LAND ACQUISITION

Section 3. Definitions. — For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:

(a) Agrarian Reform means 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 profit-sharing, 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.

Section 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands, as provided in
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable
for agriculture.

More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No
reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of
this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall
have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain.

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the
preceding paragraph;

(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised
or that can be raised thereon.

Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands,
the following procedures shall be followed:

(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice
to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in
a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is
located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with
the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.

(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 within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of
transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to
determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties
to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of
the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The
DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.

(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response
from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate
possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.

(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for
final determination of just compensation.

Section 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales. — Landowners, other than banks and other
financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five
percent (5%) cash payment.

Section 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. — Landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition under
this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct transfer of their lands to qualified
beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines:

(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 non-compliance by either party and shall be duly
recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.

G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999ROXAS & CO., INC. vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PUNO,
J.:

FACTS:

(1) Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of threehaciendas,
namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in theMunicipality of Nasugbu, Batangas.
Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares inHacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area. Hacienda
Caylaway is 867.4571hectares in area.
(2) Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, [Roxas & Co.] filed with respondentDAR a voluntary
offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to theprovisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas
Palico and Banilad were later placedunder compulsory acquisition by . . . DAR in accordance with the
CARL.

(3) Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, [Roxas & Co.], through its President, EduardoJ. Roxas, sent a
letter to the Secretary of . . . DAR withdrawing its VOS ofHacienda Caylaway. The
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedlyauthorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway
from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was
applyingfor conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.

ISSUE:

Whether the Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all situated in Nasugbu,Batangas, are
non-agricultural and outside the scope of Republic Act No. 665

RULING:

Yes. The Supreme Court held that The DAR itself has issued administrative circularsgoverning lands
which are outside of CARP and may not be subjected to land reform.Administrative Order No. 3,
Series of 1996 declares in its policy statement whatlandholdings are outside the coverage of
CARP. The AO is explicit in providing thatsuch non-covered properties shall be reconveyed to the original
transferors or owners.These non-covered lands are:a. Land, or portions thereof, found to be no longer
suitable for agriculture and, therefore,could not be given appropriate valuation by the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP);

b. Those were a Conversion Order has already been issued by the DAR allowing theuse of the
landholding other than for agricultural purposes in accordance with Section65 of R.A. No. 6657 and
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994;c. Property determined to be exempted from CARP
coverage pursuant to Department ofJustice Opinion Nos. 44 and 181; ord. Where a Presidential
Proclamation has been issued declaring the subject property forcertain uses other than agricultural.In
the present case, Proclamation 1520 dated November 20, 1975 is part of the law ofthe land. It declares
the area in and around Nasugbu, Batangas, as a Tourist Zone. Ithas not been repealed, and has in fact
been used by DAR to justify conversion of othercontiguous and nearby properties of other
parties.Furthermore, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, affirmed by the
SangguniangPanlalawigan of Batangas, expressly defines the property as tourist, not agricultural.The
power to classify its territory is given by law to the local governments.
Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with the 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 Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR).

It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and 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 for every action or proceeding before it.

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 enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized
officers.t shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and
subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.

Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their
organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: provided, however, that when there are two or more
representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among
themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings.

Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately
executory.

Section 51. Finality of Determination. — Any case or controversy before it shall be decided within thirty
(30) days after it is submitted for resolution. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
Any order, ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof.

Section 52. Frivolous Appeals. — To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals from the decisions or orders
on the local or provincial levels, the DAR may impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to
fines or censures upon erring parties.

Section 53. Certification of the BARC. — The DAR shall not take cognizance of any agrarian dispute or
controversy unless a certification from the BARC that the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation
and conciliation without any success of settlement is presented: provided, however, that if no
certification is issued by the BARC within thirty (30) days after a matter or issue is submitted to it for
mediation or conciliation the case or dispute may be brought before the PARC.
RUFINA VDA. DE TANGUB, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PRESIDING JUDGE of the [CAR] RTC,
Branch 4, Iligan City, and SPOUSES DOMINGO and EUGENIA MARTIL, Respondents.

Facts:

Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now deceased, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del
Norte "an agrarian case for damages by reason of unlawful dispossession . . .was 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, holder of a mortgage on the land involved, 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, some time 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.

Respondent Judge Felipe G. Javier, Jr. dismissed the complaint. He opined that by virtue of Executive
Order No. 229 and Executive No. 129-A, approved on July 26, 1987, 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

\The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, finding that the jurisdictional question had been correctly
resolved by the Trial Court. The Court of Appeals, adverted to a case earlier decided by it, Estanislao
Casinillo v. Hon. Felipe G. Javier, Jr., et al., in which it was "emphatically ruled that agrarian cases no
longer fall under the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts but rather under the jurisdiction of the DAR
Adjudication Board."

The petitioner Rufina Vda. de Tangub, now widowed, is once again before the Supreme Court,
contending that the Trial Court's "order of dismissal, and the decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals
affirming it, are patently illegal and unconstitutional" because they deprive "a poor tenant access to
courts and directly violate R.A. 6657, PD 946, and Batas Bilang 129."

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in dismissing the case filed by the petitioners Tangub?
Ruling:

NO. The Regional Trial Court of Iligan City was therefore correct in dismissing Agrarian Case No. 1094. 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,
supra.
STANFILCO EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE vs. DOLE
PHILIPPINES, INC., GR 154048

On January 29, 1998, petitioner as seller, and respondent as buyer, entered into a Banana Production
and Purchase Agreement (BPPA). The BPPA provided that SEARBEMCO shall sell exclusively to DOLE, and
the latter shall buy from the former, all Cavendish bananas of required specifications to be planted on
the land owned by SEARBEMCO.

On December 11, 2000, DOLE filed a complaint with the RTC against SEARBEMCO, the spouses Elly and
Myrna Abujos (spouses Abujos), and Oribanex Services, Inc. (Oribanex) for specific performance and
damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and of a temporary
restraining order. DOLE alleged that SEARBEMCO sold and delivered to Oribanex, through the spouses
Abujos, the bananas rejected by DOLE, in violation of paragraph 5(p), Article V of the BPPA which limited
the sale of rejected bananas for "domestic non-export consumption." DOLE further alleged that
Oribanex is likewise an exporter of bananas and is its direct competitor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint of DOLE, considering that
the case involves an agrarian dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB.

HELD:

DOLE’s complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not the DARAB. SEARBEMCO mainly
relies on Section 50 of RA No. 6657 and the characterization of the controversy as an agrarian dispute or
as an agrarian reform matter in contending that the present controversy falls within the competence of
the DARAB and not of the regular courts.

The BPPA, SEARBEMCO claims, is a joint venture and a production, processing and marketing
agreement, as defined under Section 5 (c) (i) and (ii) of DAR AO No. 2-99; hence, any dispute arising from
the BPPA is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. SEARBEMCO also asserts that the parties’
relationship in the present case is not only that of buyer and seller, but also that of supplier of land
covered by the CARP and of manpower on the part of SEARBEMCO, and supplier of agricultural inputs,
financing and technological expertise on the part of DOLE. Therefore, SEARBEMCO concludes that the
BPPA is not an ordinary contract, but one that involves an agrarian element and, as such, is imbued with
public interest.

Additionally, the inclusion of third parties in the complaint supports our declaration that the present
case does not fall under DARAB’s jurisdiction. DARAB’s quasi-judicial powers under Section 50 of RA No.
6657 may be invoked only when there is prior certification from the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (or BARC) that the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation and conciliation, without
any success of settlement. Since the present dispute need not be referred to arbitration (including
mediation or conciliation) because of the inclusion of third parties, neither SEARBEMCO nor DOLE will be
able to present the requisite BARC certification that is necessary to invoke DARAB’s jurisdiction; hence,
there will be no compliance with Section 53 of RA No. 6657.