Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agrarian Reform I. History and Legal Basis: Included in Syllabus But Not in Both Audio and Powerpoint
Agrarian Reform I. History and Legal Basis: Included in Syllabus But Not in Both Audio and Powerpoint
*From PPT *Shaded portions: From Pointers ni Sir Before Magsaysay, the relationship was concentrated on share tenancy but during
*From Audio this time there was another system that came out, and what’s that? LEASEHOLD.
*From Codal If before share tenancy was about sharing 50/50, then 70/30, and now share
*Included in Syllabus but not in both audio and powerpoint tenancy is kelangan ikaw land owner imung ipa eject you should follow the reasons
to eject.
AGRARIAN REFORM
I. History and Legal Basis No arbitrary ejectment ! those are the concerns during Magsaysay but here
PRE-SPANISH PERIOD comes another concern and that is LEASEHOLD and in fact under the law the
Before the Spaniards came the Filipinos lived in villages or barangays tenant has the option, why the option?
ruled by chiefs or datus.
Everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. Because this was changed in the time of Macapagal under R.A. 3844. Under
DAR did not elaborate on this one. But what I can surmise is that Macapagal there is no more option, ! no more share tenancy, we will only adopt
probably no one was concerned about ownership. Gamay rag tao at leasehold
that time. I think the keyword there is “access”. Walay limitation ba.
What’s the difference between share tenancy and leasehold? You will note in share
SPANISH PERIOD tenancy, the concerns are sharing and ejectment.
When the Spaniards came the concept of encomienda (Royal Land What are in share tenancy that is not in leasehold?
Grants) was introduced.
- “haciendas” (wealthy chinese families) If a tenant dies under share tenancy the children of the deceased cannot succeed
but under leasehold the descendants automatically become tenants as well. Once a
st
1 PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC tenant, father or mother dies, a land owner cannot say “since I cannot eject you
First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo tenant I will just sell this land”. Under leasehold, the transferee or the
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large purchaser of the land is bound by the relationship. In short, the Land owner has no
estate. - but his regime was short lived. escape. This was the option before during the time of Macapagal. With this law
R.A.3344, share tenancy was abolished and it was only leasehold. Macapagal was
Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented. even called the father of Agrarian Reform.
COMMONWEALTH PERIOD
Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26,1972 – Declared the country under
President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the “Social Justice” program.
land reform program.
1935 Constitution- “The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-
Presidential Decree No.27,October 21,1972– Restricted land reform scope to
being and economic security of all people should be the concern of the
tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares.
State”
Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy ActNo.
President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)
4045) -Certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships
➢ Section 21 under Article II – “The State shall promote comprehensive
Commonwealth Act. No.461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal
rural development and agrarian reform.”
of tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the
▪ signed into law Republic Act No. 6657
Department of Justice. You will note again, the relationship bet.
▪ became effective on June 15,1988
Landlord and tenant has proliferated and the government was just
giving restrictions. Meaning, the landlord can’t just unilaterally eject the
E.O 405, during the time of Aquino, vested in the LBP to determine land valuation.
tenants, there has to be justifiable reasons.
In the acquisition, the landowner can voluntarily give up the land and AGREE on
Rural Program Administration, created March 2,1939- purchase and
the land valuation to be determined by Land Bank. If the landowner does not agree
lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.
with the acquisition, the government will have to do the compulsory acquisition.
And then, after that, you will have the valuation of the land bank of the Phil. If the
JAPANESE OCCUPATION
land owner does not agree with the valuation, the land owner will usually go to the
peasants and workers organizations grew strength.
Civil Court.
peasants took up arms
Anti- Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa
Who has jurisdiction? Regional trial court acting as Special Agrarian Court
Hapon)
not much during this time
President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998):
➢ His administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and more
PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.
➢ After Philippine Independence in 1964 , problems of land tenure
remained . Republic Act No.7881,1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657
President Manuel Roxas (1946-1948): and exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.
Republic Act 8532,1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – additionalPhp50
Republic Act No. 34 -- 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating
billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years.
share-tenancy contracts. It used to be 50-50, now it is 70-30.
- You have the additional fund and extending the implementation for
Republic Act No.55 – more effective safeguard against arbitrary
ejectment of tenants. another 10 years. Why was there an extension?
- Because R.A.6657 was to be implemented for a period of 10 years.
PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
President Elpidio Quirino (1948-1953) - Why extended it? Well that would be an admission that the program
Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23,1950 -- Replaced the National has not been fully implemented. After this in 1998 it was extended for
Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development another 10 years so it went to 2008.
Corporation (LASEDECO)
- What was the latest amendment under CARP?
President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957) It was CARPER R.A.9700 passed on 2009
Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established
the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) - So what happened when CARP expired on 2008 and before CARPER
Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954)– (note) was enacted into law? Do you know what the congress did?
-relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy - Congress merely passed a Resolution, Both houses, they passed a
and leasehold system. resolution extending the coverage of CARP.
-tenant has option to elect either share tenancy or leasehold Question: Is that Valid? ☺ “daw” (valid nalang…)
-it also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.
- If the Land of your client between 2008 and 2009 can you question the
Cont. President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957)….
acquisition, Saying that there was no law supporting to that acquisition?
Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – Created the Land
(naa ni sa later part, basta gipa.retroact nila ang law to include the
Tenure Administration(LTA)
period nga walay law kay nalangay ug approve.)
Take note of this under Magsaysay, 1199, just for our consumption although it has
President Joseph E. Estrada(1998-2000)“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP”
been superseded.
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure
Land Tenure Improvement/Provision of Support Services
the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty
Why is there a need for improvement? And Why is there a need for support?
- Remember, equalization of social and economic forces. That means the Law itself through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a
rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
recognizes that the mere giving of this parcels of Land to the farmers is not
enough. They need credit assistance (para sa tanom and all)
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.
Agri-Agra Law – under the law there is a specific provision that rural banks must
have a portfolio for credit assistance to be extended by way of loan to farmers.
Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian
Sa ato pa RESERVE daan. (wa na gi.apil sa syllabus kay motaas na daw)
reform.
Infrastructure Project/ KALAHI ARZone
ARTICLE XII
- Agrarian reform Zone, once there is an area composed of ARB’s,
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries, They are a community, butangan sila og NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
skwelahan, butangan sila multi-purpose hall, that part of assistance of
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
the state and they are called AR zone.
opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods
and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an
Agrarian Justice (2 PHASES)
1. Agrarian Legal Assistance – executive (DAR will provide lawyers to farmers) expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the
under-privileged.
2. Adjudication of Cases.
*If you are the lawyer of the Land Owner, inyung papahawa.on ang nagpuyo sa
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
yuta sa inyung client. Muadto kag DAR for assistance? You may not be granted.
agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and
Why? Who will decide, DAR dba? Who will assist? DAR And besides, if you are the
lawyer of the Landowner, you will not be tempted to get inside the system. Why? efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises
The moment you get inside the system, the element needed so that DAR can
against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
adjudicate the case is RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TENANTS. Now, would you
admit that there is Landowner and Tenant Relationship? Dili! Kansi kaayo ang
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the
landowner ana. Ngano man? If you admit that, there are certain RESTRICTIONS!
And ofcourse, that is against the interest of your client land owner. country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be
- Asa man cla mangadto? Sa civil courts na! Mao nang mufile sila ug
encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.
forcible entry, unlawful detainer, or accion publiciana.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or
CARPER
timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain
may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.
Importance of Land Reform and its Constitutionality*
Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public
domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable
Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary, 175 SCRA 343
for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in
"Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or
distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is more than a acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
slogan. Through the brooding centuries, it has become a battle-cry dramatizing the
increasingly urgent demand of the dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development,
their place in the sun.
and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine,
Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed,
justice to "insure the well-being and economic security of all the people,” especially held, or leased and the conditions therefor.
the less privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal adding
specifically that "the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment
and disposition of private property and equitably diffuse property ownership and
profits." Significantly, there was also the specific injunction to "formulate and ARTICLE XIII
implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the
bondage of the soil." SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these sentiments,
it also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures
Rights, containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere provisions for the uplift of the that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
common people. These include a call in the following words for the adoption by the economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
State of an agrarian reform program: diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, of property and its increments.
to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land- on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly
sharing. or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a
just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and
Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform
Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8, undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
1963, in line with the above-stated principles. This was substantially superseded reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
almost a decade later by P.D. No. 27, which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
landowners. sharing.
On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full
land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the
valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of
their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No.
ARTICLE XVIII But, that does not end there because that TAKING is what you call Expropriation of
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Eminent Domain. That’s why in Sec. 4, there is a provision there subject to the
Section 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall expropriate idle or Payment of Just Compensation. This is not simple because if you own vast hectares
abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the of land, you don’t have to give it away and receive a compensation nga ang
beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program. mu.valuate kay ang government kay normally gagmay. Pero, base rapud na sa
imong sayop. Ngano man? Under Sec. 17, one of the factors that will affect the
computation of just compensation is the Assessed Value. And ang landowner nga
MEANING OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION gusto makasave, dili mudeclare sa sakto na assessed value. Ang ideclare sa tax
declaration, gamay ra kaayo kay aron gamay rag bayran nga real property tax.
Laws that seek to promote the common good, generally by protecting and assisting Without knowing, ang iyang yuta kuhaon diay to sa gobyerno unya ang iyang yuta,
the weaker members of society. bayran ra base sa botbot niya na assessed value.
Let’s talk about Social Justice. Why? Because what will follow are the provisions of Sec 4 talks about retention limits. It qualifies retention limits. Reasonable retention
the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article XIII, that talks about Social Justice. limits. That has not been questioned, so right now the limit is fixed at 5 hectares.
Children of landowners will also retain, subject to this 2 qualifications:
Just take note of the underlined words “SOCIAL JUSTICE IS THE HUMANIZATION
OF THE LAWS”. Personification of the laws. Meaning, the thrust of the law is TO
1. At least 15 yrs. Old
PROTECT PERSONS. And you have Equalization of Social and Economic Forces.
Another important phrase: “Measures calculated to ensure economic stability”.
2. (a)Personally Cultivating the land or, (b)Directing managing the land
RA 3844 - The transferee of the agriland, the vendee is bound by the leasehold
relationship
BENEFICIARIES
- Should it be annotated? No. Not necessary. The law provides for that.
Tenant Farmers
- Leasehold relationship will remain. To protect the lessee from possible
Agricultural wage-earners or farm workers ejectment or disposition of property.
Owner-cultivators of less than family-size farms - It is referred as agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee
Landed Estates Yes, the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the tenant.
Unless the ground for ejectment is not enumerated in 3844, the lessee
Old Settlements cannot be ejected.
COMPOSITION OF THE CODE - talks about redemption, the right of the lessee to redeem a property that was
foreclosed by the bank. But the law even mentions about the right of pre-emption
An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy “if ibaligya gani sa tag-iya ang yuta dunay katungod nga e.offer ngadto
systems in agriculture. sa lessee ang yuta.”
During the Time of Diosdado Macapagal and it was this law that ABOLISHED Sec. 12 on legal redemption ! Farm lots foreclosed by the bank due non-payment
SHARE TENANCY and UPHELD LEASE HOLD. Before this was RA 1199 where of a loan. Po is the highest bidder in the auction. The previous owner, the
the tenant is given the choice whether the tenant would love to go to share mortgagor and the tenant filed a Civil Case against the bank for annulment of
tenancy or lease hold. If you have read 1199 the meaning or the concept of share mortgage. Meanwhile the tenant filed a complaint for legal redemption with DAR.
tenancy and lease hold are the same.
Subject of this case is the case of legal redemption not the annulment of mortgage.
With respect to parties: Parties are the land owner and the tenant although in the Because Dampal wants to redeem the land from the bank. But PO said you have no
case of leasehold the tenant is technically called lessee. right of redemption because it is already beyond the period as provided under sec.
12. Sec 12 provides 180 days from notice in writing.
There is a contribution of the land owner and that contribution is in the form of a
land. The contribution of the tenant or lessee is labor. And the tenant/lessee is DARAB said no more right to redeem because it has prescribed. But you have to
supposed to plant, cultivate, harvest and when there is production, divide the know under sec. 12, it provides for a reckoning point, and the reckoning point is a
share. The same concept ! share tenancy and leasehold. NOTICE IN WRITING. Who shall give the notice? It is the vendee,
supposed to be the bank that shall serve notice on all the lessees
But why is it that leasehold is preferred over share tenancy? including Private Respondent Dampal because he is affected by the sale.
Not only the lessees but also including DAR.
Why leasehold?
-There was no notice served. So SC said, the lack of written notice does not start
- Protects tenurial and economic status the running of the prescriptive period.
- ECONOMIC STATUS It is the upliftment of the life of the tenant. - Contention of PO, the highest bidder ! Dampal, when you filed an action against
But what about tenurial? It has something to do with tenure. [Im the bank for nullity of mortgage you were aware that there was non-payment of
the loan and the bank is to foreclose the property. It was foreclosed that is why you
sure in your favorite subject LABOR LAW, you remembered security of
tenure] Security of tenure is provided by law not withstanding are seeking the nullity of the mortgage. Therefore you are considered to have a
any contract. So if you have a contract that says you are only there constructive knowledge. ! SC said, this contention fails because of the express
for a period of 10 months for example but under the law you are requirement under the law that it has to be in WRITING.
considered to be regularly employed because you are performing work
directly for the company then you are considered a regular not One of the important provisions of the law is w/ respect to grounds to dispossess.
withstanding any contract. The same concept is true with respect to Take note: “dispossess” here means removal/ejectment from the land. So
agrarian reform. That means if you are a tenant or a lessee the you will note among the grounds that has been listed, dili pwede
LO cannot just dispossess, remove or eject you from the land ma.rakrakan ang tenant ug pusil. The land owner still has to comply with this.
w/o apparent reason there has to be a ground, it should be This law still applies. (on grounds for ejectment)
based on the ground. And the grounds are provided by law.
SIR: Under the current law, CARL, there is no provision on ejectment! So which one
- Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and management will you consult? This law (RA 3844). There is no provision under CARL regarding
the rights and obligations, you have to consult this law. That’s why this one is still
- Assures continuity of relations very applicable with respect to leasehold.
- In case of death of the tenant or the lessee, the relationship Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS
CONTINUES. It continues with the immediate family. That’s
why there’s protection of the tenurial status. a. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement
- In case lessor sells or alienates the legal possession, transferee shall be b. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that
subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of lessor. - - agreed upon
- The transferee/the purchaser is subrogated but not c. Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land
subrogated in the positive sense of the word. He has
to assume the rights and obligations of the lessor. d. Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage
The transferee cannot say that I am innocent, I don’t know,
I am not aware that there was this relationship between e. Non-payment of rental when due
tenant and LO because if that is the case that that can be
an excuse then futile ang balaod. - One of the Important ground is this non-payment of the rental
when due. Going back to the relationship, LO provides the land, lessee
Agricultural leasehold? (read Sec 4-38 for more info :p) labor and when there is production they are supposed to divide the
produce. The produce there to be given by the lessee to the lessor/LO
A juridical tie between lessor and lessee is the rental. The rental is FIXED by law. The rental shall not exceed
25% of the average normal harvest. D pwede patas.an. Nganu
- Abolished shared tenancy. Now leasehold tenancy.
To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and under Agrarian Law ⦿ No, continue between lessor and members of lessee’s immediate farm
household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death:
1. Grounds to eject - AL – 3844 while CL – Civil Code
⦿ If lessor cannot choose, the law provides this order of assumption: 1.
surviving spouse; 2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; 3. next
2. Where will you file the ejectment case – agri lessee – DAR while
civil lessee – in regular courts eldest descendants in the order of their age.
- Lessee has substantial rights, you don’t have to allege , you have to Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization?
support.
-Fine or imprisonment
- Allegation only is not sufficient
-Damages suffered
-Attorney’s fees
Extinguishment of relation vs dispossession
-Remuneration for last income
a. Extinguishment – no court approval, voluntary act (abandonment
of land without knowledge of lessor or voluntary surrender by That means that there must be a complaint filed before the PARAD to
lessee) or an act of God be able to lawfully eject a tenant. So, it is also provided for under the law.
Sta. Anna vs Carpo, the issue is non-payment of the rentals. You will note there Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal
are different rulings of the DAR. harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date
of leasehold after deducting amount used for the seeds and costs of
ABBREVIATIONS USED: PARAD is the provincial adjudicator. Provincial Agrarian harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing.
Reform Adjudicator – PARAD. The DARAB is the central office in Manila. So any
decision of the PARAD goes to DARAB and from the DARAB being a quasi-judicial
agency under the rules of Court, goes to CA.
- NOTE: EQUIVALENT: because it is not necessary that the payment of
Now SC discusses first about BURDEN OF PROOF. NOTE: According to the SC under the lease rental is the produce. It can be the produce, the money or
sec. 37 the burden of proof to show the existence of a cause of can be both depending upon the agreement of the parties.
rejectment is upon petitioner land owner. That means we are talking about
all the grounds to dispossess. It is the LO who has the burden to prove the ground. - BUT, the lease rental cannot exceed 25%.
SC qualified that non-payment must be willful and deliberate. That means di WHAT IS THE MEANING HERE OF AGRICULTURAL YEAR?
lang failure, it could be failure but if there was negligence on the part of the lessee
to pay that may not be taken against the lessee, because it has to be WILLFUL and - The planting up to the harvest cycle, that constitutes agricultural year.
DELIBERATE non-payment. It is not referring to the calendar year. So probably in one year, there is
a cycle of 2 agricultural years depending on the crop/crops planted.
So according to the court the lessee executed an affidavit that the LO refused to
receive the respective lease rentals and for another year the lessee wrote two Bill of Rights for Agricultural Labor
notices to the LO informing him of the availability of the lease rentals pero wa SECTION 39.Rights for Agricultural Labor. — To enable the farm workers to
kuha.a sa LO. That means there was no willful and deliberate non-payment enjoy the same rights and opportunities in life as industrial workers, they shall
of the rentals due. enjoy the following:
- (1)Right to self-organization;
Sec. 37 talks about dispossess. There is a difference between extinguishment
of the relation as against dispossession. - (2)Right to engage in concerted activities;
- DISPOSSESSION there has to be a court order. Dili ni order referring to - (3)Right to minimum wage;
civil court on the aspect of Civil law relationship, it is in the context of
the Department of agrarian reform. - (4)Right to work for not more than eight hours;
- There is an ejectment under civil law, there is also an ejectment under - (5)Right to claim for damages for death or injuries sustained
agrarian reform. The jurisdiction for one is different from the other. while at work;
- I’m sure you’ve heard cases about LO filing cases on ejectment against - (6)Right to compensation for personal injuries, death or
occupants. Normally from squatters, in a parcel of land. And it’s normal illness; and
for lawyers to file the case under the civil law concept. Not agrarian
- (7)Right against suspension or lay-off.
law. WHY? Its hard ang agrarian and its difficult to the part of
the LO. Why? If you file ejectment under agrarian law you are SECTION 40.Right to Self-Organization. — The farm workers shall have the right
bound by whatever rights of the occupants may have on the to self-organization and to form, join or assist farm workers' organizations of
parcel of land. Bound ka especially under RA 3844 that means you their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through
cannot eject unless your ground falls under any of those grounds and representatives of their own choosing: Provided, That this right shall be
exercised in a manner as will not unduly interfere with the normal farm
unsa may kasagaran mahitabo sa yuta? Diba naa sa yuta mo.kalit operations. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for
nalang ug turok ang mga tawo bisag wa gitanum? Wa mo kabantay membership in farm workers' organizations under their supervision but may form
ana? Murag mushroom diba? Tan.aw nimu nag.tulda lng, pagkahuman separate organizations of their own.
ni balay na, nya nipa hut, nya nag.scene na jud. so you don’t file it
SECTION 41.Right to Engage in Concerted Activities. — The farm workers shall
normally at the agrarian court. Why? Unsa man imu e.ground? and
also have the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
besides if you file it there, you recognize that there is bargaining and other mutual aid or protection.
relationship of LO and Lessee. Remember TENURIAL STATUS. Bisag
mamatay na na cya di ghapon na nimu mapahawa kay naa may For the purpose of this and the preceding Section, it shall be the duty of the
farm employer or manager to allow the farm workers, labor leaders, organizers,
nag.sunod. So what LO would do is to file it under the civil
advisers and helpers complete freedom to enter and leave the farm, plantation
concept mao na nga nay rule 70. Forcible entry and unlawful or compound at the portion of the same where said farm workers live or stay
detainer. Of course it may not fall under forcible entry, WHY? One year permanently or temporarily.
mana from the time of entry, normally wa man ka diha. So imu buhaton
SECTION 42.Right to Minimum Wage. — Notwithstanding any provision of law or
ngadto ka sa unlawful detainer and the allegation normally was that
contract to the contrary, farm workers in farm enterprises shall be entitled to at
there was TOLERANCE. You tolerate ang ila occupation with the least P3.50 a day for eight hours' work: Provided, That this wage may, however,
understanding nga hoy ug pahawaon gani moh, hawa na. That be increased by the Minimum Wage Board as provided for in Republic Act
is the civil law concept. Numbered Six hundred and two.
The tenant farmer- whether in land classified as landed estate (i.e., with an area
Facts:
of 24 hectares or above) or not, shall be deemed owner (subject to certain
requirements and conditions) of a portion constituting a family size of five (5) A Certificate of Land Transfer (hereinafter referred to as
hectares, if not irrigated and three (3)hectares, if irrigated. Lands transferred to CLT) was issued in favor of respondent over a 5,000 square meter lot
tenant-farmers under the Decree will revert to the government and not to the (hereinafter referred to as subject land). Needing money for medical
landowners in case where the tenant abandons his tillage or refuses to take treatment, respondent passed on the subject land to the petitioner.
advantage of his rights under the laws. According to respondent, there was only a verbal mortgage; while
according to petitioner, a sale had taken place.
Note that the Decree does not apply to lands owned by the government or Respondent filed a Complaint against the petitioner before
government-owned corporation. the Barangay Lupon in Pangasinan for the purpose of redeeming the
subject land. When no amicable settlement was reached, the case was
referred to the DAR regional office
DIFFERENCE: . DAR’s District Office found that respondent merely gave the subject
land to petitioner as guarantee for the payment of a loan he had
Difference between PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree) and RA 6657 incurred from the latter; and recommending that the CLT remain in the
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) name of respondent and that the money loan be returned to petitioner.
Petitioner insisted that the subject land had been sold to
him by respondent and requested the DAR to cancel the CLT in
PD 27 RA 6657 respondent’s name. Another investigation was conducted on the matter
which led to the issuance of an Order issued by DAR Regional Director.
In the said Order, the DAR found the act of respondent in surrendering
the subject land in favor of petitioner as constituting abandonment
thereof, and denied respondent’s prayer for redemption of the subject
Question: Ngano man puwa mana ang raising of livestock, poultry or fish? Now what is the implication of Luz farms case and the amendment made by
congress per RA 7881?
- Supreme court and congress are saying that lands devoted to live stock
o Originally, that was placed by law. But in the case of Luz Farms versus
are not to be covered under CARP.
Secretary of DAR (1990), the SC struck down that phrase for being
unconstitutional. What did DAR do after the Luz Farms case?
- DAR issued AO #9 series 1993. Remember the Luz farms case was in
Luz Farms v. Sec. – Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional 1990 and AO #9 is in 1993, that is why in this case, originally the land
(“raising of livestock, poultry and swine” per SC) owner filed a VOS; voluntary offer to sell meaning he is surrendering to
- “use of land is incidental and not the principal factor” the government the land for purposes of CARP but here comes Luz
✓ RA 7881 (effective May 1995) Farms. (I’m not sure how many months after the filing of the VOS did
- amended Sec.3(b) and removed “the raising of livestock, poultry or fish” the supreme court come out with the ruling in Luz Farms case)
• raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree - In Luz Farms supreme court said, lands devoted to live stock are not
farming. covered so they are saying “well we have parcels of land devoted to
• Industrial, not agricultural activity. livestock so we have to withdraw our VOS” and questioned AO #9
• Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of saying under the constitution, Luz Farm, and congress, DAR cannot
industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, regulate the raising of livestock because in this particular AO, DAR
drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, stated that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the
conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for raising of livestock poultry or swine shall be excluded.
feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and
digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, *There is a constitutional basis for saying that live stock raising is not included
elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological under CARP because it was found in the deliberations of the CON-COM particularly
appurtenances commissioner Tadeo, the one representing the tenant, (and he was asked in Filipino
of course) whether the farm workers include those person who are working in
SIR: Mao na akong kasagaran binuang ani “wala kay baboy na itanom, baktin na livestock, poultry and swine. And his answer was that they are NOT included.
mahimong baboy” hehehe. - So taking a cue from that deliberation the supreme court, in the case of
Luz Farms deleted that phrase raising of live stock etc. from the
- DAR Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (RULES & REGULATIONS definition of agricultural activity.
GOVERNING THE EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED
FOR CATTLE RAISING FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARP) SC: DAR you have no power to regulate. What you did, using the AO was trying to
regulate live stock farming but you have no power because that is not within your
jurisdiction, it is not part of CARP coverage. This has been exempted by the
- “Livestock and poultry do not sprout from the land.” constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform.
5 years pa after nakarealize ang congress, so it was eventually removed from Because DAR lost in the Sutton case when supreme court nullified AO #9, DAR
sec3(B). issued an admin order #7. This time DAR learned its lesson, we will not regulate
livestock because that is outside of our authority but what we will do is we will
classify lands those devoted to livestock and those not devoted to livestock to their
guidelines.
Governs the exclusion of agri lands used for cattle raising from coverage of CARP. If Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008
you have an application for exclusion, you file it with DAR to be excluded from
CARP, you should prove that the land is actually, exclusively and directly (ADE) used Policy guidelines:
▪ Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and
for cattle raising. So it was the policy that if the land is ADE for cattle raising as of
continuously used shall be excluded; conversely, those not ADE are
June 15, 1988 then it shall be excluded but of course you have to wait for the subject to CARP if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1)
ruling of DAR with respect to application for exclusion. 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 are valid.
Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion ! If you want to - But this one surprises me, despite the fact that AO #9 was
change classification of your land from agricultural to residential or commercial or nullified, DAR said in line with the principle of regularity of
industrial it is governed by another policy not this admin order. the performance of official functions all processes of DAR
for AO number 9 are valid. Anyway nobody questioned it!
• Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the rights • Sec. 3 (c) “Agricultural land” land devoted to agricultural activity & not
of ARBs due to unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
declaration of areas used for cattle purposes.
• Why? (Just a possibility daw) It may have happened that DAR may not
be able to inspect all lands that are covered under CARP in fact if I’m Republic vs Salvador Lopez Agri-business
not mistaken, up to now, only 63% has been achieved insofar as
implementation of the Law is concerned. Facts
Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of
• Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private 160.1161 hectares registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business
agricultural lands actually, exclusively and directly used for cattle raising Corporation.
as of 15 June 1988. On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga
issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the aforementioned
DAR actually has a ratio for that ! admin order no. 9 in the succeeding case: one landholdings which were subsequently placed under Compulsory Acquisition
animal is entitled to 1 hectare of land, 1 cattle. And then 1.7 something hectares pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law).
that’s good for 21 heads insofar as infrastructure is concerned.
On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office
Those that will exceed or portions which will not be covered by this will have to be (PARO), Davao Oriental, an Application for Exemption of the lots covered by TCT
covered under CARP, the purpose should be for the growth of cattle industry but if No. T-12637 and T-12639 from CARP coverage. It alleged that pursuant to the case
the filing of the exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage, DAR shall deny of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary said parcels of land are exempted from coverage as
due course if the application is filed 60 days after date of receipt of notice. That the said parcels of land with a total area of 110.5455 hectares are used for grazing
means you have to be fast do not wait for DAR to be able to send you a notice of and habitat of petitioner's 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads of
CARP coverage. Before DAR should serve that, you have to already apply for a goats and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian
petition for exclusion. Only exclusion petitions fully supported shall be accepted. Reform Law (CARL).
• Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow. On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, the MARO conducted an onsite
• Policies: investigation on the two parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock as
(1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be enumerated.
excluded (exclusion to be granted only upon proof and continuously
utilized up to time of application); On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was cancelled
(2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion and a new one issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP
(3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for T-16356. On February 7, 1994, petitioner through its President, Salvador N. Lopez,
cattle raising shall be excluded; all other areas shall be covered. Jr., executed a letter-affidavit addressed to the respondent-Secretary requesting for
(4) Encourage growth of cattle industry the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that
(5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage, DAR they needed the additional area for its livestock business. On March 28, 1995,
shall deny due course if application is filed 60 days after date of receipt petitioner filed before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an application for
of notice. the exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 stating that it has
(6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents shall be been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15, 1988 and that the said two (2)
accepted lots form an integral part of its grazing land.
DAR v. Sutton: (leading case due to nullification of AO no. 9) The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order dated
March 5, 1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on
Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil the ground that it was not clearly shown that the same were actually, directly and
(VOS - due to Luz Farms - withdraw VOS) exclusively used for livestock raising since in its application, petitioner itself
- Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993 (prescribing a maximum retention admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. The application for
limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising); exemption, however of the other two (2) parcels of land was approved.
- SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed definition of “agricultural
activity“ by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted Issue:
to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising. Congress Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL
clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with
CASE: There are 2 lands here. You have the Lopez land and the 2nd one is the Secretary Garilao opined that, for private agricultural lands to be excluded from
Limoc Lands. You have here the finding of MARO of several heads of cattle, some CARP, they must already be devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising as of
covered by several certificates. There were structures used for livestock business, June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect. He found that the Certificates of
the existence of the cattle prior to the enactment of CARL positively affirmed, farm Ownership of Large Cattle submitted by petitioner showed that only 86 heads of
cattle were registered in the name of petitioner's president, Misael Vera, Jr., prior to
workers and overseers interviewed by the MARO.
June 15, 1988; 133 were subsequently bought in 1990, while 204 were registered
from 1992 to 1995. Secretary Garilao gave more weight to the certificates rather
SC: Lopez lands you are devoted to livestock raising therefore not included under than to the headcount because "the same explicitly provide for the number of cattle
CARL. owned by petitioner as of June 15, 1988.
Issue:
DAR argued: SC the tax declaration characterized the lopez land as agricultural.
Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL
SIR: In a tax dec, you will find there the classification of the land, and Held:
pinakapermero ana nga table agricultural sa ubos either residential commercial or With the procedural issue disposed of, we find that petitioner's arguments fail to
industrial ug agri imu classification barato imu bayaran nga real property tax but persuade. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. In Sutton, we held:
the moment nga mahimo nag siyag commercial(?) or industrial, it goes higher.
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
So DAR is saying: therefore the fact that it is agri, this detracted from the claim coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their
that they were used for livestock purposes ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show
a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine
but SC said: there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that land classification in a and poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine
and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of
tax dec is conclusive in filing. That means you may not rely solely on the tax dec.,
"agriculture" or "agricultural activity." The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is
you can base it on another evidence, and what is that evidence? Here in the Lopez different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A
case you have the findings of the MARO, which findings stated the lands were used great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed
for livestock raising. assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and
blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators,
SIR: But I’m not saying you cannot use tax dec as a basis but you cannot rely on it extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution
equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete
solely. You can also rely on other evidence specially on MARO’s findings which
ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other
according to our jurisprudence is entitled to respect by the SC. technological appurtenances. TaDSHC
What about Limot Lands, what is the finding? The report says the entire limot lands Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been
were devoted to coconut and rubber so the question was: where the limot lands exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has
ADE devoted? NO! why? Because the entire limot lands were planted with coconuts exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O.
and rubber. So verily the limot lands were ADE used for agricultural plantations
Petitioner's admission that, since 2001, it leased another ranch for its own livestock
which makes them subjects to CARL. The corporation SNL-ABC argued that there is is fatal to its cause. 64 While petitioner advances a defense that it leased this ranch
a misapprehension of facts and requested an exemption on the ground that the because the occupants of the subject property harmed its cattle, like the CA, we
corporation needed the additional area for the livestock business. So what is the find it surprising that not even a single police and/or barangay report was filed by
logic there? “Needed the additional area” that will happen in the future which is petitioner to amplify its indignation over these alleged illegal acts. Moreover, we
proof that the land is not yet being actually used for livestock business. accord respect to the CA's keen observation that the assailed MARO reports and the
Investigating Team's Report do not actually contradict one another, finding that the
43 cows, while owned by petitioner, were actually pastured outside the subject
property.
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
• Adjacent property is not covered.
Facts:
There is no dispute that as early as 1981, the respondents' landholdings have been On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of the
part of the poblacion of Sorsogon, Sorsogon. Consistent with Hilario and Natalia, deceased spouses, filed before the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Lanao del
holding that the respondents' landholdings were non-agricultural, and, Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject property,
consequently, outside the coverage of the CARL, was fully warranted. In fact, the docketed as Civil Case No. 698. 9 Said case went up to this Court in Noel v. CA,
excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of Sorsogon, Sorsogon showed where We rendered a Decision 10 on January 11, 1995, affirming the ruling of the
that Barangay Bibincahan was within the Central Business District of the CA that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio
municipality.
and Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject
Actually involving same fact and ruling in so far as classification is concerned but property to Deleste. As a result, Deleste, who died in 1992, and the intestate estate
this one gives us a principle that DAR has to establish that the land holdings were of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the subject property, each with a
agricultural. It is incumbent upon DAR to establish. one-half (1/2) interest in it. 11
Alangilan v. Office of President Notably, while Civil Case No. 698 was still pending before the CFI, particularly on
• SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates
agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer
residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property
term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land was placed under the said program. 12 However, only the heirs of Gregorio were
from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR
identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners.
Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended
land use. It does not denote that the property has already been Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to the coverage were sent to
reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is these heirs. 13
not a land classification category. Indubitably, at the time of the
effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the "Zoning
agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang Regulation of Iligan City," reclassifying the subject property as commercial/
Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the
residential. 14
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 Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in
Ordinance. favor of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject
property. 15 The CLTs were registered on July 15, 1986.
Petitioner Alangilan filed an application for exclusion from CARP. DAR denied it
saying the term reserved denotes it is not yet classified. So what is the proof of In 1991, the subject property was surveyed. 17 The survey of a portion of the land
petitioner for asking exclusion and exemption? consisting of 20.2611 hectares, designated as Lot No. 1407, was approved on
- 1982: you have an ordinance from the sangguniang bayan of batangas January 8, 1999. 18 The claim folder for Lot No. 1407 was submitted to the LBP
that the subject landholding is reserved for residential under zoning which issued a Memorandum of Valuation and a Certificate of Cash Deposit on May
which was approved by HSRC, the predecessor of HLURB. 21, 2001 and September 12, 2001, respectively. Thereafter, Emancipation Patents
- 1994: provincial ordinance of the city zoning map and comprehensive (EPs) and Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued on August 1, 2001 and
zoning reclassifying the landholding as residential land. October 1, 2001, respectively, in favor of private respondents over their respective
portions of Lot No. 1407.
Remember even prior to 1988, in this case, 1982 pa, naanay zoning approved by
HLURB. But what is contested by DAR is the use of the word “reserved”.
On February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to
SC said the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural reserved by DAR nullify private respondents' EPs. 21 This was docketed as Reg. Case No. X-471-
contrary to petitioner’s assertion that the term reserved for residential does not LN-2002.
change the nature of the land from agri to non agri. The term reserve simply
reflects the intended the land used. It does not denote the property has already
On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a
been reclassified.
Decision 22 declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending issues
of ownership, the subsequent reclassification of the subject property into a
SIR: I don’t agree with the court.
residential/commercial land, and the violation of petitioners' constitutional right to
1. The reasoning there that the term “reserve” does not change the
due process of law.
nature of the land from agri to none agri, SC was talking about nature
of the land, agricultural to non agricultural. But the question is: isn’t it a
Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486, reversed the ruling of the
fact that there are (2) elements for agri land: devoted to agri activity
PARAD in its Decision 25 dated March 15, 2004. It held, among others, that the EPs
and not classified as mineral, forest, etc. This issue answers the first
were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste who should have informed the DAR of the
element not the second element.
pendency of Civil Case No. 698 at the time the subject property was placed under
2. Second the law uses the word “classified”. If we are to abide by the
the coverage of the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a party to the said
ruling of the court, is the court saying that before a zoning ordinance is
case. Further, it stated that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city
passed there is already actual use of the land by the people residing in
ordinance has been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
the city or conducting business? Not necessarily, because a city or an
(HLURB), as mandated by DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and
LGU can have a projection. It can project. (It can say na oi kini na yuta
held that whether the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT Program is
bare pa. wala pa gigamit we want to use this land as industrial para mo
an administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the
daghan ang mga factory we will project.) So we will pass an ordinance
DAR Secretary or the latter's authorized representative. Petitioners' motion for
classifying this as industrial even in the absence of actual use. It can be
reconsideration was likewise denied by the DARAB in its Resolution 26 dated July 8,
classified already. But the SC was referring to the nature of the land
2004.
from agri to non agri. For me you can still make a classification even if
the intended land used is not yet to be.
Issue:
Did that case (Alangilan) overturn the other (Natalia)? No. There was no issue.
Whether the land is covered under agrarian reform
What Alangilan should have done is to raise that issue in Natalia and other cases
(because it is not only in Natalia) that the word reserved was used.
Held:
Heirs of Deleste vs Leviste
We agree with petitioners that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is
Facts: outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment by
the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance, City Ordinance No. 1313.
The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the
It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural
owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan City, consisting of
into non-agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, 45
34.7 hectares (subject property). Said spouses were childless, but Gregorio had a
son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. Virgilio had been raised this Court held that pursuant to Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending
by the couple since he was two years old. Gregorio also had two daughters, the Local Government Code, municipal and/or city councils are empowered to
"adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the
Esperanza and Caridad, by still another woman. 3
National Planning Commission." It was also emphasized therein that "[t]he power
of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to non-
When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject property.
agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject to the approval of
4 On February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property to Dr. Jose
the [DAR]."
Deleste (Deleste) for PhP16,000. 5 The deed of sale was notarized on February 17,
1954 and registered on March 2, 1954. Also, the tax declaration in the name of
Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which was enacted by
Virgilio was canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste.
the City of Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject property into a commercial/
The arrears in the payment of taxes from 1952 had been updated by Deleste and
residential area.
from then on, he paid the taxes on the property. 6
In its Order 11 of November 6, 2002, the DAR granted the application in this wise: Several basic premises should be made clear at the outset. Immediately prior to the
promulgation of PD 27 in October 1972, the 1,645-hectare Doronilla property, or a
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Application for Exemption Clearance from large portion of it, was indisputably agricultural, some parts devoted to rice and/or
CARP coverage filed by Roxas & Company, Inc., involving twenty-seven (27) parcels corn production tilled by Doronilla's tenants. Doronilla, in fact, provided concerned
of land, specifically described in pages 1 and 2 of this Order,[12] being portions of government agencies with a list of seventy-nine (79) 30 names he considered bona
TCT No. T-44664, with an aggregate area of 21.1236 hectares located [in] fide "planters" of his land. These planters, who may reasonably be considered
Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following tenant-farmers, had purposely, so it seems, organized themselves into Samahang
conditions: Nayon(s) so that the DAR could start processing their applications under the PD 27
OLT program. CLTs were eventually generated covering 73 hectares, with about 75
1.The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in their CLTs actually distributed to the tenant-beneficiaries. However, upon the issuance of
peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until a final Proclamation 1637, "all activities related to the OLT were stopped."
determination has been made on the amount of disturbance compensation due and
entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the PARAD of Batangas. To restate a basic postulate, the provisions of RA 6657 apply only to agricultural
lands under which category the Doronilla property, during the period material, no
2.No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land until the longer falls, having been effectively classified as residential by force of Proclamation
appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer-occupants who 1637. It ceased, following Natalia Realty, Inc., to be agricultural land upon approval
are determined by the PARAD to be entitled thereto. Proof of payment of of its inclusion in the LS Townsite Reservation pursuant to the said reclassifying
disturbance compensation shall be submitted to this Office within ten (10) days presidential issuance. In this regard, the Court cites with approval the following
from such payment; and excerpts from the appealed CA decision:
3.The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject of The above [Natalia Realty, Inc.] ruling was reiterated in National Housing Authority
a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas. vs. Allarde where the Supreme Court held that lands reserved for, converted to,
non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the [DAR], prior to the
ISSUE: effectivity of [RA] 6657 . . . are not considered and treated as agricultural lands
and therefore, outside the ambit of said law. The High Court declared that since the
Tala Estate as early as April 26, 1971 was reserved, inter alia, under Presidential
Whether the land is covered under CARL.
Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the [NHA], the same has been
categorized as not being devoted to agricultural activity contemplated by Section
Held:
3(c) of R.A. No. 6657, and therefore outside the coverage of CARL.
Having established through said documents that the 27 parcels of land are within
GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC.vs RUBEN ALCAIDE
the coverage of the said (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, the DAR
declared as well that respondent substantially complied with the requirements of
Facts:
DAR AO No. 6, series of 1994 in DAR ADM Case No. A-9999-014-98. The DAR thus
granted the application in an Order of the same date and of exactly the same tenor.
Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. is the registered owner of 14 parcels of
land.
The Court recognized the power of a local government unit to classify and convert
land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL and
thus upheld the validity of said zoning ordinance. n April 14, 1998, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of
Coverage over the subject landholding informing petitioner that the subject
properties were being considered for distribution under the government's agrarian
You have the zoning ordinance (1982) and you have an approval HLURB on 1983.
reform program. 4 Thereafter, on November 15, 1998, the corresponding Notice of
Valuation and Acquisition 5 was issued informing petitioner that a 37.7353-hectare
LBP vs Estate of Araneta
portion of its property is subject to immediate acquisition and distribution to
Facts:
qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries and that the government is offering
P7,071,988.80 as compensation for the said property.
On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283, carving out a
wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the
Petitioner then filed a Petition 6 before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
segregated area for townsite purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be."
wherein it argued that the properties were bought from their previous owners in
good faith; that the same remains uncultivated, unoccupied, and untenanted up to
Then came the amendatory issuance, Proclamation 1637 dated April 18, 1977,
the present; and, that the subject landholdings were classified as industrial, thus,
thereby increasing the size of the reservation, designated as "Lungsod Silangan exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Townsite" (LS Townsite), by 20.312 hectares and revising its technical description Petitioner prayed, among other things, that the Notice of Coverage and Notice of
so as to include, within its coverage, other lands in the municipalities of San Mateo
Acquisition be lifted and that the properties be declared exempt from the coverage
and Montalban, Rizal to absorb "the population overspill in Greater Manila Area,"
of CARP.
but again "subject to private rights, if any there be,"
Respondents 8 on their part countered, among other things, that the classification
Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased, acquired of the land as industrial did not exempt it from the coverage of the CARP
ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of court litigation. A little over considering that it was made only in 1997; the HLURB 9 certification that the
a week later, he had OCT No. 7924 canceled and secured the issuance of Transfer
Municipality of Biñan, Laguna does not have any approved plan/zoning ordinance to
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-70860 in his name.
date; that they are not among those farmer-beneficiaries who executed the waivers
or voluntary surrender; and, that the subject landholdings were planted with palay.
The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated. In the In actual practice, most landowners whose agri land is occupied by persons whom
event that a piece of land sought to be placed from CARP coverage is later found they want to be ejected from the land, the normal remedy is to file for an action for
unsuitable for agricultural purposes, the landowner concerned is entitled to, and recovery of possession, you have a summary action normally an unlawful detainer
the DAR is duty bound to issue, a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR case. Or another action which is accion publiciana. You have this principle that
Memorandum Circular No. 34, s. of 1997, entitled "Issuance of Certificate of jurisdiction is to be determined from allegations of the complaint. This is a new
Exemption for Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory innovation, section 19 was introduced by RA 9700.
Acquisition (CA) Found Unsuitable for Agricultural Purposes."
Taking a cue from Isidro and other cases, what will determine jurisdiction would be
More importantly, the need to conduct ocular inspection to determine initially the allegations of the complaint. If there is an answer filed and there is an
whether or not the property may be covered under the CARP is one of the steps allegation of tenancy relationship, that allegation will not take away the jurisdiction
designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The CARP of the court. But read section 50-A, which states that if there is any allegation from
was not intended to take away property without due process of law (Development any of the parties, that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a
Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 245. [1996]). The exercise farmer, farm worker, or tenant, the case shall automatically be referred by the
of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the judge or the prosecutor to DAR which shall determine and certify within 15 days
taking of private property. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106 from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists.
[1999], the Supreme Court nullified the CARP acquisition proceedings because of
the DAR's failure to comply with administrative due process of sending Notice of Where can you find an allegation? In an answer, not in the complaint. So if there is
Coverage and Notice of Acquisition of the landowner concerned. an action for unlawful detainer filed by a landowner against a tenant, the tenant
will make a defense in his answer that there is a tenancy relationship. What will the
Considering the claim of appellant that the subject land is not agricultural because judge do? Pursuant to section 50, the judge will automatically refer to DAR.
it is unoccupied and uncultivated, and no agricultural activity is being undertaken
thereon, there is a need for the DAR to ascertain whether or not the same may be If DAR will certify that the action is agrarian in nature, what will the judge do?
placed under CARP coverage. 47** AcICHD Section 50 does not provide what the judge will do, but if you were the judge, you
would have to rely on the certification by DAR because DAR is supposed to have
Thus, the question of whether or not petitioner's properties could be covered by exclusive jurisdiction.
the CARP has not yet been resolved. Until such determination, it follows that
petitioner's landholdings cannot be the proper subject of acquisition and eventual But we have here a scenario that if the judge will rely on the determination of DAR,
distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. However, these involve factual that judge is now saying i have no jurisdiction based on an allegation from an
controversies, which are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. Verily, the review of answer and based on the confirmation by DAR. 1st issue, what happens now to the
factual matters is not the province of this Court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of principle that jurisdiction is determined on the allegations of a complaint. second,
facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and substantiation of factual you have a case where a court loses jurisdiction, based on mere allegation, there is
issues. no hearing, because if you are the lawyer for the tenant, you allege in your answer
that as one of your defenses that there is tenancy relationship, under rule 16 of
Puyat and sons vs. Alcaide is about ocular inspection. It’s about the first element, rules of procedure you will have to ask for a hearing of your affirmative defenses.
whether it is devoted to agricultural purposes. In the hearing you present evidence about tenancy relationship. That is the process
prior to this, but under section 50, allegation and certification from DAR, the court
may now lose jurisdiction. The court will have to dismiss the case and the
You have a preliminary ocular inspection report form signed by the MARO but the
aggrieved party will have to appeal. If the court will not dismiss, and the tenant is
checkbox for this one “land condition suitability to agriculture, land use” was not
aggrieved, the tenant will file a petition for certiorari, or grave abuse of discretion
filled. So according to the SC it is not clear whether there was an ocular inspection,
using section 50. 2nd point, section 50 –A, does not only apply to court, it also
so it was remanded to DAR for the conduct of ocular inspection. Why important?
applies to the prosecutor’s office.
Because you cannot find if the land is suitable or unsuitable for agricultural
purposes in the absence of an ocular inspection.
SUPLICO v. CA
AGRARIAN DISPUTE [Section 3(d)] ❖ Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Private respondent was allowed by
❑ any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, Suplico to till the land while Suplico will provide the farm implements
stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans from the palay by way of
❑ any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL rental. Years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the
and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership. property, so private respondent filed an action for damages against
❑ “tenancy relationship” Suplico in CAR. Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the
absence of contractual relationship. Trial court declared private
Different sections where the words “agrarian dispute” is used: Sec 47, 53, 54 respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.
SC:
BARC – Barangay agrarian reform committee - SC found no reasons to disturb findings
1. Private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a
If you are familiar with katarungang pambarangay, before you can file a case farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would.
generally you need to secure certificate to file action. Generally under DAR you
SC : no tenancy
In the fiscal’s office, the respondent is supposed to file a counter affidavit when a ❑ no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants; waiver
subpoena is issued. In the counter affidavit, the tenancy relationship must be of rights constitutes abandonment. No substantial evidence that private
alleged by the lawyer of the tenant so that under section 50-A the fiscal’s office will respondent is landlord. Possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner.
refer it to DAR. DAR will issue a certification and will inform the fiscal and the fiscal Cultivation / possession not proven. As to the remaining twenty and
may be constrained to dismiss the case. more other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown
that their cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim
to till have been by authority of a valid contract of agricultural tenancy.
The question is, isn’t it that in the fiscal’s office, the function is to find probable
On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of them have
cause? And when there is an allegation in the counter affidavit made by the simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage
respondent which may be evidentiary in nature, the fiscal normally will say that if being primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives
there is evidence, it is to be proven in court. But this time, because of a mere
allegation, the fiscal will say that he has no jurisdiction and the parties should go to There was no difficulty on the part of the supreme court here, why? In the
DAR. If the case is dismissed, the remedy there is you go to a higher fiscal – DOJ, complaint there was no allegation of tenancy. So how can the court acquire
Office of the President, etc. jurisdiction over the complaint? There was no substantial evidence, private
respondent was landlord, there was no possession or entry without knowledge of
If you apply the context of Isidro vs. CA case about allegations in a complaint the owner that was alleged in the complaint. Again, just to reiterate, tenancy
which will establish jurisdiction of a court, walay remedy ang landowner. The relationship is a question of evidence, same here in Escariz vs Revilleza.
landowner cannot say that the case should not be referred because the tenant
must first establish that he is a tenant. It may create a clash between law and ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : “tenancy is not presumed”
court procedure. Remember, court procedure are promulgated by the supreme Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent. Petitioner is
claiming tenancy. DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed
court. We have a provision of the law where there is an automatic referral, all those
SC: Tenancy is not presumed. There was no evidence to prove consent of parties
silent on what the court will do, if there is certification from DAR. and sharing of harvest. SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to
prove the existence of the following elements: (a) the consent of the parties and
BEJASA v. CA (b) the sharing of harvests.
FACTS:
Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to Malabanan. Malabanan
hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it, with all the expenses shouldered HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA
by Malabanan. Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give any FACTS:
consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery possession; on appeal, DARAB
SC: upheld but CA reversed.
Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There was
no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Candelaria never SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. The taking of property violated due
gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land . There was no proof that the process (CA was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process
Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question. because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to
Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case. There was no proof of the proper party); no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and
sharing in harvest. While Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasa’s word was presented report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant
to prove this. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa of the property. By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the
testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owner’s share, yet at one time, case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process. No concrete
he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner. Moreover, evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except for their self-serving
landowners never gave consent, citing Chico vs. CA , 284 534 – “self serving statements. Independent evidence, aside from self-serving statements, is needed.
statement are inadequate, proof must be adhered”. Even assuming that landowner Plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and migrated to US and
agreed to lease it for P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy . returned only in 1998, wife and daughter were residents of California. Land
Consideration should be harvest sharing. involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning ordinance. Coverage
Section 4: All alienable and disposable public lands. All private lands devoted to or
Candelaria is the owner, malabanan is the lessee. It was malabanan who hired suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation – Sec. 5 “The distribution xxx
Bejasa. Very obvious, no consent from the owner. There was no proof that shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from effectivity
malabanan and Bejasa shared the harvest. Candelaria never gave consent to hereof.” Sec. 63: “The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of
Bejasa. There was no consent, and so there was no tenancy relationship. The point ten years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund
is, if there are occupants in the property claiming to be tenants, the land is created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 299. xxx.”. RA 8542:
amended Sec. 63 as follows: “The amount needed to implement this Act until 2008
agricultural, they are cultivating, they allege sharing of the harvest, but the owner shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund.” RA 9700, Sec. 21:
proves there was no consent, then the occupants cannot claim tenancy “The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in
relationship. The tenants can be ejected. How do you prove sharing? There has to this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No.
be a receipt, or any other similar evidence. Is it possible? No because the receipt 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and
can be used against the owner. Normally, in the absence of receipt, the evidence of other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos
(P150,000,000,000.00)”
ESTATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON vs. MERCEDES R. SUSANO Represented by Celso Rabang, respondent filed a petition for recovery of
possession, ejectment and payment of rentals before the Department of Agrarian
Facts: Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), docketed as DARAB Case No. 9378. Rabang
Pastor M. Samson (Pastor) owned a 1.0138-hectare parcel of land known as Lot claimed that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave
1108 of the Tala Estate Subdivision located in Bagumbong, Caloocan City. nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for the use of the
land. Rabang also claimed that petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who
Pastor was approached by his friend Macario Susano (Macario) who asked for allegedly possesses the land.
permission to occupy a portion of Lot 1108 to build a house for his family. Since
Pastor was godfather to one of Macario's children, Pastor acceded to Macario's Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant
request. Macario and his family occupied 620 square meters of Lot 1108 and entitled to security of tenure. The Adjudicator said substantial evidence prove the
devoted the rest of the land to palay cultivation. Herein respondents, Macario's wife tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent. The Adjudicator noted the
Mercedes R. Susano and their son Norberto R. Susano, insist that while no certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) that petitioner is the
agricultural leasehold contract was executed by Pastor and Macario, Macario registered farmer of the land; that Barangay Tanods said that petitioner is the
religiously paid 15 cavans of palay per agricultural year to Pastor, which rent was tenant of the land; that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioner's possession and
reduced by Pastor in 1986 to 8 cavans of palay per agricultural year. cultivation of the land; that Allingag also stated that petitioner hired him only as
farm helper; and that respondent's own witness, Cesar Andres, said that petitioner
Pastor subdivided Lot 1108 into three portions of which he sold portions of it is a farmer of the land.
without Macario's knowledge.
Pastor sold 2,552 square meters of Lot 1108-A to spouses Felix Pacheco and The DARAB found no tenancy relationship between the parties and stressed that
Juanita Clamor, allegedly also without Macario's knowledge and consent. the elements of consent and sharing are not present. The DARAB noted petitioner's
failure to prove his payment of rentals by appropriate receipts, and said that the
According to respondents, no written notice was sent by Pastor to Macario prior to affidavits of Allingag, Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are self-serving and are
the sale to Chan of Lot 1108-C comprising an area of 6,696 square meters. They not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. The DARAB
aver that Macario came to know of the transaction only after Chan visited the added that respondent's intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as
property sometime in October 1990 accompanied by an employee from the city implied tenancy for such lending was without consideration.
government.
Issue:
Issue: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship
Whether or not there was a tenancy relation between Pastor Samson and Macario Held:
Susano and in binding herein petitioner. The matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondent's admission that she
receives rentals from petitioner. To recall, respondent's complaint in Barangay Case
Held: No. 99-6 was that the rental or the amount she receives from petitioner is not
We find in favor of petitioners. Applying our pronouncement in Levardo v. Yatco, 51 much. 14 This fact is evident on the record 15 of said case which is signed by
we rule that the subject land cannot be subject to the OLT program of P.D. No. 27 respondent and was even attached as Annex "D" of her DARAB petition.
for two reasons: first, the subject land is less than seven hectares; and second, Consequently, we are thus unable to agree with DARAB's ruling that the affidavits
respondents failed to show that Pastor owned other agricultural lands in excess of 16 of witnesses that petitioner pays 15 cavans of palay or the equivalent thereof in
seven hectares or urban land from which he derived adequate income, as required pesos as rent are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of
by Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474. 52 rentals. Indeed, respondent's admission confirms their statement that rentals are in
fact being paid. Such admission belies the claim of respondent's representative,
Moreover, the DAR Memorandum on the "Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small Celso Rabang, that petitioner paid nothing for the use of the land.
Landowners" dated July 10, 1975 is explicit:
Respondent's act of allowing the petitioner to cultivate her land and receiving
5.Tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7) hectares or less shall not be covered rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten tenancy agreement.
by Operation Land Transfer. The relation of the land owner and tenant-farmers in An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit provisions of a
these areas shall be leasehold . . . 53 written contract alone. Section 5 18 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, otherwise
known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, recognizes that an agricultural
However, while the disputed landholding which had an original aggregate area of leasehold relation may exist upon an oral agreement.
only 1.0138 hectares is not covered by the OLT program, the same may still be
covered by P.D. No. 27, albeit under its Operation Land Leasehold (OLL) program. Thus, all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present.
The OLL program placed landowners and tenants of agricultural land devoted to Respondent is the landowner; petitioner is her tenant. The subject matter of their
rice and corn into a leasehold relationship as of October 21, 1972. 54 But the fact relationship is agricultural land, a farm land. 19 They mutually agreed to the
that Macario, respondents' predecessor-in-interest, was a de jure tenant must be cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the harvest. The purpose of their
established. relationship is clearly to bring about agricultural production. After the harvest,
petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondent's
In the case at bar, while the RARAD, DARAB and the CA are unanimous in their motion 20 to supervise harvesting and threshing, processes in palay farming,
conclusion that an implied tenancy relationship existed between Pastor Samson and further confirms the purpose of their agreement. Lastly, petitioner's personal
Macario Susano, no specific evidence was cited to support such conclusion other cultivation of the land 21 is conceded by respondent who likewise never denied the
than their observation that Pastor failed to protest Macario's possession and fact that they share in the harvest.
cultivation over the subject land for more than 30 years. Contrary to what is
required by law, however, no independent and concrete evidence were adduced by One of a kind case!!! (LO was very honest)
respondents to prove that there was indeed consent and sharing of harvests
between Pastor and Macario. Landowner filed a complaint at the barangay because she would want the occupant
to vacate the property. Reason: gigamyan sa renta ! the rent was insignificant,
It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land she wants to recover the land to farm it on her own so that she can gain more
will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. Independent and concrete evidence profits.
is necessary to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the
landowner. Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing cannot SC used her own admission that she received rentals from the petitioner. This is a
be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence; there must be concrete evidence on confirmation that indeed rentals were paid and that this is an agrarian dispute.
record adequate to prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a
receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented, because self-serving SUTTON VS. LIM
statements are inadequate. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the
elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by FACTS: On December 7, 1993, private respondents applied for the issuance of a
conjectures. Leasehold relationship is not brought about by the mere congruence CLOA over a parcel of land before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
of facts but, being a legal relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that Secretary. Upon the recommendation of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
relationship should be primordial. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that (MARO), the application was granted and they were issued CLOA. Subsequently, on
all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present.
January 31, 1994, the Register of Deeds of Masbate issued the corresponding OCT.
The affidavits executed by three of respondents' neighbors are insufficient to
establish a finding of tenancy relationship between Pastor and Macario. On November 23, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of the said
CLOA and title before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
Principle: affidavits of the tenant or persons claiming to be a tenant are self- (PARAD), assailing the validity of the said issuances on the ground that the subject
serving. parcel of land is a private land devoted to cattle raising which she inherited from
her deceased father, Samuel Sutton, who, in turn, previously bought the subject
This case deals with affidavits executed by the neighbors of the occupants. SC
considered the affidavits as insufficient because of lack of details. parcel of land from Romanito P. Lim and his wife. Petitioner also claimed to have
been denied due process for not receiving any notice of private respondents'
Lesson: you can use affidavits of neighbors for as long as it has the specific details application proceedings for CLOA. The petition was amended to include the MARO,
which are: PARO and the Register of Deeds of Masbate as additional respondents.
- how the agreement was implemented
- how much was given
- Private respondents averred that, being the actual occupants and qualified
when and where the payments were made
- whether they have a witness when the landowner is receiving the beneficiaries of the subject lot which formed part of the alienable and disposable
share. portion of the public domain, the DAR Secretary correctly issued the CLOA in their
favor. While admitting having sold a lot in favor of Samuel Sutton from whom
JUAN GALOPE vs. CRESENCIA BUGARIN petitioner purportedly inherited the subject parcel of land, they asserted that the
lot sold was different from Lot No. 1493. Moreover, they interposed the defense of
Facts:
prescription since the petition for cancellation was filed after the subject title
Respondent owns a parcel of land. Petitioner farms the land. became indefeasible.
In Barangay Case No. 99-6, respondent complained that she lent the land to
petitioner in 1992 without an agreement, that what she receives in return from On the other hand, the MARO and PARO, in their Answer with Motion to
petitioner is insignificant, and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on her Dismiss, invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official
To be sure, the tenurial, leasehold, or agrarian relations referred to may be The CA concluded that there is no evidence supporting the DARAB's conclusion
established with the concurrence of the following: 1) the parties are the landowner that a tenancy relationship exists between Ladano and Neri. 38 In fact, Ladano
and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an himself admitted that he entered and tilled the subject property without the
agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the knowledge and consent of the landowner. Such admission negates the requisites
purpose of the agricultural relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) of consent and of an agreement to share harvests. 39
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 seeking a reconsideration 41 of the CA Decision Ladano alleged, for the first
time, that he indeed shared a portion of his harvest with the landowner's
In this case, a punctilious examination reveals that petitioner's allegations are caretaker.
solely hinged on the erroneous grant by the DAR Secretary of CLOA No. 00122354
to private respondents on the grounds that she is the lawful owner and possessor Issues Whether petitioner is an agricultural tenant on the subject property.
of the subject lot and that it is exempt from the CARP coverage. In this regard,
petitioner has not alleged any tenurial arrangement between the parties, negating Our Ruling: Petitioner is not a tenant on the land and is not entitled to security
the existence of any agrarian dispute and consequently, the jurisdiction of the of tenure nor to disturbance compensation. His Complaint was properly
DARAB. Indisputably, the controversy between the parties is not agrarian in nature dismissed for lack of merit.
and merely involves the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform
program which is cognizable by the DAR Secretary. Section 1, Rule II of the 1994 The Department of Agrarian Reform and its adjudication boards have no
DARAB Rules of Procedure clearly provides that "matters involving strictly the jurisdiction over Ladano's Complaint. "For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over
administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, and other agrarian reform laws the case, there must exist a tenancy [relationship] between the parties." 70 But
and pertinent rules, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the DAR a careful reading of Ladano's Complaint shows that Ladano did not claim to be a
Secretary." leasehold tenant on the land.
Furthermore, it bears to emphasize that under the new law, R.A. No. Petitioner never alleged that he had any agreement with the landowner of the
9700, 24 which took effect on July 1, 2009, all cases involving the cancellation of subject property. Indeed Ladano's Complaint did not assert any right that arises
CLOAs and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are now within from agrarian laws. He asserted his rights based on his prior physical possession
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. (Section 9) of the two-hectare property and on his cultivation of the same in good faith. The
issues that he wanted resolved are who between himself and the respondents
Consequently, the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the herein have a better right to possess the property, and whether he has a right to be
controversy, rendering its decision null and void. Jurisdiction lies with the Office of compensated for the improvements he introduced on the property. Clearly, the
the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of classification of landholdings for nature of the case he filed is one for forcible entry 72 and for
coverage (whether the subject property is a private or government owned land), indemnification, 73neither of which is cognizable by the DARAB, but by the
and identification of qualified beneficiaries. regular courts. While neither of the parties challenged the jurisdiction of the
DARAB, the Court can consider the issue of jurisdiction motu proprio.
LADANO VS. NERI
Still a question about evidence.
FACTS: Complaint by petitioner Luciano Ladano (Ladano) before the DARAB
Provincial Adjudicator against respondents Felino Neri (Neri), Edwin Soto, Adan
In Isidro, the pronouncement of the SC that even if the land was agri, that does
Espanola and Ernesto Blanco. Ladano alleged that on May 7, 2003, the
not automatically become an agrarian dispute.
respondents forcibly entered the two-hectare land, located in Manalite
SECTION 6.Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no Take note that the word used by law with respect to the children or child of the
person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private landowner is NOT retention but AWARD.
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a - Meaning: for a child to be awarded by the government with 3 hectares,
viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, he HAS to COMPLY with these qualifications
and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council - Who normally examines the qualifications? MARO
(PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner ■ SIR: and with due respect with MAROs, it is also possible that it
is in the appreciation of these qualifications that corruption can
exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of come in, with or without consideration
the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least
fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or FOURTH ASPECT: Retained area of the landowner (second par. of Sec. 6)
directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have - Who has the right to choose? LANDOWNER
been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas - What if in the chosen area, there are tenants? What would happen to
originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That original the tenants? Law gives them (tenant) two options:
homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original 1. You can be a qualified beneficiaries of other portions of the
homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as land of the landowner or on agricultural lands owned by other
persons
long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. 2. You can remain on the retained area. If he chooses to remain
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or on the retained area:
contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case the ◆ The tenant loses his right to become a qualified
beneficiary
area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the ◆ There is now a leasehold relation between the
option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or landowner-lessor and the tenant on the retained area.
another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant Tenant will not acquire any parcel of land but he
chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and continues to be a tenant on the retained area and to be
shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses governed by Chapter 3 of the law.
to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder
to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option 2 CASES UNDER HOMESTEAD:
within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice
Alita vs. CA, 170 SCRA 706
of the area for retention. Facts:
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on Two parcels of land in Tungawan, Zamboanga del Norte were acquired
the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected. by private respondents’ predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under
the provisions C.A. No. 141.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, Private respondents/owners Enrique Reyes, et al. herein are desirous
management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the of personally cultivating these lands, but petitioners/tenants Gabino Alita refuse to
original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void: Provided, vacate, relying n the provisions of PD 27 and PD 316 and appurtenant regulations
issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when
registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after Held:
the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the We agree with the petitioners in saying that PD 27 decreeing the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them
transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares. 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,
Purpose of Homestead: Given to the citizens of the Philippines for cultivation and such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of
for residence the Public Land Act or CA No. 141. Thus,
“The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection
Maximum number of hectares that can be given to citizens is 12 hectares 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
Homestead is also a title ! which you will learn in Land Titles and Deeds and for the satisfaction of life’s other needs.xxx”
*More or less similar with Free Patent but they differ in the requisites Both the Philippine constitution and the CARL respect the superiority
*Title given by DENR and normally there is a prohibition of conveyance within a of the homesteaders right over the right of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian
period of 5 years Reform Statute.
SIR: Mao na ang uban mu.ingon nga “we might as well suffer the 5 yr prohibition In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the
under free patent or homestead than go through with the judicial process of titling homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian
which may take several years” Reform statute. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine
Qualifications under Sec. 6 (Take note): Constitution which provides:
1. original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
2. who still own the homestead “The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
3. as long as they continue to cultivate (most important) applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural
resources, including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to
agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the
HOMESTEAD PATENT A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.”
domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.
➢ filed at CENRO where land being applied is located. Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive
➢ who are qualified - citizens of Philippines over 18 years Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso
old & not an owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art supporting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like
XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution) those of the property in question, reading,
• designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land- Section 6. Retention Limits. “xxxx... Provided further, That original homestead
destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at
benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of
PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001) Kini kataw.anan kay (hmm…), Sec 5 is about schedule of implementation. The law
• Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of 13 says, the distribution shall be implemented within 10 yrs from effectivity. So when
hectares. She admitted that land is fully tenanted by private CARL took effect, June 15, 1988, it was effected for 10 years. Why is it that we are
respondents Alfeche,et al. still implementing CARL till now? Because the law was amended.
• Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original
homestead grantee, she is entitled to retain the lands to the exclusion How was the law amended? Sec. 5 was not the one amended but SEC 63 which is
of tenants. about funding. So legislators should have amended Sec 5!!! RA 8542 amended Sec
63 extending implementation for another 10 years. How was it worded?
SC : “the amount needed xxx until 2008 (Dec 31)”
❑ Petitioner’s contention is w/o legal basis. PD applies to all tenanted
private agriculture lands primarily devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere Worse, when CARL expired on 2008, it was amended extending it further to June
does it appear that lots obtained by homestead patents are exempted 30, 2009. How? Joint Resolution which was easier.
from its operation. Under RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are
provided but with condition: only for “as long as they continue to RA 9700 approved Aug 7 2009 but given retroactive effect. Why? Na.late pag
cultivate them”. That parcels of land are covered by homestead will not approve sa Congress.
automatically exempt them from operation of land reform. It is the fact
of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs 6657: 10 years upto 1998
that shall exempt their lands. Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares 8542: upto 2008 interpreted up to Dec. 31
which require no qualifying condition (Sec.6) Joint Resolution: From Dec. 31, 2008 to June 30, 2009
9700: approved Aug but they reckoned July 1, 2009 ang effectivity up to June 15,
DIFFERENCE between Alita and Paris: 2014 (5 yr period)
- Alita: had the desire to personally cultivate ! granted
- Paris: no desire to cultivate ! denied Next time, you amend correctly!!! May have question on legality!!!
What is the good point of these amendments? Congress was consistent of its error!
RETENTION RIGHTS
NCC: conjugal – total is 5; capital/paraphernal – not more than 5 each but not “SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. - Provincial, city and municipal
exceed 10 government, units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other
Held: Please note: these are not the only methods under CARP. Another is the:
In the instant case, there is no substantial evidence to support the appellate court's - Stock distribution option: referring to hacienda Luisita
conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on the subject property. - For how many years, the SDO was perfectly managed, it was a good
Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above. It was not method until when the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council headed by
shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy relationship with GMA revoked the SDO on the ground that among others, it failed to
respondent who was their sister-in-law; or that the De Leon sisters received any alleviate the conditions of the farmer beneficiaries. And which
share in the harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a revocation was upheld by the SC.
proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a tenancy - Right now, the lands are being distributed to farmer beneficiaries
relationship. consistent with the ruling of the Court.
The affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a portion of DAR vs. Sutton, et al., G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005
the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her sisters-in-law. The DAR issued A.O. No. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be retained by a
affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or details of the alleged harvest landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and private agricultural lands
sharing; it merely stated that the affiants have known respondent to be the under the coverage of agrarian reform.
cultivator of the land since time immemorial. It cannot therefore be deemed as
evidence of harvest sharing. Issue:
The constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993.
That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without opposition, does not
mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold Held:
relation with respondent. Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not Petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted
ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its
power in issuing the assailed A.O.
Finally, the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate Sections 65 33 and The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules
73 34 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. There was no illegal conversion of the land because and regulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not contravene the
Sec. 65 applies only to lands which were covered by the CARP, i.e., those lands provisions of the Constitution. The rule-making power of an administrative agency
beyond the five-hectare retention limit allowed to landowners under the law, which may not be used to abridge the authority given to it by Congress or by the
were distributed to farmers-beneficiaries. In the instant case, it was not shown that Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency
the subject land was covered by the CARP. Neither was it shown that the sale was beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with
made to circumvent the application of R.A. 6657 or aimed at dispossessing tenants respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative
of the land that they till agencies and the scope of their regulations In the case at bar, we find that the
impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to
The evidence that was mentioned by the SC was a letter. In this letter, it was found regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and
that there was no tenancy relationship, because of the use of the word kasama. prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However the
The word kasama would be taken in varying context, not necessarily in relation to deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude,
agricultural leasehold agreement. It was not also clear the word kasama referred to inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry- raising. The
Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are
the tenant.
industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or
“agricultural activity.” The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from
crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity.
(Sec. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS
DAR v. SUTTON :
VLT is not anymore an option under the present law (RA 9700)
- VLT is an option by the landowner that after receiving the notice of CHAPTER IV – REGISTRATION
acquisition from DAR, the landowner offers. ❑ Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/
DAR. Purpose is to establish databank & identify actual famer-
Under RA 9700, what will remain is COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. beneficiaries.
Note: That is consistent with the thrust of the government, that by 2014, Insofar as beneficiaries are concerned, registration will determine if you have a
everything should have been offered compulsorily, without waiting whether the standing to intervene in a case. Enunciated in the case of Fortich vs. Corona:
landowner will offer or not.
Fortich, et al. vs. Corona, et al., G.R. 131457, August 19, 1999
Under Sec 12, DAR is mandated to determine and fix the lease rentals. And this is
shown in Admin Order No. 02-06.
This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente, Sumilao,
Bukidnon, owned by the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and Development
DAR Adm. Order No. 2-06
Corporation (NQSRMDC), one of the petitioners. The property is covered by a
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14371 3 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of
RA 6389 automatically converted share tenancy throughout the country into
Bukidnon.
agricultural leasehold relationship
1. abolition of share tenancy now covers all agricultural landholdings without In 1984, the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine
exceptions Packing Corporation, now Del Monte Philippines, Inc. (DMPI), a multinational
2. the conversion of share tenancy into leasehold is mandated by law. corporation, for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower's
3. All share-crop tenants were automatically converted into agricultural lessees as Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of title. The lease expired in April,
of june 15, 1988 whether or not a leasehold agreement has been executed 1994.
4. Leaseholders security of tenure shall be respected and guaranteed.
In October, 1991, during the existence of the lease, the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory
acquisition and assessed the land value at P2.38 million. 4
IV. GOVERNING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES
NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action. In February, 1992, it sought and
was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Provincial
We rule in the negative. SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.- For purposes of acquisition of
private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the (a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the
President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7 DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal
thereof provides: delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the
Sec. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located.
President shall, except as otherwise provided for by special Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in
laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent
receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for provisions hereof.
reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.
But it was not clear in the law about how identification is determined ! this was
Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall filled up by DAR through an Admin Order.
be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally - talks about “notice to acquire”: In the case of CONFED vs. DAR, SC talks about
meritorious cases. (Emphasis ours). two notices
It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court shall 1. Notice of coverage: More or less Preliminary: WHY?
apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable. - because while it notifies that the property shall be placed under
CARP, the landowner is entitled to retention.
- notifies the landowner about the public hearing about the results of
When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring field investigation, land evaluation and other pertinent matters
the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed - the landowner will be informed that the field investigation of his
a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re- landholding shall be conducted. After that comes the notice of
open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of acquisition.
the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for 2. Notice of acquisition:
reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became - the area subject of compulsory acquisition has to be stated. WHY? It
the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative Order is based already on the field investigation
No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one - plus the amount of just compensation offered by DAR
(1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March
29, 1996. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed How is the notice to be done? Personal delivery, registered mail and posting
in "exceptionally meritorious cases," as provided in the second paragraph of Section
7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not have been entertained considering that Note in the case of CONFED: Notice shall contain the offer of DAR
the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the - OFFER: offer of the government to the landowner as to how much the
Decision of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the Office of the government will pay the landowner corresponding to the land to be acquired.
President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 - Discuss this in relation to par. (e): It is the deposit that is the key to the
Decision which had already become final and executory, was in gross disregard of immediate possession and issuance of a title
the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative
determinations. (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.
Fortich vs. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so
intervened in case. (c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner
SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries, so they the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers
have no standing yet to intervene in the case. a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title
❑ DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being bonafide and other muniments of title.
beneficiaries
❑ DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB. If landowner accepts ! no problem
If landowner rejects or fails to reply ! summary admin proceedings
Concha vs. Rubio: Not a dispute between LO and tenant. Fight among tenants
- question: who among them should be considered qualified to become Take NOTE: the purpose of this is compensation. With respect to just
compensation, RTC has jurisdiction.
beneficiaries over a portion of land?
Reiterate: there are only 2 instances where RTC has jurisdiction insofar as CARP is
- who determines who is qualified? DAR specifically MARO concerned:
- although SC said in this case that it is the Sec. of DAR through the authorized 1. just compensation
offices 2. criminal offenses
- What was the finding of MARO? then why is it that the law in par. (d) talks about determination of just
- when he was talking about respondents, he was talking about the compensation? It was determined by the SC in CONFED, that this determination is
parties who were not considered qualified. Why were they not qualified? According only PRELIMINARY. Meaning that the landowner (as also shown in par. (f)) can still
resort to court IF he disagrees with the decision referred in par. (d).
to the MARO they:
- So they bring the matter to court of proper jurisdiction for the
-refused to sign the form FINAL determination of just compensation.
-already given disturbance compensation
-Respondents: we returned the money to the landowners (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
-But MARO found that they used the money in building administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by requiring
their houses in the lot given to them the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to summit evidence as to the
just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the
-executed the document “sinumpaang salaysay” that they already
notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for
abandoned the landholding in question
decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted
-As a matter of principle, the finding of the MARO is to be accorded respect unless
for decision.
there is a showing of abuse of authority.
Notice in par. (e), par (d) would give you 30 days to respond. You have to inform
CHAPTER V – LAND ACQUISITION
DAR whether you accept or reject it.
Paragraph (e) is assailed by the petitioners as it authorizes the DAR, by allegedly 3.Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to
merely causing the deposit with the Land Bank of the compensation, to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to
immediately take possession of the property and to direct the Register of Deeds to the said conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-
cancel the certificate of title of the landowner without notice to and consent of the beneficiaries, the BARC representative(s), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
latter. The petitioners contend that, in contrast, under the Civil Code, if the creditor representative and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of
or obligee refuses to accept the tender of payment, it is the duty of the debtor or the property. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the
obligor to make consignation of the thing or amount due. Under the Civil Code, views, objection, agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. The
there is no effective payment without valid tender of payment and consignation in landowner shall also be asked to indicate his retention area. The minutes of the
court. 15 The petitioners theorize that, in the same manner, the DAR cannot be meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an
allowed to take possession of the property of a landowner, by mere deposit of the integral part of the CACF.
compensation that it has summarily fixed under paragraph (e), without having to
go to court. 4.Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).
Paragraph (f) is characterized by the petitioners as meaningless and useless to the
landowner. It allegedly compels him to file a case, and in the process incur costs B.The PARO shall:
therefor, for the final determination of just compensation when, in the meantime,
he has already been deprived of possession of his property and his certificate of 1.Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs.
title cancelled.
2.Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land in
The Respondents' Counter-Arguments accordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and the
related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all the
The Land Bank urges the Court to dismiss the petition since the constitutionality of personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms. TCASIH
RA 6657 had already been categorically upheld by the Court in Association of Small
Landowners. Further, some of the grounds relied upon by the petitioners allege 3.In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular
matters that require factual determination. For example, the allegation that the inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection and verification
DAR is subjecting the sugar lands to the coverage of RA 6657 without first shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds 500,000 per estate.
ascertaining whether there are regular farmworkers therein and whether they are
3.Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare and On December 13, 2002, petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the said
submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of order to deposit.
rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a
summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance On December 17, 2002, private respondent filed a motion to cite Romeo Fernando
with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1989. Y. Cabanal and Atty. Isagani Cembrano, manager of petitioner LBP's Agrarian
Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD Operations Office in Region XI and its handling lawyer, respectively, for contempt
shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of for failure to comply with the order to deposit.
Acquisition.
After the filing of private respondent's comment to the motion for reconsideration
4.Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit and petitioner LBP's explanation and memorandum to the motion for
of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the reconsideration, public respondent rendered the assailed resolution dated February
Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the 17, 2003, denying petitioner LBP's motion for reconsideration.
corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take Petitioner LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for reconsideration which
possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries." AEDCHc still remains unacted upon by public respondent.
ISSUE:
CONFED vs. DAR The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional
❑ Compulsory Acquisition compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the landowner if
❑ Notice of Acquisition the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. Petitioner maintains it should be its initial
❑ First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while respondent
beneficiaries. claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary
❑ Law is silent administrative proceeding pending final determination by the courts.
❑ Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
❑ Valid implementation , two notices HELD:
❑ DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9, Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 reads:
Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series of 1993
(d)In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
Expropriation in Consti Law: two limitations: administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring
1. Public use 2. Payment of just compensation the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the
SC: In this case, there is no more need to prove public use because this has been just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the
settled in the Constitution when it called for Agrarian Reform. So there is only one notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for
limitation remaining: just compensation. decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted
for decision.
JUST COMPENSATION
1. What are the factors which the court must rely upon to be able to (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of
determine just compensation? (Sec. 17) rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
2. When shall we reckon the payment of the determination of just bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
compensation? Time of ACTUAL taking accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
■ But it is different in this case, while the SC has mentioned about shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title
date of taking, but it has been interpreted at the time of the (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter
issuance of the title which may different. proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
■ Actual scenario: actual taking may precede issuance or vice
versa We find the foregoing as a strained interpretation of a simple and clear enough
3. Is the landowner entitled to claim interest? provision on the procedure governing acquisition of lands under CARP, whether
under the compulsory acquisition or VOS scheme. Indeed, it would make no sense
Last issue is the application of Rule 67: to mention anything about the provisional deposit in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) —
- sec. 58 and rule 67 talks about appointment of commissioners. When the case is the landowner is sent a notice of valuation to which he should reply within a
filed in the RTC: in the law itself, it says MAY appoint, under rule 67, court SHALL specified time, and in sub-paragraph (c) — when the landowner accepts the offer
appoint Commissioners for the determination of just compensation. of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. Sub-paragraph (d) provides for the
- who normally opposes commissioners? BIR, city assessor, provincial assessor consequence of the landowner's rejection of the initial valuation of his land, that is,
the conduct of a summary administrative proceeding for a preliminary
(they are more or less knowledgeable on the aspect of just compensation)
determination by the DARAB through the PARAD or RARAD, during which the LBP,
landowner and other interested parties are required to submit evidence to aid the
LBP vs Trinidad DARAB/RARAD/PARAD in the valuation of the subject land. Sub-paragraph (e), on
Facts: the other hand, states the precondition for the State's taking of possession of the
Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land situated landowner's property and the cancellation of the landowner's title, thus paving the
in Sampao, Kapalong, Davao del Norte with an approximate area of 37.1010 way for the eventual redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries: payment of
hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49200, 14.999 hectares of the compensation (if the landowner already accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP) or
which was covered by RA No. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) deposit of the provisional compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond
scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). to the offer of the DAR/LBP). Indeed, the CARP Law conditions the transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the
Private respondent offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the price landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of the compensation in
of P2,000,000.00 per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP. cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank.
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just Question was on the correct amount of provisional compensation which LBP was
compensation for said 14.999 hectares the amount of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 required to deposit.
per hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent. -is it the amount stated in par. (a) which is supposed to be contained in the notice
of acquisition?
In accordance with Section 16 of RA No. 6657, petitioner LBP deposited for the - or is it the amount based on par. (d) after the conduct of summary proceedings?
account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional - there is a difference there in actual practice
compensation for the acquisition of the property.
LBP: says that it is our offer under par. (a) which is P1M only.
Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional Adjudicator Respondent: it is the amount after the summary admin proceeding to be
(RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative proceedings under undertaken by PARAD, RARAD and DARAB which is P10M.
DARAB Case No. LV-XI-0330-DN-2002 to fix the just compensation. SC: subpar. (e) should be related to subpar (a), (b), and (c) considering that the
taking of possession by the state is the next step after DAR, and LBP supplied with
On June 26, 2002, the DARAB rendered a decision fixing the compensation of the
the notice requirements.
property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per hectare.
Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the same In effect the SC is saying: it is the offer of the LBP that will determine that that is
was denied on September 4, 2002. the correct amount to be deposited not the amount after the determination of just
compensation in a summary administrative proceeding
Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial determination - reasoning: if the DAR will wait for the summary admin proceedings this
of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court, Regional Trial Court, will hamper land redistribution process
Branch 2, Tagum City, docketed as DAR Case No. 78-2002, which is the subject of
Note that: par (a) precedes over par. (d) on the determination of the correct
this petition.
amount to be deposited.
Meanwhile, the owner of the land remained unpaid for the property. Thus, Josefina Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 was
S. Lubrica, in her capacity as assignee of the owner of the property, Federico issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits
Suntay, filed a Petition for Summary Determination of Just Compensation with the the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or
PARAD, docketed as Case No. DCN-0405-0022-2002. Thereafter, the PARAD issued bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the compensation for the land
its Decision dated March 21, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads: ECSHID before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA
6657. 9 Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: merely "earmarked," "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their
names as landowners despite the clear mandate that before taking possession of
1.Fixing the preliminary just compensation for 431.1407 hectare property at the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds. 10
P166,150.00 per hectare or a total of P71,634,027.30.
Petitioner DAR, however, maintained that Administrative Order No. 9 is a valid
2.Directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to immediately pay the aforestated exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. 11 Moreover,
amount to the Petitioner. the DAR maintained that the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the
Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657.
3.Directing the DAR to immediately comply with all applicable requirements so that
the subject property may be formally distributed and turned over to the farmer ISSUE:
beneficiaries thereof, in accordance with the Decision of the DARAB Central in Whether the opening of trust accounts for payment of just compensation is valid.
DARAB Case No. 2846.
HELD:
The LBP then filed a Petition dated March 4, 2004 with the RTC docketed as The contention is untenable. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows:
Agrarian Case No. 1390, appealing the PARAD Decision. In the Petition, the LBP
argued that because G.R. No. 108920 was pending with this Court in relation to the "SECTION 16.Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — . . .
300-hectare land subject of the instant case, the Petition for Summary
Determination of Just Compensation filed before the PARAD was premature. The (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
LBP argued further that the PARAD could only make an award of up to PhP5 million rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
only. The PARAD, therefore, could not award an amount of PhP71,634,027.30. The bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
LBP also contended that it could not satisfy the demand for payment of Lubrica, accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
considering that the documents necessary for it to undertake a preliminary shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title
valuation of the property were still with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)
ISSUE: It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP
What is the proper amount to be deposited under Section 16 of Republic Act No. bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be
6657? Is it the PARAD/DARAB determined valuation or the preliminary valuation as made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among
determined by the DAR/LBP? the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at least,
qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a
HELD: "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA
The LBP posits that under Sec. 16 (e) of RA 6657, and as espoused in Land Bank of 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit."
the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 18 it is the purchase price offered by the DAR in
its notice of acquisition of the land that must be deposited in an accessible bank in LBP vs Honeycomb
the name of the landowner before taking possession of the land, not the valuation Facts:
of the PARAD. Honeycomb Farms Corporation (Honeycomb Farms) was the registered owner of
two parcels of agricultural land in Cataingan, Masbate.
The Court agrees with the LBP. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), as the agency vested with the
responsibility of determining the land valuation and compensation for parcels of
Conspicuously, there is no mention of the PARAD in the foregoing Sec. 16 (e) when land acquired pursuant to the CARL, 6 and using the guidelines set forth in DAR
it speaks of "the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the Administrative Order (AO) No. 17, series of 1989, as amended by DAR AO No. 3,
compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act." Moreover, it is series of 1991, fixed the value of these parcels of land.
only after the DAR has made its final determination of the initial valuation of the
land that the landowner may resort to the judicial determination of the just When Honeycomb Farms rejected this valuation for being too low, the Voluntary
compensation for the land. Clearly, therefore, it is the initial valuation made by the Offer to Sell was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board, Region V, Legaspi City, for
DAR and LBP that is contained in the letter-offer to the landowner under Sec. 16 a summary determination of the market value of the properties.
(a), said valuation of which must be deposited and released to the landowner prior
to taking possession of the property. HELD:
As a final point, we have not failed to notice that the LBP in this case made use of
It is clear from Sec. 16 of RA 6657 that it is the initial valuation made by the DAR trust accounts to pay Honeycomb Farms. In Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA, 29 this
and the LBP that must be released to the landowner in order for DAR to take Court struck down as void DAR Administrative Circular No. 9, Series of 1990,
possession of the property. Otherwise stated, Sec. 16 of RA 6657 does not providing for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in bonds
authorize the release of the PARAD's determination of just compensation for the contemplated in Section 16 (e) of RA 6657. We said: CSDcTH
land which has not yet become final and executory.
It is very explicit . . . [from Section 16(e)] that the deposit must be made only in
"cash" or in "LBP bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the
Compensation in cash or in LBP bonds (Section 16) deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust
account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express,
Payment of cash and bonds !otherwise the government will go bankrupt if all in or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly
cash. deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section
Bonds ! to give the government time to appropriate in the future when the bonds 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit."
will mature
xxx xxx xxx
VOS (Voluntary offer to sell): under the law, if you make VOS, landowner is entitled
to 5% payment in cash, additional than that provided by law. In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to enact
rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis
Land Bank v. CA in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as
• Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR compensation for his property because, as heretofore discussed, Section 16(e) of
permitting the opening of trust account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP
cash or in LBP bonds. bonds." In the same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and
SC: 54 because these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of
• Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in “cash” or in “LBP bonds”; the law. Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking down
• Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void.
made in any other form like a trust account;
• There was no basis for issuance of order.
Compulsory acquisition and notice requirements (Section 16)
WHY? Because the trust account is under the control of the trustee. The
beneficiary-landowner cannot properly use or control the funds when the funds is DLR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04-05
supposed to be given due for land owner. ! not sanctioned by law
PROCEDURES
3.2. If the LO's residence is outside the Philippines or unknown, the MARO of 7. Voluntary appearance — The LO's voluntary appearance in the proceedings
the place where the subject landholding is located shall submit a report of such fact shall be equivalent to service of NOC.
or failure to notify the LO through the regular mode of service to the PARO, and
shall request the latter to cause the publication of the NOC in a newspaper of 8. Notice of Field Investigation
general circulation.
Upon proof of service of the issuance of NOC, the MARO sends to the LO
4. Service of the NOC an invitation letter for the conduct of field investigation (CARP-LA Form No. 10).
4.1. General rule — The NOC shall be addressed to and received by the LO. Assoc. of Small Landowners:
Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private
4.2. Service upon co-owners — In case of co-ownership, the NOC shall be agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation). Section 16(e) of the
served upon each and every co-owner, unless one is specifically authorized to CARP Law provides that: “Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding
receive for the other co-owners. AHEDaI 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
4.3. Service upon minors or incompetents — When the LO is a minor, insane or cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate
otherwise incompetent, service shall be made upon him personally and to his legal possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a
guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem whose appointment Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
shall be applied for by the DLR. In the case of a minor, service may also be made The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
on his father and/or mother. beneficiaries”
Sec. 16, RA 6657
4.4. Service upon entity without juridical personality — When the LOs who are The title of the section states: “Procedure for Acquisition of Private
persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the Lands.”
name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected Section 6, RA 9700
upon all the LOs by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of The title was amended: "SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and
the Office or place of business maintained in such name. Such service shall not Distribution of Private Lands."
bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due • Confed v. DAR
notice, been severed before the proceeding was brought. ➢ Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory
acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners
4.5. Service upon domestic private juridical entity — When the LO is a and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines identification process must be made.
with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing ➢ Identification process in Sec. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, in-house counsel or (AO #12, s. 989)
administrator.
Situation: Violation on the procedure of compulsory acquisition proceedings
4.6. Service upon LO whose identity or whereabouts is unknown — In any
proceeding where the LO is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given chance to
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent validate (correct) proceedings.
inquiry, service may be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general -the violation does not give the court the power to nullify CLOA already issued
circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order.
Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of law.
4.7. Extraterritorial service — When the LO does not reside and is not found in
the Philippines, or when the LO ordinarily resides within the Philippines but is SIR’s opinion: ROXAS should be controlling because the issue and the ruling are in
temporarily out of the country, service may be made by publication in a newspaper point. Fortich, in my opinion, is an obiter dictum because there was already a
of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order. judgment that became final and executor and this was challenged before the SC.
They have already reached a win-win resolution and because of that, there was
5. Modes of Service: just one or two sentences that talked about cancelling the illegal CLOA. But this
conclusion was pursuant to that final judgment.
5.1. Personal Service — This is made by handing a copy of the NOC to the LO in
person, or if the LO refuses to receive and sign the NOC for whatever reason, by Notice of Coverage:
tendering the same to him/her. ▪ Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and
that he is entitled to exercise his retention right;
5.2. Substituted Service — If personal service of the NOC cannot be served ▪ Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and
directly to the LO within a reasonable time, service may be made by leaving copies representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to
of the NOC at the LO's: discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and
other pertinent matters.
5.2.1. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein; ▪ Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding
or shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be
5.2.2. office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge present.
thereof.
5.3. Service by Registered Mail — if personal or substituted service is not Notice of Acquisition:
practicable, service by registered mail will be made to the last known address of ▪ The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory
the LO. The registered mail envelope shall be marked "DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
ONLY" and "RETURN TO SENDER" if addressee has: MOVED OUT, UNKNOWN • Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the Bureau of
ADDRESS, REFUSED TO ACCEPT OR INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and submit to
5.4. Service by publication — If any of the preceding three (3) modes of service the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of
fails, the NOC will be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. A rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall
"RETURN TO SENDER" stamped on the mailing envelope will serve as proof that conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just
the NOC was not received by the LO. The publication need not state the entire compensation.
contents of the NOC but only the following essential particulars:
• Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just
5.4.1. Complete name/s of the LO/all LOs and last known address, if available; compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for
approval the required Order of Acquisition.
PRINCIPLE: If an agri land is acquired under PD 27 but just compensation has not ---
been paid until RA 6657 took effect, just compensation will be computed on the
basis of the present law, NOT under PD 27. Where:
CNI=
REASON: It is inequitable that just compensation should be determined under PD (AGPxSP) - CO
27 because just compensation is defined as the full and ample value of the land to .12
be given to the LO.
AGP= Average Gross Production corresponding to the latest available 12 months
Under PD 27: only ONE factor in determining just compensation: average crop gross production immediately preceding the date of FI (field investigation)
harvest
SP= Selling Price (the average of the latest available 12 months selling prices prior
Under the Present law: FACTORS (Section 17) to the date of receipt of the CF (claim folder) by LBP for processing, such prices to
1. cost of acquisition be secured from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other appropriate
- Under Tax Law: basis either selling price or zonal evaluation whichever is regulatory bodies or, in their absence, from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. If
higher possible, SP data shall be gathered for the barangay or municipality where the
2. current value of like properties property is located. In the absence thereof, SP may be secured within the province
- case of Dumlao: factors were reduced into a formula by DAR. Formula upheld or region.
by SC as valid
- value described in comparable sales CO = Cost of Operations
3. actual use & income & nature;
4. sworn valuation by owner; Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or verified, an assumed net
5. tax declaration; income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. Landholdings planted to coconut which
- assessed value, market value, and classification of land are productive at the time of FI shall continue to use the assumed NIR of 70 %.
6. assessment made by Government assessors. DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry studies to establish the
applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP.
Additional factors under Sec. 17 because of the amendment:
1. Value of the standing crop 0.12 = Capitalization rate”
2. Additional 70% of the zonal valuation of the BIR
The Court finds that the factors required by the law and enforced by
Other additional factors under the Nable Case: the DAR Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted
1. Farming experience wholeheartedly the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report. The Court
2. Thumb method repremands the case to the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court for the
determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of Republic Act
EFFECT if just compensation is not based on the factors: NOT VALID No. 6657.
- Even if the findings are based on the factors but not based on any
evidence in relation to the factors: evaluation is without basis Sps. Lee v. LBP
➢ If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid .
You have decision from PARAD, do you need to go to RARAD or DARAB before you (Note that in this case, there was admission that valuation was not
can file a case with RTC? NO based on factors under CARL: a representative of the company admitted that it did
- Sec. 57: Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable).
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the ➢ Case remanded.
determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution
of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to
all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by Land Bank of the Phils. vs. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz,
this Act. Facts:
- SAC refers to RTC Landholding of the respondents was placed under the coverage of the
- Determination of DAR is only preliminary land transfer program of P.D. 27. Petitioner pegged the value of the acquired
- Sec 16 (f): the final determination of just compensation is vested on landholding at P106,935.76 based on the guidelines set forth under P.D. No. 27 and
the Special Agrarian Courts E.O. 228. Respondents petitioned for valuation and determination of just
compensation before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator which fixed it to
Sps. Lee, vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, P80,000.00 per hectare. Motion for Reconsideration was denied so the Petitioner
petition for the determination of just compensation before the RTC acting as SAC
Facts: held that the value of P80,000.00 per hectare fixed by the PARAD should be
Petitioner were notified that their land holdings is covered by Gov't accorded weight and probative value and that the SAC is guided by the various
Action Scheme pursuant to CARP. They received a notice of Land valuation from factors enumerated in Section 17of R.A. No. 6657 in determining just
DAR which offers P315, 307 for 3.195 hec. DAR Adjudication Board affirmed the compensation. It disregarded respondents' claim that the valuation should be based
compensation and valuation and declared that LBP fully complied with the criteria on the current market value of the landholding since no evidence was adduced in
set forth by CARP. Petitioners sought reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner support of the claim and also did not accept petitioner's valuation as it was based
filed a petition for determination of Just Compensation before RTC. RTC acting as on P.D. No. 27, in which just compensation was determined at the time of the
Special Agrarian Court (SAC), citing appraisal report decided P7,978,750.00 as just taking of the property. CA rendered the assailed decision partly granting petitioner's
compensation and ordered LBP to pay. appeal but affirmed the SAC decision fixing just compensation at P80,000.00 per
hec. Reconsideration was denied. Hence, the instant petition, arguing that the
Petition for review by LBP to CA and found that the SAC made a formula set forth in P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 should be applied in fixing just
wholesale adoption of the valuation of the appraisal company and did not consider compensation since respondents' landholding was acquired under P.D. No. 27 in
the other factors set forth in R.A. No. 6657 even though the appraisal company cognizance to a settled rule that just compensation is the value of the property at
admitted that it did not consider as applicable the CARP valuation of the property. the time of the taking, on 21 October 1972.
Hence, this petition.
Held: Held:
The Court citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, “It would
The Court took note: certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline
“These factors have already been incorporated in a basic formula by the DAR provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. AO No. 5 just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should
precisely filled in the details of Section 17, R. A. No. 6657 by providing a basic be determined in accordancewithRA6657,and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially
formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. This imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent
formula has to be considered by the SAC in tandem with all the factors referred to of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real,
in Section 17 of the law. The administrative order provides: substantial, full and ample.”
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or The Court remanded the determination of just compensation to RTC
CA: acting as SAC.
P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 vis a vis R.A. No. 6657 was applied to cases involving SC: No clearance from DAR. No allegation or proof that there was a conversion
lands placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 where payment of just clearance from agri to residential. That means that the land has to be valued as
compensation had not been completed. When in the interim R.A. No. 6657 was agricultural land, NOT residential.
passed before the full payment of just compensation, as in the case at bar, the
provisions of R.A. No. 6657 on just compensation control. DISCUSSION: Do you need conversion clearance? SIR: IMO, no more.
- You need conversion clearance for purposes of real property tax in LGU
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the - Or assurance from DAR that your land is not covered under DAR
guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine because the use is not anymore for agricultural activity
the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation - Under sec. 17, no factor of conversion but actual use of the land
should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is
especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair LBP vs Honeycomb
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent HELD: We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable
being real, substantial, full and ample. DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Lim, 24 Land Bank
of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz, 25 and Land Bank of the Philippines v.
LBP vs Livioco Barrido. 26 In Barrido, we were explicit in stating that:
Facts:
Respondent Enrique Livioco (Livioco) was the owner of 30.6329 hectares of While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function
sugarland 6 located in Dapdap, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Sometime between 1987 vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his
and 1988, 7 Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by
(DAR) for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per square meter, for a total of law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard
P9,189,870.00. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form 8 he submitted to the DAR the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an
indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The
international paper mill. courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by
the DAR for the determination of just compensation.
The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. Following Section 17 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 17, series of 1989, Valuation and Payment (Section 18)
11 as amended by Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1991, 12 the LBP set the FORMS OF PAYMENT
price at P3.21 per square meter or a total of P827,943.48 for 26 hectares. Livioco
was then promptly informed of the valuation 14 and that the cash portion of the SEC. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. - The LBP shall compensate the
claim proceeds have been "kept in trust pending [his] submission of the [ownership landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR
documentary] requirements." 15 It appears however that Livioco did not act upon and LBP or as may be finally determined by the court as just compensation for the
the notice given to him by both government agencies. On September 20, 1991, LBP land.
issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked
the amount of P827,943.48 as compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares. The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes at the option of the
landowner:
It was only two years later 17 that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the
compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it (1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions:
was first offered for sale. 18 The request was denied by Regional Director Antonio (a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is
Nuesa on the ground that there was already a perfected sale. concerned - Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in government
financial instruments negotiable at any time.
Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an
outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco finally filed a petition for judicial (b) For lands above twenty-four hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares - Thirty
determination of just compensation against DAR, LBP, and the CLOA holders. percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments
negotiable at any time.
In this Petition before us, LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of Livioco's
property as a residential land. It maintains that it is not the State's policy to (c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below - Thirty-five percent (35%) cash,
purchase residential land. Since the property was acquired under the CARP, it had the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time.
to be valued as an agricultural land.
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP
Issue preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with
guidelines set by the PARC;
Was the compensation for respondent's property determined in accordance with
law? (3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;
(iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the HELD:
proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still
small and medium-scale industry, in the same province or region as the land for incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be
which the bonds are paid; 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
(v) Payment for various taxes and fees to the government: Provided, That the use process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with
of these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in
outstanding balance of the financial instrument: Provided, further, That the PARC Paris v. Alfeche.
shall determine the percentages mentioned above;
xxx xxx xxx
(vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
government universities, colleges, trade schools and other institutions; It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the
guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine
(vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation
government hospitals; and should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is
especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
(viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow. equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent
In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate being real, substantial, full and ample.
measures to protect the economy.
Same Principle with Dumlao Case: Based on RA 6657 not PD 27: Basis: Equity
LO can withdraw…
Content and manner of compensation
LBP vs Darab
- the valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the landowners, After Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits, or LBP bonds
re-computation upon order of PARAD, a revaluated amount was made but Los still
found it low. Los appealed to DARAB,. Pending resolution of their appeal Los Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash?
interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation seeking the release to tem of - No, because “revolutionary kind” and also practicality (Gov. will go
the amount representing the difference between the initial value. bankrupt if we rely on the ordinary expropriation which is all in cash)
- Cash usually only 25-30%
SC- the need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the amount - LBP bonds usually spreads/matures in 10 years. (gives the Gov time)
deposited in their behalf, pending final determination of what is just compensation
for their land Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. Sec.
- it is a an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not allow
withdraw We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain.
- it is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively
under Section 16 (e) and final compensation under Section 18 for the purposes of limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and
exercising the landowners’ right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of
other situations in the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and possession expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands
of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the
maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not
SC invalidated LBP’s practice of opening trust accounts in favor of the landowner. mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous.
In case the amount has already been deposited, even if the landowner questions The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option, are
the accuracy or the validity of the amount deposited and will thereafter file with the also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds,
RTC for determination of just compensation, the LO can withdraw the amount other properties or assets, tax credits, and other things of value equivalent to the
deposited. ! Part of his right to just compensation amount of just compensation.
It should be deposited in the name of the landowner, not trust accounts (trust Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always required to be made
accounts not expressly stated in Sec. 18) fully in money.
Apo Fruits corp. vs CA On 21 February 2005, the SAC rendered a judgment, ordering LBP to pay the
respondents P894,584.94. The dispositive portion reads:
Facts:
On October 12, 1995, AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the lands subject of ACCORDINGLY, the just compensation of the 18.0491 hectares of irrigated riceland
this case pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, is P133,751.79, plus increment of 6% per annum computed annually beginning
or CARL). The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) referred their voluntary-offer- October 21, 1972, until the value is fully paid, and of the 0.2329 hectare of rain fed
to-sell (VOS) applications to Land Bank for initial valuation. Land Bank fixed the just riceland is P8,238.94 plus 12% interest per annum, beginning August 17, 1998,
compensation at P165,484.47/hectare, that is, P86,900,925.88, for AFC, and until the value is fully paid or a total of P894,584.94 as of this date. Land Bank is
P164,478,178.14, for HPI. The valuation was rejected, however, prompting Land ordered to pay the landowners Domingo Soriano and Mamerto Soriano said
Bank, upon the advice of DAR, to open deposit accounts in the names of the amount/land value in accordance with law.
petitioners, and to credit in said accounts the sums of P26,409,549.86 (AFC) and
P45,481,706.76 (HPI). Both petitioners withdrew the amounts in cash from the Both parties disagreed with the trial court's valuation, prompting them to file their
accounts, but afterwards, on February 14, 1997, they filed separate complaints for respective appeals with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, however,
determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). affirmed the judgment of the trial court. It also upheld the award of compounded
interest, thus:
When DARAB did not act on their complaints for determination of just
compensation after more than three years, the petitioners filed complaints for In the case at bar, the subject lands were taken under PD 27 and were covered by
determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagum Operation Land Transfer, making the aforecited Administrative Order applicable.
City, Branch 2, acting as a special agrarian court (SAC), docketed as Agrarian Cases
No. 54-2000 and No. 55-2000. Summonses were served on May 23, 2000 to Land HELD:
Bank and DAR, which respectively filed their answers on July 26, 2000 and August
18, 2000. The RTC conducted a pre-trial, and appointed persons it considered In the instant case, while the subject lands were acquired under Presidential
competent, qualified and disinterested as commissioners to determine the proper Decree No. 27, the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the
valuation of the properties. court on 23 November 2000 or long after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 in
1988. Therefore, Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 should be the principal basis
of the computation for just compensation. As a matter of fact, the factors
The RTC rendered its decision: enumerated therein had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
thru its Land Valuation Office, to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners' fees The award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to ensure prompt
herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules payment. Moreover, respondents claim that the date LBP approves the payment of
of Civil Procedure, equivalent to, and computed at Two and One-Half (2 1/2) the land transfer claim and deposits the proceeds in the name of the landowner is
percent of the determined and fixed amount as the fair, reasonable and just not tantamount to actual payment because on said date, the release of the amount
compensation of plaintiffs' land and standing crops plus interest equivalent to the is conditioned on certain requirements.
interest of the 91-Day Treasury Bills from date of taking until full payment;
Note: RA 6657 – 12%
ISSUE: PD 27 – 6%
Whether or not the interest was validly imposed.
LBP vs Rivera
HELD:
It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA, by filing a Facts:
notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in March 2003 its petition for certiorari in The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land embraced by
the CA only because the RTC did not give due course to its appeal. Any intervening Original Certificate of Title No. P-082, and later transferred in their names under
delay thereby entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank, however, considering Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-95690 that was placed under the coverage of
that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy afforded by law Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972. Only
to every losing party, who cannot thus be considered to act in bad faith or in an 18.8704 hectares of the total area of 20.5254 hectares were subject of the
unreasonable manner as to make such party guilty of unjustified delay. As stated in coverage.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation: 18 HAcaCS
After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment, LBP approved
The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals the payment of P265,494.20, exclusive of the advance payments made in the form
does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation to of lease rental amounting to P75,415.88 but inclusive of 6% increment of
KPCI. . . . It may disagree with DAR and the landowner as to the amount of just P191,876.99 pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994.
compensation to be paid to the latter and may also disagree with them and bring
the matter to court for judicial determination. This makes LBP an indispensable On 1 December 1994, the respondents instituted Civil Case No. 94-03 for
party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the Agrarian determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court.
Reform Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such cases that are unfavorable
to it. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case, LBP cannot be penalized LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage of
by making it pay for interest. Presidential Decree No. 27 7 were governed and valued in accordance with the
provisions of Executive Order No. 228 8 as implemented by DAR Administrative
Order No. 2, Series of 1987 and other statutes and administrative issuances; that
It is explicit from LBP v. Wycoco that interest on the just compensation is imposed the administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and
only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established. Executive Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm;
Given the foregoing, we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just that the funds that LBP would use to pay compensation were public funds to be
compensation is not justified and should therefore be deleted. disbursed only in accordance with existing laws and regulations; that the
supporting documents were not yet received by LBP; and that the constitutionality
It must be emphasized that "pertinent amounts were deposited in favor of AFC and of Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 was already settled.
HPI within fourteen months after the filing by the latter of the Complaint for
determination of just compensation before the RTC". It is likewise true that AFC
The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum Beneficiaries to be awarded with the land of Polo Coconut were questioned by Polo
equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price Coconut.
fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action Polo: these beneficiaries are not tenants of our land thus not qualified.
and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and
one who desires to sell, if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. SC: it is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries.
Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited
with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the
must include interest on its just value to be computed from the time the landowners. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse of
property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of PCPCI (DAR
deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of the property and vs. Polo Coconut Plantation Co., In., et al., G.R. 168787, September 3,
the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in 2008).
a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before
the taking occurred.
Award Ceiling Limit (Section 23)
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interest on the
zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted SEC. 23. Distribution Limit. - No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3)
condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September 1969. This hectares of agricultural land.
allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property as of the
time of the taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12% per annum AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value ❑ Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land
of the currency over time. Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions
provided for in the Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds
concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (Sec. 24)
Voluntary Offer for Sale (Section 19)
Same principle of indefeasibility and imprescriptibility after one year from
SEC. 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. - Landowners other than banks registration ! due to the amendment (RA 9700)
and other financial institutions who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be
entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment. If there is certification of deposit, it is the ministerial duty of the RD.
NOTE: Under CARPER, there is no more voluntary offer. Only compulsory Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate
acquisition ❑ When certificate issued. – Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the
rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the
Voluntary Transfer (Section 20 and 21) time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be
completed within 180 days from the time the DAR takes actual
SEC. 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. - Landowners of agricultural lands subject to possession of the land. Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall
acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land
transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines: Ownership Award (CLOA), which shall contain the restrictions, and
(a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in the Register
first year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.
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. If there is no CLOA yet (for any reason), beneficiary will be issued CARP Beneficiary
(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the Certificate.
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 Beneficiaries are required to pay LBP in 30 annual amortizations with 6% interest
fully known to both parties. per annum.
(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. In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued
pending the fulfillment of certain legal and administrative requirements. Examples
SEC. 21. Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary Land Transfer.- of these are:
Direct payment in cash or in kind may be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the (a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Association of Small Landowners in
landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, which shall be the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform” (G.R. No. 76742, 14,July
binding upon them, upon registration with and approval by the DAR. Said approval 1989.) that title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only
shall be considered given, unless notice of disapproval is received by the farmer- upon full payment of compensation to their respective landowners;
beneficiary within 30 days from the date of registration. In the event they cannot
agree on the price of the land, the procedure for compulsory acquisition as (b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being
provided in Section 16 shall apply. The LBP shall extend financing to the awarded through the EP or CLOA.
beneficiaries for purposes of acquiring the land. Cont. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1)…
❑ Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the identified
Chapter VII beneficiaries may already be in possession of the land but still have no
EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, the DAR shall first issue a CARP
Distribution of lands to landless residents (will not be included in the Midterms) Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the would-be beneficiaries, an
- Defined under Sec. 2: Landless resident does not necessarily mean intermediate document to evidence that they have been identified and
that a person does not own a land. One can be considered landless for have qualified as agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP.
purposes of CARP if that person does not own more than 3 hectares of Moreover, aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the identified
land. beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof, the CBC issued
shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP.
QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES
landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless (1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the
residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority: LBP in thirty (30) annual amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to the
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; following rules:
(b) regular farmworkers; (a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at
(c) seasonal farmworkers; reduced amounts as established by the PARC.
(d) other farmworkers; (b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the value
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; of the annual gross production as established by the DAR.
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and (c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% of
(g) others directly working on the land; 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
Previous law: there is no provision that (a) and (b) should be prioritized obligation to make the repayment affordable.
Amendment: they are prioritized of that same landholding up to a maximum of 3
hectares each. (2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on the land
awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for
(2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the non-payment of an aggregate of three(3) annual amortization. The LBP shall advice
distribution of the land of their parents. the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited
landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land has been
(3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary
therefrom. under the Act. (Sec. 26.)
(4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably sold, disposed
of, or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries under the TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS (Sec. 27)
Program. (1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold, transferred
or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the
(5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. However, the
ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. children of the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land
from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the
Presupposing that the beneficiary has registered with the department. availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial
(6) If, due to the landowner’s retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) shall, in turn, be given the
or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of due notice thereof by the BARC.
them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution
under the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries. Land titles: one year repurchase from registration; here, it is two years