DAR VS DECS

G.R. No. 158228 March 23,2004

Facts:

On July 15, 1985, respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10 agricultural
crop years, commencing from crop year 1984-1985 to crop year 1993-1994. The contract of lease was
subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from crop year 1995-1996 to crop
year 2004-2005.

On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers of
the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante.
After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that
the subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a conference with the farmer
beneficiaries.Then, MARO Piñosa submitted his report to OIC-PARO Stephen M. Leonidas, who
recommended to the DAR Regional Director the approval of the coverage of the landholdings.

On August 7, 1998, DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres approved the recommendation, the
dispositive portion of which reads: 
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the petition is granted. Order is hereby issued: 

1. Placing under CARP coverage Lot 2509 with an area of 111.4791 hectares situated at Had. Fe,
Escalante, Negros Occidental and Lot 817-D with an area of 77.7671 hectares situated at Brgy.
Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros Occidental; 
2. Affirming the notice of coverage sent by the DAR Provincial Office, Negros Occidental dated
November 23, 1994; 
3.  
4. Directing the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office of Negros Occidental and the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officers of Sagay and Escalante to facilitate the acquisition of the subject landholdings and
the distribution of the same qualified beneficiaries.

Aggrieved, respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the
decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.

Issue:

whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL)?

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 respondent DECS. From that time until they were leased to
Anglo Agricultural Corporation, the lands continued to be agricultural primarily planted to sugarcane, albeit
part of the public domain being owned by an agency of the government. [12] Moreover, there is no legislative
or presidential act, before and after the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, classifying the said lands as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. Indubitably, the subject lands fall under the classification of
lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture.
Respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage on the ground that all the income derived from
its contract of lease with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually, directly and exclusively used for
educational purposes, such as for the repairs and renovations of schools in the nearby locality.
Petitioner DAR, on the other hand, argued that the lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP
coverage because the same are not actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as
they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to be exempt from the coverage, it is the
land per se, not the income derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and exclusively used for
educational purposes.
The SC agrees with the petitioner.
Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are exempted from the coverage of CARP
as well as the purposes of their exemption, viz:
--c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school
sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes, … , shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act
Firstly, the case cannot be compared in the CMU case, the land involved was not alienable and disposable
land of the public domain because it was reserved by the late President Carlos P. Garcia under
Proclamation No. 476 for the use of Mindanao Agricultural College (now CMU).

In this case, however, the lands fall under the category of alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain suitable for agriculture.

Secondly, in the CMU case, the land was actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary
for school sites and campuses. Although a portion of it was being used by the Philippine Packing
Corporation (now Del Monte Phils., Inc.) under a Management and Development Agreement, the
undertaking was that the land shall be used by the Philippine Packing Corporation as part of the CMU
research program, with direct participation of faculty and students. Moreover, the land was part of the land
utilization program developed by the CMU for its KilusangSarilingSikap Project (CMU-KSSP), a multi-
disciplinary applied research extension and productivity program. Hence, the retention of the land was found
to be necessary for the present and future educational needs of the CMU. On the other hand, the lands in
this case were not actually and exclusively utilized as school sites and campuses, as they were leased to
Anglo Agricultural Corporation, not for educational purposes but for the furtherance of its business. Also, as
conceded by respondent DECS, it was the income from the contract of lease and not the subject lands that
was directly used for the repairs and renovations of the schools in the locality.

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is the bastion of social justice of poor landless
farmers, the mechanism designed to redistribute to the underprivileged the natural right to toil the earth, and
to liberate them from oppressive tenancy. To those who seek its benefit, it is the means towards a viable
livelihood and, ultimately, a decent life. The objective of the State is no less certain: landless farmers and
farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward
sound rural development and industrialization. -Secretary of Agrarian Reform v. Tropical Homes, Inc., G.R.
No. 136799, 31 July 2001.

G.R. No. 148777               October 18, 2007

ESTATE OF THE LATE ENCARNACION VDA. DE PANLILIO, represented by GEORGE

LIZARES, Petitioner,
vs.
GONZALO DIZON, RICARDO GUINTU, ROGELIO MUNOZ, ELISEO GUINTU, ROBERTO DIZON,
EDILBERTO CATU, HERMINIGILDO FLORES, CIPRIANO DIZON, JUANARIO MANIAGO, GORGONIO
CANLAS, ANTONIO LISING, CARLOS PINEDA, RENATO GOZUN, ALFREDO MERCADO,
BIENVENIDO MACHADA, and the REGIONAL DIRECTOR of the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, REGION III, Respondents.

FACTS:
Encarnacion Vda. De Panlilio is the owner of the disputed landholdings with an area of 115 hectares called
Hacienda Masamat. Panlilio entered into a contract of lease over the said landholdings with Mercado
pursuant to the OLT under PD 27, DAR issued 38 Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) to Panlilios tenants.
The tenant-awardees were made defendants in the instant consolidated complaints filed by petitioner
Lizares. Mercado filed a letter-complaint with the DAR questioning the issuance of CLTs to Panlilios tenants,
alleging that the DAR should not have issued the CLTs since the land involved was principally being planted
with sugar and was outside the coverage of PD 27. She claimed that respondents surreptitiously planted
palay instead of sugar in order to bring the land within the purview of the law. DAR concluded that the CLTs
were properly and regularly issued. Panlilio executed an Affidavit that it is his desire that the entire subject
property be placed under the coverage of P.D. 27 without exception and that thereafter the same be sold to
tenant-petitioners. The DAR Secretary to distribute all land transfer certificates, in view of the desire of
Encarnacion Vda. De Panlilio to place her property under the Land Transfer Program of the government. On
the basis of the action of the DAR Secretary, the CAR, issued an Order dismissing the complaint of Mercado
(lessee). Panlilio died.
The RTC appointed Lizares as executor of the estate of Panlilio. Lizares filed his complaint for annulment of
coverage of landholdings under PD 27.

ISSUE:

Did the owner of two (2) lots by a subsequent affidavit validly and legally revoke the first affidavit voluntarily
surrendering said lots for land acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law? 

DECISION:

The petition in G.R. No. 148777 is partly granted. The November 29, 2000 Amended Decision of the CA in
CA-G.R. SP No. 47502 is affirmed with the modification that the transfers made by private respondents to
non-qualified persons, if any, under PD 27 are illegal and declared NULL and VOID, and the titles issued
based on the transfers are likewise NULL and VOID. The DAR is ORDERED to investigate the transfers
covering the subject landholdings and, based on the findings of illegal transfers for violations of PD 27 and
EO 228, to coordinate with the Register of Deeds of Pampanga for the cancellation of the titles registered in
the names of the transferees or to their subsequent transferees and to issue new titles to the Government
for disposition to qualified beneficiaries. The November 14, 1995 PARAD Joint Decision in DARAB Cases
Nos. 638-P’94, 933-P’95, 934-P’95, and 935-P’95, as affirmed by the August 7, 1997 DARAB Decision in
DARAB Case Nos. 4558, 4559, 4560, and 4561, is accordingly MODIFIED.

G.R. No. L-105586 December 15, 1993

REMIGIO ISIDRO, petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTH DIVISION) AND NATIVIDAD GUTIERREZ, respondents.

Facts:

Private respondent Natividad Gutierrez is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 4.5 hectares located
in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. In 1985, Aniceta Garcia, sister of private respondent and also the
overseer of the latter, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy the swampy portion of the
abovementioned land, consisting of one (1) hectare, in order to augment his (petitioner's) income to meet his
family's needs. The occupancy of a portion of said land was subject top the condition that petitioner would
vacate the land upon demand. Petitioner occupied the land without paying any rental and converted the
same into a fishpond.

In 1990, private respondent through the overseer demanded from petitioner the return of the land, but the
latter refused to vacate and return possession of said land, claiming that he had spent effort and invested
capital in converting the same into a fishpond.

A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent against petitioner before the Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. However in a decision dated 30 May 1991, the said trial court
dismissed the complaint, ruling that the land is agricultural and therefore the dispute over it is agrarian which
is under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of agrarian relations as provided in Sec. 12(a) of
Republic Act No. 946 (now embodied in the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board)

Not satisfied with the ruling the petitioner raise the case to CA. CA held that the resolution is valid.

“The agrarian dispute over which the DAR may have jurisdiction by virtue of its quasi-judicial power is that
which involves tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands
devoted to agriculture. Tenurial arrangement is concerned with the act or manner of putting into proper order
the rights of holding a piece of agricultural land between the landowner and the farmer or farmworker.”

The Supreme court also held that:

But a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute upon
which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso facto make the
possessor an agricultural lessee of tenant. The law provides for conditions or requisites before he can
qualify as one and the land being agricultural is only one of them. The law states that an agrarian dispute
must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. And as
previously mentioned, such arrangement may be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship