1. G.R. No.

189162, January 30, 2019

POLO PLANTATION AGRARIAN REFORM MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE (POPARMUCO), REPRESENTED

BY SILANDO GOMEZ AND ELIAS RAMOS, PETITIONER, v. RODOLFO T. INSON, CESO III, AS REGIONAL
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION VII - CEBU CITY, RESPONDE

Respondent Rodolfo T. Inson (Regional Director Inson)'s cognizance of the Petition for
Inclusion/Exclusion of farmer beneficiaries, and his subsequent issuance of the March 12, 2010 Order
disqualifying some members of petitioner Polo Plantation Agrarian Reform Multipurpose Cooperative
(POPARMUCO), were improper. Nonetheless, these acts do not constitute an indirect contempt of court.

For this Court's resolution is a Petition for Contempt 1 filed by POPARMUCO, a duly organized and
registered cooperative of agrarian reform beneficiaries, 2 against Regional Director Inson of the
Department of Agrarian Reform, Region VII, Cebu City. Meanwhile, Polo Coconut's title was canceled in
favor of the Republic of the Philippines. On January 27, 2004, a collective Certificate of Land Ownership
Award, with CLOA No. 00114438, was issued. It was registered on January 30, 2004, under Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-802,10 in favor of POPARMUCO members whom the Department of
Agrarian Reform identified as agrarian reform beneficiaries. 11
Polo Coconut filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari questioning the propriety of
subjecting its property to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. It contended that the City of
Tanjay had already reclassified the area into a mixed residential, commercial, and industrial land. It also
assailed the eligibility of the identified agrarian reform beneficiaries.

the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Polo Coconut. In its September 3, 2008 Decision, this Court
in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo Coconut Plantation Company, Inc.17 reversed the Court of
Appeals Decision On June 30, 2009, 164 alleged regular farmworkers of Polo Coconut (Alcantara, et al.)
filed a Petition for Inclusion as qualified beneficiaries in TCT No. T-802/CLOA No. 00114438 and
Exclusion of those named as beneficiaries therein (Petition for Inclusion/Exclusion). 24 They were
allegedly not informed when the Department of Agrarian Reform conducted the identification and
screening process for potential beneficiaries. 25 They contend that the Certificate of Land Ownership
Award holders were not qualified beneficiaries under Section 22 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law.,hence this case

Issue: W/N the respondent(DAR Secretary is in contempt of the Court for his cease and decease order to
the SC decision on September 3,2003 in relation to the Petiiton for Inclusion/Exclusion filed by Alcantara

Held: The cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the
administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not
agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB. SECTION 50.
Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine
and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

In contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense. Thus, the good faith or lack of it, of the
alleged contemnor is considered. All told, this Court finds no clear and contumacious conduct on the
part of respondent. His acts do not qualify as a willful disobedience to this Court nor a willful disregard
of its authority.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Contempt is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

2. G.R. No. 232863 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner vs. MUNICIPAL

AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER ROMERICO DATOY, Respondent

Facts: Lands foreclosed by the Government Service Insurance System, a government financial institution,
are subject to agrarian reform and are not among the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law's exclusive
list of exemptions and exclusions. The CA affirmed Decision4 and Resolution5 of the Office of the
President, which had sustained Order6 and Resolution7 of Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser C.
Pangandaman (Agrarian Reform Secretary Pangandaman). Agrarian Reform Secretary Pangandaman
denied the Government Service Insurance System's appeal and sustained Orders 9 of Regional Director
Inson of Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office XI. Regional Director Inson denied the
Government Service Insurance System's Petition asking that a piece of agricultural land be excluded
from compulsory agrarian reform coverage. In February 1996, the Metro Davao Agri-Hotel Corporation
obtained a ₱20 million commercial loan from the Government Service Insurance System. This loan was
secured by a mortgage over two (2) parcels of land. As the Metro Davao Agri-Hotel Corporation was
unable to pay its loan obligations, the Government Service Insurance System foreclosed both properties

Issue:W/N the lands foreclosed by government financial institutions" are subject to agrarian reform:

Held; Section 4 of RA 6657 states, "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as
provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public
domain suitable for agriculture." The lands in Archbishop's name are agricultural lands that fall within
the scope of the law, and do not fall under the exemptions. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED

3. [ G.R. No. 152797, September 18, 2019 ]

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PAULINO REYES, DANILO BAON, PACITA D.
VADURIA, JULIE MONTOYA, MERCEDES RAMOS, GERONIMO DERAIN, FELICIANO D. BAON,
PACIFICO DERAIN, EUTERIO SEVILLA, MAMERTO B. ESPINELI, CARMELITA GRAVADOS, AVELINO E.
PASTOR, ANTONIO BUHAY, TIRZO GULFAN, JR., FELIX SOBREMONTE, ERNESTO SOBREMONTE, BEN
PILIIN, PASCUAL V. DISTREZA, JACINTO P. BACALAG, ADELAIDA BAYANI, ELMERT BAYANI, EGLESIA
SOBREMONTE, NICASIO TINAUGISAN, VICENTE VILLALUNA, MEYNARDO VILLALUNA, LEOPOLDO
DE JOYA, LENIE DE JOYA, LIBERATO DE JOYA, CRESENCIANA DE JOYA, FRESCO CATAPANG, ROSITA
CATAPANG, DOMINGO P. LIMBOC, VIRGILIO A. LIMBOC, VICENTE LIMBOC, MARIO H. PERNO,
LAZARITO CABRAL, CARLITO CAPACIA, RESPONDENTS.

Facts: Petitions for Review on Certiorari involving Hacienda Looc in Nasugbu, Batangas. Portions of
the property had previously been awarded to farmer-beneficiaries through Certificates of Land
Ownership Award, but these certificates were canceled on the ground that the lands covered were
excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Petition] assails the Decision[9] and
Resolution[10] of the Court of which affirmed the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board's Decision[11] upholding the cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award previously
granted to farmer-beneficiaries of Hacienda Looc. the farmer-beneficiaries moved for the Petition's
dismissal. The Certificates of Land Ownership Award were canceled based on the waivers allegedly
executed by the farmer-beneficiaries. On December 26, 1996, Department of Agrarian Reform
Regional Director Remigio A. Tabones (Regional Director Tabones) issued an Order  granting Fil-
Estate's Petition and ordering that the 10 lots be excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program. Thus, the affected farmer-beneficiaries appealed before the Agrarian
Reform Secretary.

Issue: W/N there is merit in Fil-Estate's argument that the 10 lots are excluded from the coverage
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

Held;SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this
Act or other agrarian reform laws shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through
hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries
through the DAR for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the children or 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. This Court finds that Agrarian Reform Secretary Garilao did not exceed the
scope of his jurisdiction in issuing the March 25, 1998 Order. The Department of Agrarian Reform,
through its Secretary, has primary jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform, including the investigation of acts that he or she believes are directed toward the
circumvention of the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Here, while the
cancellation proceedings initiated by Manila Southcoast are different from the Petition for exclusion
filed by Fil-estate, Agrarian Reform Secretary Garilao may still probe into the validity of the
cancellation proceedings. This is in view of the powers granted to the Department of Agrarian
Reform under Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. Thus, Agrarian Reform Secretary
Garilao did not err in considering all the controversies surrounding Hacienda Looc, especially since
there were serious allegation raised by the farmer-beneficiaries. The cancellation proceedings were
allegedly based on "waivers which are of dubious veracity. "[187] For instance, in his investigation,
Undersecretary Soliman found that some of the waivers executed by the farmer-beneficiaries were
uniform in phraseology and in format. Some were even allegedly falsified: they were apparently
signed by farmer-beneficiaries who had already died. [188] As a result of the allegation of the farmer-
beneficiaries, Agrarian Reform Secretary Garilao saw the need to create other fact-finding teams to
investigate further.[189] WHEREFORE, the consolidated Petitions are DENIED. The March 26, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 47497,
the February 27, 2009 Decision and August 25, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 60203, and the September 28, 2011 Decision and February 20, 2012

Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111965 are AFFIRMED

4. [ G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000 ] PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DEPT. OF
AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, DAVAO CITY AND LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.

Facts: This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal by
the Regional Trial Court of the petition for judicial determination of the just compensation filed by
petitioner for the taking of its property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Petitioner owned four parcels of land in Tagum, Davao, which are covered by Transfer Certificates.
The lands were taken by the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to landless farmers
pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Dissatisfied with the valuation
of the land made by respondents Land Bank of the Philippines and the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), petitioner filed a petition for a determination of the just
compensation for its property. The petition was filed on January 26, 1994 with the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao, which on February 23, 1995, dismissed the petition on the ground
that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing appeals from the orders of the
DARAB, hence ,this case

Issue; W/N power to decide just compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is
vested in the DARAB and the petition for the fixing of just compensation can be filed beyond the 15-
day period of appeal provided from the decision of the DAR adjudicator.

Held: Petitioner’s contention has no merit.

Section 51 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides: Finality of Determination. - Any case or controversy
before it (DAR) shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for resolution. Only one
(1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Any order, ruling or decision shall be final after the
lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. the DARAB Rules of Procedure
provides:Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just Compensation. - The
decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination and payment of just
compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial
Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice
thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for reconsideration.

6. G.R. No. 218666, April 26, 2017 - HEIRS OF LEONILO P. NUÑEZ, SR., NAMELY, VALENTINA A.
NUÑEZ, FELIX A. NUÑEZ, FELIXITA A. NUÑEZ, LEONILO A. NUÑEZ, JR., MA. ELIZA A. NUÑEZ,
EMMANUEL A. NUÑEZ, ROSE ANNA A. NUÑEZ-DE VERA, AND MA. DIVINA A. NUÑEZ-SERNADILLA,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR CO-HEIR AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ROSE ANNA A. NUÑEZ-DE VERA,
Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF GABINO T. VILLANOZA, REPRESENTED BY BONIFACIO A. VILLANOZA,
Respondents.

Facts: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals Decision
and Resolution,3 which affirmed the Decision of the Office of the President and reinstated the
Order of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Director. Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez
(Sebastian) owned a land4 measuring "more or less" 2.833 hectares (28,333 square meters land
which was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title and was registered to "Leonilo Sebastian . . .
married to Valentina Averia. , Sebastian mortgaged this property to then ComSavings(now GSIS
Family Ban) to secure a loan which matured but the bank did nothing to collect the payment due
at that time. In 1981, tenant-farmer Gabino T. Villanoza (Villanoza) started tilling Sebastian's
land. , about 19 years after the maturity of Sebastian's loan, that GSIS Family Bank extrajudicially
foreclosed his mortgaged properties including the land tenanted by Villanoza. Sebastian's land
title was cancelled and TCT No. NT-271267 was issued in the name of the new owner, GSIS Family
Bank. On November 27, 2000, the Department of Agrarian Reform issued an emancipation patent
or Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA No. 00554664) to Villanoza. Petitioners applied to
retain this land29 although the stated name of their predecessor-in-interest "Leonilo Sebastian," as
found in TCT No. NT-14300330 or "Leonilo Sebastian Nuñez" as found in Nuñez v. GSIS Family Bank,
was different from "Leonilo P. Nuñez" as found in the Sworn Application for Retention. 31

In the Order dated September 2, 2004, the Department of Agrarian Reform Region III Director
Narciso B. Nieto (Regional Director Nieto) denied petitioners' Application for Retention and
ordered the release of Certificate of Land Ownership Award in favor of Villanoza. Regional
Director Nieto ruled that petitioners were not entitled to retain the land under Republic Act No.
6657, as their predecessor-in-interest was not qualified under Presidential Decree No. 27. 32 Thus,
his heirs could not avail themselves of a right which he himself did not have. 33

Issue: W/N petitioners are entitled to retain the land as heirs under RA 6657

Held: No, The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, signed into law by then President
Corazon C., is the government initiative to comply with the constitutional directive to grant
ownership of agricultural lands to landless farmers, agricultural lessees, and farmworkers.Section
6.1 provides that the landowner's "[f]ailure to manifest an intention to exercise his right to retain
within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt of notice of CARP coverage" is a ground for losing his
or her right of retention. While all agrarian reform programs have always accommodated some
forms of retention for the landowner, all rights of retention have always been subject to
conditions. Unfortunately in this case, the landowner has miserably failed to invoke his right at
the right time and in the right moment. The farmer beneficiary should not, in equity, be made to
suffer the landowner's negligence.WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED

7. [ G.R. No. 186432, March 12, 2019 ]

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THE DAR REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, REGION VIII, THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF PROVINCE OF LEYTE,
MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF TABANGO, LEYTE, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LEYTE,
PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF REDEMPTOR AND ELISA ABUCAY, NAMELY: RENA B. ABUCAY, RHEA B.
ABUCAY BEDUYA, RIS B. ABUCAY BUANTE, ELVER B. ABUCAY, REDELISA ABUCAY-AGUSTIN, RHOTA
B. ABUCAY, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT RENA B. ABUCAY, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 186964]

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THE DAR REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, REGION VIII, THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, PROVINCE OF LEYTE,
PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF REDEMPTOR AND ELISA ABUCAY, NAMELY: RENA B. ABUCAY, RHEA B.
ABUCAY BEDUYA, RIS B. ABUCAY-BUANTE, ELVER B. ABUCAY, REDELISA ABUCAY-AGUSTIN,
RHOTA B. ABUCAY, RESPONDENTS.

FactsThis resolves the consolidated[1] Petitions for Review on Certiorari separately filed by the
Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Director ] and the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of
Leyte,[3] both assailing the Court of Appeals Decision [4] and Resolution[5] . The Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside the Decision[6] of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board and
reinstated the Decision[7] of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator for Region VIII, which voided
the emancipation patents issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in this case. On October 14, 1983, the
(Spouses Abucay) purchased[8] a 182-hectare parcel of land from Guadalupe Cabahug. [9] The Deed of
Absolute Sale provided that the property "consists of various classifications, and is untenanted
except for 39.459 hectares, appears to be within the coverage of Operation Land Transfer
.Sometime in 1986, 22.8409 hectares of the lot were declared covered under the Operation Land
Transfer Program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27. [11] Emancipation patents were then issued
to the farmer-beneficiaries.[12] Later, the Register of Deeds issued original certificates of title in their
names. The Heirs of Spouses Abucay alleged that they inherited the 182-hectare property They
claimed that they did not receive any just compensation for the 22 hectares of the property that was
placed under the Operation Land Transfer Program. Thus, they prayed, among others, that they be
paid as just compensation.[16]

Issue: whether or not Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator and the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board have jurisdiction over the Complaint for cancellation of original
certificates of title and emancipation; and whether or not the acquisition proceedings involving the
22-hectare property were void for lack of administrative due process.

Held: the enactment of Republic Act No. 9700, the exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases for
cancellation of registered emancipation patents now belongs to the Department of Agrarian Reform
Secretary. the Complaint filed by respondents involves an agrarian law implementation case,
Regional Adjudicator Diloy had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of it. . The petition for cancellation
shall be filed before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, which would then
undertake the case buildup before forwarding it to the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary for
decision. We leave the issue of the propriety of the coverage to the executive branch for its own
determination. the Petitions for Review on Certiorari are GRANTED.

8. 8. G.R. No. 168787             September 3, 2008

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer

STEPHEN M. LEONIDAS, petitioner,
vs.
POLO COCONUT PLANTATION CO., INC., FLORENCIA D. REMOLLO, NOLI C. ALCANTARA,1 ZOSIMO
BARBA, ROBERT B. BAJANA, EMETERIO V. TAG-AT, JUVENAL T. MENDEZ, 2 SHIELA R. REYES, JONITA
M. CADALLO, PRISCO P. BACO, BENJAMIN C. DAYAP, ANTONIO DEDELES, 3 NARCISO D. DIAZ,
JOVENIANO REYES,4 RODOLFO C. SALVA, AVELINO C. BAJANA, PRAXEDES BAJANA, ALEJANDRO T.
GIMOL, EMELINA B. SEDIGO5 and HERMINIGILDO VILLAFLORES, respondents

In the late 1990s, respondent PCPCI sought to convert 280 hectares of its (Polo estate) in Tanjay,
Negros Oriental into a special economic zone (ecozone) under the Philippine Economic Zone
Authority (PEZA). On December 19, 1998, PEZA issued Resolution favorably recommending the
conversion of the Polo estate into an ecozone 8 subject to certain terms and conditions including the
submission of "all government clearances, endorsements and documents required under Rule IV,
Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act (RA) 7916." PCPCI applied for the
reclassification of its agricultural lands into mixed residential, commercial and industrial lands.
Sometime in 2003, petitioner Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through Provincial Agrarian
Reform Officer notified PCPCI that the Polo estate had been placed under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)10 and would be acquired by the government.,hence this case

Issue: W/N valid the DAR in asserting that the reclassification of the Polo estate under Resolution
as mixed residential, commercial and industrial land did not place it beyond the reach of the CARP.
issuing or causing the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title for this land in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines or causing the issuance of Transfer Certificate of for the said land in the
names of [petitioner-beneficiaries]

Held: Section 3, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure (DARAB Rules) provides:Section 3.
Agrarian Law Implementation Cases. The Adjudicator or Board shall have no jurisdiction over
matters involving the implementation of RA 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other related agrarian laws enunciated by pertinent rules and
administrative orders, which shall be under the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the
Office of the Secretary of the DAR in accordance with his issuances. Section 22 of the CARL does not
limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the landowners. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to have
committed grave abuse of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of
PCPCI. There is merit in these petitions