PD 27

DIFFERENCE:
PD 27 – rice & corn land

RA 6657 – all other agricultural land (including

lands of public domain)

Sigre v. CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates

separately from RA 6657

Can lands required under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to

another qualified beneficiary?
 Estolas v. Mabalot : land may only be transferred
either by succession or to government.
 Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz:

- The determination of just compensation should be

based on RA 6657 for lands covered under PD 27.

- PD 27 applies only suppletorily.

 RA 6657 CHAPTER 1

Is industrialization a component of Agrarian

Reform? YES
 Sec.2 (RA 6657)
 “…sound rural development and industrialization”
 “…to promote industrialization”
Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture
(fertilizers, insecticides, hybrid seeds, irrigation
systems, tractors)
Can a private corporation acquire ownership
of alienable lands of public domain?

Chavez v. PEA:

- No, only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs.,

renewable for not more than 25yrs. and not to exceed
1,000 hectares
(CONST., Art. XII, Sec. 3)
 Sec. 3 (b) “Agriculture” or “Agricultural Activity”
- Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit
trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting
of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices
performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming
operations done by a person, whether natural or juridical.
 Luz Farms v. Sec. – Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional
(“raising of livestock,
poultry and swine” per SC)
- “use of land is incidental
and not the principal factor” (you can raise
livestock, etc. even w/o agricultural land)

 RA 7881 (effective May 1995)

- amended Sec.3(b) and removed
“raising of livestock, poultry or fish”
 Luz Farms case:

• raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from

crop or tree farming.
• Industrial, not agricultural activity.
• Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the
form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing
structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers,
feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and
generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and
other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and
digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds,
deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers,
and other technological appurtenances
 Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (2004 Rules and Regulations
Governing the Exclusion of Agricultural Lands Used for Cattle
Raising from Coverage of CARP)
• Objective: to prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the
rights of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries due to unauthorized
change/conversion or fraudulent declaration of areas used for
cattle purposes
• Coverage: all applications for exclusion from CARP of private
agri lands actually, exclusively and directly used for cattle
raising as of 15 June 1988
• Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow
• Policies:
(1) Those Actually, Directly and Exclusively used for cattle
raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded (exclusion to be
granted only upon proof that land is continuously utilized as
such from 15 June 1988 up to time of application);
• (2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land
conversion
• (3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure
necessary for cattle raising shall be excluded; all other
areas shall be covered
• (4) Encourage growth of cattle industry
• (5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP
coverage, DAR shall deny due course if application is filed
60 days after date of receipt of notice
• (6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by
documents shall be accepted
 DAR v. Sutton: Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil
(Voluntary Offer to Sell - due to Luz Farms case-
withdrew VOS)
- Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993 (prescribing a
maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to
livestock raising);
- SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed definition of “agricultural
activity“ by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted
to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising. Congress
clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws
with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to
exclude livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform.
 DAR vs Sutton Case
• DIGESt
• Agrarian Law Implementation ( MARO,

• Adjudication Role (MARAG, PARAG, RARAG,

• Civil courts have Juri (just compens and

criminal violation)
 Milestone Farms vs CA
• MARO has a report that upon inspection of
the subject property, no livestock farm was
found within the subject property. About 43
heads of cattle were shown, but MARO
observed that the same were inside an area
adjacent.
• MARO report
 Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008 ( Guidelines Relativeto the SC
Ruling on the SUTTON case Regarding Lands which are ADE Used
for Livestock Raising)

Policy guidelines:
 Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988
and continuously used shall be excluded; conversely, those
not ADE used are subject to CARP if one or more of the
following conditions apply: (1) there is agricultural activity
in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil, planting of crops,
growing of trees including harvesting); (2) land is suitable
for agriculture and occupied and tilled by farmers.
• In line with principle of regularity in the performance of
official functions, all processes by DAR per AO No. 9 before
it was invalidated were valid
 Republic vs Lopez
• Facts:
• DAR: Lopez lands were excluded from overage
covered by CARP while the application

• Lopez Lands and Limot Lands

 Sec. 3 (c) “Agricultural land”
- land devoted to agricultural activity (as defined in RA 6657)
- not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial
or industrial before June 15, 1988

 Natalia Realty v. DAR – 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.
 NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision
 Notice of Coverage of CARP 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
 Natalia Realty v. DAR – “ they ceased to be agricultural
lands upon approval of the
townsite reservation”
- lands previously converted by government agencies other
than DAR, to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity
of the CARL were outside the coverage of the law

- ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located

within townsite reservations, but applied also to real
estate converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of the CARL
Alangilan vs. Office of President
 DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption)

- “all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or

residential before June 15,1988 no longer need
conversion clearance”
• Requirements: Sworn application, copy of title,
certification from HLURB (zoning or classification, citing
zoning ordinance), among others
• Public notice
• Disturbance compensation of farmers who may be in the
area
Roxas & Co. (whether land is non-agricultural lies with DAR)

• Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent to someone else, not to

Roxas & Co.
• SC: DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of
petitioners' landholdings does not ipso facto give the Supreme
Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for
conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-
agricultural. The power to determine whether Hacienda Palico,
Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempted
from the coverage of the CARL lies with the DAR, not with the
Supreme Court.
• Case was remanded to DAR for proper acquisition proceedings
and determination of petitioner's application for conversion
 NHA v. Allarde

• SC: As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (including

the disputed lots) was reserved under Presidential
Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the
National Housing Authority, the same has been categorized
as not being devoted to the agricultural activity
contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is,
therefore, outside the coverage of the CARL. Verily, the
assailed Orders of the respondent Court declaring the lots
under controversy as "agricultural land" and restraining
the petitioner from involving the same in its housing
project thereon, are evidently bereft of any sustainable
basis
 Advincula-Velasquez v. CA

• SC: Since the property was already reclassified as

residential by the Metro Manila Commission and the HSRC
before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657, there was no
need for the private respondent to secure any post facto
approval thereof from the DAR
 Alangilan v. Office of President

• SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was

classified as agricultural, reserved for residential use in
1982, and was reclassified as residential-1 in 1994.
However, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the term
reserved for residential does not change the nature of the
land from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly
explained by the DAR Secretary, the term reserved for
residential simply reflects the intended land use. It does
not denote that the property has already been reclassified
as residential, because the phrase “reserved for
residential” is not a land classification category.
• Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in
1988, the subject landholding was still agricultural. This
was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994,
reclassifying the landholding as residential-1. If, indeed,
the landholding had already been earmarked for
residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there
would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994
Ordinance.
DAR vs Berenguer (land is non-
agricultural)
Heirs of Deleste
Rom Vs Roxas and Co.
Puyat and Sons vs Alcaide (Ocular
inspection……