Lecture in AGRARIAN LAW

PART IV

13. Q: State the Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands under RA 6657.
A: The procedure for acquisition of private lands under RA 6657 are as follows:
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall
send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or
registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building
and barangay hall of the place where the property is located.
Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in
accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent
provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall
inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after
he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders
the Certificate of Title and other monuments of title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring
the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After
the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The
DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible
bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land
and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter
proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper
jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
 
14. Q: What are the incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales?
A: Landowners, other than banks and other financial institutions, who voluntarily offer
their lands for saleshall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment.

15. Q: What is the basis of land reform program of the government?

A: The legal basis of land reform program is Sec 4 Art XIII of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution which provides that “(t)he State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, 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 State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just

1
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.”
16. Q: How to determine just compensation for lands acquired under the land
reform program of the government?
A: Sec 17 of RA 6657 provides that “(i)n determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the value of the standing crop, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
declarations, the assessment made by government assessors, and seventy percent
(70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a
basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final decision of the proper
court. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers as well as the
nonpayment of taxes of loans secured from any government financing institution on the
said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.”

In the case of Hacienda Luisita v Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) 1,

the Supreme Court held that In July 5, 2011 Decision (Hacienda Lusita v PARC GR No.
171101), the Supreme Court held that the grant on special agrarian court (SACs) of
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners will not preclude the Court from ruling upon a matter that
may already be resolved based on the records before the Court. Even though the
compensation due to HLI will still be preliminarily determined by DAR and LBP, subject
to review by the RTC acting as a SAC, the fact that the reckoning point of taking is
already fixed at a certain date should already hasten the proceedings and not further
cause undue hardship on the parties, especially the qualified FWBs. By a vote of 8-6,
the Court affirmed its ruling that the date of taking in determining just compensation is
November 21, 1989 when PARC approved HLI’s stock option plan. As regards the issue
of interest on just compensation, the Court also leave this matter to the DAR and the
LBP, subject to review by the RTC acting as a SAC. On the payment of just
compensation for the homelots to HLI, the Court, by unanimous vote, resolved to
amend its July 5, 2011 Decision and November 22, 2011 Resolution by ordering the
government, through the DAR, to pay to HLI the just compensation for the 240 sqm
homelots thus distributed to the FWBs. The time of taking is the time when the
landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is
transferred to the Republic. It should be noted, however, that taking does not only take
place upon the issuance of title either in the name of the Republic or the beneficiaries of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Taking also occurs when
agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for
CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme, as in the instant case. Thus, HLI
submitting its SDP for approval is an acknowledgment on its part that the agricultural
lands of Hacienda Luisita are covered by CARP. However, it was the PARC approval
which should be considered as the effective date of taking as it was only during
this time that the government officially confirmed the CARP coverage of these
lands. Indeed, stock distribution option and compulsory land acquisition are two
(2) different modalities under the agrarian reform program. Nonetheless, both share
the same end goal, that is, to have a more equitable distribution and ownership of land,
with due regard to the rights of landowners to just compensation. Because due regard is
given to the rights of landowners to just compensation, the law on stock distribution
option acknowledges that landowners can require payment for the shares of stock
corresponding to the value of the agricultural lands in relation to the outstanding capital
stock of the corporation. HLI postulates that just compensation is a question of fact
that should be left to the determination by the DAR, Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) or even the special agrarian court (SAC). As a matter of fact, the Court, in its
November 22, 2011 Resolution, dispositively ordered the DAR and the LBP to
determine the compensation due to HLI. And as indicated in the body of said
Resolution: The fact that Sec. 31 of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) gives corporate
landowners the option to give qualified beneficiaries the right to avail of a stock
1
G.R. No. 171101, April 24, 2012

2
distribution or, in the phraseology of the law, the right to purchase such proportion of the
capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural
activities, bears in relation to the company’s total assets, does not detract from the
avowed policy of the agrarian reform law of equitably distributing ownership of land. The
difference lies in the fact that instead of actually distributing the agricultural lands to the
farmer beneficiaries, these lands are held by the corporation as part of the capital
contribution of the farmer beneficiaries, not of the landowners, under the stock
distribution scheme. The end goal of equitably distributing ownership of land is,
therefore, undeniable. And since it is only upon the approval of the SDP that the
agricultural lands actually came under CARP coverage, such approval operates and
takes the place of a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition.
The foregoing notwithstanding, it bears stressing that the DAR’s land valuation is only
preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner. The
landowner can file an original action with the RTC acting as a special agrarian court to
determine just compensation. The court has the right to review with finality the
determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.

17. Q: How shall redistribution of land be made under the agrarian reform
program?

A: Section 22 provides that “the lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as
much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence
thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) Agricultural lessees and share tenants; (Kasaka)
(b) regular farm workers;
(c) seasonal farm workers;
(d) other farm workers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, that the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of
this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents; and:
Provided, further, that actual tenant - tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or
removed therefrom.

18. Q: What are the effects of abandonment of lands distributed by the

government under the agrarian reform program?
A: Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed
of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under their
program.

A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude and ability

to cultivate and make land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of
monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty
of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right
to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the
performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC. If, due to landowner's retention rights or
to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to
accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands
available for distribution under this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries. Farmers
already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned
lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.

19. Q: What is the manner of payment of the purchase price under the agrarian
reform program?
A: Section 26 of RA 6657 provides that “(l)ands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be
paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent

3
(6%) interest per annum. The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may
be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC : Provided, That the first five (5)
annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual
gross production is paid as established by the DAR. Should the scheduled annual
payments after the fifth year exceed ten percent (10) of 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 obligation to make the payment
affordable. The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to
beneficiary and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an
aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the DAR of such
proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other
qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land as provided herein has been
foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary
under this Act.”

20. Q: May the land awarded under the agrarian reform program be sold,
transferred or conveyed to other persons?
A: Section 27 provides that “(l)ands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be
sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the
government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries 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. Due notice of the 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 Agrarian Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), as herein
provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC. If the land has not yet
been fully paid by the beneficiary, the right to the land may be transferred or conveyed,
with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary
who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself.
Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give
due notice of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the immediately
preceding paragraph. In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall
compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the latter has already
paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the land.”

21. Q: What are the modes of land acquisitions?

A: Under Section 31 of CARL, there are two schemes available to corporate
landowners, namely: a. Voluntary land transfer; and b. Stock Distribution

Both schemes, however, are no longer operative. Section 7 of CARL, as amended by

RA 9700, allowed voluntary land distribution only up to June 30, 2009.

After June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition are limited to:
a. voluntary to sell and
b. compulsory acquisition.

Thus: “Section 7.Priorities – x xx after June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition
shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition;”

22. Q: May agricultural lands be converted for some other uses?

A: Section 65 provides that “(a)fter the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the
land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the
locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for
residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the
beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to
existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its
disposition: provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.

4
Cases for study:

1. Whether DAR AO No. 01-02 is violative of Sec. 65 of RA 6657 by requiring

clearance first from DAR those reclassified private lands on or after June 15,
1988
The answer is in the negative. In the case of CREBA v. Sec. of Agrarian
Reforms2, the Supreme Court held that DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended was not in
violation of Sec. 65 of RA 6657.

DAR AO No. 01-02 which covers all applications for conversion from agricultural
to nonagricultural uses or to another agricultural use, this particular issuance requires
clearance first from DAR all reclassification of a private land as a residential,
commercial or industrial property, on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on
15 June 1988. Petitioner contends that DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, was made in
violation of Section 65[11] of Republic Act No. 6657 because it covers all applications
for conversion from agricultural to nonagricultural uses or to other agricultural uses,
such as the conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the
LGUs or by way of Presidential Proclamations, to residential, commercial, industrial or
other non-agricultural uses on or after 15 June 1988. According to petitioner, there is
nothing in Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657 or in any other provision of law that
confers to the DAR the jurisdiction or authority to require that non-awarded lands or
reclassified lands be submitted to its conversion authority. Thus, in issuing and
enforcing DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The argument of the petitioner that DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, was made
in violation of Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as it covers even those non-
awarded lands and reclassified lands by the LGUs or by way of Presidential
Proclamations on or after 15 June 1988 is specious. To suggest, however, that these
are the only instances that the DAR can require conversion clearances would open a
loophole in Republic Act No. 6657 which every landowner may use to evade
compliance with the agrarian reform program. It should logically follow, therefore, from
the said department's express duty and function to execute and enforce the said statute
that any reclassification of a private land as a residential, commercial or industrial
property, on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 should
first be cleared by the DAR. Conversion and reclassification are different Conversion
and reclassification differ from each other. Conversion is the act of changing the current
use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR while
reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as embodied in the
land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for land use conversion. In
view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically allow
a landowner to change its use. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he
is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes. Any reclassification,
therefore, of agricultural lands to residential, commercial, industrial or other
nonagricultural uses either by the LGUs or by way of Presidential Proclamations
enacted on or after 15 June 1988 must undergo the process of conversion, despite
having undergone reclassification, before agricultural lands may be used for other
purposes. Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact that DAR's conversion
authority can only be exercised after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June

2
G.R. 183409 June 18, 2010

5
1988. The said date served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification or
rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer require any DAR conversion clearance or
authority. Thereafter, reclassification of agricultural lands is already subject to DAR's
conversion authority. Reclassification alone will not suffice to use the agricultural lands
for other purposes. Conversion is needed to change the current use of reclassified
agricultural lands.

2. Sta. Rosa Realty v. CA G.R. 112526, October 12, 2001

Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP considering that it forms
part of a watershed area and has slopes of 18% and over, and whether the required
procedural due process are complied with.
Ruling: There was proof showing that the disputed parcels of land may be excluded
from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes. In
addition, Payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the procedural
requirement. The law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by trust accounts as
was done by DAR, otherwise, the title shall still to be considered of the landowner
Rationale: First, under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of
private land, Compulsory and Voluntary. For a valid implementation of the CARP
Program, two notices are required: (1) the notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a
preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representative of the BARC, LBP,
farmer-beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, series of
1989; and (2) the notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the
CARL. The importance of the first notice, that is, the notice of coverage and the letter of
invitation to a conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps
designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The
implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of
eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the
landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in
accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners
are deprived of lands they own in excess pg. 73 of the maximum area allowed, there is
also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a
mere limitation on the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to
and physical possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in
favor of the farmerbeneficiary. Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a
river and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from
adjacent watersheds." Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why
was the Casile property titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time
of the titling, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources had not declared
the property as watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared
as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as
certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued Resolution 26 voiding the Zoning
classification of the lands at Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land was
now classified as agricultural land. More than the classification of the subject land as
PARK is the fact that subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in
question form a vital part of a watershed area. The definition does not exactly depict the
complexities of a watershed. The most important product of a watershed is water which
is one of the most important human necessity. The protection of watersheds ensures an
adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not
only damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an
"intergenerational responsibility" that needs to be answered now.

3. Fortich v. Corona G.R. No. 131457 April 24, 1998

Whether the final and executory Decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be
substantially modified by the "Win-Win" Resolution.

6
 Ruling: Assailed "Win-Win" Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of
March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void. Such void resolution, as aptly
stressed by Justice Thomas A. Street 62 in a 1918 case, 63 is "a lawless thing, which
can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it
exhibits its head." Rationale: The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office
of the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section
7 thereof provides: "SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President
shall, except as otherwise provided for by special laws, become final after the lapse of
fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless a motion for
reconsideration thereof is filed within such period. "Only one motion for reconsideration
by any one party shall be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious
cases." (Emphasis ours) When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June
23, 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has
seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its
jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction,
the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for
reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion became the
basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18
and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one (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 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 the first motion for
reconsideration was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the Decision of March 29,
1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the
case and substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already
become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept
that accord finality to administrative determinations. pg. 76 The orderly administration of
justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must
reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to
write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice
system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and
adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of
adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down.

23. Q: Which agency of the government has the authority to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters. What is the extent of the authority of the
DAR?
A: Section 50 of the CARP provides that “(t)he DAR is hereby vested with the primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidences - shall
proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious
manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in
accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case.
Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination for every action or proceeding before it. -
has the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require
submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to
interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum, and enforce its writs
through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers.
It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the
same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court -
when there are two or more representatives for any individual or group, the

7
representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent such party or
group before any DAR proceedings.

24. Q: State one of the conditions precedent before DAR may take cognizance of
an agrarian dispute?
A: Section 53 provides that “(t)he DAR shall not take cognizance of any agrarian dispute
or controversy unless a certification from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council
(BARC) that the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation and conciliation without
any success of settlement is presented: provided, however, that if no certification is
issued by the BARC within thirty (30) days after a matter or issue is submitted to it for
mediation or conciliation the case or dispute may be brought before the PARC.
Cases involving jurisdiction:

1. In Rufina Vda. De Tangub v. CA, the Supreme Court held that

“(t)he Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of
jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other
hand, confers "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are
Regional Trial Courts designated by the Supreme Court — at least one (1)
branch within each province — to act as such. These Regional Trial Courts qua
Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Section 57 of the same law, original
and exclusive jurisdiction over: - 1. all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to land-owners," and - 2. the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under . . [the] Act." - In these cases, "(t)he Rules of Court shall apply . . unless
modified by . . . (the) Act."
2. In STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, v.
COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN B. AMANTE ET AL , the Supreme Court held that
SRRDC cannot assail the jurisdiction of the DARAB to determine whether the
property is subject to CARP for the following reasons: [a] it was the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform who actually and initially classified that the subject property is
subject to CARP; [b] it was SRRDC who invoked the DARAB to resolve the issue
whether the subject property is covered by the CARP; and [c] the issue was
raised for the first time before the CA, and was never presented or discussed
before the DARAB.
3. In DAR v. CUENCA, the issuance of the Notice of Coverage
constitutes the first necessary step towards the acquisition of private land under
the CARP. Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice relates to the implementation
of the CARP, which is under the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the
DAR could not be ousted from its authority by the simple expediency of
appending an allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is
clearly agrarian.
4. In CABRAL v. CA, the Court of Appeals has underscored the fact
that Section 13 of E.O. No. 129-A authorizes the DARAB to delegate its powers
and functions to the regional office in accordance with the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Board. The authority purportedly provides additional
justification for the Regional Offices jurisdiction over the case. Precisely,
however, the DARAB, through its Revised Rules, has delegated such powers
and functions to the RARADs and the PARADs, which, under Section 3 of the
Rules, are deemed to form part of the DAR Regional Office where they are
stationed. It is evident from the foregoing that the DAR, like most administrative
agencies, is granted with a fusion of governmental powers, in this case, a
commingling of the quasi-judicial and the executive. The growing complexity of
modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation and the
increased difficulty of administering the laws have impelled this constantly
growing tendency toward such delegation.
5. In ISIDRO v. CA, the Supreme Court held that a case involving an
agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute
upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the land is

8
 agricultural does not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee of
tenant. The law provides for conditions or requisites before he can qualify as one
and the land being agricultural is only one of them. The law states that an
agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over
lands devoted to agriculture. And as previously mentioned, such arrangement
may be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship.
6. In HEIRS OF SANTOS v. CA citing Morta v. Occidental, the
Supreme Court held that for DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must
exist a tenancy relationship between the parties.

In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be

essential to establish all its indispensable elements to wit:
1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee;
and
6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.

7. In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals (191 SCRA 885), we held that the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform is limited to the following:
a) adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform;
b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems; and
c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of
agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and other nonagricultural uses.

8. In LAGUNA ESTATE v. CA, the Supreme Court held that for DARAB to have
jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties.

In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be

essential to establish all its indispensable elements to wit:
1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
3) that there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
4) that the purpose of the relationship is to pg. 80 bring about agricultural
production;
5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee;
and
6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee.
Obviously, the issue of a right of way or easement over private property without
tenancy relations is outside the jurisdiction of the DARAB. This is not an agrarian issue.
Jurisdiction is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.

9. In ALANGILAN REALTY v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, the Supreme Court

held that the exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify landholdings for coverage
under the CARP is reposed in the DAR Secretary. The matter of CARP coverage, like
the instant case for application for exemption, is strictly part of the administrative
implementation of the CARP, a matter well within the competence of the DAR
Secretary. It is well settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally
accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by
substantial evidence. The factual findings of the DAR Secretary, who, by reason of his
official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve
full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified, or
reversed.

9
 10. In CONCHA v. RUBIO, the Supreme Court held that the DARAB cannot
review, much less reverse, the administrative findings of DAR Instead, the DARAB
would do well to defer to DARs expertise when it comes to the identification and
selection of beneficiaries, as it did in Lercana where this Court noted with approval that,
in the dispositive portion of its decision, left to the concerned DAR Offices the
determination of who were or should be agrarian reform beneficiaries

25. Q: What is the mode of appeal from the DARAB Decision under RA 6700?
A: Pursuant to R.A, 6700, as amended, an aggrieved party has the option to appeal the
decision, resolution or order of a DAR Sec. or Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) to the Court of Appeals, within 15 days, through a verified
petition for review.

A petition for review seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court,
tribunal, or officer. When a court, tribunal or officer has jurisdiction over the person and
the subject matter of the dispute, the decision on all other questions arising in the case
is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of
said jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. However, Rule 43 is inapplicable when a
petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is patently illegal and was
issued with grave abuse of discretion and beyond the jurisdiction of DAR

Degree of proof required:

The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on
substantial evidence. Sec. 10 of rule 43 states that the finding of fact of the court or
agency concerned, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on the
court of appeals.
Substantial evidence rules provides that in cases filed before an administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported with
substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
For this purpose, the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are generally
accorded not only respect, but at times even finality, if such findings are supported by
substantial evidence.

Cases:

1. In Joya vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government, 225

SCRA 568 Section 54, the Supreme Court held that any decision, order, award
or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute oron any matter pertaining to the
application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other
pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by
certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from the
receipt of a copy thereof. The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and
conclusive if based on substantial evidence. pg. 81 beyond his statutory
authority, exercising unconstitutional powers, without regard to duty and with
grave abuse of discretion.

26. Q: May the DAR Secretary nullify titles awarded under the CARP?
A: No, Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) are indefeasible as they are
brought under the operation of Torrens Systems. CLOAs and other titles issued under
the agrarian reform program become indefeasible and imprescriptible after one year
from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to conditions,
limitations and qualifications under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the Property
Registration Decree and other pertinent laws.

10
 Nonetheless, the Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform has the exclusive
and original jurisdiction to cancel CLOAs and other title issued under the agrarian
reform program based on the following grounds:
a. Abandonment of land;
b. Neglect or Misuse of Land;
c. Failure to Pay Three (3) Annual Amortizations;
d. Misuse or diversion of Financial and Support Services; and
e. Illegal Conversion of Land

27. Q: What are the prohibited acts under CARP?

A: Section 73 of the CARP provides that the following acts are prohibited:
(a) The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this
Act, of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any
person, natural or juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-
beneficiaries.
(b) The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified beneficiaries
under this Act to avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform
Program.
(c) The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any nonagricultural use
with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to dispossess his
tenant farmers of the land tilled by them.
(d) The willful prevention or obstruction by any person, association or entity of the
implementation of the CARP.
(e) The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the nature of lands outside of urban
centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act. The date
of the registration of the deed of conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to
titled lands and the date of the issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the
property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall be conclusive for
the purpose of this Act.
(f) The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other
usufructuary right over the land he acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to
circumvent the provisions of this Act.

28. Q: Enumerate the five major components of the Agrarian Reform Program?
A: The five major components of Agrarian Reform Program are as follows:

1. Land Tenure Improvement

2. Institutional development
3. Physical development
4. Agricultural development
5. Human Resources development

Assignment:

1. Distinctions between CARP and CARPER

2. Constitutionality of the CARP Law, see case Small Landowners case

11