or indirectly,
any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall
vary according to factors governing a viable family-size
farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure,
and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case
shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
What are the qualifications that may be rewarded to each
child of the landowner?
Three hectares may be awarded but with the following
qualifications.
a. That he is at least fifteen (15) years of age.
b. That he is actually tilling the land or directly
managing the farm.
What are the exceptions to the retention limit?
The following are exempted to the retention limit:
a. Landowners whose lands have been covered by PD
27
b. Original homestead grantees or their direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original
homestead
c. Provincial city and municipal government units
acquiring private agricultural lands by
expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be
used for actual, direct, and exclusive public
purposes.
Are lands held by multinational corporations covered
under CARP? (Sec. 8)
YES. These are the ff:
(a) All lands of public domain leased, held or possessed
by multinational corporations; and
(b) Other lands owned by the government or by
government-owned or controlled corporations,
devoted to existing and operational agri-business
or agro-industrial enterprises operated by
multinational corporations.
How are lands of multinational corporations under lease,
management, grower or service contracts shall be
disposed of?
1) Lease, management, grower or service contracts
covering such lands covering an aggregate area in
excess of 1,000 hectares, leased or held by foreign
individuals in excess of 500 hectares
(a) These shall conform with the limits stated
in Article 12, Section 3 of the Constitution
(2) Contracts covering areas not exceeding 1000
49
 hectares (corporations and associations) and 500
hectares (individuals)
(a) They are allowed to continue under their
original terms until August 29, 1992 or
until their valid termination whichever
comes sooner
(i) After August 29, 1992 or their
valid termination, they can only
continue when confirmed by
appropriate government agency
(3) Leases and other agreements shall not extend
beyond August 29, 1992. All lands subject hereof
shall be completely distributed to qualified
beneficiaries or awardees.
How can such agreements continue?
There must be a new contract between
government/qualified beneficiaries/ awardees on one hand
and said enterprises on the other.
Can a foreign corporation, association, entity or individual
enjoy any rights or privileges?
Yes but they cannot enjoy rights and privileges
BETTER than those enjoyed by a domestic corporation,
association, entity or individual.
Are ancestral lands covered under CARP?
Yes. However, RA 6657 protects the rights of
Indigenous People to ensure their economic, social and
cultural well-being. Hence the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council can suspend the implementation of the act when
any provision of the law is contrary to the protection of
rights of the Indigenous People (Sec. 9).
What are the inclusions in the ancestral lands of each
indigenous cultural community?
Lands in actual, continuous and open possession
and occupation of the community and its members.
How about in the autonomous regions?
They can enact their own laws regarding ancestral
domains subject to the provisions of the Constitution and
the principles of CARL and other national laws.
What are the exemptions and exclusion in this act?
Lands which are directly and exclusively used for:
(Section 10)
- Parks
- Wildlife
- Forest
- Reserves
- Reforestation
- Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds
- Watersheds
- Mangroves
- National defense
- School sites and campuses
- Experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes
- Seeds and seedlings research
- Pilot production centers
- Church sites
- Convents
- Mosque sites and islamic centers
- Communal burial grounds and cemeteries
- Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by
the inmates, government and private research
- Quarantine centers
- All lands with 18% slope and over
What are commercial farms?
These are private agricultural lands devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising and
aquaculture including saltbends, fishponds and prawn
ponds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower
farms anf cacao, coffee and rubber plantations (Sec. 11)
When will Commercial Farms be subject to immediate
compulsory acquisition and distribution?
After 10 years from the effectivity date of this Act.
In case of new farms the period of 10 years will start from
the first year of commercial production and operation as
determined by DAR.
IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL AND LABOR RELATIONS
How can DAR protect and improve the tenurial and
economic status of the farmers in tenanted lands under
retention limit and lands not yet acquired in this act?
a. Determine and fix immediately the lease rentals
thereof in accordance with Section 34 of Republic
Act No. 3844
b. Immediately and periodically review and adjust the
rental structure for different crops including rice
and corn or different regions in order to improve
progressively the conditions of the farmer, tenant
or lessee.
50

Who must execute the Production-Sharing Plan?
a. Any enterprise adopting the scheme provided for
in Section 32
b. operating under a production venture, lease,
management contract or other similar
arrangement
c. Any farm covered by Sections 8 and 11 hereof
REGISTRATION
How can landowners register under CARP? (Section 14)
Landowners must file a sworn statement stating
the following:
a. Description and area of the property;
b. Average gross income from the last 3 years
c. Names of all tenants and farmworkers;
d. Crops planted and area covered of each plant;
e. Terms of mortgages, lease, and management
contracts subsisting; and
f. Latest declared market value of the land
How do beneficiaries register under CARP? (Section 15)
The DAR together with Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants
and farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of
CARP. The beneficiaries then shall provide the following
data:
a. names and members of their immediate farm
household
b. owners or administrators of the lands they work on
and the length of tenurial relationship;
c. location and area of the land they work
d. crops planted
e. their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid
or wages received.
LAND ACQUISITION
What is the procedure for the acquisition of private lands?
Section 6, Chapter V of RA 6657 provides the
following procedure for purposes of acquisition of private
lands:
(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;
(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
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the
landowner the purchase price of the land;
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall
conduct summary administrative proceedings to
determine the compensation for the land by requiring
the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to
submit evidence as to the just compensation for the
land;
(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; and
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may
bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for
final determination of just compensation.
COMPENSATION
What should be considered in determining the just
compensation for the acquisition of the land?
Section 17, Chapter VI of RA 6657 states that in
determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of
the land, the current value of properties, its nature, actual
use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
declarations, and the assessment made by government
assessors shall be considered. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers
and by the Government to the property as well as the non-
payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land shall be considered as
additional factors to determine its valuation.
What are the modes in paying compensation, at the option
of the landowner?
The compensation shall be paid in one of the
following modes:
1. Cash payment, under the following terms
51
 and conditions: b) Acquisition of shares of stock of government
owned or controlled corporations;
c) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the
a) For lands Twenty-five
provisional release of accused persons, or
above percent (25%) performance bonds;
fifty (50) cash, the balance d) Security for loans with any government financial
hectares,
to be paid in institution;
insofar
government e) Payment for various taxes and fees to government;
as the
financial f) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of
excess
instruments the original bondholder in government universities,
hectarag
colleges, trade schools, and other institutions;
e is negotiable at any
g) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the
concerne time. original bondholder in government hospitals; and
d
h) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time
b) For lands Thirty percent allow.
above (30%) cash, the
twenty- balance to be Will there be any incentive if the landowner voluntarily
four (24) paid in offers his/her property for sale?
hectares government
and up to financial YES. Landowners, other than banks and other
fifty (50) instruments financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their lands for
hectares. negotiable at any sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash
time. payment.

c) For lands Thirty-five

twenty- prevent (35%) Can landowners directly transfer their lands to qualified
four (24) cash, the balance beneficiaries?
hectares to be paid in
and government YES. Section 20, Chapter VI of RA 6657 states that
below. financial landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition
instruments under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for
negotiable at any direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries
time.
Guidelines for the transfer of the land by the landowner
directly to the beneficiary:

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;
3. Tax credits which can be used against any
tax liability;
4. LBP bonds.
Where can the landowner use the LBP bonds as payment
for the land acquired by the government?
Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner, his
successors in interest or his assigns, up to the amount of
their face value, for any of the following:
a) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the
government and other assets foreclosed by
government financial institutions;
a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be
submitted to the DAR within the first year of the
implementation of the CARP. Negotiations
between the landowners and qualified
beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer
which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall
not be recognized and such land shall instead be
acquired by the government and transferred
pursuant to this Act.
b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall
not be less favorable to the transferee than those
of the government's standing offer to purchase
from the landowner and to resell to the
beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and
are fully known to both parties.
c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions
for noncompliance by either party and shall be
duly recorded and its implementation monitored
52
 by the DAR.
Can the farmer-beneficiary pay directly to the landowner?
YES. Direct payments in cash or in kind may be
made by the farmer-beneficiary to the landowner under
terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, which
shall be binding upon them, upon registration with and
approval by the DAR. Said approval shall be considered
given, unless notice of disapproval is received by the
farmer-beneficiary within thirty (30) days from the date of
registration. In the event they cannot agree on the price of
land, the procedure for compulsory acquisition as provided
in Section 16 shall apply.
LAND REDISTRIBUTION
Who are the qualified beneficiaries of lands under CARP?
The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed
as much as possible to landless residents of the same
barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of
the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above
beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Who is a landless beneficiary?
For purposes of this Act, a landless beneficiary is
one who owns less than three (3) hectares of agricultural
land.
Who is disqualified to be a beneficiary under this act?
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who
have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are
disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program.
What is the limit in the distribution of lands?
No qualified beneficiary may own more than
three (3) hectares of agricultural land. In Section 25
provides for the award ceilings for beneficiaries, it provides
that beneficiaries shall be awarded an area not exceeding
three (3) hectares which may cover a contiguous tract of
land or several parcels of land cumulated up to the
prescribed award limits.
May beneficiaries opt for collective ownership over lands
distributed by DAR?
YES. The beneficiaries may opt for collective
ownership, such as co-ownership or farmers cooperative or
some other form of collective organization: Provided, That
the total area that may be awarded shall not exceed the
total number of co-owners or member of the cooperative
or collective organization multiplied by the award limit
above prescribed, except in meritorious cases as
determined by the PARC.
How will the beneficiaries pay for the land acquired?
Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for
by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. The
payments for the first three (3) years after the award may
be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC:
Provided, That the first five (5) annual payments may not be
more than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross
production as established by the DAR. Should the scheduled
annual payments after the fifth year exceed ten percent
(10%) of the annual gross production and the failure to
produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiary's fault, the
LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal
obligation to make the repayment affordable.
What will happen after nonpayment of the beneficiary?
The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the
land awarded to the beneficiary and this mortgage may be
foreclosed by the LBP for nonpayment of an aggregate of
three (3) annual amortizations.
What are the limitations as regards to the transferability
of awarded lands to beneficiaries?
Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may
not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through
hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP,
or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10)
years.
At the time of acquisition of the land, who owns the
standing crops?
The landowner shall retain his share of any
standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR shall take
possession of the land under Section 16 of this Act and shall
be given a reasonable time to harvest the same.
CORPORATE FARMS
53

What are Corporate Farms?
Corporate farms are those owned or operated by
corporations or other business associations.
Are Corporate Farms covered under the CARP?
Yes. In general, lands shall be distributed directly to
the individual worker-beneficiaries. However, if it is not
economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then it
shall be owned collectively by the worker beneficiaries who
shall form a worker’s cooperative or association.
What is a workers’ cooperative or association?
The workers’ cooperative or association will deal
with the corporation or business association when a land
shall be collectively owned by the worker beneficiaries. The
agreement existing at the time the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law takes effect between the former and the
previous landowner shall be respected by both the workers’
cooperative or association and the corporation or business
association.
To whom may corporate landowners transfer the
ownership of their agricultural landholdings?
1. Republic of The Philippines
2. Qualified Beneficiaries, subject to confirmation by
the DAR
How does a corporation transfer ownership to qualified
beneficiaries?
Upon certification by the DAR, corporations
owning agricultural lands may give their qualified
beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the
capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land,
actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation
to the company’s total assets, under terms and conditions
as may be agreed upon by them.
What are the conditions that corporations or associations
must comply with when they voluntarily divest a
proportion of their capital stock, equity, participation in
favor of qualified beneficiaries?
a. The books of the corporation or association shall be
subject to periodic audit by certified public
accountants as chosen by the beneficiaries
b. The beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one
representative in the board of directors, or in a
management executive committee, if one exists, of
the corporation or association;
c. Any shares acquired by such workers and
beneficiaries shall have the same rights and
features as all other shares.
d. Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original
beneficiaries shall be void ab initio unless said
transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered
beneficiary within the same corporation.
How are the shares of cooperative or association paid?
Shares of a cooperative or association acquired by
farmer beneficiaries or worker-beneficiaries shall be fully
paid in the amount corresponding to the valuation as
determined.
How is the value of land determined?
A valuation scheme is formulated by the PARC. In
the determination of a price that is just not only to the
individual but to society as well, the PARC shall consult
closely with the landowner and the worker-beneficiaries.
What is production-sharing?
Individuals or entities owning, or operating under
lease or management contract, agricultural lands are
mandated to execute a production-sharing plan with their
farmworkers or farm workers' organization, pending final
land transfer.
Three percent of the gross sales from the
production of such lands are distributed as compensation
to regular and other farmworkers. Provided that the
individual or entity realizes gross sales in excess of five
million pesos per annum.
What happens if the individual or entity realizes a profit?
54
 An additional 10 percent of the NET PROFIT AFTER
TAX shall be distributed to said regular and other
farmworkers within ninety days of the end of the fiscal year.
SUPPORT SERVICES
What is the purpose of the Office of Support Services?
They provide general support and coordinate
services in the implementation of the program particularly
in carrying out the provisions of the services to farmer-
beneficiaries and affected landowners.
What are the support services provided to the
beneficiaries?
a. Land survey and titling;
b. Socialized terms on agricultural credit facilities
c. Extension services by way of planting, cropping,
production and post-harvest technology transfer, as
well as marketing and management assistance and
support to cooperatives and farmers’ organizations;
d. Infrastructure such as, but not limited to, access trails,
mini-dams, public utilities, marketing and storage
facilities; and
e. Research production and use of organic fertilizers and
other local substances necessary in farming and
cultivation.
f. Direct and active DAR assistance in the education and
organization of actual and potential agrarian reform
beneficiaries
What are the support services provided to the
landowners?
a. Investment information, financial and counseling
assistance;
b. Facilities, programs and schemes for the conversion
or exchange of bonds issued for payment of the lands
acquired with stocks and bonds issued by the
National Government, the BSP and other
government institutions and instrumentalities;
c. Marketing of agrarian reform bonds, as well as
promoting the marketability of said bonds in
traditional and non-traditional financial markets and
stock exchanges
d. Other services designed to utilize productively the
proceeds of the sale of such lands for rural
industrialization.
If a land owner invests in a rural-based industry, is he
qualified to receive incentives? If yes, what are these
incentives?
Yes. The landowner who invests in rural-based
industries shall be entitled to:
a. Incentives granted to a registered enterprise
engaged in a pioneer or preferred are of
investment; or
b. Such other incentives as the PARC, LBP, or other
government financial institutions shall provide.
How much shall the agrarian reform bonds be redeemed?
They shall be redeemed at face value. Provided: at
least fifty percent of the proceeds shall be invested in a
Board of Investments-registered company or in any agri-
business or agro-industrial enterprise in the region where
the CARP-covered landholding is located.
SPECIAL AREAS OF CONCERN
What are the Special Areas of Concern?
1. Subsistence fishing
They shall be assured of greater access to
the utilization of water resources.
2. Logging and mining concessions
Suitable areas in logging, mining and
pasture areas shall be opened up for agrarian
settlements whose beneficiaries shall be required
to undertake reforestation and conservation
production methods.
3. Sparsely occupied public agricultural lands
They shall be surveyed, proclaimed, and
developed as farm settlements for Qualified
Landless People based on an organized program to
ensure their orderly and early development.
4. Idle, abandoned, foreclosed, and sequestered lands
55
 They shall be planned for distribution as
home lots and family-size farmlots to actual
occupants.
5. Rural women
All qualified women members of the
agricultural labor force must be guaranteed and
assured equal right to ownership of the land, equal
shares of the farm’s produce, and representation in
advisory or appropriate decision-making bodies.
6. Veterans and retirees
Landless war veterans and veterans of
military campaigns, their surviving spouses and
orphans, retirees of the AFP and the Integrated
National Police, returnees, surrenderees, and
similar beneficiaries shall be given due
consideration in the disposition of agricultural
lands.
7. Agriculture graduates
Graduates of agricultural schools who are
landless shall be assisted by the government in
their desire to own and till agricultural lands.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
What are the organizations tasked with implementing the
CARP?
These are the:
1. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)
2. Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM)
3. Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)
Who shall compose the PARC?
The PARC shall be composed of the following:
1. President of the Philippines as Chairperson
2. Secretary of Agrarian Reform as Vice-Chairperson
3. Members:
a. DA Secretary
b. DENR Secretary
c. DBM Secretary
d. DILG Secretary
e. DPWH Secretary
f. DTI Secretary
g. DOF Secretary
h. DOLE Secretary
i. Director-General of NEDA
j. President of the Land Bank of the Philippines
k. Administrator of the National Irrigation Administration
l. Administrator of the Land Registration Authority
l. 6 representatives of affected landowners to represent
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao
m. 6 representatives of agrarian reform beneficiaries (2
each from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao,
Provided that one of them shall be from the indigenous
peoples:
Provided, further, that at least 1 of them shall come from a
duly recognized national organization of rural women or a
national organization of agrarian reform beneficiaries with
a substantial number of women members
Provided, finally, that at least 20% of the members of the
PARC shall be women but in no case shall they be less than
two.)
What are the functions of the PARC?
The functions of the PARC are:
1. provide the guidelines for a province-by-province
implementation of the CARP
2. establish the level of operations of the CARP
3. ensure the timely and effective delivery of the necessary
support services
4. formulate and/or implement the policies, rules and
regulations necessary to implement each component of the
CARP
5. recommend small farm economy areas
6. schedule the acquisition and redistribution of specific
agrarian reform areas
7. control mechanisms for evaluating the owner’s
declaration of current fair market value
Who shall compose the EXCOM of the PARC?
56
 The EXCOM shall be composed of: To provide general support and coordinative
1. DAR Secretary as Chairman services such as inter-agency linkages, program and project
2. Members: appraisal and evaluation and general operations monitoring
for the PARC.
a. Executive Secretary
b. DA Secretary Who shall compose the PARC Secretariat?
c. DENR Secretary
d. DOF Secretary It shall be headed by the Secretary of the DAR, who
e. DPWH Secretary shall be assisted by an Undersecretary and supported by a
f. President of the Land Bank of the Philippines staff whose composition shall be determined by the
EXCOM. All officers and employees of the Secretariat shall
be appointed by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
What are the basic policies and guidelines set forth in the
Constitution which the EXCOM shall take into account in
Who shall compose the PARCCOM?
making the Program of Implementation?

The PARCCOM shall be composed of the following:

These are:
1. Chairman appointed by the President upon
1. The CARP is founded on the right of farmers and regular
recommendation of the EXCOM
farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
2. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer as Executive Officer
collectively, the lands they till or, in the case of other
3. Members:
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.
a. 1 representative each from the DA, DENR, LBP
2. The right of small landowners shall be respected.
b. 1 representative each from existing farmers’
3. Voluntary land-sharing shall be encouraged.
organizations, agricultural cooperatives, and non-
4. Farmers, farmworkers, landowners, cooperatives and/or
governmental organizations in the province
independent farmers' organizations have the right to
c. 2 representatives from landowners, at least one of whom
participate in the planning, organization, and management
shall be a producer representing the principal crop of the
of the CARP.
province
5. In lands of the public domain, the CARP shall respect prior
d. 2 representatives from farmer and farmworker-
rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
beneficiaries, at least one of whom shall be a farmer or
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
farmworker representing the principal crop of the province.
6. Support to agriculture through appropriate technology
e. 1 representative in areas where there are cultural
and research, and adequate financial, production,
communities
marketing, and other support services must be provided.
7. Landowners shall be encouraged to invest the proceeds
What are the functions of the PARCCOM?
of the agrarian reform program to promote
industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of
The PARCCOM of the province shall:
public sector enterprises.
1. adjust the ten-year program distribution of public and
8. At the earliest possible time, idle or abandoned
private lands in each province
agricultural lands as may be defined by law shall be
2. ensure that support services are available or have been
expropriated for distribution to the beneficiaries of the
programmed before actual distribution is effected
agrarian reform program.
What is the PARC Secretariat tasked to do?
Who shall compose the BARC?

57
 The BARC shall be composed of the following:
1. Representative/s of farmer and farmworker beneficiaries
2. Representative/s of farmer and farmworker non-
beneficiaries
3. Representative/s of agricultural cooperatives
4. Representative/s of the other farmer organizations
5. Representative/s of the Barangay Council
6. Representative/s of NGOs
7. Representative/s of landowners
8. DA official assigned to the barangay
9. DENR official assigned to the area
10. DAR Agrarian Reform Technologist assigned to the area
who shall act as the Secretary
11. Land Bank of the Philippines representative
What are the functions of the BARC?
The functions of the BARC are:
1. Participate and give support to the implementation of
programs on agrarian reform;
2. Mediate, conciliate or arbitrate agrarian conflicts and
issues that are brought to it for resolution;
3. Perform such other functions that the PARC, its Executive
Committee, or the DAR Secretary may delegate from time
to time
4. Assist in the identification of qualified beneficiaries and
landowners within the barangay;
5. Attest to the accuracy of the initial parcellary mapping of
the beneficiary's tillage;
6. Assist qualified beneficiaries in obtaining credit from
lending institutions;
7. Assist in the initial determination of the value of the land;
8. Assist the DAR representatives in the preparation of
periodic reports on the CARP implementation for
submission to the DAR;
9. Coordinate the delivery of support services to
beneficiaries;
When shall the rules and regulations issued by the PARC
and DAR take effect?
The rules and regulations shall take effect ten days
after publication in two national newspapers of general
circulation.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
What are the two-fold jurisdictions of DAR under Section
50 of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988?
1. Executive Jurisdiction - It pertains to the enforcement
and administration of the laws, carrying them into
practical operation and enforcing their due
observance.
2. Judicial Jurisdiction - it involves the determination of
rights and obligations of the parties.
What is the difference between the function of
Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO)
and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board (DARAB)?
The DARRO exercises executive function which
concerns the implementation of agrarian reform laws.
The DARAB, including the Regional Agrarian
Reform Adjudicators or Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicators exercise judicial function which concerns
adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
What constitutes the Quasi-Judicial Jurisdiction DAR?
1. It has the Primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters
2. The appellate jurisdiction over orders and decisions
of the Agrarian Reform Adjudicators.
What are the quasi judicial powers of DAR:
1. Hear and decide cases within its jurisdiction
2. Summon witnesses
3. Administer oaths
4. Take testimony
5. Issue subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum
6. Issue writ of execution
7. Punish direct or indirect contempt
58
What is the jurisdiction of Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD)?
In general, the PARAD has primary and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide agrarian disputes.
Decisions of the PARAD are appealable to the
DARAB within 15 days from receipt of the resolution,
decision, or order appealed from.
What are the functions of a Regional Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator?
1. Administrative Supervision over the PARAD
including the monitoring of cases in the region
2. Conduct hearing and adjudication of agrarian
disputes within the region;
3. Conduct hearing.
What are the instances where DARAB has no
jurisdiction?
1. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over matters
pertaining to ownership
2. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over Retention or
Exemption Issues
3. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over Right of Way
issues
4. The DARAB has no jurisdiction to identify and
classify landholdings for agrarian reform coverage
5. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over matters
pertaining to identification and selection of
beneficiaries
SEC 50- A. Exclusive jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute
Will the agrarian cases directly filed in regular courts
be dismissed?
No. Should a party directly file a case with the
regular court and a pleading alleges that the case is
agrarian in nature, and one of the parties is a farmer,
farmworker, or tenant, the Court should not dismiss the
case. Instead, it should refer the matter to the DAR for
the purpose of determining and certifying within 15
days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists.
Should the court still entertain the agrarian case if the
agrarian beneficiaries association is unregistered in
Securities and Exchange Commission?
Yes. It shall not be used against them to deny the
existence of their legal standing and interest in a case
filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies. (Sec.
53: Certification of the BARC.)
What is the prerequisite in filing a complaint before
the DARAB?
The DARAB or its adjudicators shall not take
cognizance of any agrarian case, dispute, or
controversy, unless a certification from the Barangay
Agrarian reform Committee of the barangay where the
land involved is located is presented, to the effect that
the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation or
conciliation without any success or settlement.
What are the cases where BARC certification is not
necessary.
1. Where the issue involves the valuation of land to
determine just compensation for its acquisition;
2. Where one party is a public or private corporation,
partnership, association or juridical person, or public
person, or a public officer or employee and the
dispute relates to the performance of his official
functions;
3. Where the secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform directly refers the matter to the DARAB or
the Adjudicator;
4. Where the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, or in
his absence, the Senior Agrarian Reform Program
Technologist certifies the nonexistence of the
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee to convene.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
What is the remedy from an Adverse Ruling of the DAR?
The remedy is to file a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within 15 days
from notice of the ruling.
59
Why is there a prohibition against restraining orders or
injunctions in Section 55?
So as not to disrupt the smooth implementation of
the agrarian reform program. But once a ruling is rendered
and the aggrieved party brings the matter to the proper
courts, the prohibition will no longer apply. The court can
issue a restraining order or injunction as an ancillary relief,
particularly when jurisdictional error or grave abuse of
discretion was committed in rendering the ruling.
What court is designated as a Special Agrarian Court?
The RTC should specifically be designated by the
Supreme Court as a Special Agrarian Court.
What are the Addition Jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian
Court
1. Petitions for the determination of just compensation
2. Criminal Violations of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Law of 1988.
What is the function of the Commissioners appointed by
the Special Agrarian Courts?
To examine, investigate and ascertain facts
relevant to the dispute, including the valuation of
properties, and to file a written report with the court.
Where to file an appeal?
Decisions of the Special Agrarian Court are
appealable to the CA by filing a petition for review within
15 days from receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise the
decision shall become final.
Appeal from the Decision of Court of Appeals, of
order, ruling, decision of DAr shall be by a petition for
review with the SC within a non-extendible period of 15
days from receipt of a copy of said decision.
FINANCING
Q: What is the CARP’s funding source?
The Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding
sources in the amount of at least P150,000,000,000.00.
What are the other sources of funding?
1. Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and
Management Office (PMO);
2. Sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the
PCGG, excluding the amount appropriated for
compensation to victims of human rights violations;
3. Proceeds of the disposition and development of
the properties of the Government in foreign countries, for
specific purposes of financing production credits,
infrastructure and other support services required by this
Act;
4. All income and collections of whatever form and
nature arising from the agrarian reform operations,
projects, and programs of the DAR and other CARP
implementing agencies;
5. Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines
from all sources of official foreign aid grants and
concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the
specific purposes of financing productions, credits,
infrastructures, and other support services required by this
Act;
6. Yearly appropriations of no less than
P5,000,000,000.00 from the GAA;
7. Gratuitous financial assistance from legitimate
sources; and
8. Other government funds not otherwise
appropriated.
What is the source of funding of just compensation to
landowners?
From the Agrarian Reform Fund.
What if the Agrarian Reform Fund is insufficient, where
will payment for just compensation be charged?
It will be charged against the debt service program
of the national government or any unprogrammed item in
the GAA.
What is the financial intermediary for the CARP?
60
 The Land Bank of the Philippines shall be the
financial arm of the agrarian reform program.
What is the role of the LBP?
The determination of value of lands which will
determine the just compensation under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
What is conversion?
Conversion is the act or process of changing the
current physical use of a piece of agricultural land into some
other use.
What is reclassification?
Reclassification is the act of specifying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses
such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as
embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements
and procedures for land use conversion.
Who can apply for conversion?
The beneficiary or the landowner, with respect
only to his retained area which is tenanted; or government
agencies, including GOCCs, and LGUs.
When to file an application for conversion?
After the lapse of 5 years from the award of the
land.
What are the conditions before an application for
conversion can be filed?
1. When the land ceases to be economically feasible
for agricultural purposes; and
2. When the locality has become urbanized and the
land will have a greater economic value for residential,
commercial, or industrial purposes.
What are the obligations of the beneficiary if the
application for conversion is approved?
The beneficiary is required to invest 10% of the
proceeds from the conversion in government securities;
and to pay the full price of the land upon conversion.
What lands cannot be subject to conversion?
1. Agricultural lands within protected areas
designated under the NIPAS, including mossy and virgin
forests, riverbanks, and swamp forests or marshland, as
determined by the DENR;
2. All irrigated lands, as delineated by the Department
of Agriculture and/or the National Irrigation Administration,
where water is available to support rice and other crop
production, and all irrigated lands where water is not
available for rice and other crop production but are within
areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by
the government;
3. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation
projects with firm funding commitments, as delineated by
the Department of Agriculture and/or the National
Irrigation Administration; and
4. All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities.
What is the effect of failure to implement the approved
conversion plan?
If the approved conversion plan is not
implemented within 5 years from approval, the land will
continue to be covered by the agrarian reform program.
When is conversion of public agricultural land to fishponds
allowed?
When the coastal zone is declared suitable for
fishpond development by the provincial government and
the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.
Who is given preference in the awarding of a Fishpond
Lease Agreement(FLAs)?
Small farmer-cooperatives and organizations
When is conversion of private agricultural lands of more
than 5 hectares to fishponds allowed?
61
 Upon approval of the DAR and under the following
conditions:
1. When the use of the land is more economically
feasible and sound for fishpond and/or prawn farm as
certified by the BFAR; and
2. A simple and absolute majority of the regular farm
workers or tenants agree to the conversion.
Who does the inventory of all government and private
fishponds and prawn farms?
The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR), within 1 year from the effectivity of this Act.
What is the purpose of the inventory?
To monitor unauthorized conversions of lands into
fishponds and prawn farms.
When is a Fishpond Lease Agreement awarded?
A Fishpond Lease Agreement shall be granted after
the completion of the inventory.
What is a buffer zone?
A portion of the fishpond area fronting the sea to
protect the environment.
Who shall provide for the penalties for violation of and
rules for the establishment of a buffer zone?
The DENR Secretary.
Does the change of crops require DAR approval?
No, because it is not considered as conversion.
What are the limitations to the changing of crops?
It should not prejudice the rights of tenants or
leaseholders, and that the consent of the simple and
absolute majority of the affected farm workers must be first
obtained.
What are the transactions under this Act exempted from?
Taxes arising from capital gains, payment of
registration fees, and all other taxes and fees for the
conveyance or transfer thereof.
What is the function of the Register of Deeds in the
implementation of the CARP?
To register, free from payment of all fees and other
charges, patents, titles, and documents, of lands acquired
by the agrarian reform beneficiaries and those retained by
the landowner.
What government agencies are immune under this Act?
The DAR, the DA, the DENR, and the DOJ, in the
implementation of this program, shall be immune. from
injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus
issued by the RTCs, MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs.
Who is authorized to call upon the assistance of other
government agencies?
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).
What is an additional requirement for registration under
this Act?
An affidavit of aggregate landholding, to be
submitted to the Register of Deeds with confirmation from
the Assessor’s Office, to ensure that the landholding of the
buyer does not exceed the 5-hectare limit.
When is the bank or financial institution deemed as the
new landowner?
For purposes of covering the property under the
agrarian reform program, the bank or financial institution,
as mortgagee, is considered as the new landowner if before
the deposit of just compensation:
1. The bank or financial institution is the purchaser in
the foreclosure sale and redemption period, as provided by
law, has already expired in cases where the right of
redemption exists; or
62
2. The bank or financial institution is the purchaser in
the foreclosure sale and said foreclosure sale is confirmed
by the court in cases where only equity of redemption is
provided.
How are lands covered by this Act under lease,
management, grower or service contracts disposed of?
a) Lease, management, grower or service contracts
covering private lands may continue under their original
terms and conditions until the expiration of the same even
if such land has, in the meantime, been transferred to
qualified beneficiaries.
b) Mortgages and other claims registered with the
Register of Deeds shall be assumed by the government up
to an amount equivalent to the landowner’s compensation
value as provided in this Act.
What are prohibited acts and omissions under this Act?
a. The ownership or possession, for the purpose of
circumventing the provisions of this Act, of agricultural
lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings
by any person, natural, or juridical, except those under
collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries;
b. The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons
who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to avail
themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian
Reform Program;
c. Any conversion by any landowner of his/her
agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent to
avoid the application of this Act to his/her landholdings and
to dispossess his/her bona fide tenant farmers;
d. The malicious and willful prevention or change of
the nature of lands outside of urban centers and city limits
either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act,
except after final completion of the appropriate conversion.
e. The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of
the right to use or any other usufructuary right over the land
he/she acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to
circumvent the provisions of this act;
f. The unjustified, willful, and malicious act by a
responsible officer or officers of the government through
the following:
1) The denial of notice and/or reply to
landowners;
2) The deprivation of retention rights;
3) The undue or inordinate delay in the
preparation of claim folders; or
4) Any undue delay, refusal or failure in the
payment of just compensation.
g. The undue delay or unjustified failure of the DAR,
the LBP, the PARC, the PARCCOM, and any concerned
government agency or any government official or employee
to submit the required report, data and/or other official
document involving the implementation of the provisions
of this Act, as required by the parties or the government,
including the House of Representatives and the Senate, as
well as their respective committees, and the congressional
oversight committee created herein;
h. The undue delay in the compliance with the
obligation to certify or attest and/or falsification of the
certification or attestation as required under Sec. 7 of this
Act; and
i. Any other culpable neglect or willful violations of
the provisions of this Act.
What is the effect of conviction for violation of the
provisions of this Act?
Non-entitlement to any benefit provided for in any
agrarian reform law or program.
What is an exception to the prohibited acts or omissions
under Sec. 73?
The sale and/or transfer of agricultural land in
cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made
necessary as a result of a bank’s foreclosure of the
mortgaged land.
What is the penalty for a person who knowingly or
willfully violated the provisions of this Act?
Imprisonment of not less than 1 month to not more
than 3 years or a fine of not less than P1,000.00 and not
more than P15,000.00 or both, at the discretion of the
court.
What are the penalties for the act enumerated under Sec.
73?
63
 Whether or not CARL violates due process because
Imprisonment of 3 Imprisonment of 6 landowner is divested of his property even before actual
years & 1 day – 6 years & 1 day – 12 payment to him in full of just compensation, in
years or a fine of years or a fine of contravention of a well- accepted principle of eminent
P50,000.00 - P200,000.00 – domain
P150,000.00 or both P1,000,000.00 or
both HELD:

Paragraphs (c) (d) NO. The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property
Paragraphs (a) (b) (f) (e) and (i) of Sec. expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator
(g) and (h) of Sec. 73. 73. only upon full payment of the just compensation.
Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both
here and in other democratic jurisdictions.
Who is liable if the offender is a corporation or
It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the
association?
emancipation of tenant-farmer as October 21, 1972 and
declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion
The officer responsible shall be criminally liable.
of land consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title
to the land owned by him was to be actually issued to him
- End of CARlaw -
unless and until he had become a full-fledged member of a
duly recognized farmers' cooperative." It was understood,
CASE DIGESTS
however, that full payment of the just compensation also
had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v.
requirement.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 78742 | 14 July 1989 |
When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:

FACTS:
All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full
owners as of October 21, 1972 of the land they acquired by
On September 3, 1986, the petitioner protested the
virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27.
erroneous inclusion of his small landholding under
it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired
Operation Land transfer and asked for the recall and
under the said decree, after proof of full-fledged
cancellation of the Certificates of Land Transfer in the name
membership in the farmers' cooperatives and full payment
of the private respondents.
of just compensation. Hence, it was also perfectly proper
for the Order to also provide in its Section 2 that the "lease
The petitioner contends that the issuance of E.0. Nos. 228
rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer- beneficiary
and 229 shortly before Congress convened is anomalous
after October 21, 1972 (pending transfer of ownership after
and arbitrary, besides violating the doctrine of separation
full payment of just compensation), shall be considered as
of powers.
advance payment for the land."

The petitioner also invokes his rights not to be deprived of

The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of
his property without due process of law and to the
possession and ownership of the land to the government on
retention of his small parcels of rice holding as guaranteed
receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or
under Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution
the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP
bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains
ISSUE:
with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is
contemplated either.

64
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.
Hacienda Luisita Incorporated vs Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council, et al.,
G.R. No. 171101 | 22 November 2011
FACTS:
The SC en banc voted 11-0 dismissing the petition filed by
HLI Affirm with modifications the resolutions of the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC for brevity)
revoking Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI for brevity) Stock
Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject land in HL
under compulsory coverage of the CARP of the government.
Thereafter, the SC voting 6-5 averred that there are
operative facts that occurred in the premises. The SC
thereat declared that the revocation of the SDP shall, by
application of the operative fact principle, give the 5296
qualified Farmworkers Beneficiaries (FWBs for brevity) to
choose whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or
choose actual land distribution. Considering the premises,
DAR immediately scheduled a meeting regarding the effects
of their choice and therefrom proceeded to secret voting of
their choice.
The parties, thereafter, filed their respective Motion for
Reconsideration regarding the SC’s decision.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not operative fact doctrine is applicable in
the said case.
2) Whether or not Sec. 31 of R.A. 6657 unconstitutional.
3) Whether or not the 10-year period prohibition on the
transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 lapsed on May 10,
1999, since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP
coverage through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989, and
thus the qualified FWBs should now be allowed to sell their
land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties, whether
they have fully paid for the lands or not?
4) Whether or not qualified FWBs shall be entitled to the
option of remaining as stockholder be reconsidered.
HELD:
1) Operative Fact Doctrine is applicable to the instant case.
The court ruled that the doctrine is not limited only to
invalid or unconstitutional law but also to decisions made
by the president or the administrative agencies that have
the force and effect of laws, especially if the said decisions
produced acts and consequences that must be respected.
That the implementation of PARC resolution approving SDP
of HLI manifested such right and benefits favorable to the
FWBs;
2) The SC said that the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of R.A.
6657 is not the lis mota of the case and it was not raised at
the earliest opportunity and did not rule on the
constitutionality of the law;
3) The SC ruled that it has not yet lapsed on May 10, 1999,
and qualified FWBs are not allowed to sell their land
interest in HL to third parties; That the start of the counting
of the prohibitive period shall be ten years from the
issuance and registration of the Emancipation Patent (EP for
brevity) or Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA for
brevity), and considering that the EPs and CLOAs have not
yet been issued, the prohibitive period has not started yet.
4) The SC ruled in the affirmative, giving qualified FWBs the
option to remain as stockholder
YES, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified
FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI
should be reconsidered.
The Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified
FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders
of HLI, inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will never gain
control [over the subject lands] given the present
proportion of shareholdings in HLI. The Court noted that the
share of the FWBs in the HLI capital stock is [just] 33.296%.
Thus, even if all the holders of this 33.296% unanimously
vote to remain as HLI stockholders, which is unlikely, control
will never be in the hands of the FWBs. Control means the
majority of [sic] 50% plus at least one share of the common
shares and other voting shares. Applying the formula to the
65
HLI stockholdings, the number of shares that will constitute
the majority is 295,112,101 shares (590,554,220 total HLI
capital shares divided by 2 plus one [1] HLI share). The
118,391,976.85 shares subject to the SDP approved by
PARC substantially fall short of the 295,112,101 shares
needed by the FWBs to acquire control over HLI.
GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS JULIAN, SR.,
PEDRO RICALDE, VICENTE RICALDE and ROLANDO
SALAMAR vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
ENRIQUE M. REYES, PAZ M. REYES and FE M. REYES.
G.R. No. 78517 | 27 February 1989 | PARAS, J.
FACTS: The subject matter of the case consists of two (2)
parcels of land, acquired by private respondents'
predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under
the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 141. Said lands
are situated at Guilinan, Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur.
Private respondents herein are desirous of personally
cultivating these lands, but petitioners refuse to vacate,
relying on the provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and
appurtenant regulations issued by the then Ministry of
Agrarian Reform now Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR).
On June 18, 1981, private respondents (then plaintiffs),
instituted a complaint against Hon. Conrado Estrella as then
Minister of Agrarian Reform, P.D. Macarambon as Regional
Director of MAR Region IX, and herein petitioners (then
defendants) for the declaration of P.D. 27 and all other
Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General Orders issued
in connection therewith as inapplicable to homestead
lands.
Subsequently, on July 19, 1982, plaintiffs filed an urgent
motion to enjoin the defendants from declaring the lands in
litigation under Operation Land Transfer and from being
issued land transfer certificates to which the defendants
filed their opposition dated August 4, 1982.
The then Court of Agrarian Relations 16th Regional District,
Branch IV, Pagadian City (now Regional Trial Court, 9th
Judicial Region, Branch XVIII) rendered its decision
dismissing the said complaint and the motion to enjoin the
defendants was denied. Plaintiffs moved to reconsider the
Order of dismissal, to which defendants filed their
opposition. 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.
On appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals, the same
was sustained in its judgment rendered. Hence, the present
petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not lands obtained through homestead
patent are covered by the Agrarian Reform under P.D. 27?
RULING:
NO. The court agrees with the petitioners in saying that P.D.
27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the
bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of
the land they till is a sweeping social legislation, a remedial
measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice
precepts of the Constitution. However, such contention
cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the
enactment of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No.
141.
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and
protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece
of land where he may build a modest house for himself and
family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for
the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens
to their homes and to the things necessary for their
subsistence 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 State which looks after the welfare
of the people's happiness is under a duty to safeguard the
satisfaction of this vital right. (Patricio v. Bayog, 112 SCRA
45)
In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects
the superiority of the homesteaders' rights over the rights
of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute.
In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution which provides:
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of
agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the
disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
66
 including lands of public domain under lease or
concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior
rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the
rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral
lands.
Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly
promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso
supporting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by
homestead patents like those of the property in question.
NATALIA REALTY, INC., AND ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND
INVESTORS CORP. vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, SEC. BENJAMIN T. LEONG and DIR. WILFREDO
LEANO, DAR REGION IV
G.R. No. 103302 | 12 August 1993 | BELLOSILLO, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the
owner of three (3) contiguous parcels of land located in
Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, with areas of 120.9793 hectares,
1.3205 hectares and 2.7080 hectares, or a total of 125.0078
hectares, and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No.
31527 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal.
On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set
aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities
of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to
absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which
were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The
NATALIA properties are situated within the areas
proclaimed as townsite reservation.
Since private landowners were allowed to develop their
properties into low-cost housing subdivisions within the
reservation, petitioner Estate Developers and Investors
Corporation (EDIC, for brevity), as developer of NATALIA
properties, applied for and was granted preliminary
approval and locational clearances by the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission. The necessary permits
were issued. Petitioner were likewise issued development
permits after complying with the requirements. Thus, the
NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision.
On 15 June 1988, R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988" (CARL),
went into effect. Conformably therewith, respondent
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through its
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued on 22 November
1990 a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly
90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately registered its
objection to the notice of Coverage. EDIC also protested to
respondent Director Wilfredo Leano of the DAR Region IV
Office and twice wrote him requesting the cancellation of
the Notice of Coverage.
On 17 January 1991, members of the Samahan ng
Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA) filed a
complaint against NATALIA and EDIC before the DAR
Regional Adjudicator to restrain petitioners from
developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA members.
The Regional Adjudicator temporarily restrained petitioners
from proceeding with the development of the subdivision.
Petitioners then moved to dismiss the complaint; it was
denied. Instead, the Regional Adjudicator issued a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.
In the interim, NATALIA wrote respondent Secretary of
Agrarian Reform reiterating its request to set aside the
Notice of Coverage. Neither respondent Secretary nor
respondent Director took action on the protest-letters, thus
compelling petitioners to institute this proceeding more
than a year thereafter.
NATALIA and EDIC both impute grave abuse of discretion to
respondent DAR for including under developed portions of
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of the
CARL. They argue that NATALIA properties already ceased
to be agricultural lands when they were included in the
areas reserved by presidential fiat for the townsite
reservation.
Public respondents through the Office of the Solicitor
General dispute this contention. They maintain that 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 residential was ever
67
filed with the DAR. In other words, there was no valid
conversion. Moreover, public respondents allege that the
instant petition was prematurely filed because the case
instituted by SAMBA against petitioners before the DAR
Regional Adjudicator has not yet terminated. Respondents
conclude, as a consequence, that petitioners failed to fully
exhaust administrative remedies available to them before
coming to court.
ISSUE: Are lands already classified for residential,
commercial or industrial use, as approved by the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precursor agencies
prior to 15 June 1988, covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988?
HELD:
YES. The Preliminary Approval and Locational Clearances as
well as the Development Permits granted petitioners for
Phases I, II and III of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision reveals
that contrary to the claim of public respondents, petitioners
NATALIA and EDIC did in fact comply with all the
requirements of law. Petitioners first secured favorable
recommendations from the Lungsod Silangan Development
Corporation, the agency tasked to oversee the
implementation of the development of the townsite
reservation, before applying for the necessary permits from
the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. And, in all
permits granted to petitioners, the Commission
stated invariably therein that the applications were in
"conformance" or "conformity" or "conforming" with the
implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957.
Hence, the argument of public respondents that not all of
the requirements were complied with cannot be sustained.
As a matter of fact, there was even no need for petitioners
to secure a clearance or prior approval from DAR. The
NATALIA properties were within the areas set aside for the
Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Since Presidential
Proclamation No. 1637 created the townsite reservation for
the purpose of providing additional housing to the
burgeoning population of Metro Manila, it in effect
converted for residential use what were erstwhile
agricultural lands provided all requisites were met. And, in
the case at bar, there was compliance with all relevant rules
and requirements. Even in their applications for the
development of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision, the
predecessor agency of HLURB noted that petitioners
NATALIA and EDIC complied with all the requirements
prescribed by P.D. 957.
The implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D.
957 applied to all subdivisions and condominiums in
general. On the other hand, Presidential Proclamation No.
1637 referred only to the Lungsod Silangan Reservation,
which makes it a special law. It is a basic tenet in statutory
construction that between a general law and a special law,
the latter prevails. Interestingly, the Office of the Solicitor
General does not contest the conversion of portions of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision which have already been
developed. The applications for the developed and
undeveloped portions of subject subdivision were similarly
situated. Consequently, both did not need prior DAR
approval.
On the issue of whether such lands are covered by the CARL.
Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private agricultural lands." As to
what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land
devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land." 16 The deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission confirm this limitation. "Agricultural lands" are
only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural
lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and
residential lands."
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any
language be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots
were intended for residential use. They ceased to be
agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the
Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in
question continued to be developed as a low-cost housing
subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be
gleaned from the fact that SAMBA members even instituted
an action to restrain petitioners from continuing with such
development. The enormity of the resources needed for
developing a subdivision may have delayed its completion,
but this does not detract from the fact that these lands are
still residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL.
68
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are
outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands
previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than
respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and Regulations
Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-
Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined "agricultural land"
thus —
. . . Agricultural lands refers to those
devoted to agricultural activity as defined
in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral
or forest by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and
not classified in town plans and zoning
ordinances as approved by the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
and its preceding competent authorities
prior to 15 June 1988 for residential,
commercial or industrial use.
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June
1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was
therefore an error to include the undeveloped portions of
the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.
Anent the argument that there was failure to exhaust
administrative remedies in the instant petition, suffice it to
say that the issues raised in the case filed by SAMBA
members differ from those of petitioners. The former
involve possession; the latter, the propriety of including
under the operation of CARL lands already converted for
residential use prior to its effectivity. Besides, petitioners
were not supposed to wait until public respondents acted
on their letter-protests, this after sitting it out for almost a
year. Given the official indifference, which under the
circumstances could have continued forever, petitioners
had to act to assert and protect their interests.
ROXAS & COMPANY, INC. vs. DAMBA-
NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM.
G.R. No. 149548 | 4 December 2009 | CARPIO MORALES, J
FACTS:
Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and
is the registered owner of three haciendas, namely,
Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located
in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas.
On June 15, 1988, Republic Act No. 6657,
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of
1988 took effect. Before the law's effectivity, on
May 6, 1988, Roxas & Co. filed with respondent
DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda 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. Nevertheless, Roxas &
Co., through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, 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.
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.
During the pendency before the DAR of its application
for conversion following its remand to the DAR, Roxas &
Co. filed with the DAR an application for exemption from
the coverage of the CARP of 1988 on the basis of PP 1520
and of DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of
1994 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.
ISSUES:
1. Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the
Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu tourism zone to non-
69
agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.'s three haciendas
in Nasugbu from CARP coverage;
2. Whether Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of 1982 exempted
certain lots in Hacienda Palico from CARP coverage.
3. Whether the CLOAS issued by the DAR in administrative
case to the farmer-beneficiaries involving the nine parcels
of land in hacienda palico must be cancelled.
HELD:
1. NO. PP 1520 did not automatically convert the
agricultural lands in the three municipalities including
nasugbu to non-agricultural lands.
The perambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified
only "certain areas in the sector comprising the [three
Municipalities that] have potential tourism value" and
mandated the conduct of "necessary studies" and the
segregation of “specific geographic areas” to achieve its
purpose. Which is why the PP directed the Philippine
Tourism Authority (PTA) to identify what those potential
tourism areas are. If all the lands in those tourism zones
were to be wholly converted to non-agricultural use,
there would have been no need for the PP to direct the
PTA to identify what those "specific geographic areas"
are.
The Court had in fact passed upon a similar
matter before. Thus, the DAR Regional Office VII, in
coordination with the Philippine Tourism Authority, has
to determine precisely which areas are for tourism
development and excluded from the Operation Land
Transfer and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. And suffice it to state here that the Court has
repeatedly ruled that lands already classified as non-
agricultural before the enactment of RA 6657 on 15 June
1988 do not need any conversion clearance.
The DAR's reading into these general
proclamations of tourism zones deserves utmost
consideration, more especially in the present petitions
which involve vast tracts of agricultural land. To reiterate,
PP 1520 merely recognized the "potential tourism value"
of certain areas within the general area declared as
tourism zones. It did not reclassify the areas to non-
agricultural use.
2. NO. Roxas & Co.'s application in DAR
administrative case for CARP exemption in hacienda
Palico subject of G.R. no. 179650 cannot be granted in
view of discrepancies in the location and identity of the
subject parcels of land. Even as the existence and validity
of Nasugbu MZO No. 4 had already been established,
there remains in dispute the issue of whether the parcels
of land involved in DAR Administrative Case No. A-9999-
142-97 subject of G.R. No. 179650 are actually within the
said zoning ordinance.
The Court finds that the DAR Secretary indeed
committed grave abuse of discretion when he ignored the
glaring inconsistencies in the certifications submitted
early on by Roxas & Co. in support of its application vis-à-
vis the certifications it later submitted when the DAR
Secretary reopened DAR Administrative Case.
3. YES. It bears recalling that in the DAR
Administrative Case, the Court ruled for Roxas & Co.'s
grant of exemption in DAR Administrative Case No. A-
9999-008-98 but denied the grant of exemption in DAR
Administrative Case No. A-9999-142-97 for reasons
already discussed. It follows that the CLOAs issued to the
farmer-beneficiaries in DAR Administrative Case must be
cancelled.
In the main, there is no logical recourse except to
cancel the CLOAs issued for the nine parcels of land. As
for the rest of the CLOAs, they should be respected since
Roxas & Co. failed to prove that the other lots in Hacienda
Palico and the other two haciendas, aside from the
above-mentioned nine lots, are CARP-exempt.
Conformably, Republic Act No. 3844 (R.A. No.
3844), as amended, mandates that disturbance
compensation be given to tenants of parcels of land upon
finding that "(t)he landholding is declared by the
department head upon recommendation of the National
Planning Commission to be suited for residential,
commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes." In
addition, DAR AO No. 6, Series of 1994 directs the
payment of disturbance compensation before the
application for exemption may be completely granted.
Roxas & Co. is thus mandated to first satisfy the
disturbance compensation of affected farmer-
beneficiaries in the areas covered by the nine parcels of
lands in DAR AO No. A-9999-008-98 before the CLOAs
70
covering them can be cancelled. And it is enjoined to
strictly follow the instructions of R.A. No. 3844.
Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Department of
Education, Culture, and Sports
G.R. No. 158228, 23 March 2004
FACTS:
sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations
operated by public or private schools for educational
purposes.” In the case at bar, the lands 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. Further, it was the income from the contract of
lease and not the subject lands that was directly used for
the repairs and renovations of the schools in the locality.

Lots consisting of an aggregate area of 189.2462

hectares located at Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros
Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros Occidental,
were leased by DECS to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for
10 agricultural crop years. The contract lease was
subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop
years. The lease contract commenced from crop year 1984-
185 to crop year 2004-2005.
On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and several others
filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program.
They claimed to be permanent and regular farm workers of
the subject lands. Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Jacinto
R. Piñosa sent a “Notice of Coverage” to DECS, stating that
the subject lands are now covered by CARP. OIC-PARO
Stephen M. Leonidas recommended to the DAR Regional
Director the approval of the coverage of the landholdings
upon submission of MARO Piñosa’s report. Dominador B.
Andres, DAR Regional Director, approved the
recommendation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject properties are exempt.

RULING:

The records of the case show that the subject properties

were formerly private agricultural lands owned by the late
Esteban Jalandoni, and were donated to DECS. The lands
continued to be agriculturally planted to sugarcane.
Moreover, there is no legislative or presidential act to
reclassify the land as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.
In order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the
land must be “actually, directly, and exclusively used and
found to be necessary;” and 2) the purpose is “for school

71
Luz Farms vs. The Honorable Secretary of the Department
of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 86889, 4 December 1990
FACTS:
Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in the livestock and
poultry business. With others in the same business, they
allegedly stand to be adversely affected by the enforcement
of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section 16(d) and 17
and Section 32 of R.A. No. 6657. This case is a petition
praying that aforesaid laws, guidelines and rules be
declared unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Sections 3(b), 11, 13, and 32 of R.A. No.
6657 is unconstitutional.
RULING:
The question raised is one of constitutional construction. It
is generally held that, in construing constitutional
provisions which are ambiguous or of doubtful meaning,
the courts may consider the debates in the constitutional
convention as throwing light on the intent of the framers of
the Constitution. The transcripts of the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the
word “agricultural,” clearly show that it was never the
intention of the framers of the Constitution to include
livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the
Government.
Josefina S. Lubrica, Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and Emilio A.M
Suntay III vs. Land bank of the Philippines
G.R. No. 170220, 20 November 2006
FACTS:
Josefina Lubrica is the assignee of Federico Suntay
over parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia,
Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area of 3,682.0285
hectares. In 1972, 311.7682 hectares was placed under the
land reform program. Thereafter, the land was subdivided
and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. DAR and LBP fixed
the value at P5,056,833.54.
Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and Emilio A.M Suntay III
inherited from Federico Suntay a parcel of agricultural land
located at Balansay, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro,
consisting of two lots. Lot 2 was placed under the coverage
of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 of 165.1571 was
considered by LBP. It was valued at P1,512,575.05.
The valuations were rejected by the petitioners.
The office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
conducted summary administrative proceedings for
determination of just compensation and fixed the
preliminary just compensation at P51,800,286.43 for the
311.7682 hectares and P21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161
hectares. LBP filed two separate petitions for judicial
determination of just compensation since they were not
satisfied with the valuation. Petitioners filed separate
Motions to Deposit the Preliminary Valuation and Ad
Cautelam Answer praying among others that LBP deposit
the preliminary compensation determined by the PARAD.
The trial court issued an order granting petitioners’ motion.
LBP’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court
correctly ordered LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally
determined by the PARAD as there is no law which prohibits
LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of the final amount
of just compensation. LBP moved for reconsideration that
was granted. CA amended the decision saying that the
preliminary value of the expropriated properties is
erroneously computed, therefore immediate deposit of the
preliminary value is improper.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court a quo decided in a way
not in accord with the latest decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Landbank of the Philippines v. Hon. Eli G.C
Natividad, et al. G.R. No. 127198
RULING:
No. The ruling in the case of Land Bank of the
Philippines found the contention that the property was
acquired at the time of the effectivity of PD 27 and just
compensation should be based on the value of the property
as of that time and not the time of possession is erroneous.
In Office of the President, Malacañang, manila v. Court of
Appeals, the court ruled that the seizure of the landholding
did not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but
72
would take effect on the payment of just compensation.
Likewise, in the case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v.
Court of Appeals, the Court held that expropriation of
landholdings covered by R.A. 6657 take place, not on the
effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment
of just compensation. Under the circumstances, it would be
highly inequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute
the just compensation using the values at the time of the
takin in 1972, and not at the time of the payment,
considering that the government and the farmer-
beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although
ownership thereof have not yet been transferred in their
names.
Milestone Farms, Inc., vs. Office of the President
G.R. No. 182332, 23 February 2011
FACTS:
Milestone Farms, Inc. was incorporated with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Among its pertinent
secondary purposes is to engage in the raising of cattle,
pigs, and other livestock; to breed, raise, and sell poultry;
and 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. The Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law took effect, which included the raising
of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. However,
the ruling in Luz Farms v. Secretary of Department of
Agrarian reform excluded lands devoted to livestock,
poultry, and/or swine raising. Thus, the petitioner applied
for the exemption/exclusion of its 316.0422-hectare
property located in Pinugay, Baras, Rizal from the CARL.
Meanwhile, 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 CARP
Coverage. The Land Use Conversion and Exemption
Committee recommended the exemption of the 316.0422-
hectare property from the coverage of CARP after
inspection.
The Pinugay Farmers moved for the
reconsideration of the said order, but was denied.
Subsequently, they filed a letter-appeal with the DAR
Secretary. Correlatively, petitioner filed a complaint for
Forcible Entry against Balajadia and Company, having a
favorable ruling from the MCTC but was reversed by RTC.
Ultimately the case reached the CA and it reinstated the
MCTC’s ruling.
Then Secretary Ernesto D. Farilao 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.
The Office of the President rendered a decision
reinstating the Order declaring the entire 316.0422-hectare
property exempt from the coverage of CARP.
Consequently, petitioner sought recourse from the
CA. The CA found that they had more than satisfied the
animal-land and infrastructure-animal ratios under DAR
A.O. No. 9 based on documentary evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the land is exempt from CARL.
RULING:
In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O.
is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought
to regulate livestock farms by including them in the
coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum
retention limit for their ownership. However, the
deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show
a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively
devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising.
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY vs. DARAB
G.R. No. 100091, 22 October 1992
FACTS:
Central Mindanao University is an agricultural
educational institution owned and run by the state in the
Bukidnon province. It started as a farm school and later on
expanded. In 1984, the CMU adopted a livelihood program
called “Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program” under which the
land resources of the University were leased to its Faculty
and Employees. They formed groups of five, and the CMU
provided technical know-how, practical training and all
kinds of assistance to enable the groups to cultivate 4 to 5
hectares of land. In return, they pay a service fee and also a
land use participant’s fee. It was expressly stipulated that
73
no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU
and the faculty and/or employees.
On July 1986, Dr. Leonardo Chua became President
of the university and discontinued the Agri-business
Management and Training Project, due to losses incurred
while carrying on the said project. Later on, another project
was launched to 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. It also had a similar express provision that no
tenant-landlord relationship exists. When the contract
expired, some were renewed and 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 be beneficiaries under the CARP. At
the same time, 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not subject land is covered by CARP.
RULING:
The 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB and
affirmed by the Court of Appeals is not covered by the CARP
because:
1. It is not alienable and disposable land of the public
domain
2. The CMU land reservation is not in excess of
specific limits as determined by Congress;
3. It is private land registered and titled in the name
of its lawful owner, the CMU
4. It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A.
6657 because the lands are actually, directly, and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for the
school site and campus, including experimental
farm stations for educational purposes, and for
establishing seed and seedling research and pilot
production centers.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Natividad
G.R. No. 127198 (2005)
FACTS:
This is a Petition for Review dated December 6, 1996
assailing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated July
5, 1996 which ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) and petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land
Bank) to pay private respondents the amount of P30.00 per
square meter as just compensation for the State’s
acquisition of private respondents’ properties under the
land reform program.
The private respondents in this case filed a petition before
the trial court on May 14, 1993, for the determination of the
just compensation for their agricultural lands which is
located in Arayat, Pampanga. The said agricultural lands
were acquired by the government pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 27.
After the trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a
judgement leaning towards the respondents, ordering the
DAR and the petitioner in this case, LBP, to pay the private
respondents with the amount of P30.00 per square meter
as the just compensation.
The Land Bank of the Philippines, in a petition for review,
argued that the property was acquired for purposes of
agrarian reform dated on October 21, 1972, which was the
time of the effectivity of Presidential Decree No. 27, ergo
just compensation should be based on the value of the
property at the said time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court erred in declaring
that PD 27 and Executive Order No. 228 (EO 228) are mere
guidelines in the determination of just compensation, and
in relying on private respondents’ evidence of the valuation
of the properties at the time of possession in 1993 and not
on Land Bank’s evidence of the value thereof as of the time
of acquisition in 1972.
RULING:
No, the Land Bank’s argument regarding that the property
that was acquired in line with the implementation of PD 27,
74
that the just compensation should be based on the value of
the property as of that time is erroneous. Stating one case,
the Office of the President vs. Court of Appeals, it was held
that the seizure of the landholding did not take place on the
date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the
payment of the just compensation.
Based on the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian
reform process is still insufficient as the just compensation
to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled.
Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657)
before the completion of this process, the just
compensation should be determined and the process
concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the
applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only
suppletory effect.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against
petitioner.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Yap
G.R. No. 118712 (1995)
FACTS:
In this agrarian dispute, it is once more imperative that the
aforestated principles be applied in its resolution.
Separate petitions for review were filed by petitioners
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) (G.R. No. 118745)
and Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 118712)
following the adverse ruling by the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 33465. However, upon motion filed by private
respondents, the petitions were ordered consolidated.
The private respondents in this case are landowners, it was
stated that their landholdings were acquired by the DAR
and were subjected to transfer schemes to qualified
beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law.
The petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals
which ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the 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;
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;
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondents are have the right to
withdraw the amounts deposited in trust in their behalf
pending the final resolution of the cases involving the final
valuation of their properties
RULING:
Yes, it is unacceptable to make an attempt with regards to
the distinction between the deposit of compensation under
Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and determination of just
compensation under Section 18. To withhold the right of
the landowners to appropriate the amounts already
deposited in their behalf as compensation for their
properties simply because they rejected the DAR's
valuation, and notwithstanding that they have already been
deprived of the possession and use of such properties, is an
oppressive exercise of eminent domain.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the
petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the appealed
decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
75
 Spouses Alejandro A. Joson and Lourdes Samson, vs.
Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum
468 SCRA 95 (2005)
FACTS:
This is a Petition for Review questioning the Decision dated
27 January 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
47437 affirming the Decision dated 21 July 1997 of the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) in DARAB Case No. 3414, which modified the
decision dated 24 January 1995 of the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) and ordered the parties to
maintain the status quo on the landholding in question.
Petitioners, likewise, find objectionable the Resolution
dated 05 July 2000 denying therein motion for
reconsideration.
The petitioners in this case are the registered owners of a
parcel of a riceland that has an area of approximately 1.25
hectares, which is located at Barrio Bagongbayan, Malolos,
Bulacan, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
89652 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. On the other
hand, the respondents, Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito
Laquindanum, contend that they are the actual and lawful
tillers of the land.
The petitioners and Pastor Mendoza, father of respondent
Reynaldo Mendoza, entered into an Agricultural Leasehold
Contract on September 22, 1987, covering the said parcel
of land where the lessee is asked to pay 20 cavans of palay
at 46 kilos per cavan to the lessor per cropping.
The petitioners then filed with the PARAD a Complaint for
Confirmation of Right To Recover Possession with Damages
on August 17, 1994. Petitioners wished to sought the
recovery of possession and actual cultivation of the
landholding in question from Pastor Mendoza, it was
alleged that the lessee Pastor Mendoza has moved to the
United States of America and has lived there as lawful
permanent resident since 22 February 1988 with an
evidence from the Department of Justice of the United
States of America. Therefore, it is not impossible for him to
work as a tenant in the Philippines, leading to his act of
abandoning the land. It was stated that they have not given
their consent to either respondent Agapito Laquindanum or
respondent Reynaldo Mendoza to till the land, the latter in
lieu of his father.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred
a. when it made its own findings in lieu of the Agrarian
Court;
b. when it ruled in favor of the respondents despite
the fact that they were not claiming any right of their
own as landless peasants but as mere farm workers for
fee of tenant Pastor Mendoza and not of petitioners
who have not consented thereto or despite the fact
that they were not de jure farm workers entitled to the
benefits of CARL
c. when it required petitioners, instead of
respondents who are claimants of being landless
tillers/peasants, to present proof that they are landless
tillers/peasants.
RULING:
a. The petitioners contended that in agrarian cases,
the power of appellate review has limits regarding to
the questions of law as the findings of fact of the
DARAB, when supported by substantial evidence, it
shall be binding upon the Court of Appeals. Therefore,
the appellate court cannot make its own findings of fact
and substitute the same in lieu of the findings of the
DARAB, unless there was grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the DARAB. The petitioners ascribe error on
the appellate court in making its own finding that they
were estopped from questioning the authority of
respondents to till their land. The Court of Appeals
stated that petitioners have been receiving the rentals
from respondent Reynaldo Mendoza, it was only after
four years when they questioned Mendoza’s authority.
b. On the other issue of whether or not respondents,
who substituted Pastor Mendoza, were lawful tenants,
the DARAB held that they were not. Their tillage of the
landholding was found out to have no consent as based
from the records from DARAB. The DARAB took the
precautionary measure of preserving the status quo
and defer to the DAR's turf the determination of the
76
 issue as to who should be the beneficiary of the
landholding in question. We could not but agree.
c. Petitioners have not shown that their case falls
under any of the recognized exceptions to the ironclad
rule that only questions of law may be raised before
this Court in a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs-appellants is not qualified to
recover possession of the landholding in question, despite
the fact that they are the owners and although the
appellee-agricultural lessee Pastor Mendoza has indeed
abandoned the landholding, with regards to the passage of
Rep. Act No. 6657 which grants to the said appellees the
protection of being secured in their farming activities in the
landholding in question. The parties appellants and
appellees Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum
are thus bound to observe the status quo on the subject
riceland holding, including the appellee Pastor Mendoza
therefrom.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly granted and the
Decision dated 27 January 2000 and the Resolution dated
05 July 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47437
are hereby MODIFIED to conform to the findings and
conclusions of the DARAB. The Decision dated 21 July 1997
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
in DARAB Case No. 3414 is hereby REINSTATED. In the
interest of justice, we certify this case and its records to the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform for the immediate
determination of whether or not respondents are
appropriate beneficiaries of the land in question and to
make a report thereon within thirty (30) days from receipt
hereof. No pronouncement as to costs.
Heirs of Tantoco vs. CA
489 SCRA 95 (2006)
FACTS:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the annulment of the
Decision, dated December 15, 2000, and Resolution, dated
May 25, 2001, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
54970 entitled "Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. et al., v.
Hon. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB), Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association of San
Francisco, Gen. Trias, Cavite, et al."
Petitioners seek the cancellation of the collective Certificate
of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) or TCT No. CLOA-1424
issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to the
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (ARBA) of San
Francisco, Gen. Trias, Cavite, on the ground that TCT No.
CLOA-1424 is null and void for having been issued illegally
and unlawfully. Consequently, petitioners pray for the
reinstatement of TCT No. T-402203 in their favor over the
property involved in this case.
The petitioners in this case are as follows, Francisco R.
Tantoco, Sr., Marta R. Tantoco, Zosimo Tantoco, Margarita
R. Tantoco and Pacita R. Tantoco, it was stated that they
owned a vast tract of land with a total land area of 106.5128
hectares in San Francisco, General Trias, Cavite. This land
was registered in their names under Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-33404 of the Register of Deeds for the
Province of Cavite.
A segment of the said property comprising of 9.6455
hectares was pronounced excluded from the inclusion of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, subsequently the
Certificates Land Transfer (CLTs) that had been recently
given to a few people were dropped in an Order gave by
then Minister of Agrarian Reform Heherson T. Alvarez. The
subject matter of controversy occured on April 21, 1989,
where in petitioners donated 6.5218 hectares to Caritas de
Manila, Inc., thereby leaving an estimated area of 100
hectares to their landholding under TCT No. T-402203.
Then, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) had been
considering about the land being referred to for mandatory
procurement as per Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as revised,
also called the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
of 1988.
On July 8, 1993, the petitioners dismissed the sum offered
by DAR as pay for the subject property for being
nonsensically below the fair market value of said part.
Petitioners in like manner withdrew their deliberate
proposal to sell adding that the land isn't appropriate for
agriculture any longer and that it had been arranged in 1981
for use by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
77
(presently HLURB) as land for private, business or
mechanical purposes. The DAR accordingly cancelled
petitioners’ TCT No. T-402203.
With the cancellation of their TCT, the petitioners filed an
action for Cancellation of TCT No. CLOA-1424, and the
reinstatement of their TCT No. T-402203 before the
Adjudication Board for Region IV of the Department of
Agrarian Reform.
ARBA, in its Answer, denied the claims contained in the
petition, keeping up that the farmer beneficiaries recorded
in TCT No. CLOA-1424 are qualified beneficiaries as
accommodated in Section 22 of RA No. 6657. Also, ARBA set
that the injunctive alleviation appealed for in the request is
pointless on the grounds that the property is naturally
dependent upon the disallowance against move under R.A.
No. 6657 which preclusion is demonstrated in TCT No.
CLOA-1424.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the CLOA that had been issued by the DAR
to ARBA may be cancelled based on the following grounds:
1. The land in question is exempt from the coverage of CARP
by reason of its inclusion in the industrial zone of
CALABARZON;
2. The DAR failed to conform strictly to the procedure for
the acquisition of private agricultural lands laid down in RA
6657, hence, violating due process and consequently
denying petitioners just compensation;
3. ARBA and all its members have not paid the
amortizations for the landholdings awarded to them as
required under RA 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No.
6, Series of 1993;
4. All 53 members of ARBA manifested their intent to
negotiate for payment of disturbance compensation in
exchange for the voluntary surrender of their rights over
the awarded property which is a prohibited transaction
under Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, and in gross
violation of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994;
and,
5. The ARBs did not cultivate the awarded property to make
it productive in violation of Section 22 of the Act.
RULING:
It is obvious that the ARBA and its members have
committed acts to justify the revocation of the collective
CLOA that had been issued by the DAR to the latter.
However, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, does not
warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve
a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged
with an administrative body of special competence.
The disappointment of the DAR to consent to the essentials
prescribed by law in obtaining procedures doesn't enable
this Court to invalidate the CLOA that had been given to
ARBA. To expect the force is to cut off authoritative cycle,
which presently can't seem to run its customary course.
DAR must be allowed to address its regulatory and
procedural omissions in the procurement procedures.
It is also worth noting at this juncture that the resolution of
this case by the Department of Agrarian Reform is to the
best advantage of petitioners since it is in a better position
to resolve agrarian disputes, being the administrative
agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter
and vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform controversies. Further, the
proceedings therein are summary and the department is
not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence, to
the end that agrarian reform disputes and other issues will
be adjudicated in a just, expeditious and inexpensive action
or proceeding.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
GRANTED and the Decision dated December 15, 2000 and
the Resolution dated May 25, 2001 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. SP No. 54970 are SET ASIDE. The case is hereby
REMANDED to respondent Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) for proper acquisition
proceedings in accordance with the applicable
administrative procedure.
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs. Amante
78
 G.R. No. 112526 (2005) On December 19, 1991, the DARAB proclaimed a choice,
avowing the excusal of the dissent of SRRDC against the
FACTS: mandatory inclusion of the property SRRDC had recorded
with the CA an appeal for survey of the DARAB's choice. On
The Canlubang Estate in Laguna is a huge landholding
November 5, 1993, the CA certified the choice of DARAB.
recently named for the late Speaker and Chief Justice Jose
Yulo, Sr. Inside this bequest are two bundles of land ISSUE:
(hereinafter alluded to as the "subject property") covered
by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891 estimating 254.766 hectares Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction to pass upon the
and a piece of Barangay Casile, in this way named for the issue of whether the SRRDC properties are subject to CARP
sake of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (SRRDC), coverage.
the majority stockholder which is C.J. Yulo and Sons, Inc.
RULING:
The private respondents in this case, Amante, et al.,
instituted an action for injunction with damages in the No. There is no doubt that the ability to decide if a property
Regional Trial Court of Laguna (Branch 24) against Luis Yulo, is liable to CARP inclusion lies with the DAR Secretary.
SRRDC, and several SRRDC security personnel on December Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 stated that:
12, 1989. Amante, et al. contends that: they are residents
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is
of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna, which covers an area
hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
of around 300 hectares; that way back in 1910, their
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
ancestors started occupying the area, built their houses and
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
planted fruit-bearing trees thereon, and since then, they
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
have been occupying the land.
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
In June 3, 1985, SRRDC's security individuals unlawfully Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and
entered Bgy. Casile and fenced the territory; SRRDC's men Natural Resources (DENR).
likewise entered the barangay on November 4, 1985, cut
The jurisdiction of DAR under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 is
down the trees, consumed their cottages, and banned the
two-fold. The first is that the essentially executive and
solitary jeepney from entering the Canlubang Sugar Estate;
pertains to the enforcement and administration of the laws,
because of these demonstrations, Amante, et al. were
carrying them into practical operation and enforcing their
denied of ownership and development of their territories.
due observance. The second is judicial and involves the
While the directive and ejectment cases were as yet in
determination of rights and obligations of the parties.
cycle, apparently in August, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian
Pursuant to Section 50 of RA 6657, the DAR adopted the
Reform Office (MARO) gave a Notice of Coverage to SRRDC.
DARAB Revised Rules, Rule II (Jurisdiction of the
On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board), which of which provides:
Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two (2) notification of
SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. –
procurement to petitioner, expressing that petitioner's
The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary
landholdings covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891,
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
containing a zone of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares,
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and
esteemed at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, individually,
matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
had been put under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. On March 18, 1991, SRRDC presented an appeal Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic
Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A,
to the Board for the last to determine SRRDC's request for
Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No.
exclusion from CARP inclusion before any managerial
6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws
valuation of their landholding could be had by the Board.
and their implementing rules and regulations.

79
On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 06-00,89
which accommodates the Rules of Procedure for Agrarian
Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, administer the
authoritative capacity of the DAR. Under said Rules of
Procedure, the DAR Secretary has restrictive locale over
grouping and recognizable proof of landholdings for
inclusion under the CARP, including fights or resistances
thereto and petitions for lifting of inclusion. Area 2 of the
said Rules explicitly gives, inter alia, that:
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;…
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Second Motion for Reconsideration is
GRANTED. The Court's Decision dated October 12, 2001 in
G.R. No. 112526 is SETASIDE and the Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated November 5, 1993 in CA-G.R. SP No. 27234
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the Land Bank of
the Philippines is ordered to convert the trust account in the
name of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation to a
deposit account, subject to a 12% interest per annum from
the time the LBP opened a trust account up to the time said
account was actually converted into cash and LBP bonds
deposit accounts. The temporary restraining order issued
by the Court on December 15, 1993, is LIFTED.
The petition filed by Amante, et al. in G.R. No. 118838 is
GRANTED in that Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation is hereby ENJOINED from disturbing the
peaceful possession of the farmer-beneficiaries with CLOAs.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 28, 1994 in
CA-G.R. CV No. 38182 is AFFIRMED insofar as the award of
nominal damages is concerned.
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
the Department of Agrarian Reform, in coordination with
the farmer-beneficiaries identified by the DAR, are URGED
to formulate a community-based watershed plan for the
management and rehabilitation of Barangay Casile.
Estribillo vs. DAR
GR No. 159674, 30 June 2006
Facts:
The petitioners, with the exception of two, are the
recipients of Emancipation Patents (EPs) over parcels of
land in Josefa, Agusan del Sur. The land was formerly part
of a forested area which have been denuded as a result of
the logging operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc.
(HMI). Petitioners, together with other persons, occupied
and tilled these lands on the belief that the same are public
lands. HMI never objected against the petitioners and the
other occupants in their peaceful cultivation thereof. HMI
acquired three parcels of land with a total area of 527.8308
hectares in forested area from the Republic of the
Philippines through Sales Patent No. 2683 in 1956 by virtue
of which it was issued OCT No. P-3077-1661. HMI, through
a certain Joaquin Colmenares, requested that 527.8308
hectares of its landholdings be placed under the coverage
of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving compensation
therefor, HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to
cultivate the landholdings so that the same may be covered
under said law.
In 1982, a final survey over the entire area was conducted
and approved. 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
80
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.
The RARAD rendered a Decision declaring as void the TCTs
and Eps. Petitioners' TCTs and EPs were ordered cancelled.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same
was denied. Petitioners appealed to the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) which
affirmed the RARAD Decision. After the DARAB denied
petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, the latter
proceeded to the Court of Appeals with their Petition for
Review on Certiorari.
The petition reveals that the Verification and Certification
of Non-Forum Shopping was executed by Samuel A.
Estribillo who is one of the petitioners, without the
corresponding Special Power of Attorneys executed by the
other petitioners authorizing him to sign for their behalf in
violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended. Petitioners filed a "Motion for
Reconsideration with Alternative Prayer with Leave of Court
for the Admission of Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
Granted to Petitioner Samuel Estribillo by his Co-
Petitioners." The Court of Appeals denied the motion.
Petitioners now file this present Petition contending that
there had been compliance with Rule 7, Section 5 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. They further reiterate their
argument that the EPs are ordinary titles which become
indefeasible one year after their registration.
Issues:
1. Whether there was compliance with Rule 7,
Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
the certification against forum shopping?
2. Whether Certificates of Title issued pursuant
to Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as
TCTs issued in registration proceedings?
Held:
1. Yes. Petitioners have sufficiently complied with
Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure concerning the Certification Against
Forum shopping.
In the instant case, the merits of petitioner’s case
should be considered special circumstances or
compelling reasons that justify tempering the
requirement in regard to the certificate of non-
forum shopping. Moreover, in Loyola, Roadway,
and Uy, the Court excused non-compliance with
the requirement as to the certificate of non-forum
shopping. With more reason should we allow the
instant petition since petitioner herein did submit
a certification on non-forum shopping, failing only
to show proof that the signatory was authorized to
do so. That petitioner subsequently submitted a
secretary’s certificate attesting that Balbin was
authorized to file an action on behalf of petitioner
likewise mitigates this oversight.
It must also be kept in mind that while the
requirement of the certificate of non-forum
shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the
requirements must not be interpreted too literally
and thus defeat the objective of preventing the
undesirable practice of forum-shopping. Lastly,
technical rules of procedure should be used to
promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift
unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective,
the granting of substantial justice is an even more
urgent ideal.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that
there was violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, a relaxation of such rule
would be justified for two compelling reasons:
social justice considerations and the apparent
merit of the Petition.
2. Yes. Certificates of Title issued pursuant to
Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as
TCTs issued in registration proceedings.
Ybañez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, provides
that certificates of title issued in administrative
81
 proceedings are as indefeasible as certificates of
title issued in judicial proceedings:
The same confusion, uncertainty and suspicion on
the distribution of government-acquired lands to
the landless would arise if the possession of the
grantee of an EP would still be subject to contest,
just because his certificate of title was issued in an
administrative proceeding. The silence of
Presidential Decree No. 27 as to the indefeasibility
of titles issued pursuant thereto is the same as that
in the Public Land Act.
After complying with the procedure, therefore, in
Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
otherwise known as the Property Registration
Decree (where the DAR is required to issue the
corresponding certificate of title after granting an
EP to tenant-farmers who have complied with
Presidential Decree No. 27), the TCTs issued to
petitioners pursuant to their EPs acquire the same
protection accorded to other TCTs. "The certificate
of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible
upon the expiration of one year from the date of
the issuance of the order for the issuance of the
patent, . . . . Lands covered by such title may no
longer be the subject matter of a cadastral
proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another
person."
The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) in Republic Act No. 6657 (the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), are
enrolled in the Torrens system of registration. The
Property Registration Decree in fact devotes Chapter IX on
the subject of EPs. Indeed, such EPs and CLOAs are, in
themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates of
title issued in registration proceedings.
Caballes vs. DAR
GR No. 78214, 5 December 1988
FACTS:
Before the sale in favor of the petitioners, Private
respondent Abajon rented a portion of subject land from
the previous owner Andrea Millenes to construct the
Abajon’s house & to plant corns & bananas. They agreed to
a monthly rental of PHP2.00 & 50-50 share of crops.
When petitioner Caballes & her husband acquired the
subject land owned by Millenes, they informed private
respondent of their intention to build a poultry close to his
house & persuaded him to transfer his dwelling to the
opposite or southern portion of the land. Private
respondent instead offered to pay rent on the land
occupied by his house, but such offer was rejected.
Private respondent was then asked to vacate the premises
but he refused. Despite the confrontation before the Brgy.
Captain, the parties failed to reach an agreement. On April
1, 1982, the landowner, Yolanda Caballes, executed an
Affidavit stating that immediately after she reprimanded
Abajon for harvesting bananas and jackfruit from the
property without her knowledge, the latter, with malicious
and ill intent, cut down the banana plants on the property
worth about P50.00.
Petitioner then filed a criminal case for malicious mischief
against private respondent, alleging that the latter
maliciously cut down the banana plants worth P50.00
Pursuant to PD 1038, the trial court ordered the referral of
the case to the regional office of Ministry of Agrarian
Reform (MAR) to determine the relationship of the parties.
As a result, MAR issued an order declaring the existence of
a tenancy relationship between Caballes & Abajon. Also, it
was held that the filing of criminal case for malicious
mischief is not proper for trial; since such case is filed
patently to harass and/or eject the tenant from his farm.
When the case was elevated, the DAR reversed the
certification and declared the criminal case as proper for
trial, since the land involved is a residential lot consisting
only of 60-sq. m.
On motion for reconsideration, herein respondent and new
Minister of DAR set aside the previous decision and held the
criminal case as not proper for trial due to the existence of
82
tenancy relations between the parties. Private respondent
invoked Sec. 10 of RA 3844, which provided that new
owners are bound to respect the tenancy regardless of the
size of the land being tilled.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abajon is a tenant of spouses Caballes.
HELD:
NO. Abajon only occupied a miniscule portion of the lot. RA
3844, as amended. The 60-sq. m. cannot be considered as
an economic family-size farm protected by the
aforementioned law. Planting camote, bananas, & corn on
a 60-sq. m. land cannot produce an income sufficient to
provide a modest standard of living to meet the farm
family’s basic needs.The essential requisites of a tenancy
relationship are: 1. The parties are the landowner and the
tenant; 2. The subject is agricultural land; 3. There is
consent; 4. The purpose is agricultural production; 5.
There is personal cultivation; and 6. There is sharing of
harvests.
All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy
relationship between the parties. The absence of one does
not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator
thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so
because unless a person has established his status as a de
jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he
covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government
under existing tenancy laws. Therefore, sharing alone is not
sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship.
Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land
has been given its possession for the primary purpose of
agricultural production. The circumstances of this case
indicate that the private respondent’s status is more of a
caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to
have a garden of some sort at its southwestern side rather
than a tenant of the said portion. 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.
Gelos vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 86186, May 8, 1992
Facts:
The Private Respondent Ernesto Alzona and his parents
owned the subject land of 25,000 square meters in Laguna.
In 1970, they entered into a written contract with petitioner
Rafael Gelos to be laborer on the land with the wage of 5.00
peso a day. When Alzona bought his parents’ share, he
informed the petitioner of the termination of his
employment contract and asked him to vacate the land, but
the petitioner refused to leave and continued working on
the land.
The Petitioner first went to the Court of Agrarian Relation
and then went to Ministry of Agrarian reform and asked the
court to fix the agricultural lease rental of the land and his
request was granted.
The private respondent then filed a complaint of illegal
detainer against the petitioner. However, yhe complaint
was dismissed by the Ministry of Agrarian reform on the
gorund of the existence of Tenancy relations between the
parties. The Private respondents appealed to the office of
the President alleging that there was no tenancy relation
between the parties. the complaint was declared proper for
trial and so de-archived and reinstated.
The RTC rendered dismissed the complaint and assailed
that there was a tenancy relation between the parties.
When the case was elevated, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the RTC.
Issue:
Is there a Tenancy relation between the parties?
Held:
No. As this Court has stressed in a number of cases,
"tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on
what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal
relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding
when the farmer is installed, and as in this case, their
written agreements, provided these are complied with and
are not contrary to law, are even more important."
83
A tenant is defined under Section 5(a) R.A 1199 as a person
who himself and with the aid available from within his
immediate farm household cultivates the land belonging to
or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for
purposes of production, sharing the produce with the
landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to
the landholder a price-certain or ascertainable in produce
or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system.
For this relationship to exist, it is necessary that: 1) the
parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2) the subject is
agricultural land; 3) there is consent; 4) the purpose is
agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation; and
6) there is sharing of harvest or payment of rental. In the
absence of any of these requisites, an occupant of a parcel
of land, or a cultivator thereof, or planter thereon, cannot
qualify as a de jure tenant.
On the other hand, the indications of an employer-
employee relationship are: 1) the selection and
engagement of the employee; 2) the payment of wages; 3)
the power of dismissal; and 4) the power to control the
employee's conduct –– although the latter is the most
important element. Absence of this clearly does not qualify
someone to be a tenant. It is clear that it is not a tenancy
relationship that exists between the parties, what they have
is employee-employer relationship.
According to a well-known authority on the subject,
tenancy relationship is distinguished from farm employer-
farm worker relationship in that: "In farm employer-farm
worker relationship, the lease is one of labor with the
agricultural laborer as the lessor of his services and the farm
employer as the lessee thereof. In tenancy relationship, it is
the landowner who is the lessor, and the tenant the lessee
of agricultural land. The agricultural worker works for the
farm employer and for his labor be receives a salary or wage
regardless of whether the employer makes a profit. On the
other hand, the tenant derives his income from the
agricultural produce or harvest."
The private respondent, instead of receiving payment of
rentals or sharing in the produce of the land, paid the
petitioner lump sums for specific kinds of work on the
subject lot or gave him vales, or advance payment of his
wages as laborer thereon. The petitioner's wife claims that
Alzona made her husband sign the invoices all at one time
because he allegedly needed them to reduce his income
taxes. Even assuming this to be true, we do not think that
made the said payments fictitious, especially so since the
petitioner never denied having received them.
Gabriel v. Pangilinan
G.R. No. L-27797, Aug. 26 1987
Facts:
Trinidad Gabriel filed a complaint seeking to eject the
defendant, Eusebio Pangilinan from the fishpond Eusebio
leased who, however, refuses to vacate. Eusebio moved for
dismissal questioning the jurisdiction of the trial Court
contending that the action should have been filed with the
Court of Agrarian Relations, which has original and exclusive
jurisdiction, as their relationship is one of leasehold
tenancy.
After the motion to dismiss was denied on the basis of the
allegations of the complaint, the parties were ordered to
adduce evidence for the purpose of determining which
Court shall take cognizance of the case.
It appears that the fishpond is presently in the possession
of the defendant, who originally leased it from the father of
the plaintiff. Upon the death of the said father, the fishpond
was inherited by the plaintiff.
It also appears that the defendant has ceased to work
personally with the aid of helpers the aforecited fishpond
since 1956 he became ill and incapacitated. His daughter,
Pilar Pangilinan, took over. She testified that she helps her
father in administering the leased property, conveying his
instructions to the workers, Urbano Maninang, Isidro Bernal
and Marciano Maninang. The names of Ire, Juan and
Aguedo Viada have been mentioned as the laborers who
were paid for the repair of the dikes. Bernardo Cayanan, a
nephew of 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
84
amended. A reconsideration by the defendant having been
denied, he appealed to the CA.CA certified appeal from CFI
decision to the SC for the reason that the jurisdiction of an
inferior court is involved.
Issue:
Whether or not the relationship between the appellee and
appellant is a leasehold tenancy and not a civil law lease.
Held:
No.There are important differences between a leasehold
tenancy and a civil law lease. The subject matter of
leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land; that of civil
law lease may be either rural or urban property. As to
attention and cultivation, the law requires the leasehold
tenant to personally attend to, and cultivate the agricultural
land, whereas the civil law lessee need not personally
cultivate or work the thing leased. As to purpose, the
landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture,
whereas in civil law lease, the purpose may be for any other
lawful pursuits. As to the law that governs, the civil law
lease is governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold
tenancy is governed by special laws
The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate
family to work the land. Thus Section 5 (a) of Republic Act
No. 1199, as amended, defines a "tenant" as a person who,
himself and with the aid available from within his
immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging
to, or possessed by, another, with the latter's consent for
purposes of production sharing the produce with the
landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to
the landholder a price certain in produce or in money or
both, under the leasehold tenancy system. Section 8 of the
same Act limits the relation of landholder and tenant to the
person who furnishes the land and to the person who
actually works the land himself with the aid of labor
available from within his immediate farm household.
Finally, Section 4 of the same Act requires for the existence
of leasehold tenancy that the tenant and his immediate
farm household work the land.
A person, in order to be considered a tenant, must himself
and with the aid available from his immediate farm
household cultivate the land. Persons, therefore, who do
not actually work the land cannot be considered tenants;8
and he who hires others whom he pays for doing the
cultivation of the land, ceases to hold, and is considered as
having abandoned the land as tenant within the meaning of
sections 5 and 8 of Republic Act. No. 1199, and ceases to
enjoy the status, rights, and privileges of one.
We are, therefore, constrained to agree with the court a
quo that the relationship between the appellee Trinidad
Gabriel and appellant Eusebio Pangilinan was not a
leasehold tenancy under Republic Act No. 1199. Hence, this
case was not within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Agrarian Relations.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO
CRUZ
G.R. No. 175175. September 29, 2008
FACTS:
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) is a government
banking institution designated under Section 64 of Republic
Act No. 6654 as the financial intermediary of the agrarian
reform program of the government.
Eleuterio Cruz is the registered owner of an
unirrigated riceland situated in Lakambini, Tuao, Cagayan.
Of the total 13.7320 hectares of Cruz’s landholding, an area
of 13.5550 hectares was placed by the government under
the coverage of the operation land transfer program under
Presidential Decree No. 27.
LBP pegged the value of the acquired landholding at
P106,935.76 based on the guidelines set forth under PD No.
27 and EO No. 228. Respondents rejected LBP's valuation
and instituted an action for a summary proceeding for the
preliminary determination of just compensation before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). The
PARAD rendered a decision fixing the just compensation in
the amount of P80,000.00 per hectare. LBP sought
reconsideration but was unsuccessful.
LBP filed a petition for the determination of just
compensation before the RTC of Tuguegarao City. LBP also
offered evidence to prove that the subject landholding had
an average production of 25 and 40 cavans per hectare
annually.
Respondents presented Lorna Cruz Felipe, who
testified that as one of the heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, she knew
that the subject landholding was planted with rice two or
85
three times a year and had a production capacity of 80 to
100 cavans per hectare. Felipe also claimed that the current
market value of the property was between P150,000.00 to
P200,000.00 per hectare.
The Special Agrarian Court (SAC) held that the value
of P80,000.00 per hectare fixed by the PARAD should be
accorded weight and probative value and that the SAC is
guided by the various factors enumerated in Section 17 of
RA No. 6657 in determining just compensation. It
disregarded respondents' claim that the valuation should
be based on the current market value of the landholding
since no evidence was adduced in support of the claim. The
SAC also did not accept LBP's valuation as it was based on
PD No. 27, in which just compensation was determined at
the time of the taking of the property.
The CA rendered the assailed decision partly granting
LBP's appeal. The appellate court ruled that the total area
covered by the agrarian reform program as was duly
established before the PARAD and expressly stated in the
pre-trial order was only 13.5550 hectares and not 13.7320
hectares. However, the appellate court affirmed the SAC
decision fixing just compensation at P80,000.00 per
hectare.
LBP insists that the values in EO No. 228 are
applicable to lands acquired under PD No. 27 in cognizance
of the well-settled rule that just compensation is the value
of the property at the time of the taking, when the
ownership of the subject property was transferred from the
landowner to the farmers-beneficiaries and when the
former was effectively deprived of dominion and
possession over said land.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the formula set forth in PD No. 27/EO No.
228 should be applied in fixing just compensation since
respondents' landholding was acquired under PD No. 27.
RULING:
No. While under PD No. 27, tenant farmers are
already deemed owners of the land they till, they are still
required to pay the cost of the land before the title is
transferred to them and that pending the payment of just
compensation, actual title to the tenanted land remains
with the landowner.
The Court explained why the guidelines under PD No.
27 and EO No. 228 are no longer applicable to the delayed
payment of lands acquired under PD No. 27, to wit: It would
certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation
based on the guideline provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228
considering the DAR's failure to determine the just
compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
compensation should be determined in accordance with
R.A. 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative
considering that just compensation should be the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and
ample.
The amount of just compensation due to
respondents had not yet been settled by the time RA No.
6657 became effective. Following the aforementioned
pronouncement in Paris, the fixing of just compensation
should therefore be based on the parameters set out in RA
No. 6657, with PD No. 27 and EO No. 228 having only
suppletory effect.
Section 17 of RA No. 6657 states: In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the
current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and
income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
declarations, and the assessment made by government
assessors, shall be considered. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers
and by government to the property as well as the non-
payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land shall be considered as
additional factors to determine its valuation.
The factors enumerated under Section 17, RA No.
6657 had already been translated into a basic formula by
the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to its rule-
making power under Section 49 of RA No. 6657. Thus, the
formula outlined in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998 should
be applied in computing just compensation.
The applicable formula in fixing just compensation is
DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as amended by DAR A.O. No.
11, series of 1994, then the governing regulation applicable
to compulsory acquisition of lands, in recognition of the
DAR's rule-making power to carry out the object of R.A. No.
6657.
A perusal of the PARAD decision, which was adopted
by both the SAC and the CA, shows that its valuation of
P80,000.00 per hectare is sorely lacking in any evidentiary
or legal basis. While the Court wants to fix just
compensation due to respondents if only to write finis to
the controversy, the evidence on record is not sufficient for
86
the Court to do so in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series
of 1998.
DISPOSITION:
The petition for review on certiorari is denied and the
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are reversed
and set aside. The agrarian case is remanded to the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, which is
directed to determine with dispatch the just compensation
due respondents strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5,
series of 1998.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM vs. ROBERTO J.
CUENCA and Hon. ALFONSO B. COMBONG, JR., in His
Capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 63, La Carlota City
G.R. No. 154112. September 23, 2004
FACTS:
Roberto Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel
of land designated as Lot No. 816-A, containing an area of
81.6117 hectares, situated in Brgy. Haguimit, La Carlota City
and devoted principally to the planting of sugarcane.
Noe Fortunado, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(MARO) of La Carlota City issued and sent a notice of
coverage to private respondent Cuenca placing the above-
described landholding under the compulsory coverage of
R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). The notice of coverage also stated
that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) will determine
the value of the subject land pursuant to Executive Order
No. 405.
Cuenca filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63,
La Carlota City, a complaint against Fortunado and LBP for
'Annulment of Notice of Coverage and Declaration of
Unconstitutionality of EO No. 405, Series of 1990, With
Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.'
"In his complaint, Cuenca alleged that the
implementation of CARP in his landholding is no longer with
authority of law considering that the implementation
should have commenced and should have been completed
between June 1988 to June 1992, as provided in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be
declared null and void ab initio and EO No. 405 be declared
unconstitutional.
In an order, the respondent Judge issued a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction directing Fortunado and all persons
acting on his behalf to cease and desist from implementing
the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with
the determination of the value of the subject land.
It is the submission of the DAR that the assailed order
is 'in direct defiance of Republic Act 6657, particularly
Section 55 and 68' thereof, which read:
Section 55— 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 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 — No injunction, Restraining Order, prohibition
or mandamus shall be issued by the lower court against the
DAR, the DA, the DENR, and the DOJ in the implementation
of their program.
The DAR 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC of La Carlota City had jurisdiction
over the case.
RULING:
No. Under RA 1267, Courts of Agrarian Relations
(CARs) were organized for the enforcement of all laws and
regulations governing the relation of capital and labor on all
agricultural lands under any system of cultivation. However,
the CARs were abolished, pursuant to Section 44 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129. Jurisdiction over cases given to the
CARs was vested in the RTCs.
Then came EO No. 229. Under Section 17 thereof, the
DAR shall exercise "quasi-judicial powers to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters, and shall have
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR and the
Department of Agriculture DA." The DAR shall also have the
87
"powers to punish for contempt and to issue subpoena,
subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its orders or
decisions."
This provision was deemed to have repealed Section
12(a) and (b) of PD No. 946, which vested the then Courts
of Agrarian Relations with "original exclusive jurisdiction
over cases and questions involving rights granted and
obligations imposed by presidential issuances promulgated
in relation to the agrarian reform program."
Under Section 4 of EO No. 129-A, the DAR was also
made responsible for implementing the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.
The intention evidently was to transfer original
jurisdiction to the Department of Agrarian Reform, a
proposition stressed by the rules formulated and
promulgated by the Department for the implementation of
the executive orders quoted. The rules included the
creation of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
designed to exercise the adjudicatory functions of the
Department, and the allocation to it of — original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter vested upon it
by law, and all cases, disputes, controversies and matters or
incidents involving the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under EO No.
229, EO No. 129-A, RA 3844, as amended by RA 6289,
Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and
their implementing rules and regulations.'
The implementing rules also declare that specifically,
such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to that
theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Courts, i.e. cases
involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in
the cultivation and use of agricultural land covered by CARP
and other agrarian laws.
RA 6657 explicitly recognizes the effectivity and
applicability of PD No. 229. More particularly, the Act
echoes the provisions of Section 17 of P.D. No. 229,
investing the Department of Agrarian Reform with original
jurisdiction, generally, over all cases involving agrarian laws,
although, as shall shortly be pointed out, it restores to the
RTC, limited jurisdiction over two groups of cases. Section
50 reads as follows: The DAR is hereby vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DA and the DENR.
It shall have the power to summon witnesses,
administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of
reports, compel the production of books and documents
and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena and
subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through
sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall likewise
have the power to punish direct and indirect contempt in
the same manner and subject to the same penalties as
provided in the Rules of Court.
Nonetheless, the RTCs have not been completely
divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters.
Section 56 of RA 6657 confers special jurisdiction on
"Special Agrarian Courts," which are actually RTCs
designated as such by the Supreme Court. Under Section
57 of the same law, these Special Agrarian Courts have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the following
matters: 1) all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to land- owners, and 2) the prosecution of all
criminal offenses under the Act.
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction
over the instant case, it follows that the RTC of La Carlota
City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to issue the
assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction. That Writ must
perforce be stricken down as a nullity. These Circulars
enjoin all trial judges to strictly observe Section 68 of RA
6657, which reads: "No injunction, restraining order,
prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower
courts against the DAR, DA, the DENR and the DOJ in their
implementation of the program."
DISPOSITION:
The petition is granted, and the challenged decision and
resolution reversed and set aside. Accordingly, the order of
the RTC of La Carlota City (Branch 63) is annulled and a new
one entered, dismissing the complaint in the civil case. The
writ of preliminary injunction issued therein is also
expressly voided.
RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
PRESIDING JUDGE of the CAR RTC, Branch 4, Iligan City,
and SPOUSES DOMINGO and EUGENIA MARTIL
UDK No. 9864. December 3, 1990.
FACTS:
Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now
deceased, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del
88
Norte an agrarian case for damages by reason of the
unlawful dispossession of tenants from the landholding"
owned by the Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil. Several
persons were also impleaded as defendants, including the
Philippine National Bank, it being alleged by the plaintiff
spouses that said bank was a holder of a mortgage on the
land involved and had caused foreclosure thereof, resulting
in the acquisition of the property by the bank as the highest
bidder at the foreclosure sale, and in the sale by the latter,
sometime later, of portions of the land to the other persons
named as its co-defendants (all employees of the National
Steel Corporation), and it being prayed that mortgage and
the transactions thereafter made in relation thereto be
annulled and voided.
In an Order, Judge Felipe Javier, Jr. dismissed the
complaint. He opined that by virtue of Executive Order No.
229 "providing the mechanisms for the implementation of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program — Executive
Order No. 129-A, as well as the Rules of the Adjudication
Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform, jurisdiction of
the Regional Trial Court over agrarian cases had been
transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform.
ISSUE:
Whether or not jurisdiction over agrarian cases had been
transferred to the DAR
RULING:
Yes. Section 1 of EO No. 229 sets out the scope of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). It states
that the program — "shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produce, all public and
private agricultural land as provided in Proclamation No.
131, including whenever applicable in accordance with law,
other lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture."
Section 17 thereof 1) vested DAR with quasi-judicial
powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters, and 2) granted it jurisdiction over all matters
involving implementation of agrarian reform, except those
falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DENR
and the DA, as well as powers to punish for contempt and
to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum and writs to
enforce its orders or decisions.
Section 4 of EO No. 129-A made the DAR
"responsible for implementing the CARP, and, for such
purpose," authorized it, among others, to — "(g) Provide
free legal services to agrarian reform beneficiaries and
resolve agrarian conflicts and land tenure problems; and (j)
Approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or
readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural
uses."
The jurisdiction thus conferred on the Department of
Agrarian Reform, i.e.: (a) adjudication of all matters
involving implementation of agrarian reform; (b) resolution
of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems; and
(c) approval or disapproval of the conversion, restructuring
or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential,
commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural uses, is
evidently quite as extensive as that theretofore vested in
the Regional Trial Court by PD No. 946, which extended to
the rights and obligations of persons in the cultivation and
use of agricultural land, and other matters affecting tenant-
farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers, owner-cultivators,
farms' cooperatives or organizations under laws,
Presidential Decrees, Orders, instructions, Rules and
Regulations in relation to the agrarian reform program.
The intention evidently was to transfer original
jurisdiction to the Department of Agrarian Reform, a
proposition stressed by the rules formulated and
promulgated by the Department for the implementation of
the executive orders just quoted. The rules included the
creation of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
designed to exercise the adjudicatory functions of the
Department, and the allocation to it of — original and
exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter vested upon it
by law, and all cases, disputes, controversies and matters or
incidents involving the implementation of the CARP under
EO No. 229, Executive Order No. 129-A, RA No. 3844, as
amended by RA No. 6289, PD No. 27 and other agrarian laws
and their implementing rules and regulations."
The implementing rules also declare that specifically,
such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to that
theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Courts, i.e.) cases
involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in
the cultivation and use of agricultural land covered by the
CARP and other agrarian laws.
Section 50 of RA 6657 reads as follows: “The DAR is
hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA and DENR.
It shall not be bound by technical rules of
procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and
89
decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most
expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice
and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it
shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action
or proceeding before it.
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been
completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform
matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers
"special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which
are Regional Trial Courts designated by the Supreme Court
— at least one (1) branch within each province — to act as
such. These Regional Trial Courts or 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.
Appeals from decisions of the Special Agrarian
Courts may be taken by filing a petition for review with the
Court of Appeals within fifteen days from receipt or notice
of the decision" and 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 days from receipt of a copy thereof,
the findings of fact of the DAR being final and conclusive if
based on substantial evidence.
The Regional Trial Court of Iligan City was therefore
correct in dismissing the agrarian case. It being a case
concerning 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.
DISPOSITION:
For lack of merit, the petition is dismissed, and the decision
of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM vs. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by its Secretary,
HONORABLE ERNESTO GARILAO, and the REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY, represented by its Registrar,
GREGORIO SEMBRANO,
- and -
FARMER-BENEFICIARIES, as indicated in Respective
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 1259, 1260, and 1261
G.R. No. 139254. March 18, 2005
FACTS:
The SSS filed against the DAR, the Register of Deeds
of Marikina City and several farmers-beneficiaries, a
complaint for Annulment of TCTs No. 1259, No. 1260, and
No. 1261 with Recovery of Possession and prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC
of San Mateo, Rizal, Branch 75.
In its Complaint, the SSS alleged it is the absolute
owner of several parcels of land located at Rodriguez, Rizal,
with an area of more or less three hundred hectares. The
said property was covered under Republic Act No. 6657
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program [CARP] by the
DAR. The SSS earlier filed a case for conversion of the land,
from agricultural to residential and other urban uses,
before the DAR's Adjudicatory Board which was denied by
the DAR.
Meanwhile, DAR issued Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) to some 201 persons identified
as farmers-beneficiaries of the land. The defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss claiming that jurisdiction over the
case falls with the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB). In an Order, the RTC granted
the joint motion to dismiss
The asserted that the jurisdiction of the DARAB
pertains to agrarian disputes which does not obtain in the
case at bar. It points out that under Chapter V, Section 16(f)
of R.A. No. 6657, jurisdiction is with the RTC.
On the other hand, negating it has jurisdiction over
the case, the trial court held: The present case ultimately
involves CLOAs and is, therefore, within the jurisdiction of
the DARAB.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC had jurisdiction over the case.
RULING:
No. The trial court correctly ruled that the DARAB has
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case of SSS. The titles
sought to be annulled by the SSS originated from the CLOAs
90
issued by the DAR in pursuance of, and in accordance with,
the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, the CARP.
Specifically, the SSS in its Complaint implored the
trial court to restrain the DAR from implementing RA 6657
and the defendants, farmers-beneficiaries from
occupying/tilling, cultivating/disposing the properties.
Section 1, Rule II, 2002 DARAB Rules of Procedure
provides that: The board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the CARP under RA No. 6657, EO Nos.
228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by RA 6389,
PD No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing
rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall
include but not be limited to cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or
juridical engaged in the management, cultivation and use of
all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other
agrarian laws. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend
over but not limited to the following: f) Cases involving the
issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent
(EP) and the administrative correction thereof;
Under Section 50 of RA 6657 (the CARL of 1988),
the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the
exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of the CARP. The rule is that the DARAB has
jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute or any
incident involving the implementation of the CARP.
The DARAB has exclusive original jurisdiction over
cases involving the rights and obligations of persons
engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all
agricultural lands covered by the CARL.
The jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters is now
expressly vested in the DAR through the DARAB. Indeed,
Section 50 of RA 6657 confers on the DAR quasi-judicial
powers to adjudicate agrarian reform matters. In the
process of reorganizing the DAR, Executive Order No. 129-
A created the DARAB to assume the powers and functions
with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
Section 1 of EO No. 229 sets out the scope of the
CARP; it states that the program shall cover, regardless of
tenurial arrangement and commodity produce, all public
and private agricultural land as provided in Proclamation
No. 131, including whenever applicable in accordance with
law, other lands of the public domain suitable to
agriculture. Section 17 thereof 1) vested the DAR with
quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters, and 2) granted it jurisdiction over all
matters involving implementation of agrarian reform,
except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the DENR and the DA, as well as powers to punish for
contempt and to issue subpoena, subpoena duces tecum
and writs to enforce its orders or decisions.
The Court, in addition to re-echoing the jurisdiction
of the DARAB, puts emphasis on the extent of the coverage
of the term "agrarian dispute," thus: the DAR is vested with
the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation
of the agrarian reform program. The DARAB has primary,
original and appellate jurisdiction "to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and
matters or incidents involving the implementation of the
CARP under RA 6657, EO Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, R.A. 3844
as amended by RA 6389, PD No. 27 and other agrarian laws
and their implementing rules and regulations."
Under Section 3(d) of R.A. 6657 (CARP Law),
"agrarian dispute" is defined to include any controversy
relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers
associations or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or
conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any
controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and
other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants
stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
DISPOSITION:
The instant petition for review is denied for lack of merit.
JOSE LUIS ROS et. al v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM et. al
G.R. No. 132477 August 31, 2005
FACTS:
91
The petitioners are developers of several parcels of land in
Balamban, Cebu. These lands were reclassified by the
Municipal Council of Balamban, Cebu as industrial lands.
Petitioners secured all the necessary permits and
appropriate government certifications for the development
of the said lands as industrial park. However, despite
acquiring these permits and government certifications,
petitioner Matthias Mendezona received a letter from Mr.
Jose Llamers informing him that the Department of
Agrarian Reform was disallowing the development of the
said lands for industrial use. Hence, he was directed to
cease and desist from further developments on the land to
avoid civil and criminal liabilities.
With this, petitioners filed a complaint for Injunction with
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of
Preliminary Injunction which was denied for lack of
jurisdiction by the RTC of Toledo City stating that it is the
Department of Agrarian Reform which has the jurisdiction
in this matter. The Regional Trial Court stated that since the
petitioners had applied for conversion on June 13, 1995, the
Department of Agrarian Reform is authorized to approve or
disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment
of agricultural land into non- agricultural uses. The
reclassification by the Municipal Council of Balamban, Cebu
was just one of the step in the conversion of the said lands.
The Honorable Court of appeals affirmed the decision and
the Order of Dismissal issued by the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the reclassification of the subject lands to
industrial use by the Municipality of Balamban, Cebu
pursuant to its authority under Section 20(a) of Republic Act
No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 (the "LGC")
has the effect of taking such lands out of the coverage of
the CARL and beyond the jurisdiction of the DAR.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in negative. The court stated that
after the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (R.A No. 6657), agricultural lands, although
reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion
which is vested to the Department of Agrarian Reform. The
only exemptions from this requirement are those lands
which were already converted prior to the effectivity of the
R.A No. 6657. The court cited the case of Alarcon vs. Court
of Appeals which distinguished conversion from
reclassification. Conversion is the act of changing the
current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other
use as approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform
while reclassification is the act of specifying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses.
The act of reclassification is subject to the requirements and
procedure for land use conversion. Hence, a mere
reclassification of agricultural land does not mean that the
landowner can already change its use and eject the tenants.
It is mandatory to undergo the process of conversion before
it can use the agricultural land to other purposes such as
residential, industrial or commercial use.
DISPOSITION:
The instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision
of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals were
affirmed.
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS
ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) v. THE SECRETARY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
G.R. No. 183409 | June 18, 2010
FACTS:
The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Administrative
Order entitled “Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non- Agricultural Uses”
which consolidated all existing implementing guidelines
related to land use conversion. This Administrative Order
covers all private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced as well as the
untitled agricultural lands and agricultural lands reclassified
by Local Government Units into non-agricultural after the
effectivity of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (R.A
No. 6657). On March 30, 1999, Administrative Order No. 01-
99 was subsequently issued entitled “Revised Rules and
Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-
agricultural Uses” which amends the previous rules
regarding land use conversion. This order covers those
92
agricultural lands which are (1) those to be converted to
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other
non-agricultural purposes; (2) those to be devoted to
another type of agricultural activity such as livestock,
poultry, and fishpond, (3) those to be converted to non-
agricultural use other than previously authorized and lastly
(4) those which are reclassified to residential, commercial,
industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on or after the
effectivity date of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (R.A No. 6657). Another Administrative Order (AO
No. 01-02) was issued on February 28, 2002 entitled "2002
Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion'' which
covers all conversion applications from agricultural to non-
agricultural purposes or from agricultural to another
agricultural use. Secretary of Agrarian Reform then
formulated AO No. 05-07 on August 2, 2007 which
addresses land conversion during exigencies and calamities.
Furthermore, Memorandum No. 88 was issued on April 15,
2008 which addresses the unabated conversion of prime
agricultural lands for real estate development and
temporarily suspended the processing and approval of all
conversion applications.
With this, the petitioner holds that there is an actual
slowdown of housing projects which resulted in housing
shortage, unemployment and illegal squatting problems
which are prejudicial not only to the petitioners but also to
the nation as a whole. The petitioner also contends that the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform acted without jurisdiction for
he has no authority to expand or enlarge the legal definition
of agricultural lands through DAR AO No. 01-02. Moreover,
the petitioner holds that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing DAR AO No.
01-02 because the administrative order covers all
applications for conversion from agricultural to non-
agricultural uses or to other agricultural uses which is
contrary to R.A 6657 because there is nothing stated in the
law that confers to the DAR the jurisdiction or authority to
require that non-awarded lands or reclassified lands be
submitted to its conversion authority.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the DAR secretary has
jurisdiction over lands that have been
reclassified as residential, commercial,
industrial, or for other non-agricultural uses.
(2) Whether or not the DAR secretary acted in
excess of his jurisdiction and gravely abused his
discretion by issuing and enforcing [DAR AO
No. 01-02, as amended] which seek to regulate
reclassified lands.
RULING:
Jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary
The court ruled in affirmative and stated that the
DAR secretary has jurisdiction over lands that have been
reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial or for
other non-agricultural uses. In Executive Order No. 129-A,
the president vested upon the Department of Agrarian
Reform the responsibility in implementing the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and in Section
5(c) of the said order, it authorized the Department of
Agrarian Reform to establish and promulgate operational
policies, rules and regulations and priorities for agrarian
reform implementation. In addition, Section 4 of the same
order authorized the Department of Agrarian Reform to
approve or disapprove in the conversion, restructuring or
readjustments of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
while Section 5 (l) gave the authority to the same
Department to approve or disapprove conversion of
agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and
other land uses.
On matters regarding the issuance and enforcement of
DAR AO No. 01-02
The supreme court held in negative. It stated that
it can never be said that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
had acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction because the Secretary never
exercised any judicial or quasi-judicial functions but only the
quasi legislative and administrative functions vested to
them pursuant with E.O No. 129-A. DAR AO No. 01-02 as
amended included in the definition of agricultural land
those lands which are not reclassified as residential,
commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before
the effectivity date of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. In doing this, the Secretary only acted within the
scope of his authority mentioned in EO No. 129-A.
Moreover, the definition of agricultural lands stated in the
Administrative Order refers only to the category of
agricultural lands that may be subject for conversion to
93
non-agricultural uses and they are not agricultural lands in
the context of land redistribution stated in RA No. 6657.
The court cited the case of Ros vs. Department of
Agrarian Reform where it stated that after the passage of
RA No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program all agricultural lands although reclassified, have to
go through the process of conversion under the jurisdiction
of Department of Agrarian Reform. On the other hand,
those agricultural lands which were already classified
before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657, they are
exempted from conversion. With this, the court recognized
the conversion authority of Department of Agrarian Reform
over lands which are reclassified after June 15, 1988. Hence,
one can conclude here that Department of Agrarian Reform
has the power and authority to to include in the definition
of agricultural lands those lands which are not reclassified
as residential, commercial, industrial or other non-
agricultural uses before 15 June 1988. This inclusion does
not expand the definition of agricultural land but it gives
clarity about the lands which are subject to the conversion
authority of Department of Agrarian Reform. Hence, this is
in line with the purpose of land use conversion provision
stated in RA. 6657.
DISPOSITION:
The instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. Costs
against petitioner.
HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF
BUKIDNON, HON, REY B. BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF
SUMILAO, BIKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS v. HON. RENATO C.
CORONA, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO
D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
G.R. No. 131457 April 24, 1998
FACTS:
In October 1997, alleged farmer-beneficiaries conducted a
hunger strike in front of the Department of Agrarian Reform
compound in Quezon City. They protested the decision of
the Office of the President which approved the conversion
of a 144-hectare land from agricultural to agro-
industrial/institutional area. This decision had already
become final and executory. The subject land is located at
San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by NQSRMDC
(Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Management and Development
Corp). In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple
plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation, which is
now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI) and the lease
expired in April, 1994. The Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao,
Bukidnon then enacted an ordinance converting the said
land to industrial/institutional with a view to attract
investors in order to achieve economic vitality. When
NQSRMDC was about to transfer the title over the 4-hectare
donated to DECS, it discovered that the title over the
subject property was no longer in its name. It then found
out that during the pendency of both the Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition, with Preliminary Injunction it filed
against DAR in the Court of Appeals and the appeal to the
President filed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, 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
under TCT No. T-50264 of the Registry of Deeds of
Bukidnon. After the cancellation of title, on September 25,
1995, DAR caused the issuance of Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00240227 and had it
registered in the name of 137 farmer-beneficiaries under
TCT No. AT-3536 of the Registry of Deeds of Bukidnon. With
this, NQSRMDC filed a complaint with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for annulment and
cancellation of title, damages and injunction against DAR
and 141 others. The RTC then issued a Temporary
Restraining Order and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on
restraining the DAR and 141 others from entering,
occupying and/or wresting from NQSRMDC the possession
of the subject land. 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
period of fifteen (15) days. The said order further declared
that the March 29, 1996 Office of the President decision had
already become final and executory. Hence, DAR filed a
second motion for reconsideration of the June 23, 1997
Order of the President.
On November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved
the strikers' protest by issuing the so-called Win/Win
Resolution written by then Deputy Executive Secretary
Renato C. Corona. A copy of the Win-Win Resolution was
received by Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon, Mayor
94
Rey B. Baula of Sumilao, Bukidnon, and NQSRMDC on
November 24, 1997 and, on December 4, 1997. They filed
the present petition for certiorari, prohibition (under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Court) and injunction with urgent
prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of
preliminary injunction (under Rule 58, ibid.), against then
Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona and DAR
Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao.
Alleged farmer-beneficiaries then, through counsel, filed a
Motion For Leave to Intervene claiming that they are real
parties in interest for they are previously identified by
respondent DAR as agrarian reform beneficiaries on the
144-hectare property subject of this case. The motion was
vehemently opposed by the petitioners
The petitioners seeks to nullify the Win-Win Resolution by
the Office of the President claiming that the Office of the
President was incited to issue the said resolution after a
very well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-
beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring or
politically blackmailing the Office of the President which
resulted to this Resolution which is purely political decision
to appease the farmers, by reviving and modifying the
Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final
and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997. The petitioners
further alleged that Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C.
Corona committed grave abuse of discretion and acted
beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned
Resolution of 7 November 1997. They availed of this
extraordinary writ of certiorari because there is no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law. They never filed a motion for reconsideration of the
subject Resolution because it is patently illegal or contrary
to law and it would be a futile exercise to seek
reconsideration.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the subject land is considered
a prime agricultural land with irrigation facility
(2) Whether or not the land has long been covered
by a Notice of Compulsory Acquisition
(3) whether the land is tenanted, and if not,
whether the applicants for intervention are
qualified to become beneficiaries thereof
(4) Whether the Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao has
the legal authority to reclassify the land into
industrial/institutional use, to our mind, the
March 29, 1996 OP Decision has thoroughly
and properly disposed of the aforementioned
issues
(5) Whether or not the final and executory
Decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be
substantially modified by the Win-Win
Resolution.
HELD:
On the issue that the subject land is considered a prime
agricultural land with irrigation facility, the Supreme Court
held that no the land is not a prime agricultural land with
irrigation facility. While it is true that there is indeed an
irrigation facility in the area, the same just passes thru the
property (as a right of way) in order to provide water to the
ricelands located on the lower portion thereof. Hence, the
subject land of the instant petition, is not irrigated as the
same was, for several years, planted with pineapple by the
Philippine Packing Corporation.
As to the second issue, the land is not covered by a Notice
of Compulsory Acquisition. The said NCA was already
declared null and void by the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) on March 1, 1992. The
DARAB stressed that under Section 8 of R.A. No. 6657, the
subject property is not a subject of compulsory acquisition
until after the expiration of the lease contract with Del
Monte Philippines, a multi-National Company, or until April
1994.
As to the third issue, there are no beneficiaries to speak
about because the land is not tenanted as already stated.
On the issue that Sanggunian Bayan of Sumilao has the legal
authority to reclassify the land into industrial or
institutional use, the Supreme Court held in affirmative that
it has. It is stated in Section 20 of RA 7160 or the Local
Government Code of the Philippines that local governments
units have autonomy in their local affairs including the
power to convert portions of their agricultural lands and
provide for the manner of their utilization and disposition
to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-
reliant communities.
95
Lastly, on the issue determining if the Office of the
President can modify the final and executory decision by
issuing a Win-Win Resolution, the Supreme court held in
negative. When there has been an order declaring the
Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one
has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto,
the Office of the President had lost its jurisdiction to re-
open the case, or even modify its decision. Since it lost its
jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more
authority to entertain the second motion for
reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which
served as a basis of the "Win-Win" Resolution. Thus, the act
of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and
substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which
had already become final and executory, was in gross
disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord
finality to administrative determinations.
DISPOSITION:
The challenged Resolution dated November 7, 1997, issued
by the Office of the President in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, is
hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The separate motions for
reconsideration of the April 24, 1998 Decision of this Court,
filed by the respondents and the applicants for
intervention, are hereby DENIED with FINALITY.
STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.
COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN B. AMANTE, FRANCISCO L.
ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL et. al.
G.R. No. 112526 | October 12, 2001
FACTS:
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was
the registered owner of two parcels of land, situated at
Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna covered by TCT Nos.
81949 and 84891, with a total area of 254.6 hectares. These
parcels of land, according to the petitioner, are watersheds,
which provide clean water to the Canlubang community,
and ninety (90) light industries which are also located in the
area. Petitioner then alleged that respondents took its
rights over the property, thereby destroying the ecosystem.
On December 1985, respondents filed a civil case with the
Regional Trial Court of Laguna, seeking an easement of a
right of way to and from Barangay Casile. However, in the
petitioner’s counterclaim, the petitioner sought the
ejectment of private respondents.
With this, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court,
Cabuyao, Laguna separate complaints for forcible entry
against respondents. The respondents then petitioned the
Department of Agrarian Reform for the compulsory
acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP.
Pursuant to the petition of the respondents, the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao, Laguna issued
a notice of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or
representatives to a conference on August 18, 1989.
Representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of the
Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of Laguna, MARO of Laguna,
the BARC Chairman of Barangay Casile and some potential
farmer beneficiaries, who are residents of Barangay Casile,
Cabuyao, Laguna are present in the conference and it was
the consensus and recommendation of the assembly that
the landholding of SRRDC be placed under compulsory
acquisition.The petitioner corporation then filed with the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), Cabuyao,
Laguna a "Protest and Objection" to the compulsory
acquisition of the property contending that the area was
not appropriate for agricultural purposes. It stated that the
area was uneven land with and the occupants of the land
were squatters and are not entitled to any land as
beneficiaries. The farmer beneficiaries answered that the
slope of land is only 5-10% and claimed that the land is
suitable and economically viable for agricultural purposes.
They presented the Certification of the Department of
Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna as a support
for their claim. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Miriam
Defensor Santiago, sent two (2) notices of acquisition to
petitioner corporation, stating that petitioner's had been
placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
With this, the petitioner SRRDC in two letters sent its formal
protest, protesting not only the amount of compensation
offered by DAR for the property but also the two (2) notices
of acquisition. And on April 6, 1990, the petitioner sent a
letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its
property had been classified as watershed area. Hence, it is
exempted form CARP coverage. The adjudication board of
Department of Agrarian Reform then asked the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform to determine first whether the subject
96
parcels of land fall within the coverage of the Compulsory
Acquisition Program of the CARP and whether the petition
for land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted
before proceeding to valuation proceeding of the land.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP
despite the fact that the entire property formed part of a
watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657
RULING:
The Supreme court held in negative. Article 67 of Water
Code of the Philippines states that “Any watershed or any
area of land adjacent to any surface water or overlying any
ground water may be declared by the Department of
Natural resources as a protected area. Rules and
Regulations may be promulgated by such Department to
prohibit or control such activities by the owners or
occupants thereof within the protected area which may
damage or cause the deterioration of the surface water or
ground water or interfere with the investigation, use,
control, protection, management or administration of such
waters”. Watersheds can be defined as an area drained by
a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary or
divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds. They
are generally outside the commerce of man. The only
reason why the property is titled under SRRDC is that at the
time of titling the property is not yet declared as watershed
area. On January 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao,
Laguna issued a resolution voiding the zoning classification
of the land as park and declared that the land was now
classified as agricultural land. The authority of the
municipality to issue zoning classification is a valid exercise
of police power to apportion a given political subdivision
into specific land uses as present and future projection
needs.
It is stated in Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian
Reform that lands classified as non-agricultural prior to the
effectivity of the CARL may not be compulsorily acquired for
distribution to farmer beneficiaries. However, in this case
not just classification of subject land exists but also the fact
subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of
land in question form a vital part of a watershed area. After
an in-depth study, survey and reassessment, the court
could not ignore that the disputed parcels of land form a
vital part of an area that need to be protected for
watershed purposes.
The most important part of watershed is water which is one
of the most important human necessities. Hence, there is a
need to protect watersheds to ensure adequate supply of
water for future generation. This protection of watersheds
forms part of the “intergenerational responsibility”. With
this, there is a proof showing that the disputed parcels of
land may be excluded from the acquisition coverage of
CARP because of its very high slopes and as to the nature of
the parcels of land, the court directs the DARAB to conduct
the re-evaluation of the issue.
DISPOSITION:
The Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals
and REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and
determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved
to resolve the issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive
Land Reform Program. The effects of the CLOAs issued by
the DAR to supposed farmer beneficiaries shall continue to
be stayed by the temporary restraining order, this must
remain in effect until final decision on the case.
Islanders Carp-Farmers Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose
Cooperative, Inc. v. Lapanday Agricultural and
Development Corporation
G.R. No. 159089 | May 03, 2006
FACTS:
On March 08, 1993, Ramon Cajegas entered into a Joint
Production Agreement for Islanders Carp-Farmers
Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. with
Lapanday Agricultural and Development Corporation. Three
years later, on April 02, 1996, herein petitioner,
represented by its Chairman, Manuel K. Asta, filed a
complaint with the RTC for Declaration of Nullity,
Mandamus, Damages, with prayer for Preliminary
Injunction against respondent, the petitioner’s alleged
officers who entered into the agreement, and the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Davao, represented by
Saturnino D. Sibbaluca. Petitioner later filed an amended
complaint with leave of court alleging that the persons, who
executed the contract were not authorized.
97
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, stating that the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) has primary, exclusive, and original jurisdiction.
Respondent also filed before the DAR praying for the
disapproval of the Joint Production Agreement. PARO also
filed a motion to dismiss.
On August 21, 1996, respondent filed a case with the DARAB
for Breach of Contract, Specific Performance, Injunction
with Restraining Order, Damages and Attorney’s Fees. The
DARAB ruled in favor of respondent and upheld the validity
of the Joint Production Agreement. It also ordered
petitioner to account for the proceeds of the produce and
to comply with the contract.
The RTC then issued its decision and dismissed the case for
lack of jurisdiction and declared the Joint Production
Agreement as null and void. Petitioner assailed the RTC’s
decision before the CA. The CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling,
stating that the issue fell within the DARAB’s jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Which of the various government agencies has jurisdiction
over the controversy?
RULING:
The DARAB. Section 50 of RA 6657 vests in the DAR the
primary and exclusive jurisdiction both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all matters involving
the implementation of agrarian reform.
Moreover, Rule II of the Revised Rules of the DARAB
provides:
Section 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate
Jurisdiction. – The Board shall have primary and exclusive
jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive
Order Nos. 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as
amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No.
27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules
and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include
but not be limited to cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or
juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use
of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other
agrarian laws.
The subject matter of the present controversy falls squarely
within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. In question are the
rights and obligations of two juridical persons engaged in
the management, cultivation and use of agricultural land
acquired through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) of the government.
Petitioner contends that, there being no tenancy or
leasehold relationship between the parties, this case does
not constitute an agrarian dispute that falls within the
DARAB's jurisdiction.
To prove tenancy or an agricultural leasehold agreement, it
is normally necessary to establish the following elements:
1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship
is a piece of agricultural land; 3) there is consent between
the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5)
there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or
agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.
In the present case, the fifth element of personal cultivation
is clearly absent. Petitioner is thus correct in claiming that
the relationship between the parties is not one of tenancy
or agricultural leasehold. Nevertheless, the Court held that
the present controversy still falls within the sphere of
agrarian disputes.
An agrarian dispute "refers to any controversy relating to
tenurial arrangements - - whether leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship or otherwise - - over lands devoted to
agriculture. Such disputes include those concerning farm
workers' associations or representations of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to
arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
Also included is any controversy relating to the terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to
farm workers, tenants and other agrarian reform
98
beneficiaries - - whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee."
The Court ruled that the above definition is clear and broad
enough to include disputes arising from any tenurial
arrangement beyond that in the traditional landowner-
tenant or lessor-lessee relationship.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against
petitioner.
Francisco Ramos v. Stateland Investment Corporation
G.R. No. 161973 | November 11, 2005
FACTS:
The American Realty Corporation (ARC) was the registered
owner of 5 parcels of land located in Brgy. Sto. Cristo, San
Jose del Monte Bulacan which had a total land area of 39
hectares. A 2-storey house stood on a portion of the
property.
Sometime in 1983 and 1984, the ARC executed 2 real estate
mortgage contracts in favor of the Bank of America NT & SA,
with the said parcel of land as security for payment of a
$1,500,000.00 loan. The mortgages were foreclosed in 1991
upon ARC’s failure to pay its loan. The lots were then sold
at a public auction to Integrated Credit and Cooperative
Service (ICCS). A Certificate of Sale over the property was
issued. The property was not redeemed and the Register of
Deeds issued new titles covering the property in the name
of ICCS.
On March 1994, the ICCS sold the property to Stateland
Investment Corporation (SIC). Representatives of SIC
conducted an inspection of the property and found the
house which stood on the property occupied by Francisco
Ramos and his family, who were informed that the property
had been acquired by SIC.
Consequently, Ramos and the other occupants filed a
complaint before the DAR Provincial Adjudication Board
against the SIC and Reynaldo Litonjua for the maintenance
of their peaceful possession of the landholding, for
redemption of the land and damages with a prayer for a writ
of preliminary injunction.
The Provincial Adjudicator ordered the dismissal of the
complaint for lack of merit but directed Litonjua to
compensate the complainants for an amount equivalent to
5 years of gross harvests.
On September 1997, the SIC filed an urgent motion,
claiming that the complainants unlawfully broke into and
occupied the 2-storey building of strong materials, which
had been previously sold to it together with the
landholding. Ramos opposed the motion, arguing that he
had possessed the house since 1974 and had the right to
stay therein. This led SIC to believe that Ramos’s possession
of the house had connection with his claim of being a tenant
on the property.
On January 15, 1998, SIC filed a complaint for ejectment
against Ramos with the MTC. Ramos countered the action
by stating that he had been a tenant on the land since 1974
and that the house was assigned to him by the ARC as his
residence. He also alleged that the MTC had no jurisdiction
over the subject matter. The MTC rendered a decision in
favor of SIC, ruling that it had jurisdiction over the action as
the subject matter of the case brought to it was the house
occupied by the defendant while the subject matter of the
case filed with the DARAB was whether Ramos was an
agricultural tenant on the property. Moreover, the MTC
point that SIC was the registered owner of the land; hence,
based on the principle that the accessory follows the
principal, SIC was also the owner of the house constructed
thereon.
When the case was elevated to the RTC, the latter nullified
the decision of the MTC on the ground that the action filed
by SIC was an agrarian case, which was within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the DARAB. SIC then appealed to the CA
which upheld the MTC decision. It also ruled that Ramos
failed to prove that he was a bona fide tenant over the
landholding and had a right of possession over the 2-storey
house.
ISSUE:
99
Whether or not the MTC had jurisdiction over the nature
of the respondent’s action.
RULING:
YES. The Court found that the MTC had jurisdiction over the
respondent’s action. Under Sec. 50 of RA 6657, as well as
Sec. 34 of EO No. 129-A, the DARAB has primary and
exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) under RA 6657.
The subject matter of agricultural tenancy or agrarian
reform laws are agricultural lands or farmlands devoted to
agricultural activity. An agrarian dispute refers to any
controversy relating the tenurial arrangement, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands
devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farm-
working association or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing and seeking to
arrange terms and conditions of such tenurial arrangement.
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of
lands acquired under R.A. No. 6657 and other terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to
farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary,
landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
Based on the averments of the SIC with the MTC, it is
crystal-clear that the action in the MTC was one for unlawful
detainer or the petitioner's eviction from the two-storey
house and not from the landholding. It must be stressed
that the respondent, as plaintiff in the MTC, anchored its
claim on its purchase of the five parcels of land, and
asserted that it had the right of possession over such house
as well.
The Court has ruled that when a tenancy is merely averred
as a special and affirmative defense to a complaint for
unlawful detainer, the MTC does not automatically lose its
jurisdiction over the said action. The MTC is duty-bound to
conduct a preliminary conference and, if necessary, to
receive evidence to determine if such tenancy relationship
had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue. The MTC may
even opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative
defense of the defendant, although under the Rules on
Summary Procedure, such a hearing is not a matter of right.
If it is shown during the hearing or conference that, indeed,
tenancy is the issue, the MTC should dismiss the case for
lack of jurisdiction.
Indubitably, the issues of whether the petitioner was a bona
fide tenant or agricultural lessee and whether he had a right
to redeem the landholding under the CARL are within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicators (PARAD) and the DARAB on appeal. The res in
the PARAD and the DARAB were the five parcels of land; in
contrast, the res subject of the action in the MTC was the
two-storey house occupied by the petitioner and his family.
The sole issue in the MTC was who between the petitioner
and the respondent had the right to the material or physical
possession of the house.
The Court agreed with the MTC that the decision of the
DARAB would not resolve the issue of who, as between the
parties, had the right to the material possession of the
house, and any such resolution would not be conclusive on
the issue.
In sum then, the RTC resolution declaring that the MTC had
no jurisdiction over the respondent's action is erroneous. It
is the CA ruling, which reversed the RTC resolution, that is
accurate.
DISPOSITION:
In sum then, the RTC resolution declaring that the MTC had
no jurisdiction over the respondent's action is erroneous. It
is the CA ruling, which reversed the RTC resolution, that is
accurate.
Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. Herminigildo de Jesus and the
Court of Appeals
G.R. NO. 167748 November 8, 2005
FACTS:
Rafael Magpily was the owner of a 10,000 square meter
land planted with fruit-bearing trees and tenanted by
Nazaria Tope. In July 1978, Magpily allowed Nazaria’s
100
nephew, Herminigildo de Jesus to construct a house on a
portion of the land and occupy the same. This agreement
was embodied in a “Salaysay” which was duly signed by
both parites. Unfortunately, their relationship turned sour
and Magpily filed a complaint of ejectment against de Jesus,
who contended that he was a bona fide agricultural tenant
for 15 years. He also argued that the subject matter involves
a tenancy dispute which should be settled by the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB), thus, the case should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
The MTC ruled in favor of Magpily on the basis that de Jesus
failed to prove the existence of a tenancy relationship.
On December 18, 1999, Magpily died.
De Jesus appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MTC’s
decision. Thereafter, he filed a petition with the CA which
reversed the decision of the RTC holding that an implied
landlord-agricultural tenant relationship was established
between Magpily and de Jesus when the former allowed
the latter to cultivate, harvest, and share in the produce of
his land after the death of the former tenant. The CA
declared that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there existed an agricultural tenancy
relationship between Magpily and de Jesus that would
divest regular courts of jurisdiction over the subject matter.
RULING:
NO. For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must
exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. A tenancy
relationship cannot be presumed. There must be evidence
to prove the tenancy relations such that all its indispensable
elements must be established, to wit: (1) the parties are the
landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural
land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose
is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation;
(6) there is sharing of the harvests. All these requisites are
necessary to create tenancy relationship, and the absence
of one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant
a de facto tenant.
The Court defined tenants as persons who – in themselves
and with the aid available from within their immediate farm
households – cultivate the land belonging to or possessed
by another, with the latter’s consent; for purposes of
production, sharing the produce with the landholder under
the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a
price certain or ascertainable in produce or money or both
under the leasehold tenancy system.
The Court held that the CA, in ruling that there was an
implied agricultural tenancy relationship between Magpily
and de Jesus, erroneously relied on sworn statements of
Gregorio Ambrosio (a tenant of Magpily) and Nestor
Marinay (BARC Chairman) which merely attested to the fact
that de Jesus became a worker in Magpily’s coconut
plantation. However, there was nothing in those
statements that indicated how and why de Jesus became an
agricultural tenant. The Court stated that the fact alone of
working on another’s landholding does not raise a
presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. There
must be substantial evidence on record adequate enough
to prove the element of sharing.
In sum, private respondent failed to discharge the burden
of proving that he was an agricultural tenant of Magpily and
that the instant case involves an agrarian dispute cognizable
by the DARAB. The MTC thus lawfully took cognizance of the
present controversy which involves the gratuitous
occupation of another's property which became unlawful
by virtue of the owner's withdrawal of consent or tolerance
to such occupation.
The rule is that possession by tolerance is lawful, but such
possession becomes unlawful when the possessor by
tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by the
owner. A person who occupies the land of another at the
latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise
to vacate upon demand, failing which, a summary action for
ejectment is the proper remedy.
DISPOSITION:
101
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 7, 2005
Decision and the April 18, 2005 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69601, are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The December 10, 2001 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Laguna, Branch 91, in Civil Case No. SC-3874
which ordered private respondent Herminigildo de Jesus to
vacate the property is REINSTATED.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Raymunda Martinez
G.R. No. 169008 July 31, 2008
FACTS:
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) compulsorily
acquired Raymunda Martinez’s 62.5369-hectare land in
Romblon by virtue of RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988). Thereafter, Land Bank of the
Philippines offered ₱1,955,485.60 for just compensation,
which Martinez rejected. Thus, the DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB), through its Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative
proceedings to determine whether the just compensation
was in accordance with the CARL.
On September 04, 2002, PARAD Virgilio Sorita found that
the LBP’s offer deficient and ordered the latter to pay
Martinez the amount of ₱12,179,492.50. consequently, LBP
filed a petition for the fixing of just compensation with the
Special Agrarian Court (SAC). Martinez moved for the
dismissal of the petition on the ground that the orders,
rulings, and decisions of the DARAB became final after the
lapse of 15 days from their receipt.
Martinez, who was still asserting the finality of PARAD
Sorita’s decision, filed before the PARAD a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution which was granted on
November 11, 2003. The office of the PARAD denied LBP’s
motion for reconsideration and ordered the issuance of a
writ of execution on February 23, 2004. LBP moved to quash
the said PARAD resolution.
On April 06, 2004, the LBP instituted a petition for certiorari
before the CA assailing the issuance of the writ of execution.
The CA dismissed the petition upon finding that the LBP
guilty of forum-shopping.
The LBP filed for a motion for reconsideration which the
appellate court denied. The LBP then elevated the case
before the SC for a petition for review on certiorari, arguing
that it did not commit deliberate forum shopping and that
the decision of the PARAD cannot be executed due to the
pending petition for fixing of just compensation with the
SAC.
On September 14, 2005, the SC issued a TRO against the CA
and the DAR adjudicators from implementing the
November 11, 2003 and February 23, 2004 resolutions.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not petitioner could file its
appeal solely through its legal department;
2) Whether or not petitioner committed
forum shopping; and
3) Whether or not the PARAD gravely abused
his discretion when he issued a writ of execution
despite the pendency of LBP’s petition for fixing of
just compensation with the SAC.
RULINGS:
1) NO. The Court ruled that the petition for
review on certiorari could not be filed without the
Office of the Government Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) entering its appearance as the principal
legal counsel of the bank or without the OGCC
giving its conformity to the LBP Legal Department’s
filing of the petition.
2) YES. The Court also found petitioner to
have committed forum-shopping when it moved to
quash the PARAD resolutions and at the same time
petitioned for their annulment via certiorari.
3) NO. The Court ruled that petitioner was
not entitled to the issuance of a writ of certiorari by
the appellate court because the PARAD did not
gravely abuse its discretion when it undertook to
execute the September 04, 2002 decision on land
valuation. The said adjudicator’s decision attained
finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated
102
 in Rule XIII, Sec. 11 of the DARAB Rules of
Procedure.

In Philippine Veterans Bank, decided in 2000

through the pen of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, the
Court ruled that the trial court correctly dismissed
the petition for the fixing of just compensation
because it was filed beyond the 15-day period
provided in the DARAB Rules.

In Lubrica, decided in 2005 through the pen of

Justice Dante O. Tinga, the Court, citing Philippine
Veterans Bank, ruled that the adjudicator’s
decision had already attained finality because LBP
filed the petition for just compensation beyond the
15-day reglementary period. Incidentally, Josefina
Lubrica is the assignee of Federico Suntay whose
property is the subject of the aforementioned
October 11, 2007 Decision in LBP v.
Suntay.1avvphi1

Following settled doctrine, we ruled in this case

that the PARAD’s decision had already attained
finality because of LBP’s failure to file the petition
for the fixing of just compensation within the 15-
day period.

The Court held that while a petition for the fixing of

just compensation with the SAC is not an appeal
from the agrarian reform adjudicator’s decision but
an original action, the same has to be filed within
the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules;
otherwise, the adjudicator’s decision will attain
finality. This rule is not only in accord with law and
settled jurisprudence but also with the principles of
justice and equity. Verily, a belated petition before
the SAC, e.g., one filed a month, or a year, or even
a decade after the land valuation of the DAR
adjudicator, must not leave the dispossessed
landowner in a state of uncertainty as to the true
value of his property.

DISPOSITION:

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the Court

DENIES WITH FINALITY petitioner’s September 20, 2007
Motion for Reconsideration and the November 8, 2007
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.
103