Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 1
Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
I. R EVOLUTIONARY K IND OF E XPROPRIATION suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary) specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. exception from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. 6657. The Association is comprised of landowners of ricelands and cornlands whose landholdings do not exceed 7 hectares. They The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands invoke that since their landholdings are less than 7 hectares, they whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess should not be forced to distribute their land to their tenants under of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of R.A. 6657 for they themselves have shown willingness to till their expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a particular own land. In short, they want to be exempted from agrarian reform community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire program because they claim to belong to a different class. Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner. Its purpose does not cover only G.R. No. 79777: (Manaay vs Juico) the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the Nicolas Manaay questioned the validity of the agrarian reform laws foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the (PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground that these laws already vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos. valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program and that the specific amount must be determined by the Department of Agrarian Generations yet to come are as involved in this program as we are Reform (DAR). Manaay averred that this violated the principle in today, although hopefully only as beneficiaries of a richer and more eminent domain which provides that only courts can determine just fulfilling life we will guarantee to them tomorrow through our compensation. This, for Manaay, also violated due process for under thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no the constitution, no property shall be taken for public use without less than the Constitution itself that has ordained this revolution in just compensation. the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers of lands Manaay also questioned the provision which states that landowners that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams but can now may be paid for their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash. become the key at least to their deliverance. (Association of Small Manaay averred that just compensation has always been in the form Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian of money and not in bonds. Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, 1989) Issue: Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v Secretary 1. Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, clause. 1989 2. Whether or not there is a violation of due process. 3. Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform Facts: program, must be paid in cash These are four consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (R.A. No. 6657 and Ruling: related laws i.e., Agrarian Land Reform Code or R.A. No. 3844). 1. No. The Association had not shown any proof that they belong to a different class exempt from the agrarian reform program. Under Brief background: Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice the law, classification has been defined as the grouping of persons and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different agrarian reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and conform to the following requirements: regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions; collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844 was enacted (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and in 1963. P.D. No. 27 was promulgated in 1972 to provide for the (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class. compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and landowners. the liabilities imposed. The Association have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The In 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full argument that not only landowners but also owners of other land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and providing properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between well as the manner of their payment. these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. In In 1987, P.P. No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a program (CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. No. 229, providing the valid classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect mechanics for its (PP131’s) implementation, was also enacted. by the courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive the detriment of the Bill of Rights. In the contrary, it appears that Agrarian Reform Law in 1988. This law, while considerably changing Congress is right in classifying small landowners as part of the the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them agrarian reform program. Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 2 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
2. No. It is true that the determination of just compensation is a Issues: power lodged in the courts. However, there is no law which 1. WON paragraphs d, e, and f of Sec. 16 of RA6657 are prohibits administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just unconsitutional? compensation. In fact, just compensation can be that amount 2. Is compulsory acquisition of land valid? agreed upon by the landowner and the government – even without judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. The DAR can Ruling: determine just compensation through appraisers and if the 1. No. The validity of Section 16, including paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) landowner agrees, then judicial intervention is not needed. What is thereof, of RA 6657 has already been affirmed in Association of contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation Small Landowners, which sets forth the manner of acquisition of determined by an administrative body is merely preliminary. If the private agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation, in landowner does not agree with the finding of just compensation by this wise: an administrative body, then it can go to court and the determination of the latter shall be the final determination. This is Where the State itself is the expropriator, it is not necessary for it to even so provided by RA 6657: make a deposit upon its taking possession of the condemned Section 16 (f): Any party who disagrees with the decision property, as "the compensation is a public charge, the good faith of may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for the public is pledged for its payment, and all the resources of final determination of just compensation. taxation may be employed in raising the amount." Nevertheless, Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that: 3. No. Money as sole payment for just compensation is merely a Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding concept in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian payment, or in case of rejection or no response from the reform program is a revolutionary exercise of eminent domain. The landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank program will require billions of pesos in funds if all compensation designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in will have to be made in cash. If everything is in cash, then the LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take government will not have sufficient money. Hence, bonds, and other immediate possession of the land and shall request the securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for just compensation. 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 CONFED v DAR , G.R. No. 169514, March 30, 2007 the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
Facts: Objection is raised, however, to the manner of fixing the just Confederation of Sugar Producers Association, Inc (CONFED), the compensation, which it is claimed is entrusted to the administrative National Federation of Sugarcane Planters, Inc. (NFSP), United Sugar authorities in violation of judicial prerogatives. Specific reference is Producers Federation of the Phil., Inc. (UNIFED), made to Section 16(d), which provides that in case of the rejection the Panay Federation of Sugarcane Farmers, Inc. (PANAYFED). It or disregard by the owner of the offer of the government to buy his seeks, inter alia, to enjoin the Department of Agrarian Reform(DAR), land — the Land Bank of the Philippines(LBP), and the Land Registration . . . the DAR shall conduct summary administrative Authority(LRA) from "subjecting the sugarcane farms of Petitioner proceedings to determine the compensation for the land Planters to eminent domain or compulsory acquisition without filing by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested the necessary expropriation proceedings pursuant to the provisions parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and/or without the application or the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the conformity of a majority of the regular farmworkers on said farms." notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall Petitioners CONFED, NFSP, UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that their decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted members own or administer private agricultural lands devoted to for decision. sugarcane. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been To be sure, the determination of just compensation is a function planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly since time immemorial. addressed to the courts of justice and may not be usurped by any While their petition is denominated as one for prohibition and other branch or official of the government. mandamus, the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of Section 16 of RA 6657, otherwise known as the The determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. In other words, their any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other arguments, are anchored on the proposition that these provisions interested party, for Section 16 (f) clearly provides: are unconstitutional. (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final The petitioners thus contend that a landowner cannot be deprived determination of just compensation. of his property until expropriation proceedings are instituted in The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless court. They insist that the expropriation proceedings to be followed accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice are those prescribed under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court. In will still have the right to review with finality the said determination other words, for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain, in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. the Government must institute the necessary expropriation proceedings in the competent court in accordance with the 2. Yes. Contrary to the petitioners’ submission that the compulsory provisions of the Rules of Court. acquisition procedure adopted by the DAR is without legal basis, it is actually based on Section 16 of RA 6657. Under the said law, there Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 3 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural lands: continues in possession of the land for cultivation, there shall be compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for compulsory presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the provisions of acquisition is that prescribed under Section 16 of RA 6657. this Code, without prejudice to the right of the landowner and the former tenant to enter into any other lawful contract in relation to In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court painstakingly the land formerly under tenancy contract, as long as in the interim outlined the procedure for compulsory acquisition… in this manner: the security of tenure of the former tenant under Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, and as In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the provided in this Code, is not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. lawful leasehold tenancy contract was entered into prior to the After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the effectivity of this Code, the rights and obligations arising therefrom landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a shall continue to subsist until modified by the parties in accordance conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the with the provisions of this Code. place where the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or Shared tenancy – the relationship which exists whenever two representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of persons agree on a joint undertaking for cultural production wherein the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate both contributing any one of the several items of production, the of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of tenant cultivating the land personally with aid of labor available transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the from members of his immediate farm household, and the produce purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR’s offer or fails to thereof to be divided by the landowner and the tenant. make a reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The Security of Tenure landowner, the LBP representative and other interested parties may Section 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with the Court for causes herein provided. an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the IOW, the landowner cannot just dispossess, remove or eject a name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be tenant or lessee from the land without authorized cause. redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization: the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination 1. Fine or imprisonment of just compensation. 2. Damages suffered 3. Attorney’s fees II. RA 3844 - A GRICULTURAL L AND R EFORM C ODE 4. Remuneration of last income
Abolition of Share Tenancy Grounds to extinguish Section 4. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy - Agricultural Section 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The share tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary agricultural leasehold relation established under this Code shall be to public policy and shall be abolished: Provided, That existing share extinguished by: tenancy contracts may continue in force and effect in any region or a. Abandonment of the landholding w ithout the knowledge locality, to be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of the agricultural lessor; of Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as b. Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the National lessee, written notice of which shall be served three Land Reform Council proclaims that all the government machineries months in advance; or and agencies in that region or locality relating to leasehold c. Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such contracts provide the lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapacity for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercise his option to elect of the lessee. the leasehold system: Provided, further, That in order not to jeopardize international commitments, lands devoted to crops Raymundo Coderias v Estate of Juan Cidoco, G.R. No. 180476, June covered by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a 26, 2013 separate proclamation that adequate provisions, such as the organization of cooperatives, marketing agreements, or other Facts: similar workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient The deceased Juan O. Chioco (Chioco) owned a 4-hectare farm in
management on all matters requiring synchronization of the Lupao, Nueva Ecija (the farm). As tiller of the farm, petitioner agricultural with the processing phases of such crops: Provided, Raymundo Coderias was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT)
furthermore, That where the agricultural share tenancy contract has on April 26, 1974. In 1980, individuals connected with Chioco – who ceased to be operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a was a former Governor of Nueva Ecija – threatened to kill petitioner tenancy contract has been entered into in violation of the provisions if he did not leave the farm. His standing crops (corn and vegetables) of this Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the tenant and house were bulldozed. For fear of his life, petitioner, together Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 4 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
with his family, left the farm. To strengthen the security of tenure of tenants, Section 10 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that the agricultural leasehold relation shall not In 1993 upon learning of Chioco’s death, petitioner and his family re- be extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal established themselves on the farm. possession of the landholding. With unyielding consistency, we have held that transactions involving the agricultural land over which an , On March 9, 1995 petitioner filed with the Department of Agrarian agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change of ownership, such Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Talavera, Nueva Ecija a as the sale or transfer of legal possession, will not terminate the
Petition against respondent Chioco’s estate praying that his rights of the agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by possession and cultivation of the farm be respected; that the making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the corresponding agricultural leasehold contract between them be landowner's successor in interest. executed; that he be awarded actual damages for the destruction of his house, his standing crops, unrealized harvest from 1980 up to In addition, Section 7 of the law enunciates the principle of security
1993, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation. Respondent moved to of tenure of the tenant, such that it prescribes that the relationship dismiss the Petition, contending that petitioner’s cause of action has of landholder and tenant can only be terminated for causes
prescribed under Section 38 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3844, as provided by law. Security of tenure is a legal concession to amended, since the alleged dispossession took place in 1980 but the agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of Petition was filed only in 1995, or beyond the statutory three-year their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only means
period for filing such claims. Petitioner filed an opposition arguing of livelihood. Perforce, the termination of the leasehold relationship that his tenure/tillage should be deemed uninterrupted since his can take place only for causes provided by law. departure was due to threats made by Chioco’s henchmen; thus, the The CA has failed to recognize this vinculum juris, this juridical tie, three-year prescriptive period should not be applied to his case. that exists between the petitioner and Chioco, which the latter is bound to respect. Ruling of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD): The
PARAD issued a Decision dismissing the Petition on the ground of Under Section 8 of RA 3844, the agricultural leasehold relation shall prescription. be extinguished only under any of the following three circumstances, to wit: "(1) abandonment of the landholding without Ruling of the DARAB: The appealed decision is set aside. the knowledge of the agricultural lessor; (2) voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee, written notice of which Ruling of the CA: The CA SET ASIDE DARAB’s decision. It held that shall be served three months in advance; or (3) absence of the undoubtedly, a tenancy relation existed between Chioco and persons under Section 9 to succeed the lessee x x x." None of these petitioner under RA 3844. Nevertheless, it found that petitioner’s is obtaining in this case. In particular, petitioner cannot be said to action had prescribed, in that the complained acts occurred in 1980 have abandoned the landholding. It will be recalled that Chioco but petitioner filed only in 1995, or beyond the three-year forcibly ejected him from the property through threats and prescriptive period under Section 38 of RA 3844. The CA held that intimidation. His house was bulldozed and his crops were destroyed. this delayed action by petitioner amounts to laches as well. Petitioner left the farm in 1980 and returned only in 1993 upon learning of Chioco’s death. Two years after, or in 1995, he filed the Issue: instant Petition. Whether or not the CA committed an error in setting aside the decision of DARAB, thereby making petitoner’s contention Indeed, Section 38 of RA 3844 specifically provides that "an action to untenable due to prescription. enforce any cause of action under this Code shall be barred if not commenced within three years after such cause of action accrued." Ruling: In this case, we deem it proper to reckon petitioner’s cause of action The Court grants the Petition. The Court cannot sanction the use of to have accrued only upon his knowledge of the death of Chioco in force to evict beneficiaries of land reform. Eviction using force is 1993, and not at the time he was forcibly ejected from the reversion to the feudal system, where the landed elite have free landholding in 1980. For as long as the intimidation and threats to reign over their poor vassals. In effect, might is right. petitioner’s life and limb existed, petitioner had a cause of action against Chioco to enforce the recognition of this juridical tie. Since It must be recalled from the facts that the farm has been placed the threats and intimidation ended with Chioco’s death, petitioner’s under the coverage of RA 3844. It is also undisputed that a tenancy obligation to file a case to assert his rights as grantee of the farm relation existed between Chioco and petitioner. In fact, a CLT had under the agrarian laws within the prescriptive period commenced. been issued in favor of the petitioner; thus, petitioner already had These rights, as enumerated above, include the right to security of
an expectant right to the farm. A CLT serves as "a provisional title of tenure, to continue in possession of the land he works despite the ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full expiration of the contract or the sale or transfer of the land to third payment of just compensation or for as long as the tenant-farmer is persons, the pre-emptive right to buy the land, as well as the right to an amortizing owner. This certificate proves inchoate ownership of redeem the land, if sold to a third person without his knowledge. an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn production. It is issued in order for the tenant-farmer to acquire the land he was Petitioner may not be faulted for acting only after Chioco passed
tilling." Since the farm is considered expropriated and placed under away for his life and the lives of members of his family are not worth
the coverage of the land reform law, Chioco had no right to evict gambling for a piece of land. The bulldozing of his house – his castle petitioner and enter the property. More significantly, Chioco had no – is only an example of the fate that could befall them. Under the right to claim that petitioner’s cause of action had prescribed. circumstances, it is therefore understandable that instead of fighting for the farm, petitioner opted to leave and keep his family safe. Any Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 5 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
man who cherishes his family more than the most valuable material agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of thing in his life would have done the same. his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due Force and intimidation restrict or hinder the exercise of the will, and hearing it is shown that: so long as they exist, petitioner is deprived of his free will. He could (1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon not occupy his farm, plant his crops, tend to them, and harvest recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited them. He could not file an agrarian case against Chioco, for that for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban meant having to return to Nueva Ecija. He could not file the case purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to anywhere else; any other agrarian tribunal or agency would have disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of declined to exercise jurisdiction. the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years; The Agricultural Land Reform Code has been designed to promote (2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of economic and social stability. Being a social legislation, it must be the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of interpreted liberally to give full force and effect to its clear intent, this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force which is ‘to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers’ and majeure; to make them ‘more independent, self-reliant and responsible (3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society. a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon; (4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine; opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause – free, as (5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities. substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably In the interest of its equity jurisdiction, the Court may disregard deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural procedural lapses so that a case may be resolved on its merits. Rules lessee; of procedure should promote, not defeat, substantial justice. Hence, (6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls the Court may opt to apply the Rules liberally to resolve substantial due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to issues raised by the parties. crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for Our law on agrarian reform is a legislated promise to emancipate dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that poor farm families from the bondage of the soil. P.D. No. 27 was particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or promulgated in the exact same spirit, with mechanisms which hope (7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation to forestall a reversion to the antiquated and inequitable feudal of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven. system of land ownership. It aims to ensure the continued possession, cultivation and enjoyment by the beneficiary of the land Section 37. Burden of Proof - The burden of proof to show the that he tills which would certainly not be possible where the former existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural owner is allowed to reacquire the land at any time following the lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor. award – in contravention of the government’s objective to emancipate tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil. Section 38. Statute of Limitations - An action to enforce any cause of action under this Code shall be barred if not commenced within Does death or incapacity extinguish agricultural leasehold? three years after such cause of action accrued. Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of death or permanent In Sum, the following are the grounds to dispossess an agricultural incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the lessee: leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the 1. Land has been declared as residential, commercial, person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the industrial, or other urban purposes by an authorized agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent government agency; incapacity, from among the following: Disturbance Compensation = 5x the average a. the surviving spouse; gross harvest of the landholding in the last 5 b. the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or years c. the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their 1. Failure of the lessee to comply with the terms and age: conditions of the lease contract; Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the 2. Planted different crops or used the landholding other than agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice what was agreed upon; shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, 3. Failure to adopt proven farm practices (consideration on further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his the financial capacity and credit facilities available) choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in 5. Damage or destruction of the land or permanent accordance with the order herein established. improvements by the fault or negligence of the lessee; In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, 6. Failure to pay rental when it falls due; the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs. 7. Employment of a sub-lessee
Grounds to dispossess ATTY GCC: Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions - Notwithstanding One of the most important ground is this non-payment of the rental any agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an when due. In their relationship, landowner provides the land, and Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 6 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
the lessee provides the labor and when there is production they are the fault of defendants-appellants herein that the rentals did not supposed to divide the produce. The produce there to be given by reach the plaintiffs-appellees... because the latter choose to lend a the lessee to the landowner is the rental. The rental is FIXED by law. deaf ear to the notices sent to them. The rental shall not exceed 25% of the average normal harvest. CA affirmed the factual findings of the PARAD that petitioner and Rental should not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the Marciano failed to pay the rentals and that there was no valid average normal harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately tender of payment The CA added that this failure to pay was tainted preceding the date of leasehold after deducting amount used for the with bad faith and deliberate intent. Thus, petitioner and Marciano seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and did not legally comply with their duties as tenants. processing. Issues: Non-payment of rental as ground to dispossess 1. Whether the subject land had already become residential, Otilia Sta. Ana v Sps. Leon and Aurora Carpo, GR No. 164340, Nov. commercial and/or industrial, thus, excluded from the coverage of 28, 2008 our laws on agrarian reform; 2. Whether the petitioner, as an agricultural tenant, failed to pay her Facts: lease rentals when the same fell due as to warrant her dispossession Respondent Leon Carpo (Leon) and his brother Francisco G. Carpo of the subject land. are the registered co-owners of a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 2175 of the Santa Rosa Estate Subdivision, situated at Sta. Rosa, Ruling: Laguna. A portion thereof, consisting of 3.5 hectares, pertained to 1. No. Without doubt, the PARAD acted without jurisdiction when it Leon and his wife, respondent Aurora Carpo. It was devoted to rice held that the subject land was no longer covered by our agrarian and corn production (subject land) and was tenanted by one laws because of the retention rights of the respondents. The CA Domingo Pastolero (Domingo), husband of Adoracion Pastolero likewise acted without jurisdiction when it ruled that the land had (Adoracion). become... non-agricultural based on a zoning ordinance of 1981-- on the strength of a mere vicinity map. These rulings violated the However, on December 29, 1983, Adoracion, by executing a doctrine of primary jurisdiction. notarized Pinanumpaang Salaysay with the conformity of Leon, and for a consideration of P72,500.00, transferred her rights in favor of Verily, there is an established tenancy relationship between petitioner Otilia Sta. Ana. petitioner and respondents in this case. An action for Ejectment for Non-Payment of lease rentals is clearly an agrarian dispute, Petitioner, together with her husband, Marciano de la Cruz cognizable at the initial stage by... the PARAD and thereafter by the (Marciano), became the new tenants of the subject land.At the DARAB. outset, the parties had a harmonious tenancy relationship. In their Complaint for Ejectment due to Non-Payment of Lease Proof necessary for the resolution of the issue of the land being Rentals dated December 1, 1989, respondents alleged that it was covered by, or excluded/exempted from, P.D. No. 27, R.A. No. 6657, their agreement with petitioner and Marciano to increase the and other pertinent agrarian laws, as well as of the issue of the right existing rentals from 36 cavans to 45 cavans, and that, if... of retention of the respondents, was not offered in evidence. Under respondents wanted to repossess the property, they only had to pay Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, coupled with the the petitioner the amount of P72,500.00, the same amount paid by fact that the respondents are the complainants themselves, the the latter to Adoracion.. burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee... rests upon the In their Answer dated January 26, 1990, petitioner and Marciano respondents as agricultural lessors. denied that there was an agreement to increase the existing rental Respondents failed to discharge such burden. which was already fixed at 36 cavans of palay, once or twice a year depending on the availability of irrigation water;... that neither was 2. No. The agricultural tenant's failure to pay the lease rentals must there an agreement as to the future surrender of the land in favor of be willful and deliberate in order to warrant his dispossession of the the respondents; that they did not refuse to pay the rentals because land that he tills. The term "deliberate" is characterized by or results they even sent verbal and written notices to the respondents, from slow, careful, thorough calculation and consideration of effects advising them to accept the same. and consequences. The term "willful," on the other hand, is defined as one governed by will without yielding to reason or without... PARAD: Petitioner and Marciano deliberately defaulted in the regard to reason. DARAB correctly said that it was not the fault of payment of the rentals due the respondents. petitioner that the lease rentals did not reach the respondents because the latter chose to ignore the notices sent to them. DARAB: It is a fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that for non- To note, as early as November 10, 1986, Marciano executed an payment of lease rentals to warrant the dispossession and Affidavit stating that Leon refused to receive the respective lease ejectment of a tenant, the same must be made in a willful and rentals consisting of 37 cavans for November 1985 and July 1986. deliberate manner. For a valid ouster or ejectment of a farmer- These factual circumstances negate the PARAD findings of tenant, the willful and deliberate intent not to pay lease rentals Marciano's and petitioner's deliberate and willful intent not to pay and/or share can be ascertained when there is a determination of lease rentals. will not to do a certain act. Considering the circumstances obtaining in this case, it cannot be concluded that the defendants-appellants Good faith was clearly demonstrated by Marciano and petitioner deliberately failed or refused to pay their lease rentals. It was not when, because respondents refused to accept the proffered Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 7 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
payment, they... even went to the point of seeking government rental arrearages have accumulated over a considerable length of intervention in order to address their problems with respondents. time, i.e., from 1985 to 2005 but rely on the fortuitous event defense, which as above-mentioned, cannot herein be sustained. Natividad vs. Mariano , GR No. 179643, June 3, 2013 Verily, agricultural leasehold rentals, as in rentals in ordinary lease In this case, respondents were paying, but to previous owners. contracts, constitute fixed payments which the lessor has both the Further, the respondents’ alleged non-payment did not last for the right and expectation to promptly receive in consideration of being required two- year period. The rental payments were not yet due deprived of the full enjoyment and possession of his property. and the respondents were not in default at the time Ernesto filed Unless caused by a fortuitous event, or reprieved by virtue of a the petition for ejectment as Ernesto failed to prove his alleged prior finding that the non-payment of leasehold rentals was not actually verbal demands. Additionally, assuming arguendo that the willful and deliberate, there appears to be no credible justification, respondents failed to pay the lease rentals, we do not consider the both in reason and in law, to deny the agricultural lessor the right to failure to be deliberate or willful. The receipts on record show that recover his property and thereby eject the agricultural lessee in the the respondents had paid the lease rentals for the years 1988-1998. event that the latter fails to comply with his rent obligations as they fall due. Indeed, while the Constitution commands the government Non-payment of the lease rentals whenever they fall due is a ground to tilt the balance in favor of the poor and the underprivileged for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee under paragraph 6, whenever doubt arises in the interpretation of the law, the jural Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844. In relation to Section 2 of Presidential postulates of social justice should not sanction any false sympathy Decree (P.D.) No. 816, deliberate refusal or continued refusal to pay towards a certain class, nor be used to deny the landowner's the lease rentals by the agricultural lessee for a period of two (2) rights, as in this case. years shall, upon hearing and final judgment, result in the cancellation of the CLT issued in the agricultural lessee's favor. Period of Redemption Sec. 12. Lessee's right of Redemption. - In case the landholding is The agricultural lessee's failure to pay the lease rentals, in order to sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural warrant his dispossession of the landholding, must be willful and lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a deliberate and must have lasted for at least two (2) years. The term reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are "deliberate" is characterized by or results from slow, careful, two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right thorough calculation and consideration of effects and consequences, of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by while the term "willful" is defined, as one governed by will without him. The right of the redemption under this Section may be yielding to reason or without regard to reason. Mere failure of an exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing agricultural lessee to pay the agricultural lessor's share does not which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former absent a Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, deliberate intent on the part of the agricultural lessee to pay. and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the Atty GCC: time of the sale. - PD 816 covers rice and corn - RA 3844 is silent on the period for non-payment of rentals Upon the filing of the corresponding petition or request with the - There is no fact established in the case whether the subject department or corresponding case in court by the agricultural lessee property is rice or corn (although it can be assumed to be because or lessees, the said period of one hundred and eighty days shall of the words “crop year”) cease to run.
Any petition or request for redemption shall be resolved within sixty Nieves v. Duldulao, G.R. No. 190276, April 2, 2014 days from the filing thereof; otherwise, the said period shall start to
run again. In the present case, petitioner seeks the dispossession of
respondents from the subject land on the ground of non-payment of The Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate, while the Land leasehold rentals based on item 6, Section 36 of RA 3844. Bank shall finance, said redemption as in the case of pre-emption. While respondents indeed admit that they failed to pay the full amount of their respective leasehold rentals as they become due, they claim that their default was on account of the debilitating Po and Mutia vs. Dampal, GR 173329, December 21, 2009 effects of calamities like flashfloods and typhoons. This latter assertion is a defense provided under the same provision which, if Facts: successfully established, allows the agricultural lessee to retain On December 19, 1984, two farm lots located in Bukidnon with an possession of his landholding. The records of this case are, however, approximate area of 2.5773 and 2.0651 hectares, respectively, were bereft of any showing that the aforestated claim was substantiated mortgaged for P33,000.00 by the spouses Florencio and Ester by any evidence tending to prove the same. Keeping in mind Causin, through their attorney-in-fact Manuel Causin, to the now- that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not defunct Rural Bank of Tagoloan, Inc. For failure to pay the obligation, equivalent to proof, the Court cannot therefore lend any credence the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold the lots at public auction to respondents' fortuitous event defense. to petitioner who was the highest bidder. The original certificates of title were subsequently cancelled and TCTs in their stead were Respondents' failure to pay leasehold rentals to the landowner also issued in favor of Po, following the spouses Causin’s failure to appears to have been willful and deliberate. They, in fact, do not redeem the property. deny — and therefore admit — the landowner's assertion that their Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 8 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
On September 13, 1993, petitioner sold one of the bought lot to her lands herein co-petitioner Mutia who was issued new TCT. On September Petitioner DNTDC claims: 29, 1994, the spouses Causin and their tenant-herein respondent - They purchased the property in good fair from Flores and Dampal filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint against the Nepomuceno in 1995 bank for Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and Sale. - Lease contract with Saligas and Eharas ended in 1986 - Prior to the sale, the Davao City Office of the Zoning Administrator While the civil case was pending or on June 16, 1997, respondent confirmed that the property was not classified as agricultural filed a complaint against petitioners before the DARAB for Legal - Affidavit of non-tenancy executed by the vendors affirmed the Redemption with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. DARAB absence of any recognized agricultural lessees on the property disallowed the redemption prayed for on the ground of prescription, - Property had already been classified to be within an albeit he declared that Dampal is entitled to security of tenure as a "urban/urbanizing zone" in the "1979-2000 Comprehensive Land tenant; and that although Dampal was not given notice in writing of Use Plan for Davao City", duly adopted by the City Council of Davao the public auction sale, he was deemed to have knowledge thereof City and approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission because of the civil case for annulment, hence, there was substantial (HSRC) (now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board [HLURB]). compliance with the rules. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled in favor of DARAB Central Office reversed the Adjudicator’s ruling. petitioner DNTDC, but ordered DNTDC to pay Sps Saliga 20k and Sps On appeal, the appellate court held that petitioners should have Ehara 15k as disturbance compensation plua 150 sqm homelots appealed the DARAB Decision via Rule 43, instead of Rule 65, and each. PARAD ruled that property has been reclassified from agri to dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari. non-agi when CARL took effect. Not under coverage of CARL.
Issue: MTCC orders Saligas and Eharas to vacate premises upon DNTDC's Whether or not the need for sending notice in writing could be complaint for unlawful detainer. dispensed with Respondents’ children raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the case involved an agrarian dispute. They contended that the Ruling: law considers them immediate members of the farm household, to No. The lack of written notice does not start the running of the whom R.A. No. 3844 and R.A. No. 6657 extend tenurial security. prescriptive period. In its disquisition, the DARAB held that absence Thus, they claimed that they, as tenants, were entitled to continue of written notice to the tenant of the sale, as well as to the DAR, is occupying the disputed portion. Respondents' children and DNTDC indispensable, particularly in view of Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. enter into compromise agreement. 20k for demolition of houses. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, which mandates that the 180-day period must be reckoned from the notice in writing Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) upon registration of the sale. reversed PARAD ruling. DARAB was not convinced that the property had already been reclassified to non-agricultural uses so as to Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform remove it from the coverage of CARL. DARAB also pointed out that Code of 1963, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389 expressly while Davao City Ordinance No. 363, series of 1982 (adopting the provides that “the right of the redemption under this Section may be Comprehensive Development Plan of Davao City), reclassified the exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing property to be within the "urban/urbanizing zone," the DNTDC did which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the not submit the required certifications from the HLURB, adopting the Department of Agrarian Reform”. zoning ordinance, and from the DAR, approving the conversion to make the reclassification valid. The admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioners’ contention CA affirmed in toto the January 12, 2001 decision of the DARAB. The that Dampal must be considered to have had constructive CA was also convinced that the property was still agricultural and knowledge thereof fails in light of the express requirement for notice was, therefore, covered by R.A. No. 6657. While the CA conceded to be in writing. that the conversion of the use of lands that had been reclassified as residential, commercial or industrial, prior to the effectivity of R.A. Reclassification of land as ground to extinguish leasehold No. 6657, no longer requires the DAR’s approval, the CA pointed out that the landowner must first comply with certain pre-conditions for Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. vs. Sps. Gloria Saliga, et. Al. , G.R. No. exemption and/or conversion. Among other requirements, the 174588, December 11, 2013 landowner must secure an exemption clearance from the DAR, HLURB. Facts: In dispute are two parcels of land –4.9964 hectares6 and 2.5574 Issue: hectares situated in Catalunan Pequeño, Davao City. Whether the property had been reclassified from agricultural to Respondents Saligas and Eharas claims: non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988 so as to remove it from - They have been tenants of the property since 1965. the coverage of CARL? - Executed 5-year lease contract with former owner Atty. Mendiola. Saligas and Eharas claimed that the instrument was actually a device Ruling: Mendiola used to evade the land reform law. Yes. Local government units have the power to reclassify lands from - Saligas and Eharas claimed ownership based on PD No. 27 (The agricultural to nonagricultural uses. DAR approval is not required. Land Reform Program of the Government) covering agricultural Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 9 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
City Council of Davao City has the authority to adopt zoning Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) because the case is an agrarian resolutions and ordinances. Under Section 3 of R.A. No. 226430 (the dispute; he worked with Bernabe in tilling the land since 1975; he then governing Local Government Code), municipal and/or city continued working on the land after the death of Bernabe. He officials are specifically empowered to "adopt zoning and defended his non-payment of rental due to the fact that the land subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the has lost its suitability for agricultural production. Since the National Planning Commission." implementation of Operation Land Transfer, he had been deemed the owner of the land, and had no more obligation to pay rents to This power of the local government units to reclassify or convert the spouses. In fact he was already paying amortisations to the LBP. lands to non-agricultural uses is not subject to the approval of the DAR. (Pasong Bayabas Farmers Asso., Inc. v. Court of Appeals) In The RTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. It also denied Junio v. Secretary Garilao, SC clarified, once and for all, that "with the motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with the 3-day respect to areas classified and identified as zonal areas not for notice rule, thus, the spouses elevated the case to the Court of agricultural uses, the DAR’s clearance is no longer necessary for Appeals. During the pendency of the case with the CA, Jesus became conversion. the registered owner of the land under Original Certificate of Title No. EP-992-C. Before he could inform the CA of this development, Atty GCC: however, the CA rendered a decision granting the petition for But, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not certiorari filed by the CA. It ruled that petitioner failed to establish automatically allow a landowner to change its use and because of tenancy relationship between the parties. According to the appellate this cause the ejectment of the tenants. He must undergo the court, the elements of consent and sharing of harvest are lacking. process of conversion before he is permitted to use the land for Moreover, petitioner was held as unqualified to be a successor- other purposes. tenant by virtue of hereditary succession because he is not among those listed under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, he being Conversion – the act of changing the current use of a piece of only a relative by affinity. Hence, Jesus sought recourse with the agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR. Supreme court.
Reclassification – the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be Issue: utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, Which has jurisdiction over the case: the RTC or the DARAB? commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land use conversion. The Ruling: RTC retains jurisdiction of the instant case. Crisostomo vs. Victoria, GR No. 175098, Aug 26, 2015 Only DARAB can adjudicate an agrarian dispute. There was a lease contract entered into by Crisostomo and Hipolito Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this wise: that would expire on Hipolito’s death. When Hipolito died, x x x x Crisostomo wanted to reclaim possession over the property but (d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to found Victoria there who alleged that Hipolito was his uncle. tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, Court held that Hipolito’s status as the acknowledged tenant did not stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to clothe him with capacity to designate respondent as tenant. The agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers’ right to hire a tenant is basically a personal right of the landowner associations or representation of persons in negotiating, except as may be provided by law. But certainly nowhere in Sec. 6 fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms does it say that a civil law lessee of a landholding is automatically or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands authorized to install a tenant thereon. acquired under R.A. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer
of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other Still, there is no consent from Crisostomo which is an essential agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the element of tenancy. While there are receipts, Crisostomo never proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and failed to write down in the receipts that it was Hipolito who was the tenant, or lessor and lessee. valid lessee.
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be tenancy Velasquez v. Spouses Cruz, G.R. No. 191479, September 21, 2015 relationship between the parties. Tenancy relationship is a juridical
tie which arises between a landowner and a tenant once they agree, Facts: expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land The spouses Cruz are the registered owners of a parcel of land belonging to the landowner, as a result of which relationship the situated in Hagonoy, Bulacan covered by Tax Declaration No. 020- tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the 10-022-11-027. In their complaint for recovery of possession with land. The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed accounting and damages against Jesus Velasquez (petitioner), they and allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to alleged that Jesus’ father-in-law, Bernabe was their tenant in the security of tenure. land until April 6, 1985 when he surrendered his tenancy rights by
virtue of a Sinumpaang Salaysay; that since then, no other person In order for a tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish was installed as tenant; that Jesus entered the farm land without all its indispensable elements, viz.: their consent, and he had not paid rent since 1985. They prayed that (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural Jesus vacate the land. In his Answer with Motion to Dismiss, Jesus lessee; averred that jurisdiction pertains to the Department of Agrarian Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 10 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
(2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; demanded the payment thereof, but Reynalda ignored such (3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; demand. Tan heirs filed a case for estafa for her failure to pay and (4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural deliver the share. production; Petitioner: The agreement was extinguished due to non-payment of (5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or lease (the 2/3 of the harvest). agricultural lessee; and Respondent: The Tans demand excessive amount. (6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. All these requisites are necessary to create a Issue: tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites will WON Reynalda is obliged to pay only ¼ or 25% of the normal harvest not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant. and not 2/3 when the subject land was not yet placed under the Leasehold System pursuant to Sec.12 of RA 6657 It appears that the element of consent and sharing of harvests are clearly lacking. [Petitioner] merely alleged that he was verbally Ruling: asked by all the heirs of Guillerma Coronel to continue working on Yes. In this case, the Tans seek ejectement of Reynalda from the the land. The fact that [petitioner] was allowed to stay on the Land due to non-payment of lease rental. In order for non-payment property does not mean that [respondents] impliedly recognized the of the lease rental to be a valid ground to dispossess the agricultural existence of a leasehold relation with [petitioner]. Occupancy and lessee of the landholding, the amount of the lease rental must first continued possession of the land will not ipso facto make one a of all be lawful. If the amount of lease rental claimed exceeds the dejure tenant. limit allowed by law, non-payment of lease rental cannot be a ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding. In this case, [petitioner] could not present any evidence showing that [respondents] had recognized him as tenant. The other pieces Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended mandates that not x x x more of evidence submitted by the [petitioner] do not prove the alleged than 25% of the average normal harvest shall constitute the just and tenancy relationship as the certifications he presented could only fair rental for leasehold. In this case, the Tan Heirs demanded show that he is the actual occupant of the land, a fact recognized by Reynalda to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental, which clearly the [respondents] and the reason why they instituted an action for exceeded the 25% maximum amount prescribed by law. Therefore, recovery of possession. Being an actual occupant of the land is the Tan Heirs cannot validly dispossess Reynalda of the landholding definitely different from being a tenant thereof. More importantly, for non-payment of rental precisely because the lease rental claimed [petitioner] was not able to show that he shared his harvests, not by the Tan Heirs is unlawful. even once, with the [respondents]. He just reasoned out that he was not able to remit his dues because the land became unproductive III. P.D. 27: T ENANTS E MANCIPATION D ECREE due to the intrusion of saline waters. No explanation was offered to
show that he exerted efforts to make the land productive for Suppletory application on just compensation agricultural production. Instead, he took the opportunity to release The determination of just compensation should be based on RA bangus fingerlings but without giving any share of this income to the 6657 for lands covered under PD 27. [respondents] PD 27 applies suppletorily.
Petittioner’s claim that he succeeded Navarro as tenant is questionable. Petitioner, a relative by affinity of Navarro, is, to the 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 Court of Appeals, not qualified to succeed as tenant. Thus, the RTC retains jurisdiction over the instant action for recovery of private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain possession. 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 Heirs of Enrique Tan Sr. vs. Reynalda Pollescas, G.R. No. 145568, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically states: Nov. 17. 2005 "(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate
with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. . . ." Facts:
Petitioners Tan were co-owners of a coconut farmland.Esteban It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or Pollescas was the original tenant of the land. Upon Esteban’s death, supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D. his son Enrique succeeded him and was appointed tenant by the 27 that are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the landowners. However, respondent Reynalda, Esteban’s surviving latter, and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are second spouse, demanded that the Tans recognize her as Esteban’s retained even with the passage of R.A. 6657. (Sigre v. Court of successor. Appeals, G.R. No. 109568, 113454, August 8, 2002)
Reynalda filed a complaint before DARAB, questioning the tenancy Atty GCC: Another reason should be the “reasonableness” of the relationship of Tan and Enrique. DARAB ruled in favor of Reynalda, factors in determining just compensation under RA 6657 compared declaring her as the lawful tenant of the Land. DARAB apportioned toPD27. the harvests between the Tans and Reynalda based on the customary sharing system which is 2/3 to the landowner and 1/3 to the tenant.
Reynalda failed to deliver the 2/3 of the harvest. Tan heirs Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 11 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
IV. R.A. N O . 6657 OR CARL (AS AMENDED BY R.A. N OS. 7881, 7905, 8532, 9700) The use of land is incidental to but not the principal factor or consideration of productivity in this industry. It was never the Date of Effectivity intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock June 15, 1988 and poultry industry in the coverage of the agrarian reform program of the government. The intention of the Committee was to limit the Agricultural activity vis-à-vis raising of livestock application of the word “agriculture”. Section 3 (b). “Agriculture” or “Agricultural Activity” – Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing fruit trees, raising Thus, Section II of RA 6657 which includes “private agricultural lands of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising” in the products and other farm activities and practices performed by a definition of “commercial farms” is invalid, to the extent that the farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the whether natural or juridical. agrarian reform program of the State.
Luz Farms vs Sec. of DAR, G.R. No. 86889. December 4, 1990. 2. YES. As there is no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform, there is no need to call Facts: upon them to distribute from 3% of their gross sales and 10% of In 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines. their net profits to their workers as additional compensation. It includes the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. In 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the IRR of Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DAR vs. Salvador N. Secs. 11, 13, and 39 of the said law. Lopez Agri-Business Corp., G.R. No. 178895/ G.R. No. 179071: January 10, 2011
Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the Facts: enforcement of some provisions of CARP. Luz Farms questions the Two properties of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC) following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as they are made to apply were placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law CARL). SNLABC sought exemption of their properties, to it: arguing that due to the ruling in the Luz Farms case, land devoted to a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock (and poultry)" in the definition of "Agricultural, livestock is outside the coverage of the CARL. Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity. b) Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as Upon ocular inspection, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial, (MARO) found that one of the parcels of land, the Lopez land, were exempt from CARL coverage. The other parcel, the Limot land, was livestock, poultry and swine raising . . ." c) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a not exempt. production-sharing plan. d) Section 16(d) and 17 which vest on the Department SNLABC appealed the finding with the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform the authority to summarily of Agriculture. The DAR, however, ruled that both Lopez and Limot determine the just compensation to be paid for lands lands were subject to the CARL. covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law e) Section 32 which spells out the production-sharing SNLABC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which plan mentioned in Section 13 rendered the assailed decision. The CA affirmed the findings of the f) ". . . (W)hereby three percent (3%) of the gross sales MARO, that the Lopez land was exclusively used for livestock. The from the production of such lands are distributed MARO found that the Lopez lands were used for grazing, and that within sixty (60) days of the end of the fiscal year as such was its purpose even before the Luz Farms ruling. It was compensation to regular and other farmworkers in sufficiently established by testimonies of the people thereabouts. such lands over and above the compensation they Despite the presence of coconut trees in the Lopez lands, it is still used primarily for raising livestock. There are also structures meant currently receive xxx for such a purpose.
The Limot lands, on the other hand, were used both for coconut and Issues: rubber plantations. The MARO found that it was only used as an 1. WON the CARL should include the raising of livestock, extension of grazing land, inconsistently at best. poultry and swine in its coverage.
2. WON the requirement in Sections 13 and 32 of RA 6657 Both the DAR and SNLABC appealed the decision. directing “corporate farms” to execute and implement
“production-sharing plans” is unreasonable for being confiscatory and violative of due process, with respect to Issue: Whether or not the Lopez and Limot Lands are under the coverage livestock and poultry raisers. of CARL
Ruling: Ruling: 1. NO. Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 are unconstitutional in so Both petitions are dismissed. far as they include lands devoted to raising livestock, swine and
poultry within its coverage. The DAR argues that the tax declaration of the Lopez lands classify it Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 12 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
as agricultural land. Also, that the SNLABC was incorporated after (1) that the land must be devoted to agricultural activity; and the implementation of the CARL shows that there is an attempt to (2) that the land must not be classified as mineral, forest, residential, evade CARL coverage. commercial or industrial land.
It is, however, doctrinal that tax declarations themselves are not For land to be covered under PD 27, it must be devoted to rice or conclusive evidence as to the classification of land. Also, it is the corn crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease- actual usage of the land, not its classification, which determines its tenancy obtaining therein. Unfortunately, the Dakila property did eligibility for CARL. not meet these requirements.
As for the Lopez lands, it as inherited by the owner of SNLABC as Definition of agricultural land livestock land. Its use has been for raising livestock even before the Section 3 (c). Agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural incorporation of SNLABC. Hence, the time of incorporation, and the activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, tax declaration are irrelevant. residential, commercial or industrial land.
As for the Limot lands, it is not enough that such are used as Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developer and Investors Corp v DAR, seasonal extensions of grazing land. The livestock are not regularly GR No 103302, August 12, 1993 situated in the land in question, but are only brought there at times for grazing. It is land actually devoted to coconut and rubber. Hence, Facts: it cannot be exempted. Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares and 2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares, which are covered by TCT No. 31527. RA 7881 amended RA 6657: Section 3 (b) and removed the phrase “the raising of livestock, poultry or fish.” Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the Holy Trinity v Victorio Dela Cruz, et. Al;, G.R. No. 200454, October metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan 22, 2014 Townsite. The Natalia properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. Since private landowners were Facts: allowed to develop their properties into low-cost housing The Dakila property used to be tenanted by Susana Surio and the subdivisions with the reservation, petitioner EDIC as developer of others but the tenants freely and voluntarily relinquished their Natalia applied for and was granted preliminary approval and tenancy rights in favor of Santiago through their respective location clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory sinumpaang pahayag in exchange for some financial assistance and Commission, which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills individual homelots titled and distributed in their names. Subdivision.
Holy Trinity purchased the remaining 208,050 sq.m. of the Dakila On June 15 1988, RA 6657 took effect. Respondent issed a Notice of property from Santiago who caused the transfer of the title to Holy Coverage on the undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Trinity and subdivided the Dakila property into 6 lots. Holy Trinity Natalia and EDIC immediately registered its objection to the notice then develop the property by dumping filing materials on the of coverage and requested the cancellation of the Notice of topsoil, erected a perimeter fence and steel gate and later on Coverage. established its field office on the property. Natalia and EDIC both argued that the properties ceased to be The Sanggunian Bayan ng Malolos passed Municipal Resolution No. agricultural lands when they were included in the areas reserved by 16-98 reclassifying four of the six subdivided lots belonging to the Presidential Proclamation for the townsite reservation. Holy Trinity into residential lots. DAR then contended that the permits granted were not valid and In 2006, Silvino Manalad and the alleged heirs of Felix Surio wrote to binding since they did not comply with t he implementing Standards, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Bulacan to request an Rules and Regulations of PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium investigation of the sale of the Dakila property. DAR Provincial Office Buyers Protective Decree), and that there was no valid conversion of of Bulacan filed a petition to annul the sale of the Dakila property the properties. with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Bulacan. Issue: Issue: Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved Was the Dakila property agricultural land within the coverage of RA by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its agencies prior 6657 or PD 27? to June 15, 1988 are still covered by RA 6657
Ruling: Ruling: No. Land on which no agricultural activity is being conducted is not No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of subject to the coverage of either Presidential Decree No. 27 or tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). private agricultural lands.
Consequently, before land may be placed under the coverage of RA Agricultural lands is referred to as land devoted to agricultural 6657, two requisites must be met, namely: activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 13 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
or industrial land. landholding had already been earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity for Thus, the underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision the passage of the 1994 Ordinance. cannot be considered as agricultural lands for this land was intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of In order to be exempt from CARP coverage, the subject property the Presidential Proclamation No. 1637. must have been classified as industrial/residential before June 15, 1988. In this case, the DAR's examination of the zoning ordinances Alangilan Realty v Office of the President, G.R. No. 180471, March and certifications pertaining to the subject property, as well as its 26, 2010 field investigation, disclosed that the same remains to be agricultural. The Zoning Certifications to the effect that the land is Facts: within the city's potential growth area for urban expansion are Petitioner is the owner/developer of a 17.4892-hectare land in inconsequential as they do not reflect the present classification of Barangays Alangilan and Patay in Batangas City. Petitioner filed an the land but merely its intended land use. Application and/or Petition for Exclusion/Exemption from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Coverage of the Not having been converted into, or classified as, residential before Alangilan landholding with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office June 15, 1988, the Alangilan landholding is, therefore, covered by (MARO) of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). It averred the CARP. The subsequent reclassification of the landholding as that, in 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of Batangas City classified the residential in 1994 cannot place the property outside the ambit of subject landholding as reserved for residential under a zoning the CARP, because there is no showing that the DAR Secretary ordinance (1982 Ordinance), which was approved by the Human approved the reclassification. Settlement Regulatory Commission. It further alleged that, on May 17, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Batangas City approved Heirs of Deleste vs. LBP, et. Al , G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011 the City Zoning Map and Batangas Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Ordinance (1994 Ordinance), reclassifying the landholding as Facts: residential. Spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo, Petitioner thus claimed exemption of its landholding from the Iligan City, consisting of 34.7 hectares (subject property). Said coverage of the CARP. spouses were childless, but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. Then DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao issued an Order denying petitioners application for exemption. The DAR Secretary noted that, When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the as of February 15, 1993, the Alangilan landholding remained subject property. On February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the agricultural, reserved for residential. Petitioner moved for subject property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP 16,000. The reconsideration but the same was denied. deed of sale was notarized on February 17, 1954 and registered on March 2, 1954. Also, the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was On appeal, the OP affirmed the decision of the DAR secretary. canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of Petitioner went up to the CA via a petition for review on certiorari, Deleste. assailing the OP decision but the CA dismissed the petition. Upon denial of its motion for reconsideration, the present petition is filed. On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought Issue: under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to Is the subject property undeer the coverage of CARL? farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property was placed under the said program. However, only the heirs of Gregorio were Ruling: identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the Yes. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to convince us that the landowners. Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to Alangilan landholding ceased to be agricultural at the time of the the coverage were sent to these heirs. effectivity of the CARL. In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as the Zoning Regulation of Iligan City, reclassifying the subject agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as property as commercial/residential. Eventually, on February 12, residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioners assertion, the 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR subject property. The CLTs were registered on July 15, 1986. On Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with intended land use. It does not denote that the property has already the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for petition seeking to nullify private respondents EPs. residential is not a land classification category. On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the (PARAD) rendered a Decision declaring that the EPs were null and subject landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the void in view of the pending issues of ownership, the subsequent fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in reclassification of the subject property into a residential/commercial 1994, reclassifying the landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the land, and the violation of petitioners constitutional right to due Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 14 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
process of law. construed as automatically vesting upon these tenant-farmers Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486, reversed the absolute ownership over the land they were tilling. Certain ruling of the PARAD in its Decision dated March 15, 2004. It held, requirements must also be complied with, such as payment of just among others, that the EPs were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste compensation, before full ownership is vested upon the tenant- who should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case farmers. No. 698 at the time the subject property was placed under the coverage of the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a party Prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements, tenant- to the said case. Further, it stated that the record is bereft of any farmers have, at most, an inchoate right over the land they were evidence that the city ordinance has been approved by the Housing tilling. In recognition of this, a CLT is issued to a tenant-farmer to and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), as mandated by DAR serve as a provisional title of ownership over the landholding while Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and held that whether the lot owner is awaiting full payment of just compensation or for as the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT Program is an long as the tenant-farmer is an amortizing owner. administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the DAR Secretary or the latters authorized Land transfer under PD 27 is effected in two (2) stages. The first representative. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise stage is the issuance of a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary as soon as the denied by the DARAB in its Resolution dated July 8, 2004. DAR transfers the landholding to the farmer-beneficiary in recognition that said person is its deemed owner. And the second Issues: stage is the issuance of an EP as proof of full ownership of the 1. Whether or not the subject property is outside the coverage of landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or lease the agrarian reform program rentals by the farmer-beneficiary. 2. Whether or not respondents acquired vested rights over the land under PD 27 In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it was only in 1984 that private respondents, Ruling: as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an inchoate right 1. Yes. We agree with petitioners that the subject property, over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian requirements. Considering that the local zoning ordinance was reform program in view of the enactment by the City of Iligan of its enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978, local zoning ordinance, City Ordinance No. 1313. private respondents still had no vested rights to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that private respondents were issued It is undeniable that the local government has the power to the CLTs and were deemed owners. reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, this Court held that pursuant to Sec. The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local Government reclassification had taken place twenty-six (26) years prior to their Code, municipal and/or city councils are empowered to adopt issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued prior to zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property, with the National Planning Commission. It was also emphasized particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian therein that the power of the local government to convert or reform program. reclassify lands from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657 is not subject to the approval of the DAR. LBP V. Estate of Araneta, G.R. No. 161796, Feb. 8, 2012
Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which Facts: was enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject At the heart of the controversy is a large tract of land with an area of property into a commercial/residential area. DARAB, however, 1,645 hectares, more or less, which was originally registered in the believes that the approval of HLURB is necessary in order for the name of Alfonso Doronilla (Doronilla) under Original Certificate of reclassification to be valid. Title (OCT) No. 7924 of the Rizal Registry.
We differ. As previously mentioned, City Ordinance No. 1313 was On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283, enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975. Significantly, there was still no carving out a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in HLURB to speak of during that time. It was the Task Force on Human Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the segregated area for townsite Settlements, the earliest predecessor of HLURB, which was already purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be”. in existence at that time, having been created on September 19, 1973 pursuant to Executive Order No. 419. It should be noted, In 1978, the OSG filed with the then CFI of Rizal an expropriation however, that the Task Force was not empowered to review and complaint against the Doronilla property. Meanwhile, on 1979, approve zoning ordinances and regulations. Doronilla issued a Certification, copy furnished the Agrarian Reform Office, among other agencies, listing seventy-nine (79) "bona fide Since the subject property had been reclassified as planters" he allegedly permitted to occupy a portion of his land. On residential/commercial land with the enactment of City Ordinance 1987 or nine (9) years after it commenced expropriation No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an agricultural proceedings, the OSG moved for and secured the dismissal of the land within the ambit of RA 6657. expropriation case.
2. No. It should be clarified that even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased, are deemed owners as of October 21, 1972, this is not to be acquired ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 15 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
court litigation. A little over a week later, he had OCT No. 7924 agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the canceled and secured the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and (TCT) No. N-70860 in his name. tenant, or lessor and lessee.
Issue: Section. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court Whether or not the disputed lots are covered by CARL or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Ruling: Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an Partly yes and partly no. allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature The primary governing agrarian law with regard to agricultural lands, and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case be they of private or public ownership and regardless of tenurial shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the arrangement and crops produced, is now RA 6657. DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the The provisions of RA 6657 apply only to agricultural lands under determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial which category the Doronilla property, during the period material, recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the no longer falls, having been effectively classified as residential by prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial force of Proclamation 1637. It ceased, following Natalia Realty, Inc., court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal to be agricultural land upon approval of its inclusion in the LS shall be to the Court of Appeals. Xxx Townsite Reservation pursuant to the said reclassifying presidential issuance. Section 8. Prima Facie Presumption of an Existence of Agrarian Dispute or that the Case is Agrarian in Nature. — The Before Proclamation 1637 came to be, there were already PD 27 presence of any of the following facts or circumstances shall tenant-farmers in said property. In a very real sense, the "private automatically give rise to a prima facie presumption that rights" belong to these tenant-farmers. Since the said farmer- an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature: beneficiaries were deemed owners of the agricultural land awarded (a) A previous determination by the DAR that to them as of October 21, 1972 under PD 27 and subsequently an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in deemed full owners under EO 228, the logical conclusion is clear and nature, or the existence of a pending action with the DAR, simple: the township reservation established under Proclamation whether an Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case or a 1637 must yield and recognize the "deemed ownership rights" case before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which bestowed on the farmer-beneficiaries under PD 27. Another way of involves the same landholding; looking at the situation is that these farmer-beneficiaries are (b) A previous determination by the National Labor subrogated in the place of Doronilla and eventual transferee Relations Commission or its Labor Arbiters that the Araneta. farmworker is/was an employee of the complainant; (c) A notice of coverage was issued or a petition for Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that CARL shall ‘cover, regardless of coverage under any agrarian reform program was filed on tenurial agreement and commodity produced, all public and private the subject landholding; or agricultural lands.’ As to what constitutes ‘agricultural land,’ it is (d) Other analogous circumstances. referred to as ‘land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this If there is a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or or that the case is agrarian in nature, the burden of proving the industrial land.’ The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission contrary shall be on the party alleging the same. confirm this limitation. (Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 19 of R.A. No. 9700 (Jurisdiction on and Referral of Cases that Are Agrarian in ‘Agricultural lands’ are only those lands which are ‘arable and Nature), DAR Administrative Order No. 03-11, [July 19, 2011]) suitable agricultural lands’ and do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands.’ "Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural Essential Requisites of leasehold relationship: activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands 1. Parties (landowner and tenants) previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity 2. Subject matter is agricultural land of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. 3. Consent of parties 4. Purpose is agricultural production Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. v Sps. Gloria Saliga, supra. (See case 5. Personal cultivation by the tenant digest in previous pages) 6. Sharing of harvest between parties
Agrarian Dispute Note: All requisites must concur. Absence of one does not make one Section 3 (d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to a tenant. tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes Isidro v. CA, G.R. No. L-105586, December 15, 1993 concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange Facts: terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. Private respondent is owner of land. Sister of private respondent It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer vacate upon demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other against Isidro. RTC dismissed because land is agricultural and so Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 16 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
agrarian. Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) praying that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land in the Issue: name of the De Leon sisters. Are the requisites for the existence of tenancy present? Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of Ruling: the land since time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of No. Jurisdiction over subject matter is determined from the the owners, who were her sisters-in-law and that petitioners allegations in the complaint. Court does not lose jurisdiction by entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice planted on defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if the land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy tenancy is shown, the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. equipment; that the incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian Case involving agricultural land does not automatically make such Reform Office (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist Order 5 but case agrarian. Six requisites were not present. There was no contract to no avail. to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of land. Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over the land; restore the land to its original Bejasa v. CA, G.R. No. 108941, July 6, 2000 condition and not to convert the same to non -agricultural use; that any act of disposition of the land to any other person be declared Facts: null and void because as a tenant, she allegedly had a right of pre- Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to emption or redemption over the land. Malabanan. Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject clear it, with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program continued to stay on the land and did not give any consideration for (CARP). He alleged that respondent is no longer physically capable of its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest tilling the land; that the MARO issued a certification that the land had no registered tenant; that respondent could not be regarded as Issue: a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns and resides in the Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired through Bejasas. inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy was executed by the De Leon sisters when they sold the property to him. Ruling: No. There was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There Moreover, Lim claimed that respondent and her family was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. surreptitiously entered the subject land and planted a few crops to Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land. pass themselves off as cultivators thereof; that respondent tried to There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas negotiate with petitioner Lim for the sale of the land to her, as the to be the tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of latter was interested in entering into a joint venture with another tenancy were met in this case. There was no proof of sharing in residential developer, which shows that respondent has sufficient harvest. resources and cannot be a beneficiary under the CARP; that the land is no longer classified as agricultural and could not thus be covered Almuete v. Andres, G.R. No. 122276, Nov. 20, 2001 by the CARP. Per certification issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Bacoor, Cavite, the land is classified as residential pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Facts: approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown to Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived his Issue: Whether there is an agrarian dispute rights. Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him for a Ruling: carabao and P600. Almuete filed an action for recovery of No. There is no substantial evidence to support that respondent is a possession and reconveyance before trial court. Issue is who bona fide tenant on the subject property. between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above. It was not shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy Issue: Whether there is agrarian dispute relationship or that the De Leon sisters received any share in the harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a Ruling: No. This controversy relates to ownership of farmland so it is beyond tenancy relationship. the ambit of agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent. RTC was The affidavits merely stated that the De Leon sisters have known competent to try the case. respondent to be the cultivator of the land since time immemorial. It cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest sharing. That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without Nicorp Devt v. De Leon, G.R. No. 176942, Aug. 28, 2008 opposition, does not mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly
recognized the existence of a leasehold relation with respondent. Facts: Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not ipso facto Respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial make one a de jure tenant. Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 17 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
Sps. Fajardo vs. Flores , G.R. No. 167891, Jan. 15, 2010 should be primordial. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present. Facts: Parties executed a Kasunduan where it was admitted that Jesus The affidavits executed by three of respondents' neighbors are Fajardo was the tiller of the land. In another agreement, an area of insufficient to establish a finding of tenancy relationship between 10,923 sq. m. was given to petitioners. The portion of the land Pastor and Macario. As correctly observed by the estate of Pastor where petitoners’ home is erected is the subject of the instant case Samson, the affiants did not provide details based on their personal for unlawful detainer. knowledge as to how the crop-sharing agreement was implemented, how much was given by Macario to Pastor, when and where the Issue: Whether it is MTC or DARAB which has jurisdiction over the payments were made, or whether they have at any instance case. witnessed Pastor receive his share of the harvest from Macario. Such failure is fatal to respondents' claim particularly since the Ruling: respondents have the burden of proving their affirmative allegation DARAB has jurisdiction. of tenancy. In fine, the conclusions of the RARAD, DARAB and the CA SC agreed with RTC which pointed out that the resolution of this respecting the existence of tenancy relationship between Pastor and case hinges on the correct interpretation of the contracts executed Macario are not supported by substantial evidence on record. by the parties. The issue of who has a better right of possession over the subject and cannot be determined without resolving first the Atty GCC: matter as to whom the subject property was allotted. Thus, it not a You can use affidavits of neighbors for as long as it has the specific case for unlawful detainer because it is incapable of pecuniary details showing: estimation. - how the agreement was implemented - how much was given There exists an agrarian dispute because the controversy involves - when and where the payments were made the home lot of petitioners—an incident arising from the landlord- - whether they have a witness when the landowner is receiving the tenant relationship. share.
Petitioner’s claim that the tenancy relationship has been terminated Heirs of Quilo v. DBP, G.R. No. 184369, Oct. 23, 3013 by the Kasulatan is of no moment. As long as the subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the termination of the relationship, or if Facts: the dispute originates from such relationship, the case is cognizable The spouses Emilio Oliveros and Erlinda de Guzman (spouses
by the DARAB. Oliveros) owned four parcels of land. In 1966, Florentino Quilo
(Quilo) started planting vegetables thereon. Sometime in 1975, Estate of Pastor Samson vs. Susano, G.R.No. 179024, May 30, 2011 Quilo filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a Complaint against the spouses Oliveros regarding unspecified issues Facts: in their alleged agrarian relations. Hence, on 12 September 1975, a This case deals with affidavits executed by the neighbors of the Notice of Conference was sent to the spouses by a DAR Team occupants claiming that they were tenants of the land. Leader. However, the Complaint did not prosper.
Issue: Was there tenancy? The spouses Oliveros later on mortgaged the parcels of land to the Development Bank of the Philippines, Dagupan City Branch Ruling: (respondent bank) to secure a loan, for which they executed an
No. The existence of a tenancy relationship is a question of fact. Affidavit of Non-Tenancy. Since they were unable to pay the loan, There was no specific evidence cited to support such conclusion the mortgage was foreclosed, and the title to the landholding other than their observation that Pastor failed to protest Macario’s consolidated with respondent bank. possession and cultivation over the subject land for more than 30 On 15 April 1983, respondent bank sold the parcels of land to the years. Contrary to what is required by law, no independent and spouses Roberto and Carlina del Mindo (respondent spouses) for [11] concrete evidence were adduced. P34,000. Respondent spouses began to fence the subject
landholding shortly after. It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. Upon learning about the sale, Quilo filed a Complaint for Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal Redemption with Damages against respondents with the Regional cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner. Trial Court, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan (RTC). He alleged that Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing as an agricultural tenant of the land, he had the preference and the
cannot be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence; there must be priority to buy it. He further said that he was ready to repurchase it, concrete evidence on record adequate to prove the element of and that he had deposited with the Clerk of Court the amount of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other credible ?34,000 and other necessary expenses as redemption price. evidence must be presented, because self-serving statements are inadequate. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the Issue: Was there tenancy? elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by conjectures. Leasehold relationship is not brought Ruling: about by the mere congruence of facts but, being a legal No. Notice of conference and the affidavits only showed that Quinto relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that relationship filed a complaint against the spouses Oliveros regarding the land he Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 18 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
was cultivating. The affidavits confirmed merely that Quinto had that since the year 1995 until the date of the affidavit, the subject been planting on the land. Documents no way confirmed that his land was not being used for farming, cultivation or any agricultural presence on the land was based on a tenancy relationship that the purpose. These evidence can only mean that the leasehold contract spouses Oliveros had agreed to. was falsified.
Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not In addition, it should be kept in mind that Zenaida was convicted of automatically establish a leasehold relation or make one a tenant. falsification of public documents as affirmed in our Resolution dated The affidavit only stated that Quilo had given his share of the 8 December 2008 in G.R. No. 184728. Zenaida registered and harvest to the spouses (the details fell short). transferred to her name four land titles owned by Pablo Floro by forging the signature of Pablo Floro in a deed of sale. Likewise, in Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other evidence to G.R. No. 169674 for annulment of title, we affirmed the ruling of the show that there were sharing of harvest and that there was an appellate court in declaring the titles issued in the name of Zenaida agreed system of sharing between them. Deposit cannot prove the and Sun Industrial as void. existence of a sharing agreement. It must be showed that the deposit is made in relation to tenancy. In sum, the certifications from Bautista and the MARO declaring Reyes to be a tenant are not enough evidence to prove that there is Reyes v. Heirs of Floro, G.R. No. 200713, Dec. 11, 2013 a tenancy relationship. One claiming to be a de jure tenant has the burden to show, by substantial evidence, that all the essential Facts: elements of a tenancy relationship are present. Since Reyes is not Reyes contends that (1) the Pagpapatunay dated 17 September a de jure tenant or lessee, he is not entitled to the benefits of 1983 from Carmen Bautista, the original owner of the land, stating redemption, pre-emption, peaceful possession, occupation and that Reyes was one of her tenants; and (2) the Certification dated 4 cultivation of the subject land, as provided under existing tenancy May 1995 from the MARO stating that Reyes is an agricultural lessee laws. over the land owned by Zenaida, are enough evidence to prove that he is a tenant. Reyes insists that the consent of the Floros is not What is the value of a notarized document? necessary since tenancy relations is not terminated by changes in Before a document is received by the court, they will look into the ownership in case of sale or transfer of legal possession. question of admissibility. If notarized, there is no need to present a witness, since there is a presumption. Respondent heirs, on the other hand, maintain that Reyes is not an If not notarized, you need a witness to testify on the document. agricultural lessee because: (1) there was no valid contract between Reyes and Zenaida nor between Reyes and Bautista; (2) Reyes has Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. vs. Sps. Gloria Saliga, supra. (See case not personally cultivated the parcel of land; (3) Reyes did not share digest in previous pages) any harvest with any landowner; and (4) the claim of Reyes is not supported by substantial evidence. Issue: Was there an agricultural leasehold relationship Issue: WON Reyes is a de jure tenant or lessee who is entitled to Ruling: redemption, pre-emption, peaceful possession, occupation and No tenancy relationship exists between DNTDC and the respondents cultivation of the subject land for the tenancy relationship between the ceased when the property was reclassified. Ruling: Court outlined the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship, all No. The MARO certification is merely preliminary and does not bind of which must concur for the relationship to exist. the courts as conclusive evidence that Reyes is a lessee who - The parties are the landowner and the tenant cultivates the land for purposes of agricultural production. - The subject is agricultural land In Bautista v. Araneta, we held that certifications issued by - There is consent administrative agencies or officers that a certain person is a tenant - The purpose is agricultural production are merely provisional and not conclusive on the courts. Here, the - There is personal cultivation certification from Bautista has little evidentiary value, without any - There is sharing of harvests corroborative evidence. The certification was not notarized and Bautista was not even presented as a witness. Similarly, Reyes was The absence of any of these requisites does not make an occupant a not included as a legitimate and properly registered agricultural cultivator, or a planter, a de jure tenant. Consequently, a person tenant in the supposed Deed of Absolute Sale with Agricultural who is not a de jure tenant is not entitled to security of tenure nor Tenants Conformity which Bautista executed in favor of Zenaida. covered by the land reform program of the government under any existing tenancy laws. In this case, we hold that no tenancy Further, the genuineness of the agricultural leasehold contract that relationship exists between DNTDC, as the owner of the property, Zenaida entered into with Reyes is doubtful. The records show that and the respondents, as the purported tenants; the second essential respondent heirs submitted two documentary evidence with the requisite as outlined above – the subject is agricultural land – is PARAD which the provincial adjudicator disregarded: (1) a MARO lacking. To recall, the property had already been reclassified as non- Certification dated 9 May 2005 manifesting that there is no copy on agricultural land. Accordingly, the respondents are not de jure file, with the Municipal Land Reform Office of Malolos, Bulacan, of tenants and are, therefore, not entitled to the benefits granted to the supposed leasehold contract; and (2) a Pagpapatunay dated 8 agricultural lessees under the provisions of P.D. No. 27, in relation to June 2004 from the Punong Barangay of Malolos, Bulacan attesting R.A. No. 6657. Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 19 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
Automat v Sps. Cruz, G.R. No. 192026, Oct. 1, 2014 Further, said lands reclassified to non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988 ceased to be considered as "agricultural lands" and Facts: removed from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Petitioner Automat Realty and Development Corporation (Automat) Reform Program. is the registered owner of two parcels of land located in Barangay Malitlit, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, covered by TCT Nos. T-210027 and T- Third requisite: Consent; nature of relationship 209077. Petitioner Leonor Lim (petitioner Lim) was the real estate The landowner's consent to an agricultural tenancy relationship broker behind Automat's purchase of the property. must be shown. While this court agrees with the conclusion that no agricultural tenancy relationship can exist in this case, we find that Respondent spouses dela Cruz sometimes referred to petitioner Lim the element of consent in establishing a relationship, not necessarily some Sta. Rosa real estate properties available for sale. They of agricultural tenancy, is present. received a share in the broker's fees either from the seller or buyer. The land was not occupied in 1990 when it was purchased by The Supreme Court found that Automat consented to a relationship Automat. Respondent Ofelia dela Cruz volunteered her services to with respondent spouses when (a) through petitioner Lim, it petitioner Lim as caretaker to prevent informal settlers from constituted respondent Ofelia dela Cruz as caretaker of the property entering the property. Automat agreed, through its authorized with the understanding that she would vacate when asked by administrator, petitioner Lim, on the condition that the caretaker Automat, and (b) it accepted rental payments from respondent would voluntarily vacate the premises upon Automat's demand. spouses. Respondent spouses' family stayed in the property as rent-paying tenants. They cultivated and improved the land. They shared their Other requisites were no longer discussed by SC. produce with Automat through its authorized agent, petitioner Lito Respondent spouses were allowed to stay in the property as Cecilia (petitioner Cecilia). He also remitted the rentals paid by caretakers and, in turn, they paid petitioners rent for their use of the respondent Ofelia Dela Cruz to petitioner Lim in Makati and to property. Petitioners' acceptance of rental payments may be Automat's office in Quezon City. considered as ratification of an unwritten lease agreement whose period depends on their agreed frequency of rental payments. Sometime in August 2000, Automat asked respondent spouses to However, this court is not a trier of facts and can only entertain vacate the premises as it was preparing the groundwork for questions of law. The causes of action of respondent spouses, if developing the property. Respondent spouses refused to vacate these can be supported by the facts and evidence, may be pursued unless they were paid compensation. They claimed "they were in the proper case either under builder, planter, or sower provisions, agricultural tenants [who] enjoyed security of tenure under the law. or civil lease provisions before the proper court.
Issue: Caluzor v. Llanillo, Moldex Realty, G.R. No. 155580, July 1, 2015 Whether an agricultural tenancy relationship exists between Automat and respondent spouses. Facts: Petitioner Romeo Caluzor alleges that Lorenzo Llanillo took him as a Ruling: tenant, giving him (Caluzor) a sketch of the the land he will be No, there is absence of an agricultural tenancy relationship between cultivating. Even after the death of Lorenzo, Caluzor continued Automat and respondent spouses. giving Lorenzo’s share to his overseer, Martin Ricardo. In 1990, Deogracias Llanillo, son of Lorenzo, offered to pay Caluzor P17,000 There must be substantial evidence on the presence of all these per hectare of the cultivated land in exchange for turning his requisites; otherwise, there is no de jure tenant. Only those who (Caluzor’s) tillage over to Deogracias. However, no payment was have established de jure tenant status are entitled to security of made and instead, Caluzor was ejected from the land. Efforts before tenure and coverage under tenancy laws. Respondent spouses were the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council proved futile which gave the ones claiming they had a tenancy relationship with Automat. authority to Caluzor to file the instant case. Thus, they had the burden of proof to show that such relationship existed. Issue: Whether a tenancy relationship exists between Caluzor and Llanillo. st On the 1 requisite: Actual Tillers A MARO certification "concerning the presence or the absence of a Ruling: tenancy relationship between the contending parties, is considered No. There is no tenancy relationship between Caluzor and Llanillo. merely preliminary or provisional, hence, such certification does not Tenancy relationship and entitlement to disturbance compensation bind the judiciary." MARO certifications are limited to factual requires factual and legal bases. determinations such as the presence of actual tillers. It cannot make legal conclusions on the existence of a tenancy agreement. In establishing tenancy relationship, independent evidence should prove the consent of the landowner to the relationship and the On the Second requisite: property must be agricultural land sharing of the harvest. In this case, the third and sixth elements are The land in this case cannot be considered as agricultural land. not present. Caluzor testified that Lorenzo allowed him to cultivate First, it is undisputed that the DAR Region IV-A CALABARZON had the land by giving to him (Caluzor) the sketch of the lot in order to already issued two orders, both dated March 30, 2010, exempting delineate the portion of his tillage. Yet, the sketch did not establish the property from CARP coverage. These orders were submitted that Lorenzo had categorically taken the petitioner as his agricultural before the Court of Appeals and raised again before this court. The tenant. This element (consent) demanded that the landowner and order provides in part: tenant should have agreed to the relationship freely and voluntarily, Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 20 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
with neither of them unduly imposing his will on the other. In this with the aid available from within their immediate farm households case, there is no showing of such consent. — cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the latter's consent, for purposes of production, sharing the produce Even assuming that Lorenzo permitted Caluzor to till the land, there with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to is still no tenancy relationship established because they had not the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money
discussed any fruit sharing scheme, with Lorenzo simply telling him or both under the leasehold tenancy system. Under this definition, a that he would just ask his share from Caluzor. Petitioner disclosed tenant is entitled to the products of the land he or she cultivates. that he did not see Lorenzo after he received the sketch and until The landowner's share in the produce depends on the agreement Lorenzo’s death. Although he still continued sharing the fruits between the parties. through Ricardo evidenced by a list of produce to support his claim, the list did not indicate Ricardo’s receiving the fruits listed. It Hence, the harvesting done by the tenant is with the landowner's did not also contain Ricardo’s authority to receive Lorenzo’s share. consent. The existence of the DARAB Decision adjudicating the issue of tenancy between petitioner and private complainant negates the The absence of the clear cut sharing agreement between Caluzor existence of the element that the taking was done without the and Lorenzo could only signify that the latter merely tolerated owner's consent. The DARAB Decision implies that petitioner had Caluzor’s cultivation sans tenancy. It did not make him de jure legitimate authority to harvest the abaca. The prosecution, tenant. There must be concrete evidence on record adequate to therefore, failed to establish all the elements of theft. prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented. Tenancy DAR V. Paramount Holdings, G.R. No. 176838, June 13, 2013 relationship cannot be presumed. Leasehold tenancy is not brought about by mere congruence of facts but, being a legal Facts: relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that relationship The case stems from the petition docketed as DARAB Case No. R- should be primordial. 0403-0009-02, filed with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) by the DAR through Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Monico Ligtas v. People G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015, (PARO) Felixberto Q. Kagahastian. The petition sought to nullify the sale to the respondents of several parcels of land. Facts: Anecita Pacate filed a complaint for theft against Ligtas alleging that The PARO argued that the properties were agricultural land yet their she is the owner of an abaca plantation. She asked Cabero, the sale was effected without DAR Clearance as required under Republic plantation's administrator, and several men, including Cipres, to Act No. 6657(R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as the harvest abaca however they were surprised to find Ligtas harvesting Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). abaca at the plantation. Ligtas was accompanied by three (3) unidentified men. Allegedly, Ligtas threatened that there would be The respondents opposed the petition, contending that since the loss of life if they persisted in harvesting the abaca. Cabero reported matter involves an administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657, the incident to Anecita Pacate and the police. On the part of Ligtas, the case is cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, not the he said that that he had been a tenant Anecita Pacate. Meanwhile, DARAB. They also sought the petition's dismissal on the grounds of Ligtas filed a Complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform prescription,litis pendentia,res judicataand forum shopping. Adjudication Board (DARAB) for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession. Subsequently, the DARAB rendered the Decision ruling On October 16, 2002, Provincial Adjudicator Virgilio M. Sorita (PA that Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land. Sorita) issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. In the Decision rendered by the RTC, it held that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of theft. The Court of Appeals Issue:
affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction
Issue: Ruling: Should petitioner Monico Ligtas be convicted for theft under Article DARAB has no jurisdiction. 308 of the Revised Penal Code It is easily discernable . . . that the cause of action of the [DAR] sufficiently established a suit for the declaration of the sale of the Ruling: subject landholdings null and void (in violation of Administrative No. The uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian Order No. 1, Series of 1989). Obviously,it does not involve an Reform Adjudication Board that Monico Ligtas was a tenant negates agrarian suit, hence, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the a finding of theft beyond reasonable doubt. Tenants having rights to DARAB. It must be emphasized that there must be a tenancy the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their own produce. relationship between the party litigants for the DARAB to validly take cognizance of a controversy. The essential elements of theft are: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done Our finding on the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction over the PARO's without the owner's consent; (4) there was intent to gain; and (5) petition renders it needless for the Court to discuss the other issues the taking was done without violence against or intimidation of the that are raised in the petition. In any case, the Court finds it worthy person or force upon things. to discuss that the original petition remains dismissible on the merits. Tenants have been defined as: persons who — in themselves and Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 21 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
There is no record of tenancy or written agricultural leasehold the PARO's petition for annulment of sale and cancellation of titles contract with respect to the subject lands, nor are the same covered falls under the jurisdiction of the DARAB, as it contains allegations to by Operation Land Transfer pursuant toP.D. 27. Thus, for being the effect that it involves sales of agricultural lands under the industrial in nature, the subject lands are outside the ambit of coverage of the CARL. existing agricultural tenancy laws. Significantly, unlike in this case where the transfer of the subject The Housing Land Use Regulatory Board has affirmed through a properties appears to have been done to evade the retention limits Certificationdated May 22, 1991 that the zoning ordinance referred and coverage under CARP, the Court found the original petition to was approved on December 2, 1981. Thus, the respondents in Paramount dismissible on the merits as the records clearly correctly argued that since the subject properties were already showed that the subject lands were already classified as "industrial" classified as "industrial" long before the effectivity of the CARL, their long before the effectivity of the CARL. sale could not have been covered by the CARP and the requirement for a DAR clearance. Landicho v. Limqueco, G.R. Nos. 194554 & 194556, December 7, 2016 DAR v. Robles, G.R. No. 190482, December 9, 2015 Facts: Facts: In this case, the petitions filed before the PARAD asking for the Same factual milieu in Paramount. In this case, what is being nullification of the contracts of sale and recovery of the CLOAs did assailed in the DAR's petition for annulment of deeds of sale and not contain any allegation of tenurial relations constitutive of an cancellation of titles is the legality of the transfer of title over the agrarian dispute as the parties were not subjects of a landowner and subject properties in favor of respondents, and not their tenant relationship, or an allegation that they were lessors and corresponding TCTs, due to the absence of DAR clearance and for lessees of each other as reinforced by the categorical admission of possible violation of Section 6, paragraph 4 of R.A. No. 6657. the parties in their pleadings that no such contract exists.
Issue: Issue: Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction Was there an agrarian dispute to sufficiently confer jurisdiction to DARAB Ruling: Yes. Despite the fact that the same jurisdictional issue is involved in Ruling: this case, the Court's ruling in Paramount is inapplicable because of Yes. Absence of the above allegations do not necessarily mean that the difference between the material allegations in the PARO's the controversy is no longer agrarian in nature. petitions in both cases. The second sentence of Section 3 (d) of the CARL clearly provides Given that the PARO's petition in this case likewise failed to allege that an agrarian dispute also includes "any controversy relating to any tenancy or agrarian relations and to indicate an agrarian compensation of lands acquired under the CARP law and other dispute, and its cause of action is merely founded on the absence of terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to a clearance to cover the sale and registration of the subject lands, it farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, bears emphasis that the DARAB's jurisdiction is not limited to whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm agrarian disputes where tenancy relationship between the parties operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and exists. Under Section 1 (1.13), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of lessee." Procedure, the DARAB also has jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters referred to it by the Secretary of DAR, such as the PARO's Here, the controversy pertains to respondent's act of selling to a petition for annulment of deeds of sale and annulment of titles filed third person the lands acquired by the petitioners under the CARP. pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 01-89 and DAR M.C. No. 02-01 for The farmer-beneficiaries were made to sign deeds of sale, which violation of the legal requirement for clearances in the sale and they did not understand. Hence, the case is still an agrarian dispute transfer of agricultural lands. and within the jurisdiction of the DARAB and PARAD.
In contrast to Paramount where it is undisputed that the subject Contrary to respondent’s claim that there were no allegations, there lands had not been subject of any notice of coverage under the were actually several allegations that plainly show that the CARP, the PARO's petition in this case alleged that one of the subject petitioners are invoking their rights as beneficiaries of the CARL; that lands was issued a notice of coverage. At any rate, the Court holds they consider the conveyance of their properties as having been that such notice is unnecessary in order for the DARAB to have made in violation of the terms and conditions of the CARL; and that jurisdiction over a case that involves the sale of "agricultural lands all of the transfers should be nullified because they were procured under the coverage of the CARP," pursuant to Section 1 (1.5), Rule II through fraud, undue influence and mistake. of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. As held in Sarne v. Maquiling, the said phrase includes all private lands devoted to or All these constitute an agrarian dispute in the context of a suitable for agriculture, as defined under Section 4 of RA No. 6657. controversy relating to terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to agrarian reform beneficiaries. This is In view of the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter and because the main contention of the parties was clearly couched on nature of the petition is determined by the allegations therein and the alleged denial by the respondent of their established rights as the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the beneficiaries over the subject properties under agrarian reform petitioner is entitled to any or all such reliefs, the Court finds that laws. Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 22 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
DAR vs. Woodland, G.R. No. 188174, June 29, 2015 That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to Facts: remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another NOC dated 11 Dec. 2003 and NOA dated 3 October 2004 were issued agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the over the portion of respondent’s land. tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary Issue: under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in Can petitioner still issue NOC and NOA after June 15, 1998? another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this Ruling: option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner For us to sustain Woodland's theory that the DAR can no longer manifests his choice of the area for retention. issue those notices after 15 June 1998 despite the enactment of R.A. 8532 would thwart the CARP's purpose. In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected. Clearly, Section 63 refers to the implementation of the CARL in its entirety, not just the funding source. Indeed, R.A. 8532 specifically Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, amended Section 63 of R.A. 6657, but it does not follow that only management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands Section 63 had been affected by the amendment. The fact that executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be Section 63 falls under the chapter on "Financing" only emphasizes its null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this general applicability. Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Hence, the phrase "until the year 2008" used in R.A. 8532 Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of unmistakably extends the DAR's authority to issue NOCs for Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction purposes of acquiring and distributing private agricultural lands. involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares. Finally, R.A. 9700 extended the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands until 30 June 2014. Homestead Patent Section 6 Par. 1, last proviso: Provided, further, That original The title alone of R.A. 9700 — An Act Strengthening the homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending the the original homestead at the time of the approval of this act shall Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate the Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of homestead. Republic Act No. 6657, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, As Amended, and Appropriating Qualifications under Sec. 6 in order to retain the homestead: Funds Therefor — reveals that the CARP was indeed extended from 1. original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs 1998 to 2008 via R.A. 8532. 2. who still own the homestead 3. as long as they continue to cultivate (most important) Had there been no prior extension from 1998 to 2008, how else could the CARP have been extended by R.A. 9700 until 30 June Homestead Patent: A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable 2014? There could have been an extension only if the program lands of public domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon sought to be extended had not expired. actual cultivation and residence.
Section 6. Retention Limits Where do you file the application? Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Before the CENRO where the land being applied is located. Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to Who are qualified? factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity Citizens of Philippines over 18 years old and not an owner of more produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution) the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) Who can claim exemption; Retention limit of landowner; hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the Section 6 par 1: … in no case shall retention by the landowner landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall tilling the land or directly managing the farm… be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or What is not covered?; How many hectares are not covered? their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead Section 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. — Provincial, city and at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as municipal government units acquiring private agricultural lands by long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 23 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section xxx. for establishing seed and seeding research. (Sec. 4, RA 9700) The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of Atty GCC: That means that in an agricultural land, the landowner CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth cannot use his right of retention to prevent the LGU from exercising of a university in years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a its right to expropriate. school established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for vast tract of agriculture land for future programs of expansion is Reason: Public purposes such as road, bridges, public market, school obvious. sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares. While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly So what the landowner can do is choose another area to retain. That connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational is if it is consistent with the comprehensive land use of the LGU. institution
Award to child of landowner As to determination of when and what lands are found to be Three hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, necessary for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve & subject to the following qualifications: answer the question. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless - That he is at least fifteen (15) years of age it is manifest that CMU has no real need for land. - That he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm Things to take note in this case: Atty GCC: - One part used for school and campus site - Another part not used, Remember: The word used by law with respect to the children or part is leased to Del Monte Phil. Packing Co. child of the landowner is NOT retention but AWARD. - Central Mindanao is an agricultural school Meaning: For a child to be awarded by the government with 3 Supreme Court did not use the phrase “found to be necessary”, but hectares, he has to comply with these qualifications impliedly it was referring to it. Because even if that portion of land was not used, if it was found to be necessary for future expansion, it Who normally examines the qualifications? is to be exempted from coverage. MARO. And with due respect with MAROs, it is also possible that it is in the appreciation of these qualifications that corruption can come DAR v DECS, G.R. No. 158228, March 23, 2004 in, with or without consideration. Facts: Exemption from coverage Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were donated by the late Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of
a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, Education). Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding name of respondent DECS . grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act. Respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from 1984-1994. The farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10 Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been agricultural crop years or until 2005. On June 10, 1993, Eugenio distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian workers of the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory Reform Program. Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal xxx Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante. "c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that the subject lands are experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a educational purposes, seeds and seedling research and pilot conference with the farmer beneficiaries. The recommendation for production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, coverage was approved by DAR Regional Director Dominador B. mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal Andres. burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research Issue: and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the slope and over, except those already developed, shall be exempt coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the from the coverage of this Act." (Sec. 2, RA. 7881) Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).
CMU v DARAB, G.R. No. 100091, Oct. 22, 1992 Ruling: No. While respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage From Atty’s slides: on the ground that all the income derived from its contract of lease The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly & with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually, directly and exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus, exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 24 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
and renovations of schools in the nearby locality, the court is pigs, and other livestock inclined with the petitioner’s argument that the lands subject hereof are not exempt from the CARP coverage because the same are not On June 10, 1988, CARL took effect. In May 1993, petitioner applied actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as for the exemption/exclusion of its 316.0422-hectare property they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this Court in Luz Farms. be exempt from the coverage, it is the land per se, not the income Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, DAR issued AO No. 9, Series of derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and exclusively 1993, setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of used for educational purposes. agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage. Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of Milestone re-documented its application pursuant to said AO. DAR’s their exemption specifying those “lands actually, directly and Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) conducted exclusively used and found to be necessary for national an ocular inspection on petitioner’s property and recommended the defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm exemption of petitioner’s 316.0422-hectare property from the stations operated by public or private schools for educational coverage of CARP. purposes, …, shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.” DAR Regional Director Dalugdug adopted LUCEC’s recommendation. Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be The Pinugay Farmers, represented by Balajadia, moved for the exempt from the coverage: reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied by 1) the land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used Director Dalugdug. Hence, they filed an appeal with DAR Secretary and found to be necessary;" and 2) the purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including Subsequently, Milestone filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for Balajadia. educational purposes." Issue: Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139592, October 5, 2000 Whether or not Milestone’s property should be exempted from the coverage of CARP Facts: Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. Ruling: DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied for exemption. No. When CA made its decision, DAR AO No. 9 was not yet declared Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus, it could not be said a commission to conduct ocular inspection and survey the land. that the CA erred or gravely abused its discretion in respecting the mandate of DAR A.O. No. 9, which was then subsisting and in full Later, based on the report submitted by the commission, the Court force and effect. of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from CARL. Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as As correctly held by respondent OP, the CA correctly held that the agriculture & which cannot be altered by mere ocular inspection. subject property is not exempt from the coverage of the CARP, as substantial pieces of evidence show that the said property is not Issue: Is the land exempt? exclusively devoted to livestock, swine, and/or poultry raising.
Ruling: Registration Yes. There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax Section 14.Registration of Landowners. — Within one hundred declaration is conclusive; tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of eighty (180) days from the effectivity of this Act, all persons, natural classification of land. or juridical, including government entities, that own or claim to own agricultural lands, whether in their names or in the name of others, SC gave credence to commission’s report. Based on their report, it except those who have already registered pursuant to Executive was found that the land use map submitted by private respondent Order No. 229, who shall be entitled to such incentives as may be was an appropriate document consistent with the existing land use. provided for the PARC, shall file a sworn statement in the proper assessor's office in the form to be prescribed by the DAR, stating the It was confirmed that the lands are not wholly agricultural as they following information: consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope. The CARL (a)the description and area of the property; has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except (b)the average gross income from the property for at least those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of CARL. three (3) years; (c)the names of all tenants and farmworkers therein; cda (d)the crops planted in the property and the area covered Milestone Farms v OP, G.R. No. 182332, Feb.23, 2011 by each crop as of June 1, 1987; (e)the terms of mortgages, leases, and management Facts: contracts subsisting as of June 1, 1987, and Among the pertinent secondary purposes of Milestone Farms are 1) (f)the latest declared market value of the land as to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; 2) to determined by the city or provincial assessor. breed, raise, and sell poultry; and 3) to import cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle, Section 15.Registration of Beneficiaries. — The DAR in coordination Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 25 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized were potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and properties. Further, on November 23, 1994, the Secretary farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP. of Agrarian Reform through the Municipal Agrarian These potential beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage placing the DAR shall provide the following data: the subject properties under CARP. Since the (a)names and members of their immediate farm identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are household; matters involving strictly the administrative (b)owners or administrators of the lands they work on and implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to the length of tenurial relationship; exercise great caution in substituting its own (c)location and area of the land they work; determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of (d)crops planted; and discretion committed by the administrative agency. x x x (e)their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received. While it bears emphasizing that findings of administrative agencies − A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the such as the DARAB − which have acquired expertise because their barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded not only buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the respect but even finality by the courts. Care should be taken so that public at all reasonable hours. administrative actions are not done without due regard to the jurisdictional boundaries set by the enabling law for each agency. Fortich v Corona, G.R. No. 131457, Aug. 19, 1999 In the case at bar, the DARAB has overstepped its legal boundaries in From Atty’s slides: taking cognizance of the controversy between petitioners and Facts: respondents in deciding who should be declared the farmer- Intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so intervened in beneficiaries over the land in dispute. The CA thus erred in affirming case. the decision of the DARAB, which was rendered in excess of jurisdiction. Ruling: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are Ways in distributing lands to qualified beneficiaries under CARL beneficiaries, so they have no standing yet to intervene in the case. 1. Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16) > DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being 2. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec.20) bonafide beneficiaries 3.Non-land transfer schemes : > DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB. a. stock distribution option(SDO); b. production & profit sharing (PPS)- Sec. 13/32; Concha vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 162446, March 29, 2010 c. leasehold operation(Sec.12)
Facts: What are the two aspects of land transfer schemes? The controversy involves the determination of who between Voluntary – The landowner will volunteer to convey the land to the petitioners and respondents are qualified to become beneficiaries government, agree on the price and then execute the deed of over a portion of land with an aggregate area of 33.5006 hectares, conveyance more or less. The subject landholding was placed under the Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Compulsory – If the landowner refuses the notice of acquisition and Reform Program (CARP) of the government. On June 16, 1993, a notice of coverage, Government will have to expropriate. This time Notice of Coverage was sent to the landowners. On March 24, 1995, is a different kind of expropriation. respondents filed a complaint for declaration of their tenancy and their identification as beneficiaries and for disqualification of the Atty GCC: petitioners to become beneficiaries over the subject landholding. On Take note: In VOS, there is a cut-off date under RA 9700. (Right now April 26, 1995, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) approved you cannot avail of this) the landowners’ application for conversion. On August 9, 1999, the - Without any notice from DAR, the landowner proposes to the
Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision government. dismissing the case. - VLT is not anymore an option under the present law (RA 9700) - VLT is an option by the landowner that after receiving the notice of Issue: acquisition from DAR, the landowner offers. Whether or not the DARAB is clothed with jurisdiction to resolve the issue involving the identification and selection of qualified farmer- Under RA 9700, what will remain is COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.
beneficiaries of a land covered by CARP. Note: That is consistent with the thrust of the government, that by 2014, everything should have been offered compulsorily, without Ruling: waiting whether the landowner will offer or not. The conclusion is certain that the DARAB had no jurisdiction to identify who between the parties should be recognized as the beneficiaries of the land in dispute, as it was a purely administrative function of the DAR. The PARAD was, thus, correct when it declared that it had no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, to wit: In the case at bar, the BARC certified that herein farmers Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 26 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
Jurisdiction in identification and selection of beneficiaries Atty GCC: It is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries. Jurisdiction But it was not clear in the law about how identification is lies with the Office of the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of determined > this was supplemented by DAR through an Admin classification of landholdings for coverage (whether the subject Order. property is a private or government owned land), and identification - talks about “notice to acquire”. In the case of CONFED vs. DAR, SC of qualified beneficiaries. talks about two notices
Jurisdiction to cancel a leasehold contract 1. Notice of coverage: More or less Preliminary: WHY? DARAB. (Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board). It exercises - because while it notifies that the property shall be placed under quasi-judicial powers. With respect to quasi-judicial powers, CARP, the landowner is entitled to retention. leasehold contract involves rights, obligations and others terms of - notifies the landowner about the public hearing about the results the contract of field investigation, land evaluation and other pertinent matters - the landowner will be informed that the field investigation of his Who executes a leasehold contract? landholding shall be conducted. After that comes the notice of The agricultural lessor and lessee. acquisition. Take note: Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished 2. Notice of acquisition: by mere expiration of the term of period in a leasehold contract nor - the area subject of compulsory acquisition has to be stated. WHY? by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the land. It is based already on the field investigation In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal - plus the amount of just compensation offered by DAR possession of the landholding, purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the How is the notice to be done? Personal delivery, registered mail and agricultural lessor. posting. Note: in the case of CONFED, Notice shall contain the offer of DAR Who has jurisdiction to issue, correct or cancel CLOAs? - OFFER: offer of the government to the landowner as to how much The DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and the government will pay the landowner corresponding to the land to cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative be acquired. implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to - Discuss this in relation to par. (e): It is the deposit that is the key to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the the immediate possession and issuance of a title jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB. (b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice Certificate of Land Ownership Award by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. awarded to the beneficiary by DAR (c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay
the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days Compulsory Acquisition after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the It is the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands including Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other facilities and improvements necessary for agricultural production, as muniments of title. may be appropriate, for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon
payment of just compensation. Atty GCC:
If landowner accepts -> no problem Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas If landowner rejects or fails to reply -> summary admin proceedings and the root cause of peasant unrest. In order to hasten the Take NOTE: the purpose of this is compensation. With respect to just implementation of the program, the DAR has made compulsory compensation, RTC has jurisdiction. acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same end,
the law provides for the steps in acquiring private lands through Reiterate: there are only 2 instances where RTC has jurisdiction administrative instead of judicial proceedings. This procedure is insofar as CARP is concerned: allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice and 1. just compensation hearing are complied with. 2. criminal offenses
Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land Why is it that the law in par. (d) talks about determination of just Section. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.- For compensation? It was determined by the SC in CONFED, that this purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures determination is only PRELIMINARY. Meaning that the landowner shall be followed: (as also shown in par. (f)) can still resort to court IF he disagrees with (a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the the decision referred in par. (d). beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the - So they bring the matter to court of proper jurisdiction for the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the FINAL determination of just compensation. same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay
hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in summary administrative proceedings to determine the accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other compensation of the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and pertinent provisions hereof. other interested parties to summit evidence as to the just
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 27 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowner protests of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is valuation, distribution of land will proceed. deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA.
Atty GCC: Notice in par. (e), par (d) would give you 30 days to Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e): respond. You have to inform DAR whether you accept or reject it. (1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance - voluntary or involuntary (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or - there’s only a deed of transfer for voluntary if Land Owner accepts in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the offer of DAR deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the (2) titles are cancelled w/o owner’s copy surrendered (in Torren's DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request System, if there is refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title petition in court) (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall (3) RD titles are cancelled while owner’s copy is subsisting thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. CONFED vs.DAR , G.R. No. 169514- March 30, 2007 (see case digest in previous pages) Atty GCC: How do we know the amount to be deposited? Should it be based LBP v Heirs of Trinidad Vda De Arieta, GR.No.161834, Aug. 11, 2010 on par. (d) after summary admin proceedings or par. (a) that is contained in the notice to acquire? -> CONFED CASE Facts: Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural In real scenario: transfer of title may happen before immediate land which was covered by RA No. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer possession. Why? It is possible that there is resistance here on the to Sell (VOS) scheme of the CARP. He offered to the DAR the price of part of the landowner. P2M per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP. ex. Even if the title is already in the name of the Republic of the Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as Philippines but DAR cannot take possession because gibutangan ug just compensation the amount of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 per guard ang agri land, landowner still actually possesses the land while hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent. LBP he is fighting for the acquisition in court. deposited for the account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional compensation for the acquisition of Take note here: in normal dealings (voluntary dealings), if you have a the property. sale of land, the seller will execute the Deed of Sale and give the original copy (owner’s duplicate copy) to the buyer, so that the Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the buyer can go to RD, and be issued a new title in favor of the Regional Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary purchaser. But here it is different. administrative proceedings under DARAB to fix the just compensation, where they rendered a decision fixing the 1. Under par. (e), Registry of Deeds can cancel the title of the LO on compensation of the property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per the basis of the deposit, certification from land bank which will be hectare. annotated to the title and RD will issue a new title in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial 2. The title is cancelled even without the surrender of the owner’s determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian copy Court. 3. RD’s copy of the LO’s title is cancelled even if the owner’s copy is Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition subsisting against DAR before the same Special Agrarian Court and filed a - Probable in case LO rejects offer or does not reply, he is Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that petitioner still in possession of the title LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of - Advise: do not simply rely on the owner’s copy, you get a P10,294,721. certified true copy from the RD. 4. RD can cancel and issue under CARL even if there is no payment of Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the taxes and transfer fees (provided in Sec 66 and 67 below) deposit should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the
amount of P1,145,806M and not P10,294,721.00 as determined by (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter the DARAB. to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation. Consequently, a decision was issued ordering petitioner LBP to
deposit for release to the private respondent the DARAB determined Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer) just compensation of P10,294,721M Petitioner LBP filed a motion for - this is not present in ordinary land cases reconsideration of the said order to deposit. Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required
for implementation of CARP) Issue: Sec. (e) : Once DAR requests and LBP makes deposit of initial What is the correct amount of provisional compensation which LBP valuation, Register of Deeds can cancel title of the Land Owner & is required to deposit? Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 28 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
> Is it the amount stated in par (a) which is supposed to be Heirs of Deleste vs. LBP, et. Al , G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011 contained in the notice of acquisition? Or (see also case digest in previous pages) > Is it the amount based on par (d) after the conduct of summary proceedings? The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated, as non- Ruling: compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements Petitioner maintains it should be its initial valuation of the land of administrative due process of law. subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while respondent claims it It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a landowner of the subject property. It should be noted that the deed summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by of sale executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was registered on the courts. March 2, 1954, and such registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole world that the subject property was already owned by Supreme Court held that par (e) should be related to pars (a), (b) Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale. and (c), considering that the taking of possession by the State is the next step after DAR and LBP supplied with the notice requirements. That DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste, and not to the Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the In effect, SC is saying that it is the offer of the LBP that will name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the determine what the correct amount to be deposited is and not the name of Deleste. amount after the determination of just compensation in a summary administrative proceeding. Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not Reason: If the DAR will wait for the summary administrative conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless "good proceedings, this will hamper land redistribution process. indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his LBP v. Santos, G.R. No. 213863 & 214021, January 27, 2016 actual or, at least, constructive possession."
Issue: Petitioners' right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when Did the act with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the release of the DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject the initial valuation of Lands 1 and 2 without requiring Santos to property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program. submit the documentary requirements? Just compensation Ruling: What is meant by just compensation? The leniency accorded by the RTC cannot be construed as a The full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by capricious exercise of power as it merely expedited the procedure expropriation. (Assoc. of Small Landowners). for payment which is inherently fairer under the circumstances The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word considering that: "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be (a) Santos has been "deprived of his right to enjoy his properties rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full as early as 1983, and has not yet received any compensation and ample.” therefor since then;" (b) the existence of the certificates of title over Lands 1 and 2 Preliminary determination which the LBP insists to be submitted had not been sufficiently The determination of just compensation by the DAR during the established; compulsory acquisition proceedings of Section 16 of RA 6657 is (c) the LBP had judicially admitted that Santos is the owner of preliminary only. Hence, the court can review. Any party who Lands 1 and 2 which were identified as covered by tax disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of declarations; and proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. (d) compliance with the required documents may still be directed before the full payment of the correct just compensation which, On “just compensation”, judicial determination is expressly up to this time, has not yet been finally determined. prescribed in Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions Moreover, as aptly pointed out by the CA, Santos' failure to produce for the determination of just compensation to landowners. the titles to Lands 1 and 2 was not motivated by any obstinate refusal to abide by the requirements but due to impediments Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. beyond his control. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, 1989 (see case digest in previous pages) Perforce, no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion can be imputed on the CA in sustaining the RTC Orders dated July 9, 2009 and August 24, 2009 which allowed the withdrawal of the initial LBP v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 167809, Nov. 27, 2008 valuation upon Santos' (a) submission of two (2) valid ID cards, two (2) latest ID pictures, Facts: and his current CTC, and Respondents are owners of agricultural lands covered under PD 27. (b) execution of a Deed of Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR, so in favor of the LBP. they filed complaint with RTC for determination.
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 29 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
Issue: WON RA 6657 or PD 27 is to be used to determine amount of and income Just Compensation? - The sworn valuation by the owner - Tax declarations Ruling: - Assessment made by government assessors If just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, although 70% of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), property was acquired under PD No. 27. translated into a basic formula by the DAR
The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just Take note: Subject to the final decision of the proper court. The compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the emancipation patents because EP constitutes the conclusive farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation financing institution on the said land shall be considered as patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in additional factors to determine its valuation. the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner. Sps. Lee v. LBP, G.R. No. 170422, Mar. 7, 2008 Petitioner’s argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending determination by DAR is specious. To wait for the DAR From Atty’s Slides: valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid, to violate the elementary rule that payment of just compensation Note: In this case, there was admission that valuation was not based must be within a reasonable period from the taking of property; on factors under CARL. A representative of the company admitted that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable. Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of Case was remanded. the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the LBP Vs. Yatco, G.R. No.172551 , January 15, 2014 property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a Facts: decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to Pursuant to the CARP, Wycoco voluntarily offered to sell his land to cope with his loss. the DAR for P14.9 million. However, the offered price of the DAR is P2,280,159.82. He rejected the offer. Hence, he filed a case before Atty GCC: the RTC for the determination of just compensation. The RTC ruled Principle: If an agricultural land is acquired under PD 27 but just in his favor. The RTC, in arriving at the valuation of the land, took compensation has not been paid until RA 6657 took effect, just judicial notice of the alleged prevailing market value of agricultural compensation will be computed on the basis of the present law, lands in the place without apprising the parties of its intention to NOT under PD 27. take judicial notice thereof. Reason: It is inequitable that just compensation should be determined under PD 27 because just compensation is defined as Issue: the full and ample value of the land to be given to the LO. Was the RTC-SAC’s determination of just compensation for the Under PD 27, there is only one factor in determining just property in accordance with law? compensation (average crop harvest), while in RA6657, there are a lot. Ruling: No. Although the rules allow the courts to take judicial notice of Section. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining certain facts, the RTC-SAC’s valuation is erroneous. The RTC-SAC just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of fully disregarded Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO 5-98 and the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its nature, thus acted outside the contemplation of the law. actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax Determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial declarations, the assessment made by government assessors, and function that the Judiciary exercises within the parameters of the seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of law. Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final decision of the proper court. In the exercise of the Court’s essentially judicial function of The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and determining just compensation, the RTC-SACs are not granted the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the enumerated the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government factors in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR formula (in AO 5-98) that financing institution on the said land shall be considered as reflect these factors. additional factors to determine its valuation. (Sec. 7, RA 9700) These factors and formula provide the uniform framework or Factors to be considered in determining just compensation: structure for the computation of the just compensation for a - The cost of acquisition of the land property subject to agrarian reform. When acting within the - The value of the standing crop parameters set by the law itself, the RTC-SACs, however, are not - The current value of like properties, its nature, actual use Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 30 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
strictly bound to apply the DAR formula to its minute detail, particularly when faced with situations that do not warrant the Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential formula’s strict application; they may, in the exercise of their property could, at most, refer to the potential use of the property. discretion, relax the formula’s application to fit the factual situations While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes before them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the deviation from the factors and formula that the law and the rules general vicinity of the expropriated property, it should never control have provided. the determination of just compensation.
LBP v. Livioco, G.R. No. 170685, Sept. 22, 2010 The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the Facts: well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated Respondent Livioco was the owner of 3 sugar land. He offered his property is determined by its character and its price at the time of sugar land to the DAR for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per taking, not its potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the square meter. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form he submitted property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, to the DAR indicated that his property is adjacent to residential not the ultimate in determining just compensation." subdivisions and to an international paper mill. It would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform, The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. LBP set the which is to free the tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil price at P3.21 per square meter for 26 hectares. Livioco was then without delivering them to the new oppression of exorbitant land promptly informed of the valuation. However,Livioco did not act valuations. Note that in lands acquired under RA 6657, it is the upon the notice given to him by both government agencies. farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the valuations paid to Subsequently, LBP issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of the former land owners (LBP merely advances the payment). If the Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827,943.48 as farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as residential compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares. lands (the valuation for which is substantially higher than the valuation for agricultural lands), it is not unlikely that such farmers, It was only two years later that Livioco requested for a reevaluation unable to keep up with payment amortizations, will be forced to give of the compensation on the ground that its value had already up their landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to sell the appreciated from the time it was first offered for sale. The request property to other parties. This may just bring the State right back to was denied by the Regional Director on the ground that there was the starting line where the landless remain landless and the rich already a perfected sale. acquire more landholdings from desperate farmers.
Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he Atty GCC: believes was an outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco In this case, LO tried to prove that lot was residential and not finally filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation agricultural for higher just compensation. There were several against DAR, LBP, and the CLOA holders. evidences presented by owner; certification from the municipal planning office, zoning, HLURB, etc. Issue: Was the compensation for respondent's properly determined? SC: No clearance from DAR. No allegation or proof that there was a conversion clearance from agri to residential. That means that the Ruling: land has to be valued as agricultural land, NOT residential. For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at Do you need conversion clearance? the time of taking. There are three important concepts in this Atty GCC: In my opinion, no more. - You need conversion clearance definition — the character of the property, its price, and the time of for purposes of real property tax in LGU - Or assurance from DAR actual taking. that your land is not covered under DAR because the use is not anymore for agricultural activity - Under sec. 17, no factor of The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the conversion but actual use of the land property has changed from agricultural to residential, because there is no allegation or proof that the property was approved for LBP v. Kho, G.R. No. 214901, June 15, 2016 conversion to other uses by DAR. It is the DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions so as to Ruling: prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. It is significant to stress, however, that DAR AO 1, series of 2010 which was issued in line with Section 31 of RA 9700 empowering the Even reclassification and plans for expropriation by LGUs will not DAR to provide the necessary rules and regulations for its ipso facto convert an agricultural property to residential, industrial implementation, became effective only subsequent to July 1, 2009. or commercial. Thus, in the absence of any DAR approval for the conversion of respondent's property or an actual expropriation by Consequently, it cannot be applied in the determination of just an LGU, it cannot be said that the character or use of said property compensation for the subject land where the claim folders were changed from agricultural to residential. Respondent's property undisputedly received by the LBP prior to July 1, 2009, and, as remains agricultural and should be valued as such. Hence, the CA such, should be valued in accordance with Section 17 of RA and the trial court had no legal basis for considering the subject 6657 prior to its further amendment by RA 9700 pursuant to the cut- property's value as residential. off date set under DAR AO 2, series of 2009 (cut-off rule). Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 31 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
terms the reason for any deviation from the prescribed factors and Notably, DAR AO 1, series of 2010 did not expressly or impliedly the applicable formula. repeal the cut-off rule set under DAR AO 2, series of 2009, having made no reference to any cut-off date with respect to land valuation In this case, the Court has gone over the records and found that for previously acquired lands under PD 27 and EO 228 wherein neither the RTC nor the CA considered the date when the claim valuation is subject to challenge by landowners. Consequently, the folder was received nor explained their reasons for deviating from application of DAR AO 1, series of 2010 should be, thus, limited to the DAR formula. Therefore, as it stands, the RTC and the CA should those where the claim folders were received on or subsequent to have utilized the basic formula prescribed and laid down in pertinent July 1, 2009. DAR regulations existing prior to the passage of RA 9700, in determining the just compensation for the subject land. In this case, the Court has gone over the records and found that the RTC and the CA neither considered the cut-off rule nor explained its Alfonso v. LBP, G.R. Nos. 181912 & 183347, November 29, 2016 reasons for deviating therefrom. Since the claim folders were received by the LBP prior to July 1, 2009, the RTC should have Facts: computed just compensation using pertinent DAR regulations The SAC deviated, without reason or explanation, from Sect. 17 and applying Section 17 of RA 6657 prior to its amendment by RA the DAR-issued formula when it adopted the Cuervo Report. 9700 instead of adopting the new DAR issuance, absent any cogent justifications otherwise. Therefore, as it stands, the RTC and the CA On May 13, 2005, the SAC rendered its Decision. Finding the were duty-bound to utilize the basic formula prescribed and laid valuations of both the LBP and the Provincial Adjudicator to be down in pertinent DAR regulations existing prior to the passage "unrealistically low," the SAC adopted Commissioner Chua's of RA 9700, to determine just compensation. valuation as set out in the Cuervo Report. It also held that the provisions of Section 2, Executive Order No. 228 (EO 228) were mere Nonetheless, the RTC, acting as a SAC, is reminded that it is not "guiding principles" which cannot substitute the court's judgment as strictly bound by the different formula created by the DAR if the to what amount [of just compensation] should be awarded and how situations before it do not warrant their application. To insist on a to arrive at such amount. rigid application of the formula goes beyond the intent and spirit of the law, bearing in mind that the valuation of property or the Issue: determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function Are courts obliged to apply the DAR formula in cases where they are which is vested with the courts, and not with administrative asked to determine just compensation for property covered by RA agencies. 6657?
Therefore, the RTC must still be able to reasonably exercise its Ruling: judicial discretion in the evaluation of the factors for just Yes. For the guidance of the bench, the bar, and the public, we compensation, which cannot be restricted by a formula dictated by reiterate the rule: Out of regard for the DAR's expertise as the the DAR when faced with situations that do not warrant its strict concerned implementing agency, courts should henceforth consider application. However, the RTC must explain and justify in clear terms the factors stated in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, as the reason for any deviation from the prescribed factors and translated into the applicable DAR formulas in their determination formula. of just compensation for the properties covered by the said law. If, in the exercise of their judicial discretion, courts find that a strict Atty GCC: application of said formulas is not warranted under the specific This case explains the “Cut-off Rule: circumstances of the case before them, they may deviate or depart a. if claim folders were received on or after July 1, 2009 -> therefrom, provided that this departure or deviation is supported by the 2010 DAR A.O. 1 will apply a reasoned explanation grounded on the evidence on record. In b. if claim folders were received before July 1, 2009 -> the other words, courts of law possess the power to make a final 1998 DAR A.O. No. 5 will apply determination of just compensation.
Heirs of Feliciano, Jr. v. LBP, G.R. No. 215290, January 11, 2017 LBP v. Spouses Chu, G.R. No. 192345, March 29, 2017
Issue: WON the CA's determination of just compensation is correct Facts: Respondents were the registered owners of two parcels of Ruling: agricultural land located in San Antonio, Pilar, Sorsogon which were No. Since the claim folder covering the subject land was received by acquired by the government pursuant to its agrarian reform the LBP on December 2, 1997, or prior to July 1, 2009, the RTC program. should have computed just compensation using pertinent DAR regulations applying Section 17 of RA 6657 prior to its amendment The first parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) by RA 9700 instead of adopting the new DAR issuance. Nos. T-27060 and 27062 and with an area of 14.9493 hectares (14.9493 has.) was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD While the RTC, acting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), is not strictly 27-acquired land) and initially valued by the LBP at P177,657.98. bound by the different formula created by the DAR since the The second parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-27060 (pt.) was valuation of property or the determination of just compensation is acquired under Republic Act No. 6657 6 (RA 6657-acquired property) essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts, and and has an area of 7.7118 hectares (7.7118 has.). LBP valued the not with administrative agencies, it must explain and justify in clear same at P263,928.57. Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 32 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
Heirs of Lorenzo & Carmen Vidad v LBP, GR 166461, April 30, 2010 Respondents rejected LBP's valuation; hence summary administrative proceedings were conducted before the Provincial Facts: Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) to determine the just Petitioners are the owners of a land located in Isabela, with an area compensation. of 589.8661 hectares, which land was voluntarily offered for sale to the government under Republic Act No. (RA) 6657. Of the entire
Issue: area, the government only acquired 490.3436 hectares. By virtue of Did the courts below commit error when they approved the EO 405 vesting LBP with primary responsibility to determine the respondent’s valuation of the land? valuation and compensation for all lands covered by RA 6657, LBP computed the initial value of the land at P2,961,333.03 for 490.3436 Ruling: hectares, taking into consideration the factors under Department of Yes. Respondents presented only two comparable sales transactions. Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order (AO) No. 06, series of This falls short of the requirements of DAR A.O. No. 05-98. 1992, and the applicable provisions of RA 6657. Petitioners rejected The PARAD erroneously considered the municipal resolution as the the valuation. third comparable sales transaction. The municipal resolution could not in any manner be regarded as a comparable sales transaction Petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Department of precisely because no sale transaction ever took place. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The DARAB dismissed the petition. Undaunted, petitioners filed a second petition for At best, the said resolution merely manifested the formal review asking for a re-evaluation of the land. Acting on the petition, intention of the local government of Pilar to acquire certain portions the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) issued an Order of the subject properties. directing LBP to re-compute the value of the land.
Equally glaring is the fact that none of the tribunals below took In compliance with the PARAD’s Order, LBP revalued the land into full consideration the factors laid down in Section 17 of RA at P4,158,947.13 for 402.3835 hectares and P1,467,776.34 for
6657 — a necessary requirement which no court of law is at liberty 43.8540 hectares. LBP used the guidelines in DAR AO No. 5, series of
to disregard if sound judicial discretion is to be exercised at all in 1998 for the revaluation. Petitioners similarly rejected this offer and determining just compensation. thereafter instituted a case before RARAD for the purpose of determining the just compensation for their land. The RARAD Instead, this Court notes that the RTC, not to mention the directed LBP to pay petitioners P32,965,408.46 as just compensation CA, primarily took account of an extraneous factor — potentials of for 446.2375 hectares. the land — to justify the award of P200,000.00 per hectare. LBP filed a petition for determination of just compensation with the Discounting respondents' evidence on the comparable sales RTC, sitting as a SAC. The SAC rendered a decision, based on LBP’s transactions, the potentials of the landholding may then be said to evidence alone, fixing the just compensation at P5,626,724.47 for have become the main factor supporting the valuation thereof. This the 446.2375 hectares of the land. Petitioners filed an appeal conclusion is even borne out by the Decisions of the PARAD, the questioning the authority of the SAC to give due course to the RTC, and the CA whose discussions centered thereon. However, this petition of LBP, claiming that the RARAD has concurrent jurisdiction Court has already reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. with the SAC over just compensation cases involving lands covered Livioco that, such factor, standing alone, has already been dismissed by RA 6657. Furthermore, petitioners insisted that LBP has no legal as improper basis for assessing the just compensation in the personality to institute a case for determination of just expropriation of agricultural lands. compensation against landowners with the SAC.
LBP v. Nable, G.R. No. 176692, June 27, 2012 The CA rendered the assailed decision, dismissing the appeal for lack
of merit, and affirming the valuation of the SAC.
Ruling: The Congress has thereby required that any determination of just compensation should consider the following factors, namely: (a) Issue: the cost of the acquisition of the land; (b) the current value of like Whether or not SAC exercises concurrent jurisdiction with DARAB on properties; (c) the nature, actual use and income of the land; (d) the cases involving determination of just compensation, and since it was sworn valuation by the owner; (e) the tax declarations; (f) the the DARAB, through the RARAD, which first assumed jurisdiction on assessment made by government assessors; (g) the social and the issue of just compensation for petitioners’ land, then the SAC is economic benefits contributed to the property by the farmers and precluded from assuming jurisdiction on the same issue. farmworkers and by the Government; and (h) the fact of the non- payment of any taxes or loans secured from any government Ruling: financing institution on the land. No. The procedure for the determination of just compensation under RA 6657, as summarized by this Court in Land Bank of the
Although Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 has not explicitly Philippines v. Spouses Banal, commences with LBP determining the mentioned the farming experience and the thumb method of value of the lands under the land reform program. Using LBP’s conversion as methods in the determination of just compensation, valuation, the DAR makes an offer to the landowner through a LBP cannot deny that such methods were directly relevant to the notice sent to the landowner, pursuant to Section 16(a) of RA 6657. factors listed in Section 17, particularly those on the nature, actual
use and income of the landholding. In case the landowner rejects the offer, the DAR adjudicator conducts a summary administrative proceeding to determine the Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 33 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and Facts: other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just The late Angel T. Domingo is the registered owner of a rice land. PD compensation for the land. A party who disagrees with the decision 27 was subsequently issued and pursuant to which actual tenant of the DAR adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC designated farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn were as a Special Agrarian Court for final determination of just deemed as full owners of the land they till. The land transfer compensation. program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently implemented by Executive Order No. 228. Contrary to petitioners’ argument, the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB do not exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the SAC in just On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) compensation cases. The determination of just compensation is of Guimba, Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment judicial in nature. of just compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR. In fact, RA 6657 does not make DAR’s valuation absolutely binding as the amount payable by LBP. A reading of Section 18 of RA 6657 Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just shows that the courts, and not the DAR, make the final compensation for the subject land should be computed using the
determination of just compensation. It is well-settled that the DAR’s parameters set forth under RA 6657. The LBP and DAR disputed land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and Domingo's valuation and claimed that the determination of just conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party. The compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D. No. 27 courts will still have the right to review with finality the in relation to E.O. No. 228. determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. It must be emphasized that the taking of property under Issue:
RA 6657 is an exercise of the State’s power of eminent domain. The Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the valuation of property or determination of just compensation in computation of just compensation may be applied to private eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which agricultural lands taken by the government under the auspices of
is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies. When P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228. the parties cannot agree on the amount of just compensation, only the exercise of judicial power can settle the dispute with binding Ruling: effect on the winning and losing parties. Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid On the other hand, the determination of just compensation in the private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage RARAD/DARAB requires the voluntary agreement of the parties. of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this Unless the parties agree, there is no settlement of the dispute process, the just compensation should be determined and the before the RARAD/DARAB, except if the aggrieved party fails to file a process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the petition for just compensation on time before the RTC. LBP thus applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, correctly filed a petition for determination of just compensation conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche. with the SAC, which has the original and exclusive jurisdiction in just compensation cases under RA 6657. DAR’s valuation, being It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation preliminary in nature, could not have attained finality, as it is only based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the courts that can resolve the issue on just compensation. the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of LBP’s petition for considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determination of just compensation. determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be Atty GCC: the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by There are cases where LBP is the plaintiff of an RTC Case. the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and In this case, LBP did not agree with the computation of RARAD. ample. Landbank filed the case in RTC. It was challenged by the petitioners
that LBP has no legal personality to institute the agrarian case. Heirs of Deleste vs. LBP, et. Al , G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011 (see
case digest in previous pages) Is it possible that LBP and DAR cannot agree with the evaluation?
Yes. Why? Implementation of the program is with DAR in the Governing Law EXECUTIVE aspect. RA 6657 - Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law There is another aspect of DAR which is quasi-judicial. Probably, LBP Main governing law of Agrarian Land Reform here in the Philippines. coordinates with DAR in the implementation aspect but LBP cannot
dictate the quasi-judicial aspect. Payment of Interest in Just Compensation These are the parties involved in the determination of just compensation under Sec. 18: Landowner, DAR, and LBP. Apo Fruits v. CA, G.R. No. 164195, Dec. 4, 2998 LBP is not merely a nominal party but is indispensable, independent of DAR. Facts: RTC rendered judgment ordering DAR/LBP to pay interest at the rate DAR v. Heirs of Domingo, G.R. No. 188670, March 7, 2012 of 12% per annum on the above-fixed amount of fair, reasonable and just compensation computed from the time the complaint was filed until the finality of this decision. After this decision becomes Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 34 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
final and executory, the rate of 12% shall be additionally imposed on value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the the total obligation until payment thereof is satisfied. time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of the property and the actual Issue: Whether or not the interest was validly imposed. payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in Ruling: before the taking occurred. NO. It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA, by filing a notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing March 2003 its petition for certiorari in the CA only because the RTC interest on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the did not give due course to its appeal. Any intervening delay thereby time petitioner instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank, however, considering property in September 1969. This allowance of interest on the that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy amount found to be the value of the property as of the time of the afforded by law to every losing party, who cannot thus be taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12% per annum considered to act in bad faith or in an unreasonable manner as to should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and make such party guilty of unjustified delay. inflation of the value of the currency over time.
The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the LBP v. Gallego, G.R. No. 173226, July 29, 2013 Court of Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation. It may disagree with DAR and the Facts: landowner as to the amount of just compensation to be paid to the Respondents are co-owners of parcels of agricultural land. DAR latter and may also disagree with them and bring the matter to placed a portion of the property under the coverage of PD27. court for judicial determination. This makes LBP an indispensable However, the parties failed to agree on the amount of just party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the compensation which prompted respondents to file a petition before Agrarian Reform Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such the RTC for the determination of just compensation. cases that are unfavorable to it. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case, LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for The trial court adopted the formula prescribed in PD27 in arriving at interest. the amount of just compensation. Also, trial court also imposed "interest in kind" payable from 1972 to 2002 by multiplying by 1.8 Interest on the just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the Average Gross Production of palay of 121.6 cavans per hectare the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established. Given multiplied by 2.5. the foregoing, we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just compensation is not justified and should therefore be Ruling: In the determination of the interest, if it is payable in kind, deleted. its value shall be appraised at the current price of the products or goods at the time and place of payment. LBP v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182431, Nov. 17, 2010 These circumstances — the gross inadequacy of the LBP's valuation Facts: of the respondents' property and the loss of income suffered by the The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land respondents — taken together undeniably confirm the that was placed under the coverage of PD 27. After DAR directed unconscionable delay in the payment of just compensation. payment, LBP approved the payment of P265,494 inclusive of 6% increment. Just compensation does not only refer to the full and fair Consequently, the respondents instituted a civil case for equivalent of the property taken; it also means, equally if not more determination and payment of just compensation before the than anything, payment in full without delay. Consequently, we Regional Trial Court. deem it proper to award the respondents 12% interest per annum from the time of taking until full payment. LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 were governed and LBP v Sps. Avanceña, G.R. No. 190520, May 30, 2016 valued in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 and that the administrative valuation of lands covered by Facts: Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 rested Spouses Antonio and Carmen Avancena were registered owners of a solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm. parcel of agricultural land situated Sanghan, Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte covered by TCT RT- 2937 with an area of 205,0074. In 1988, Ruling: Avencena spouses voluntarily offered to sell their land to the The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to government under the CARP, which consisted of 160.25 hectares of be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly the land. described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair In 1991, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the value of the property as between one who receives, and one who subject lot at P1.87 million based DAR AO 17, series of 1989. In desires to sell, if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the 1994, upon recomputation, the land was rebaluated at P 3.337 government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before million but the spouses rejected the valuation. The LBP deposited compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the difference in the cash portion between the revalued amount and the case, the final compensation must include interest on its just the initial valuation. The parties brought the matter of valuation to Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 35 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
the DAR Adjudication Board- Caraga, which affirmed LBP’s second amount of just compensation, the Office of the Provincial Agrarian valuation. Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Adjudication Board (DARAB) fixed the value of the subject Avencena spouses filed with the RTC a complaint for determination lands at P1,292,553.20. Dissatisfied, Alfredo filed a Complaint for of just compensation. They prayed for a valuation of no less than P the determination of the amount of just compensation. 200,000 per hectare for the subject or to appoint Commissioners to determine the just compensation. And the spouses be allowed to Issues: withdraw the valuation amount that LBP had deposited. 1. Is the determination of JC by the RTC valid? 2. Should payment of interest be awarded? While the complaint was pending, LBP made a reevaluation of the 3. When is the reckoning date for payment of interest? property using the valuation prescribed by DAR AO 5, series of 1998 yielded the amount of P 9,057,180.32. On March 29, 2000 RTC (SAC) Ruling: issued its decision directing the LBP and DAR to pay the spouses the 1. No. In determining the amount of just compensation for the amount of P 20, 475, 775 for the 160 hectares. subject lands, the RTC applied the Income Productivity Approach which approximated the income for the remaining productive life of The CA rendered it decision on March 29, 2006 that set aside the the crops therein, without considering the fortuitous events and RTC decision. CA said that in determining the valuation of the plant diseases, and with the expectation that they would be subject property, the factors provided under Section 17 of RA 6657 compensated by developments which could be made by the shall be considered in accord with the formula prescribed in DAR AO property owner. 5, series of 1998. The just compensation due the Spouses Avancena should bear 12% interest per annum from the time title to the The Court has repeatedly ruled that the constitutional limitation of property was transferred in the name of the government up to the just compensation is considered to be the sum equivalent of the time that LBP deposited the amount of its valuation for the subject market value of the property, which is, in turn, defined as the price land. fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as Issue: between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at Whether the awarding of interest at the rate of 12% per annum the time of the actual taking by the government. from the time title to the property was transferred in the name of the government in 1991 up to time the LBP allegedly deposited the In this accord, therefore, the Court cannot sustain the formula used valuation in 1996 is in accordance with law? by the RTC which was "based on the principle of anticipation which implies that the value of a property is dependent on the potential Ruling: net benefit that may be derived from its ownership." Clearly, this Yes. LBP claims that it deposited cash and bonds for the initial approach, which is largely characterized by the element of futurity, valuation of P 1.87 million. It argues that such deposit was the basis is inconsistent with the idea of valuing the expropriated property at for the DAR to take possession of the property and caused the the time of the taking. issuance of the title in the name of the government in December 1991. 2. Yes. The just compensation due to the landowners for their The CA found that the title to the spouses land was canceled and a expropriated property is treated as an effective forbearance on the new title was issued in the name of RP in December 1991 but there part of the State. The rationale therefor, as enunciated in the case was no showing that LBP had made payments prior to the taking of of Apo Fruits Corporation v. LBP, is to compensate the landowners the land. There was delay in the payment of just compensation for the income they would have made had they been properly which entitles the spouses to the payment of interest from the time compensated for their properties at the time of the taking. the property was transferred in the name of the government in December 1991 up to the time LBP deposited the valuation in the In other words, the award of 12% interests is imposed in the nature account of the Spouses Avancena in July 1996. of damages for the delay in the payment of the full just compensation award. LBP. v. Hababag, Sr., G.R. No. 172352, September 16, 2015 In the present case, the LBP had already made the corresponding Facts: deposit of their offered valuation in the amount of P1,237,850.00 in Alfredo Hababag, Sr. (Alfredo) was the owner of several parcels of cash and in bonds prior to the DAR's possession of the agricultural land with an aggregate area of 82.4927 hectares (has.) property. This amount is lower than the just compensation awarded situated in Barangays Carriedo, Manapao, and Casili, in the and, hence, in view of the above-stated principle, the payment of Municipality of Gubat, Sorsogon, and covered by Transfer Certificate interests remains in order insofar as the unpaid balance is of Title No. T-12107. The aforesaid landholdings were voluntarily concerned. offered for sale (VOS) to the government under Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian 3. In view of the LBP's alternative Motion for Clarification, the Court Reform Law of 1988," but only 69.3857 has. thereof (subject lands) illumines that the interest shall be pegged at the rate of twelve were acquired in 1990. percent (12%) per annum (p.a.) on the unpaid balance, reckoned from the time of taking, or the time when the landowner was The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the subject deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is lands at P1,237,850.00, but Alfredo rejected the valuation. After transferred to the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), or summary administrative proceedings for the determination of the emancipation patents are issued by the government, until June 30, Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 36 Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405
2013, and thereafter, at six percent (6%) p.a. until full payment. Difference between PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree) and RA (Land Bank of the Phils. v. Hababag, Sr., G.R. Nos. 172352 & 172387- 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) 88 (Resolution), [June 8, 2016]) PD 27 RA 6657 Atty GCC’s slide: Main purpose is to LBP V, Avancena; LBP V Kho; Heirs of Feliciano; LBP V. Sps Chu provide land for the Abolish leasehold in landless through The Court has allowed the grant of legal interest in expropriation tenanted lands. It acquiring and cases where there is delay in the payment since the just made the tiller of Purpose distribution of lands and compensation due to the landowners was deemed to be an effective the land the providing support forbearance on the part of the State. amortizing owner of facilities and system for the land he tills. the benefit of the Legal interest on the unpaid balance shall be pegged at the rate of farmers. 12% per annum from the time of taking in 1989 when Emancipation
Patents were issued, until June 30, 2013 only. Covers all public and private agricultural Thereafter, or beginning July 1, 2013, until fully paid, the just lands including other compensation due the landowners shall earn interest at the new Private lands which lands of public domain legal rate of 6% per annum in line with the amendment introduced Land Covered are devoted to rice suitable for agriculture by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board Circular No. 799, and corn ONLY. regardless of tenurial Series of 2013. arrangement and commodity produced.
Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for
determination of Just Compensation may be filed? With the passage of No. To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect RA 6657, it is only a and delay in processing is to violate the elementary rule that suppletory law. This Effect in payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable period Main governing law of Implementing means, it will be from the taking of property. Agrarian Land Reform Land Reform applicable only to a. DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the here in the Philippines. Program those matters pendency of the protest. not covered by RA b. Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has original and 6657. exclusive jurisdiction.
Note: not beneficiaries: Jurisdiction in terms of the amount of Just Compensation: this is referring to the a. If less than 5 million -> Jurisdiction is with PARAD tenants b. If more than 5 million -> Jurisdiction is with RARAD Number of Makes a distinction: > The beneficiaries, hectares that a If irrigated: 3 meaning the ARBs tenant or farmer If not irrigated: (agrarian reform can own 5 beneficiaries) can be awarded not exceeding 3 hectares The retention is 5 hectares regardless of whether the landowner is tilling the land or not. Children of the 7 hectares if Ownership of landowner – not personally cultivated the land that exceeding 3 hectares by the landowner can be retained each, subject to 2 OR will cultivate conditions: > 15 years old and above > Personally cultivating or directly managing
1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration. RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation. 2. RA 6657 will be used for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been determined at the time of passage of RA 6657, because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect.