Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Gomba, Jasmin M.

LLB-2A

ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION VS THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Facts: Consolidated petition questioning the constitutionality of some portion of RA 6657. Petitioners are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. They assail Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 f RA 6657 as well as implementing guidelines and procedures contained in Administrative orders no. 8 and 10 series of 1988 issued by public respondent Secretary of DAR as unconstitutional. Petitioner claim that the questioned provision of CARL violate the constitution whereby it extended agrarian reform to aquaculture lands, violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law and the equality in economic and employment opportunities. Petitioners argued that lands devoted to fishing are not agricultural lands. RA 6657 treated them as in the same class or classification as agricultural as provided for in its provisions violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Issue: WON Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional.

Ruling: The passing of Republic Act No. 7881 amended the said provisions of RA 6657 which changes the definition of Agriculture hence excluding agricultural lands subsequently converted to fishponds or prawn farms from the coverage of CARL. The constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with passage of RA 7881

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

NATALIA REALTY, INC., AND ESTATE DEVELOPER AND INVESTORS CORP VS DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SEC. BENJAMIN T. LEONG AND DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR

Facts: Petitioner is the owner of parcel of land which was covered under Presidential Proclamation no. 163 proclaimed as town site reservation. Petitioner EDIC applied for clearance to develop their property in the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission and was granted. Petitioners were likewise issued development permits. 2 years after RA 6657 went into effect. Respondent DAR issued a notice of coverage on the undeveloped portions of the property. Responded contended that the petitioner did not comply with the implementing standard set forth under PD 957, hence their permit were not valid and binding. Petitioner registered its objection to the notice. Members of the SAMBA filed a complaint against the petitioner before DAR to retrain petitioner from developing areas under cultivation which was granted. Petitioner then moved to dismiss the complaint which was denied. Petitioner elevated their cause to DAR where it remanded the case to regional Adjudicator. Hence the petition.

Issue: WON the undeveloped properties of the petitioner is covered under RA 6657 as an agricultural land.

Ruling: No, the properties of the petitioner were no longer considered as agricultural land. As provided for in RA 6657 CARL shall cover all private and public agricultural lands. Properties of the petitioner ceased to be agricultural land when they were included in the areas reserved by the presidential fiat for the town site reservation. The undeveloped portion of the petitioners property cannot be considered as agricultural lands since these lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation as provided for by Presidential Proclamation no. 1637. Not being agricultural lands, they are outside the coverage of CARL.

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

JULIAN S. LEBRUDO AND REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO VS REMEDIES LOYOLA

Facts: Respondent owns a parcel of land awarded by the Dar under RA 6657. The lot is covered by CLOA. Petitioner represented by his son file with the PARAD action for cancelation of the CLOA and the issuance of another for the portion in favor of lebrudo which was denied on the ground of premature filling of the same. Respondent re filed the complaint. Respondent alleged that the petitioner promised to give him half of the property under a Sinumpaang Salaysay which was not complied. PARAD decided the case in favor of the petitioner. Respondent then appealed to the DARAB which reversed the decision of the PARAD and ruled in respondents favor. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which DARB denied. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied. Hence the present petition.

Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot covered under RA 6657.

Ruling: No, the petitioner is not entitled to the land. CLOA is a document evidencing the ownership of the land granted to beneficiaries and contains restriction and conditions provided under RA 6657. Under Sec. 27 of RA 6657 lands acquired under the said act may not be sold transferred or conveyed for a period of ten years. The law expressly prohibits the transfer or conveyance of the same. Waiver and transfer of rights to lot embodied in their Kasunduan is void for falling under 10-year prohibitory period. Respondents title had already become incontrovertible. Hence as registered property owner he is entitled to the protection given to every holder of a Torrens Title. The kasunduan was clearly illegal and void ab initio.

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS HEIRS OF MAXIMO PUYAT AND GLORIA PUYAT REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT MARISSA PUYAT

Facts: Respondents both deceased are registered owner of parcel of Riceland. DAR then issued emancipation patent in favor of various farmer beneficiaries wherein it causes the partial cancelation of the respondents title. Respondent did not receive any compensation for the cancelation of their title. More than 2 years after the DAR awarded the property; LBP received its instruction to pay just compensation to the respondents. Respondent received petitioners valuation which they rejected for being low. Respondents filed a complaint in the RTC for determination and payment of just compensation wherein they presented evidences to prove their contention. LBP then answered that the valuation was made in strict compliance provided for under PD 27. RTC ordered defendant to pay the petitioners amount higher that its valuation plus 6% interest. However upon its motion the trial court modified its decision. Case was then raised to the CA which modified the ruling of the RTC. LBP moved for a reconsideration which was denied. Hence, present petition.

Issue(s): 1. Which law determines just compensation fro land acquired under PD 27? 2. Is there a need of payment of the interest for the delay?

Ruling: 1. Just compensation shall be based on the value of the property at the time of the taking of the property. In the case at bar, both taking of the property and valuation occurred during the effectivity of RA 6657. The acquisition process under PD 27 remains incomplete and is overtaken by RA 6657. Pd 27 applies only insofar as there are gaps in RA 6657 having suppletory effect only. RA 6657 thereof is sufficient in determining just compensation. 2. In the case at bar since the respondent did not contest in the interest awarded by the lower court and instead asked the affirmance in toto of the appellate courts decision, in keeping with the demand of due process, the court deemed that it is not fir to disturb the interest rate imposed by the court.

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

THIRD DIVISION LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS MONTINOAL-ESCARILLA AND CO., INC.,

Facts: Respondent is the owner of a parcel of agricultural land which was acquired by the government under RA 6657. Petitioner initially valued the subject land which was rejected by the respondent. Pending summary administrative proceeding for determination of just compensation before RARAD, Respondent filed a complaint for determination of just compensation before RTC to evaluate the just compensation for the subject property. RARAD fixed the just compensation of the said property. RTC rendered decision which fixed just compensation which was considerable higher than that of the LBP. Petitioner filed a separate motion for reconsideration which were denied. Petitioner appealed the decision to the CA which adopted the Commissioners report. LBP then raised the case to the SC.

Issue: WON the just compensation fixed by the court were proper.

Ruling: For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by the character and price of the time of the taking. RA 6657 provide that in determining the just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like property, its nature actual use and income the sworn valuation by the owner the tax declaration and the assessment made by the government assessor shall be considered. The RTC and CA ignored the fact that at the time of the inspection, a substantial part of the land was idle but the farmer beneficiaries were starting to cultivate the same. Under DAR A.O 11, The landowner shall not be compensated for improvements introduced by third person.

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS SPOUSES ROSA AND PEDRO COSTO

Facts: Respondents were owner of a parcel of land wherein after the passage of RA 6657 they voluntarily offered the same to the DAR under CARP. Petitioner made valuation on the land which they rejected. This impelled petitioner to deposit the offer in form of cash and bonds in favor of the respondents as provisional compensation for the property. Respondents sought determination of just compensation with PAB of DAR. PARAD rendered decision in favor of the respondents. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for determination of just compensation in the RTC. SAC rendered decision finding the valuation of the PARAD as the more realistic valuation. Petitioner then sought recourse before the CA but affirmed the decision of SAC. Hence present petition.

Issue: WON the court erred in affirming the decision of the RTC(SAC) in determining just compensation.

Ruling: NO, the court did not erred in its decision. Under RA 6657, LBP is charged in determining just compensation of the property. In case the landowner reject the offer the case shall be decided by the DARAB. A party who disagrees with the decision of the DAR adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC for the determination of just compensation. In determining just compensation, RTC is required to consider the factors enumerated in RA 6657: that in determining the just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like property, its nature actual use and income the sworn valuation by the owner the tax declaration and the assessment made by the government assessor shall be considered. The ascertainment of just compensation by the RTC on the basi s of the landholdings nature, location, market value, assessors value, and the volume and value of the produce is valid and in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657.

Gomba, Jasmin M. LLB-2A

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ENRIQUE LIVIOCO

Facts: Respondent was the owner of sugar land which he offered do the DAR for acquisition. Following Sec. 17 of RA 6657 LBP set the price of the land. Respondent was informed but did not act upon the notice given to him. Two years later, Respondent requested for a reevaluation of the compensation which was denied on the ground that there was already a perfected sale. DAR awarded CLOAs covering the respondents property. Respondent filed a complaints to cancel the CLOAs and to recover property but the same was denied. Respondent then filed a petition for reconveyance before the DAR. The case eventually reached the CA which dismissed the petition

Issue: WON the compensation of the respondents property is in accordance with law.

Ruling: No, the valuation of the lower court is not proper as it is not in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657 which states that in determining the just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like property, its nature actual use and income the sworn valuation by the owner the tax declaration and the assessment made by the government assessor shall be considered. The decision was only based on respondents evidence which were irrelevant or off-tangent to the factor laid down by the said law. LBPs valuation did not also substantiate its valuation. LBP merely submitted its computation to the court without evidence on record. Given that the parties failed to adduce the evidence of the propertys value as an agricultural land at the time of taking, it is premature for the court to make final decision. Hence there is a need to remand the case to the RTC SAC for reception of evidence.