FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 109568. August 8, 2002.]

ROLANDO SIGRE , petitioner, vs . COURT OF APPEALS and LILIA Y.

GONZALES, as co-administratrix of the Estate of Matias Yusay ,
respondents.

[G.R. No. 113454. August 8, 2002.]

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS and LILIA Y. GONZALES, as co-administratrix of the
Estate of Matias Yusay, respondents.

Miguel Gonzales, Norberto L. Martinez and Danilo B. Beramo for petitioner in G.R.
No. 113454.
Delfin B. Samson for petitioner in G.R. No. 109568.
Ramon Gonzales for respondent.

SYNOPSIS

The issue of the case is the constitutionality of PD No. 27 and the validity of its
related laws. The Court ruled in the a rmative to all of them. PD No. 27 is the
emancipation of tenants from the bondage of soil, transferring to them the ownership of
the land they till. Pursuant thereto, the DAR issued Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of
1978 to make certain that the lease rental payment made by the tenant-farmer is applied
to the amortizations on the purchase price of the land. PD No. 816, on the other hand,
provides that the tenant-farmer (agricultural lessee) shall pay lease rental to the landowner
until the value of the property has been determined or agreed upon by the landowner and
the DAR. This is not in con ict with Circular No. 6, which mandates that the tenant-farmer
shall pay the LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been determined. The
validity of PD No. 27 has also been repeatedly emphasized by the Court in a number of
cases; It does not set limitations on the judicial prerogative of determining just
compensation and neither does RA 6657 repeal or supersede PD 27. STHDAc

SYLLABUS

1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; PD NO. 27; MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR

NO. 6 ISSUED BY THE DAR PURSUANT THERETO. — Presidential Decree No. 27 , issued on
October 21, 1972 by then Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos, proclaimed the entire country as a
"land reform area" and decreed the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil,
transferring to them the ownership of the land they till. To achieve its purpose, the decree
laid down a system for the purchase by tenant-farmers, long-recognized as the backbone
of the economy, of the lands they were tilling. Owners of rice and corn lands that exceeded
the minimum retention area were bound to sell their lands to quali ed farmers at liberal
terms and subject to conditions. It was pursuant to said decree that the DAR issued
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Memorandum Circular No. 6, series of 1978.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; VALID AS SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION. — The power of
subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to implement the broad policies laid
down in a statute by " lling in" the details. All that is required is that the regulation should
be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; that the regulation be not in
contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law. One such
administrative regulation is DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6. As emphasized in De Chavez
v. Zobel, emancipation is the goal of P.D. 27., i.e., freedom from the bondage of the soil by
transferring to the tenant-farmers the ownership of the land they're tilling. As noted,
however, in the whereas clauses of the Circular, problems have been encountered in the
expeditious implementation of the land reform program, thus necessitating its
promulgation. The rationale for the Circular was explicitly recognized by the appellate
court when it stated that "(T)he main purpose of the circular is to make certain that the
lease rental payments of the tenant-farmer are applied to his amortizations on the
purchase price of the land. . . . The circular was meant to remedy the situation where the
tenant-farmer's lease rentals to landowner were not credited in his favor against the
determined purchase price of the land, thus making him a perpetual obligor for said
purchase price." Since the assailed Circular essentially sought to accomplish the noble
purpose of P.D. 27, it is therefore valid. Such being the case, it has the force of law and is
entitled to great respect. EcDTIH

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NO "NO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT" WITH PD 816. — The Court
cannot see any "irreconcilable con ict" between P.D. No. 816 and DAR Memorandum
Circular No. 6. Enacted in 1975, P.D. No. 816 provides that the tenant-farmer (agricultural
lessee) shall pay lease rentals to the landowner until the value of the property has been
determined or agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR. On the other hand, DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 6, implemented in 1978, mandates that the tenant-farmer shall
pay to LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been determined. In Curso v.
Court of Appeals, involving the same Circular and P.D. 816, it was categorically ruled that
there is no incompatibility between these two. Both Memorandum Circular No. 6 and P.D.
816 were issued pursuant to and in implementation of P.D. 27. These must not be read in
isolation, but rather, in conjunction with each other. Under P.D. 816, rental payments shall
be made to the landowner. After the value of the land has been determined/established,
then the tenant-farmers shall pay their amortizations to the LBP, as provided in DAR
Circular No. 6. Clearly, there is no inconsistency between them. Au contraire, P.D. 816 and
DAR Circular No. 6 supplement each other insofar as it sets the guidelines for the
payments of lease rentals on the agricultural property.
4. ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONALITY, UPHELD. — That P.D. 27 does not suffer any
constitutional in rmity is a judicial fact that has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court
in a number of cases. As early as 1974, in the aforecited case of De Chavez v. Zobel , P.D.
27 was assumed to be constitutional, and upheld as part and parcel of the law of the land.
Thereafter, in Gonzales v. Estrella , which incidentally involves private respondent and
counsel in the case at bench, the Court emphatically declared that "Presidential Decree No.
27 has survived the test of constitutionality." Then, in 1982, P.D. 27, once again, was
stamped with judicial imprimatur in Association of Rice & Corn Producers of the
Philippines, Inc. v. The National Land Reform Council . Further, in Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform , involving the
constitutionality of P.D. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and R.A. 6657, any other assault on the
validity of P.D. 27 was ultimately foreclosed when it was declared therein that "R.A. No.
6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are SUSTAINED against all the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 constitutional objections raised in the herein petition."
5. ID.; ID.; THAT IT SETS LIMITATIONS ON THE JUDICIAL PREROGATIVE OF
DETERMINING JUST COMPENSATION IS BEREFT OF MERIT. — The objection that P.D. 27
is unconstitutional as it sets limitations on the judicial prerogative of determining just
compensation is bereft of merit. P.D. 27 provides: "For the purpose of determining the
cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of
the land shall be equivalent to two and one half (2 1/2) times the average harvest of three
normal crop years immediately preceding the promulgation of this Decree;" Also, the
determination of just compensation under P.D. No. 27, like in Section 16 (d) of R.A. 6657 or
the CARP Law, is not nal or conclusive. Under Section 2 of E.O. 228, unless both the
landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the valuation of the property by the Barrio
Committee on Land Production and the DAR, the parties may bring the dispute to court in
order to determine the appropriate amount of compensation, a task unmistakably within
the prerogative of the court.
6. ID.; ID.; IN RELATION TO RA 6657 (CARP LAW). — The Court need not belabor
the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers
all public and private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain suitable
for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; while,
P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides for the
mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, speci cally states: "
(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to rice
and corn lands, covered thereunder. . . ." It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657 did
not repeal or supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D. 27 that are
not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter, and all rights acquired by
the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained even with the passage of R.A. 6657. ECaAHS

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ , J : p

In a not-so-novel attempt to challenge the long-settled constitutionality of

Presidential Decree No. 27, private respondent Lilia Y. Gonzales, as co-administratrix of the
Estate of Matias Yusay, led with the Court of Appeals on September 15, 1992, a petition
for prohibition and mandamus docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 28906 , seeking to prohibit the
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from accepting the leasehold rentals from Ernesto
Sigre (predecessor of petitioner Rolando Sigre), and for LBP to turn over to private
respondent the rentals previously remitted to it by Sigre. It appears that Ernesto Sigre was
private respondent's tenant in an irrigated rice land located in Barangay Naga, Pototan,
Iloilo. He was previously paying private respondent a lease rental of sixteen (16) cavans
per crop or thirty-two (32) cavans per agricultural year. In the agricultural year of 1991-
1992, Sigre stopped paying his rentals to private respondent and instead, remitted it to the
LBP pursuant to the Department of Agrarian Reform's Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series
of 1978, which set the guidelines in the payment of lease rental/partial payment by farmer-
bene ciaries under the land transfer program of P.D. No. 27. The pertinent provision of the
DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6 reads:
"A. Where the value of the land has already been established.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 "The value of the land is established on the date the Secretary or his
authorized representative has nally approved the average gross production data
established by the BCLP or upon the signing of the LTPA by landowners and
tenant farmers concerned heretofore authorized.

"Payment of lease rentals to landowners covered by OLT shall terminate

on the date the value of the land is established. Thereafter, the tenant-farmers
shall pay their lease rentals/amortizations to the LBP or its authorized agents:
provided that in case where the value of the land is established during the month
the crop is to be harvested, the cut-off period shall take effect on the next harvest
season. With respect to cases where lease rentals paid may exceed the value of
the land, the tenant-farmers may no longer be bound to pay such rental, but it
shall be his duty to notify the landowner and the DAR Team Leader concerned of
such fact who shall ascertain immediately the veracity of the information and
thereafter resolve the matter expeditiously as possible. If the landowner shall
insist after positive ascertainment that the tenant-farmer is to pay rentals to him,
the amount equivalent to the rental insisted to be paid shall be deposited by the
tenant-farmer with the LBP or its authorized agent in his name and for his
account to be withdrawn only upon proper written authorization of the DAR
District O cer based on the result of ascertainment or investigation." 1 (Italics
ours)

According to private respondent, she had no notice that the DAR had already xed the
3-year production prior to October 1972 at an average of 119.32 cavans per hectare, 2
and the value of the land was pegged at Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred Five Pesos
and Sixty-Seven Centavos (P13,405.67). 3 Thus, the petition led before the Court of
Appeals, assailing, not only the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 6, but also the
constitutionality of P.D. 27.
The appellate court, in its decision dated March 22, 1993, gave due course to the
petition and declared Memorandum Circular No. 6 null and void. 4 The LBP was directed to
return to private respondent the lease rentals paid by Sigre, while Sigre was directed to pay
the rentals directly to private respondent. 5 In declaring Memorandum Circular No. 6 as null
and void, the appellate court ruled that there is nothing in P.D. 27 which sanctions the
contested provision of the circular; 6 that said circular is in con ict with P.D. 816 which
provides that payments of lease rentals shall be made to the landowner, and the latter,
being a statute, must prevail over the circular; 7 that P.D. 27 is unconstitutional in laying
down the formula for determining the cost of the land as it sets limitations on the judicial
prerogative of determining just compensation; 8 and that it is no longer applicable, with the
enactment of Republic Act No. 6657. 9
Hence, this present recourse, which is a consolidation of the separate petitions for
review led by Rolando Sigre (who substituted his predecessor Ernesto Sigre), docketed
as G.R. No. 109568 and the LBP, docketed as G.R. No. 113454.
Petitioner Sigre, in G.R. No. 109568, alleges that:
"I
"PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN RULING THAT DAR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 6, SERIES OF
1978 RUNS COUNTER TO PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 816.
"II

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 "PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT DAR MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR
NO. 6, SERIES OF 1978 AMENDS OR EXPANDS PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27.
"III

"PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT PROVISION OF PRESIDENTIAL

DECREE NO. 27 ON THE FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE COST OF THE LAND
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
"IV

"PUBLIC RESPONDENT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE PROVISION OF

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27 ON FIXING THE JUST COMPENSATION OF THE
LAND HAS BEEN REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657." 1 0

Petitioner LBP, in G.R. No. 113454, claims that:

"A

"THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT MAR

CIRCULAR NO. 6 IS A VALID PIECE OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND
REGULATIONS COVERING A SUBJECT GERMANE TO THE OBJECTS AND
PURPOSES OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27, CONFORMING TO THE
STANDARDS OF SAID LAW AND RELATING SOLELY TO CARRYING INTO EFFECT
THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF SAID LAW.
"B

"THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT MAR CIRCULAR

NO. 6 IS INVALID IN THAT IT SUFFERS 'IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT' WITH
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 816, THUS GROSSLY DISREGARDING THE
APPLICABLE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE IS NO
'INCONSISTENCY OR INCOMPATIBILITY' BETWEEN MAR CIRCULAR NO. 6 AND
P.D. 816.

"C
"THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT P.D. 27, INSOFAR
AS IT SETS FORT ( sic) THE FORMULA FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE
RICE/CORN LAND, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THUS GROSSLY DISREGARDING
THE EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE THAT CONSISTENTLY RULED THAT P.D. 27 IS
SUSTAINED AGAINST ALL CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST IT.
"D

"THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT P.D. 27 HAS BEEN
IMPLIEDLY REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657." 1 1

Presidential Decree No. 27, 1 2 issued on October 21, 1972 by then Pres. Ferdinand
E. Marcos, proclaimed the entire country as a "land reform area" and decreed the
emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership
of the land they till. To achieve its purpose, the decree laid down a system for the purchase
by tenant-farmers, long recognized as the backbone of the economy, of the lands they
were tilling. Owners of rice and corn lands that exceeded the minimum retention area were
bound to sell their lands to quali ed farmers at liberal terms and subject to conditions. 1 3
It was pursuant to said decree that the DAR issued Memorandum Circular No. 6, series of
1978.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The Court of Appeals held that P.D. No. 27 does not sanction said Circular,
particularly, the provision stating that payment of lease rentals to landowners shall
terminate on the date the value of the land is established, after which the tenant-farmer
shall pay their lease rentals/amortizations to the LBP or its authorized agents.
We disagree. The power of subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to
implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by " lling in" the details. All that is
required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law;
that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards
prescribed by the law. 1 4 One such administrative regulation is DAR Memorandum Circular
No. 6. As emphasized in De Chavez v. Zobel , 1 5 emancipation is the goal of P.D. 27., i.e.,
freedom from the bondage of the soil by transferring to the tenant-farmers the ownership
of the land they're tilling. As noted, however, in the whereas clauses of the Circular,
problems have been encountered in the expeditious implementation of the land reform
program, thus necessitating its promulgation, viz.:
"1. Continued payment of lease rentals directly to landowners by
tenant-farmers may result to situations wherein payments made may even exceed
the actual value of the land. . .
"2. There is di culty in recording lease rental payments made by
tenant-farmers to landowners speci cally in cases where landowners concerned
refuse to issue acknowledgment/official receipts for payments made;
"3. Payments made by tenant-farmers to landowners after the
establishment of Farmer Amortization Schedule (FAS) through the National
Computer Center were found to be ineffectively captured or accounted for. . . .
"4. The prolonged disagreement between parties concerned on the
total payments made by the tenant-farmers has delayed program
implementations."

The rationale for the Circular was, in fact, explicitly recognized by the appellate court
when it stated that "(T)he main purpose of the circular is to make certain that the lease
rental payments of the tenant-farmer are applied to his amortizations on the purchase
price of the land. . . . The circular was meant to remedy the situation where the tenant-
farmer's lease rentals to landowner were not credited in his favor against the
determined purchase price of the land, thus making him a perpetual obligor for said
purchase price." 1 6 Since the assailed Circular essentially sought to accomplish the
noble purpose of P.D. 27, it is therefore valid. 1 7 Such being the case, it has the force of
law and is entitled to great respect. 1 8
The Court cannot see any "irreconcilable con ict" between P.D. No. 816 1 9 and DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 6. Enacted in 1975, P.D. No. 816 provides that the tenant-
farmer (agricultural lessee) shall pay lease rentals to the landowner until the value of the
property has been determined or agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR. On the other
hand, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 6, implemented in 1978, mandates that the tenant-
farmer shall pay to LBP the lease rental after the value of the land has been determined.
I n Curso v. Court of Appeals , 2 0 involving the same Circular and P.D. 816, it was
categorically ruled that there is no incompatibility between these two. Thus:
"Actually, we nd no inconsistency nor incompatibility between them. Of
significance are the two 'whereas' clauses of P.D. 816 quoted hereunder:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, under P.D. No. 816, rentals are to be paid to the landowner by the
agricultural lessee until and after the valuation of the property shall have been
determined.
In the same vein, the MAR Circular provides:
xxx xxx xxx

In other words, the MAR Circular merely provides guidelines in the payment
of lease rentals/amortizations in implementation of P.D. 816. Under both P.D.
816 and the MAR Circular, payment of lease rentals shall terminate on the date
the value of the land is established. Thereafter, the tenant farmers shall pay
amortizations to the Land Bank (LBP). The rentals previously paid are to be
credited as partial payment of the land transferred to tenant-farmers." 2 1

Private respondent, however, "splits hairs," so to speak, and contends that the Curso
case is premised on the assumption that the Circular implements P.D. 816, whereas it is
expressly stated in the Circular that it was issued in implementation of P.D. 27. 2 2 Both
Memorandum Circular No. 6 and P.D. 816 were issued pursuant to and in implementation
of P.D. 27. These must not be read in isolation, but rather, in conjunction with each other.
Under P.D. 816, rental payments shall be made to the landowner. After the value of the land
has been determined/established, then the tenant-farmers shall pay their amortizations to
the LBP, as provided in DAR Circular No. 6. 2 3 Clearly, there is no inconsistency between
them. Au contraire, P.D. 816 and DAR Circular No. 6 supplement each other insofar as it
sets the guidelines for the payments of lease rentals on the agricultural property.
Further, that P.D. 27 does not suffer any constitutional in rmity is a judicial fact that
has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court in a number of cases. As early as 1974, in
the aforecited case of De Chavez v. Zobel , 2 4 P.D. 27 was assumed to be constitutional,
and upheld as part and parcel of the law of the land, viz.:
"There is no doubt then, as set forth expressly therein, that the goal is
emancipation. What is more, the decree is now part and parcel of the law of the
land according to the revised Constitution itself. Ejectment therefore of petitioners
is simply out of the question. That would be to set at naught an express mandate
of the Constitution. Once it has spoken, our duty is clear; obedience is
unavoidable. This is not only so because of the cardinal postulate of
constitutionalism, the supremacy of the fundamental law. It is also because any
other approach would run the risk of setting at naught this basic aspiration to do
away with all remnants of a feudalistic order at war with the promise and the
hope associated with an open society. To deprive petitioners of the small
landholdings in the face of a presidential decree considered rati ed by the new
Constitution and precisely in accordance with its avowed objective could indeed
be contributory to perpetuating the misery that tenancy had spawned in the past
as well as the grave social problems thereby created. There can be no justification
for any other decision then whether predicated on a juridical norm or on the
traditional role assigned to the judiciary of implementing and not thwarting
fundamental policy goals." 2 5

Thereafter, in Gonzales v. Estrella , 2 6 which incidentally involves private respondent

and counsel in the case at bench, the Court emphatically declared that "Presidential Decree
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 No. 27 has survived the test of constitutionality." 2 7
Then, in 1982, P.D. 27, once again, was stamped with judicial imprimatur in
Association of Rice & Corn Producers of the Philippines, Inc. v. The National Land Reform
Council, 2 8 to wit:
". . . If as pointed out in the opening paragraph, the validity of Presidential
Decree No. 27 was assumed as early as 1974, on the rst anniversary of the
present constitution, in De Chavez v. Zobel and speci cally upheld in Gonzales v.
Estrella ve years later, there cannot be any justi cation for holding that it is
unconstitutional on its face without any factual foundation." 2 9

Further, in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of

Agrarian Reform, 3 0 involving the constitutionality of P.D. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 3 1 and 229,
3 2 and R.A. 6657, 3 3 any other assault on the validity of P.D. 27 was ultimately
foreclosed when it was declared therein that "R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131,
and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections
raised in the herein petition." 3 4
The objection that P.D. 27 is unconstitutional as it sets limitations on the judicial
prerogative of determining just compensation is bereft of merit. P.D. 27 provides:
"For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the
tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land shall be equivalent to
two and one half (2 1/2) times the average harvest of three normal crop years
immediately preceding the promulgation of this Decree;"

E.O. 228 supplemented such provision, viz.:

"SEC. 2. Henceforth, the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by
P.D. 27 shall be based on the average gross production determined by the
Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with Department
Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and related issuances and
regulation of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The average gross production
per hectare shall be multiplied by two and a half (2.5), the product of which shall
be multiplied by Thirty Five Pesos (P35.00), the government support price for one
cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October 21, 1972, or Thirty One Pesos (P31.00), the
government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn on October 21, 1972,
and the amount arrived at shall be the value of the rice and corn land, as the case
may be, for the purpose of determining its cost to the farmer and compensation
to the landowner."

The determination of just compensation under P.D. No. 27, like in Section 16 (d) of R.A.
6657 or the CARP Law, is not nal or conclusive. 3 5 This is evident from the succeeding
paragraph of Section 2 of E.O. 228:
". . . In the event of dispute with the landowner regarding the amount of
lease rental paid by the farmer bene ciary, the Department of Agrarian Reform
and the Barangay Committee on Land Production concerned shall resolve the
dispute within thirty (30) days from its submission pursuant to Department of
Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973, and other pertinent
issuances. In the event a party questions in court the resolution of the dispute, the
landowner's compensation shall still be processed for payment and the proceeds
shall be held in trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank in accordance
with the provisions of Section 5 hereof, pending the resolution of the dispute
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 before the court."

Clearly therefrom, unless both the landowner and the tenant-farmer accept the
valuation of the property by the Barrio Committee on Land Production and the DAR, the
parties may bring the dispute to court in order to determine the appropriate amount of
compensation, a task unmistakably within the prerogative of the court. caIDSH

Finally, the Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates
distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and private agricultural land including
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation
No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; 3 6 while, P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands. On this
score, E.O. 229, which provides for the mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, speci cally states: "(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to
operate with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. . . 3 7 It cannot be gainsaid,
therefore, that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever
provisions of P.D. 27 that are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the
latter, 3 8 and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained even with
the passage of R.A. 6657. 3 9
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions led by Rolando Sigre and the Land Bank of
the Philippines are hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE and the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 28906 is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, J., took no part.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 28906, pp. 25-26, Annex "C".
2. Ibid., p. 23, Annex "A".
3. Ibid., p. 24, Annex "B".
4. Ibid., p. 80.
5. Ibid., p. 92.
6. Ibid., pp. 86-87.
7. Ibid., p. 88.
8. Ibid., pp. 89-90.
9. Ibid., p. 92.
10. Rollo, G.R. No. 109568, p. 4.
11. Rollo, G.R. 113454, pp. 9-10.
12. Entitled, "Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil
Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land they Till and Providing the Instruments
and Mechanism therefore."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 13. Pagtalunan v. Tamayo, 183 SCRA 252, 258 [1990].
14. The Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. vs. POEA, 243 SCRA 666, 675
[1995].
15. 55 SCRA 26 [1974].
16. Rollo, CA-G.R. SP No. 28906, pp. 87-88.
17. Grego vs. Commission on Elections, 274 SCRA 481, 498 [1997].
18. Vinzons-Magana vs. Estrella, 201 SCRA 536, 540 [1991].
19. Presidential Decree No. 816 entitled, "Providing that Tenant-Farmers/Agricultural
Lessees Shall Pay the Leasehold Rentals When They Fall Due and Providing Penalties
Therefor," issued on October 21, 1975.
20. 128 SCRA 567 [1984].

21. Ibid., pp. 573-574.

22. Rollo, pp. 178-179; Memorandum, pp. 4-5.
23. Supra., Curso vs. Court of Appeals; see also P.D. 816 and DAR Memorandum Circular
No. 6.
24. 55 SCRA 26 [1974]
25. Ibid., p. 31.
26. 91 SCRA 294 [1979].

27. Ibid., p. 295.

28. 113 SCRA 798 [1982].
29. Ibid., p. 801.
30. 175 SCRA 343 [1989]

31. Issued on July 17, 1987, entitled "Declaring Full Land Ownership to Qualified Farmer
Beneficiaries Covered by Presidential Decree No. 27; Determining the Value of Remaining
Unvalued Rice and Corn Lands Subject of P.D. 27; and Providing for the Manner of
Payment by the Farmer Beneficiary and Mode of Compensation to the Landowner."
32. Issued on July 22, 1987, entitled "Providing the Mechanisms for the Implementation of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."
33. Signed into law on June 10, 1988, entitled "An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program to Promote Social Justice and Industrialization; Providing the
Mechanism for its Implementation, and For Other Purposes."
34. Supra., note no. 19, p. 393.
35. Vinzons case, note 18, p. 541; Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc.
case, note 30, p. 382.

36. Section 2 of R.A. 6657.

37. Section 27 of E.O. 229.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 38. Section 75 of R.A. 6657.
39. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. case, note 30, p. 391.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com