CHAPTER I:

OVERVIEW OF THE COURSE ON AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

A. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND AGRARIAN REFORM

a) Constitutional provisions on Social Justice

Article II Sec 9: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will
ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty
through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising
standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.

Article II Sec 10: The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.

Article XIII Sec 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.

Article XIII Sec 2: The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to
create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

b) Constitutional provisions on Agrarian Reform

Article II Sec 21: The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and
agrarian reform.

Article XII Sec 1: The goals of the national economy are a more equitable
distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of
goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an
expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the under-
privileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and

1
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises
against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the
country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to
broaden the base of their ownership.
Article XII Sec 2: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State.
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water
power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development,
and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general
terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote
the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
2
Article XII Sec 3: Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest
or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may
be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private
corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more
than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development,
and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law,
the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased
and the conditions therefor.
Article XIII Sec 4: The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own
directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a
just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable
retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Article XIII Sec 5: The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers,
and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations
to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall
provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and
adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.
Article XIII Sec 6: The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization
of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or
concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small
settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural
estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.

Article XIII Sec 7: The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and
fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen
through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and
conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share
from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
Article XIII Sec 8: The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the
proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment
creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as
payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice
Article XVIII Sec 22: At the earliest possible time, the Government shall
expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for
distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program.
AGRARIAN REFORM
Redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced to farmers and
regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to
include the totality of tactors and support services designed to lift the economic
status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical
redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration,
and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive
a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.
It is NOT confined to land distribution to landless farmers and regular
farmworkers; other alternatives:
a) Labor administration
b) Profit-sharing
c) Stock distribution
Reason: It is not feasible to confine it with just land distribution as there is not enough
agricultural lands that can be distributed.

--- O --- O --- O ---

B. GENERAL CONCEPTS OF AGRARIAN REFORM AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS

AGRARIAN
Derived from the Latin word ager, which means a field.
Lexically, it means relating to land or to the ownership or division of land

AGRARIAN LAW
Basically refers to the distribution of public agricultural lands, large estates, and
regulation of the relationship between the landowner and the farmer who works
on the land.

It embraces all laws that govern and regulate the rights and relationship over the
agricultural lands between landowners, tenants, lessees or agricultural workers.

SOCIAL LEGISLATION
So broad that it covers labor laws, agrarian laws, and welfare laws.

Laws or statutes enacted pursuant to the social justice clause of the Constitution.
 CHAPTER II:
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In 1978, when the country adopted the parliamentary form of government, the
DAR was renamed Ministry of Agrarian Reform. On July 26, 1987, the Department by
virtue of Executive Order No. 129-A was organized structurally and functionally. This E.O.
expanded the powers and operations of the Department.
On September 27, 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, signed Executive
Order No. 364, and the Department of Agrarian Reform was renamed to Department of
Land Reform. This E.O. also broadened the scope of the Department, making it
responsible for all land reform in the country. It also placed the Philippine Commission on
Urban Poor (PCUP) under its supervision and control. Recognition of the ownership of
ancestral domain by indigenous peoples also became the responsibility of this new
department, under the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).
On August 23, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed Executive Order
No. 456 and renamed the Department of Land Reform back to Department of Agrarian
Reform, since "the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law goes beyond just land reform
but includes the totality of all factors and support services designed to lift the economic
status of the beneficiaries."
At the present administration of President Benigno Simeon Noynoy Aquino III,
the DAR which is the lead agency for CARP implementation is bent on sustaining the
gains of agrarian reform through its three major components Land Tenure Improvement
(LTI), Program Beneficiaries Development (PBD) and Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD).
Together with the efforts to fight graft and corruption by the President, it is imperative to
have institutional reforms within DAR as a complement to the abovementioned DAR
components as well as give credence, transparency and accountability at all sectors of
the DAR bureaucracy.hieved through agrarian reform.
A. AGRARIAN HISTORY
Pre-Colonial Times (Before 16th Century)
The Philippines, even before being colonized by different countries, already have
developed an organization for their communities. The land owned by these communities
is known as barangay which consists of 30-100 families which is administered by different
chiefs.
In these barangays, everyone regardless of status had access on the land and
mutually shares resources to the rest of the community. They believed in and practiced
the concept of stewardship where relationship between man and nature is important.
Land cultivation was done commonly by kaingin system or the slash and burn
method wherein land was cleared by burning the bushes before planting the crops or
either land was plowed and harrowed before planting. On the other hand, food
production was intended for family consumption only at first but later on neighboring
communities where engaged in a barter trade, exchanging their goods with others. Some
even traded their agricultural products with luxury items of some foreign traders like the
Chinese, Arabs and Europeans.
The only recorded transaction of land sale during that time was the Maragtas Code. This
is the selling of the Panay Island to the ten Bornean datus in exchange for a golden
salakot and a long gold necklace. Although the Code of Luwaranwas one of the oldest
written laws of the Muslim society which contains provision on the lease of cultivated
lands, there was no record how the lease arrangement was practiced.
Spanish Era (1521-1896)
When the Spanish came to the country in 1521, they introduced pueblo an
agriculture system wherein the native rural communities were organized into pueblo and
each Christianized native family is given four to five hectares of land to cultivate, thus
there is no landless class.
Nonetheless, these native families are merely landholders and not legitimate
landowners. By law, the land assigned to them was the property of the Spanish King
where they pay their colonial tributes to the Spanish authorities in the form of
agricultural products that they produce.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the Philippines as a colony of Spain
implemented policies that would mainstream the country into the world of capitalism.
The economy was opened to the world market as exporter of raw materials and importer
of finished goods. The agricultural exports were mandated and hacienda system was
developed as a new form of ownership. More people lost their lands and were forced to
become tillers.
Agricultural tenancy during that time originated when the Spanish crown
implemented the Laws of the Indies. The law awards vast tracts of land to the religious
orders in the country. Some of them are awarded to the Spanish military as reward for
their service (also known as repartiamentos), and to the other Spaniards known as
encomienderos to manage and have the right to receive tributes from the natives tilling
the land also known as encomiendas. Because of this, the natives within these areas The result of this revolution has made the government confiscate the large
became mere tillers working for a share of crops. They did not even have any rights to landed estates, especially the friar lands and declared these lands as properties of the
the land. government.(Malolos Constitution, 1896, Article XVII)

Ideally the purpose of the encomienda system is for the encomienderos to American Era (1898-1935)
protect the natives and further introduce them into Catholic faith in exchange for tribute
Realizing that being landless was the main cause ofsocial unrest and revolt at
from the natives. But abusive encomienderos collected more tributes that became the
that time, the Americans sought to put an end to the miserable conditions of the tenant
land rentals from the natives living in the area.
tillers and small farmers by passing several land policies to widen the base of small
landholdings and distribute land ownership among the greater number of Filipino
A compras y vandalas system was practiced wherein tillers were made to
tenants and farmers.
compulsory sell at a very low price or surrender their agricultural harvests to Spanish
In connection to this, the Philippine Bill of 1902 was passed which provided regulations
authorities where encomienderos can resell it for a profit. People of the encomiendas
on the disposal of public lands wherein a private individual can own 16 hectares of land
were also required to render personal services on public and religious work and as a
while the corporate land holdings can avail of 1, 024 hectares. This also gave the rights to
household help to the encomienderos.
the Americans to own agricultural lands.
In 1865, there was a law made by the Spanish crown ordering landholders to
The Torrens system of land registration was also introduced during the American
register their landholdings but only a few were aware of this decree so they were the
colonial period. This was made to replace the registration system that was implemented
only ones who were able to register their lands. Ancestral lands were claimed and
by the Spaniards. The reason why they made a different system of registration was that
registered in other peoples names (Spanish officials, inquilinos and caciques or local
some 400,000 native farmers were without titles at the start of the American era and this
chieftains). As a result, many peasant families were driven out from the lands they have
situation was also aggravated by the absence of records of issued titles and accurate land
been cultivating for centuries or were forced to become tillers.
surveys.
In 1893, the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law was introduced that provides
The Land Registration Act of 1902 or Act No. 496 placed all private and public
the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as ownership claims. This law was
lands under Torrens system. While the Cadastral Act or Act No. 2259 speeds up the
mainly a law on registration of properties rather than a mortgage law.
issuance of Torrens titles. This was done by surveying a municipality and presented the
result to the land registration court.
In 1894, the last Spanish Land Law promulgated in the Philippines was The
Maura Law or Royal Decree of 1894. This law states that farmers and landholders were
A program called the Homestead Program was introduced in 1903 that allowed
given one year to register their agricultural lands to avoid declaration of it as a state
an enterprising tenant to acquire a farm of at least 16 hectares to cultivate. However, the
property.
program was not implemented nationwide and was introduced only in some parts of
Mindanao and Northern Luzon, where there were available public alienable and
With the encomienda system still being used despite the different laws passed by
disposable lands.
the Spanish crown more and more tillers were abused, exploited and deprived of their
There are also other agrarian laws that were introduced during the American era like the
rights. The revolution of peasants and farmers in 1896 articulated their aspirations for
First Public Land Act or Act No. 926 which provided rules and regulations for selling and
agrarian reform and for a just society. Women also fought for freedom and played an
leasing portions of the public domain, completing defective Spanish land titles, canceling,
important role in the planning and implementing the activities of the revolutionary
and confirming Spanish concessions. Another is the Second Public Land Act of 1919 or
movements.
Act 2874 which limits the use of agricultural lands to Filipinos, Americans, and citizens of
other countries. On the other hand, the Act No. 141 amended the Second Public Act of
1919 or Act No. 2874. The revision consists of a temporary provision of equality on the
rights of American and Filipino citizens and corporations. It also compiled all pre-existing
laws relative to public lands into a single instrument.
There is also the Friar Land Act or Act No. 1120 which provided the
administrative and temporary leasing and selling of friar lands to its tillers. The first
legislation regulating the relationships of landlord and tenants and the first law to
legalize a 50-50 crop sharing arrangement was also introduced in the American era and is
known as the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933 or Act No. 4054. There is also the
Sugarcane Tenancy Contracts Act of 1933 or Act No. 4113 which regulated the
relationship of landlord and tenants in the sugarcane fields and required tenancy
contracts on land planted to sugarcane.
However, despite the different land policies passed during that time, the farmers
situation did not improve at all. In fact, it further worsened the land ownership situation,
where there was no limit on the size of landholdings one could possess. Landholdings
were once again concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals who can afford to buy,
register, and acquire fixed titles of their properties. Therefore, more lands were placed
under tenancy.
As a result, there were widespread peasant uprisings, headed by the armed
peasants groups known as Colorum and Sakdalistaof Luzon and Northeastern Mindanao
respectively. These uprisings resulted to social disorder in 1920s and 1930s. Hence,
more militant peasants and workers organizations bonded together for a more collective
action against the abuses of landlords and unjust landownership situation. This gave
birth to the Communist Party of the Philippines.
Commonwealth Years (1935-1942)
During these years the situation of land ownership and tenancy were
characterized by the contrasting economic and political lifestyle between tenant and the
landlord. Landlords became richer and powerful while the tenants were deprived of their
rights, became poorer and absentee landowners increased. They preferred to go after
new opportunities in the cities and left their farms idle to the management of
katiwalas. As a result, haciendas were poorly and unjustly managed.
A small plot of land cultivated by an average peasant farmer could not sustain a
decent living for his family. Tenants and farmers shouldered excessive fines, unfair
taxation and usury. Systems for credit and marketing of rice were lacking thus, farmers
received a very low selling price.
Consequently, peasant uprising became widespread all over the country.
As a response to these situations, the government under the stewardship of
President Quezon realized that land reform programs should be implemented
immediately. They saw the purchase of friar lands as a possible way to solve the problem
of inequitable land ownership. They also saw that the Homestead program could be
transformed into a massive resettlement program, if properly implemented.
Japanese Era
During the Japanese occupation, peasants and workers organized the HUKBALAHAP
(Hukbong Bayan Laban samgaHapon) on March 29, 1942 as an anti-Japanese group. They
took over vast tracts of land and gave the land to the people.
For them, the war was a golden opportunity for peoples initiative to push pro-poor
programs. Landlords were overpowered by the peasants but unfortunately at the end of
the war, through the help of the military police and civilian guards, landlords were able
to retrieve their lands from the HUKBALAHAP.
B. EVOLUTION OF INITIATIVES ON LAND REFORM
Manuel L. Quezon (1935-1944)
Some of the Agrarian Reform laws were passed during the administration of Manuel L.
Quezon:
RA 4054 or the Rice Tenancy Law
- first law on crop sharing which legalized the 50-50 share between landlord and
tenant with corresponding support to tenants protecting them against abuses of
landlords. However, this law was hardly implemented because most of the
municipal councils were composed of powerful hacienderos and big landlords. In
fact, only one municipality passed a resolution for its enforcement and majorities
have petitioned its application to the Governor General.
- The 1935 Constitution provided specific provisions on social justice and
expropriation of landed estates for distribution to tenants as a solution to the
land ownership and tenancy problems.
Commonwealth Act No. 461
- specified that dismissal of a tenant should first have the approval of Tenancy
Division of the Department of Justice.
Commonwealth Act No. 608
- enacted to establish security of tenure between landlord and tenant. It
prohibited the common practice among landowners of ejecting tenants without
clear legal grounds.

President Quezons program on land reform includes making a laid down social
justice program that focused on the purchased of large haciendas which were divided
and sold to tenants. This administration was also responsible in establishing the National
Rice and Corn Corporation (NARICC) and assigning public defenders to assist peasants in
court battles for their rights to till the land.
During this period, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) was set up to exercise
jurisdiction over disagreements arising from agri-workers and landowner relationship. It
was also during this time that the Rice Tenancy Act (Act No. 4054) was amended.
The Homestead Program continued through the creation of the National Land
Settlement Administration (CA No. 441) and tenancy problems were covered through CA
Nos. 461 and 608.
But the implementation of land reform during Quezons administration was hindered
because of the budget allocation for the settlement program made it impossible for the
program to succeed. Also most landlords did not comply with the Rice Share Tenancy Act.
Widespread peasant uprising against abusive landlords also continued. In addition, the
outbreak of the World War II put a stopped to the landownership and tenancy
interventions during this period.
Manuel Roxas (1946-1948)
Republic Act No. 34
- passed during the administration of Manuel Roxas and it enacted to establish a
70-30 sharing arrangement between tenant and landlord. The 70% of the harvest
will go to the person who shouldered the expenses for planting, harvesting and
for the work animals. With this, it reduced the interest of landowners loans to
tenants at not more than 6%.
President Roxas also negotiated for the purchase of 8,000 hectares of lands in
Batangas owned by the Ayala-Zobel family. These were sold to landless farmers.
However, due to lack of support facilities, the farmers were forced to resell their
lands to the landowning class. This failure gave basis to doubt the real meaning of land
reform program.
Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953)
In ElpidioQuirinos administrations, the Executive Order No. 355, the Land
Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO) was established to accelerate and
expand the peasant resettlement program of the government. However, due to limited
post-war resources, the program was not successful.
Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957)
When President Magsaysay was elected as the president of the country he
realized the importance of pursuing a more honest-to-goodness land reform program. So
he convinced the elite controlled congress to pass several legislation to improve the land
reform situation in the county. Some of these are:
R.A. No. 1199 (1954):
- Agricultural Tenancy Act basically governed the relationship between
landholders and tenant-farmers. This law helped protect the tenure rights of
tenant tillers and enforced fair tenancy practices.
R.A. No. 1160 (1954):
- Free distribution of Resettlement and Rehabilitation and Agricultural land and an
Act establishing the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration
(NARRA).
R.A. No. 1400 (1955):
- Land Reform Act or known as Land to the Landless Program which sought
improvement in land tenure and guaranteed the expropriation of all tenanted
landed estates.
R.A. No. 1266 (1955)
- Expropriation of Hacienda del Rosario, situated at Valdefuente, Cabanatuan City
He implemented the Agricultural Tenancy Act by establishing the Court of
Agricultural Relations in 1955 to improve tenancy security, fix the land rentals on
tenanted farms and to resolve the many land disputes filed by the landowners and
peasant organizations.
He also created the Agricultural Tenancy Commission to administer problems arising
from tenancy. Through this Commission 28,000 hectares were issued to settlers.
Under President Magsaysay the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administration (ACCFA) was created. This is a government agency formed to provide
warehouse facilities and assist farmers market their products and established the
organization of the Farmers Cooperatives and Marketing Associations (FACOMAs).
With the passing of RA 1160 of 1954, President Magsaysay pursued the resettlement
program through the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA).
This law established the governments resettlement program and accelerated the free
distribution of agricultural lands to landless tenants and farmers. It particularly aimed to
convince members of the HUKBALAHAP movement to return to a peaceful life by giving
them home lots and farmlands.
This administration also spearheaded the establishment of the Agricultural and
Industrial Bank to provide easier terms in applying for homestead and other farmland.
With all the programs and bills passed under his administration, out of the targeted
300 haciendas for distribution, only 41 were distributed after its 7 years of
implementation. This was due to lack of funds and inadequate support services provided
for these programs.
As a result, landlords continued to be uncooperative and critical to the program and
landownership and tenancy problems continued.
Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)
There was no legislation passed in Carlos Garcias term but he continued to
implement the land reform programs of President Magsaysay.
DiosdadoMacapagal (1961-1965)
It was during DiosdadoMacapagal that the Agricultural Land Reform Code or RA
No. 3844 was enacted, more specifically on August 8, 1963. This was considered to be
the most comprehensive piece of agrarian reform legislation ever enacted in the country
that time. Because of this, President Diosdado Macapagal was considered as the Father
of Agrarian Reform.
RA No. 3844 was considered as such because this Act abolished share tenancy in
the Philippines. It prescribed a program converting the tenant farmers to lessees and
eventually into owner-cultivators. Moreover, it aimed to free tenants from the bondage
of tenancy and gave hope to poor Filipino farmers to own the land they are tilling. Finally,
it emphasized owner-cultivator relationship and farmer independence, equity,
productivity improvement and the public distribution of land.
However, the landed Congress did not provide effort to come up with a separate
bill to provide funding for its implementation. The act was piloted in the provinces of
Pangasinan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, Occidental Mindoro, Camarines Sur
and Misamis Oriental. It acquired a total of 18,247.06 hectares or 99.29% out of the total
scope of 18,377.05 hectares. The programbenefited 7,466 farmerbeneficiaries. (BLAD-
DAR OfficialRecords)
Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)
When President Marcos assumed office, he immediately directed the massive
implementation of the leasehold phase of the land reform program by signing into law
the Code of Agrarian Reforms in the Philippines or RA No. 6389 and its companion bill RA
No. 6390. The Code of Agrarian Reforms or RA No. 6389 governed the implementation of
the agrarian reform in the Philippines. This law instituted the Code of Agrarian Reforms
and significantly amended several provisions of Agricultural Land Reform Code or RA
3844 of President Macapagal. It created the Department of Agrarian Reform, a separate
administrative agency for agrarian reform, replacing the Land Authority.
RA 6390
- enacted to accelerate the implementation of the of the agrarian reform program
in the fields of land acquisition and agricultural credit. Through the Code, an AR
Special Account in the General Fund was created that exclusively finance the
agrarian reform program.
Presidential Decree No. 2
- proclaiming the entire country as a land reform area and Presidential Decree No.
27, decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of soil, transferring
to them the ownership of the land they till and providing the needed
instruments and mechanisms. This law provided for tenanted lands devoted to
rice and corn to pass ownership to the tenants. It also lowered the ceilings for
landholdings to 7 hectares. The law stipulated that share tenants who worked
from a landholding of over 7 hectares could purchase the land they tilled, while
share tenants on land less than 7 hectares would become leaseholders.
- This agrarian reform program was designed to uplift the farmers from poverty
and ignorance and to make them useful, dignified, responsible and progressive
partners in nation-building. This AR program was a package of services extended
to farmers in the form of credit support, infrastructure, farm extension, legal
assistance, electrification and development of rural institutions.
 President Marcos Agrarian Reform Program is characterized by five major
components and these are Land Tenure Program, Institutional Development, Physical
Development, Agricultural Development, and Human Resources.
The Agrarian Reform Programs was also labeled as revolutionary by some sectors
because it was pursued under Martial Law and intended to make quick changes without
going through legislative or technical processes and another reason is that it was the only
law in the Philippines ever done in handwriting. Nevertheless, the program also posed
some limitations which includes limited scope of the program since it was only directed
for the tenanted, privately-owned rice and corn lands; there was monopoly of
businessmen in both coconut and sugar industries; foreign and local firms were allowed
to use large tracks of land for their business; and because of the declaration of Martial
Law several farmer leaders were arrested without due process of law.
Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)
1987 Philippine Constitution
- set the direction of agrarian reform in the Aquino administration. The 1987
Constitution affirmed that The State shall promote comprehensive rural
development and agrarian reform. (Article 2, Section 21)
Proclamation 131
- instituted the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as a major
program of the government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian
Reform Fund (ARF) in the amount of 50 billion pesos to cover the estimated cost
of the program for the period 1987-1997.
EO 129
- reorganized the Department of Agrarian Reform and expanded in power and
operations. It is known that the record and legacy of the Aquino Administration
in Agrarian Reform is the Executive Summary, Planning Service, and DAR.
EO 228
- declared full ownership of the land to qualified farmer-beneficiaries covered by
PD 27. It also regulated the value of remaining rice and corn lands for coverage
provided for the manner of payment by the farmer-beneficiaries and the mode
of compensation to the landowners.
EO 229
- provided the administrative processes for land registration or LISTASAKA
program, acquisition of private land and compensation procedures for
landowners. It specified the structure and functions of units that will coordinate
and supervise the implementation of the program.
RA 6657 or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
- an act instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program to promote social
justice and Industrialization, providing the mechanism for its implementation and
for other purposes.
To strengthen CARP and fast track its implementation, President Aquino issued
the following Executive Orders (EO):
E.O. No. 405
- gave the Land Bank of the Philippines the primary responsibility for the land
valuation function in order for DAR to concentrate its efforts on the identification
of landholdings and beneficiaries, the distribution of acquired lands, and the
other sub-components of the program.
E.O. No. 406
- emphasized that CARP is central to the governments efforts to hasten
countryside agro-industrial development and directed the implementing
agencies to align their respective programs and projects with CARP.
- This created CARP implementing teams from the national to the municipal levels
and gave priority to 24 strategic operating provinces where the bulk of CARP
workload lies.
E.O. No. 407
- directed all government financing institutions (GFIs) and government owned and
controlled corporations (GOCCs) to immediately transfer to DAR all their
landholdings suitable for agriculture.
E.O. No. 448
- pursued the policy that government should lead the efforts in placing lands for
coverage under CARP. It directed the immediate turn-over of government
reservations, no longer needed, and that are suitable for agriculture.
Some of the accomplishments achieved during the Aquino administration with
regards to the implementation of the Agrarian Reform Programs are the grants and
budgetary support from official development assistance (ODA) circles poured in during
this administration. Various sectors likewise recognized agrarian reform as a worthwhile
social investment. In terms of the tenant-tiller status, it improved particularly those
within landowners retained areas or on landholdings subject for coverage.
 It is also during this administration that the present adjudication system was
introduced. This gave DAR the original and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes as
quasi-judicial powers.
Also, the livelihood and agro-industrial projects promoted and the program of
support services were intensified to help farmer beneficiaries become productive and
transform them into entrepreneurs.
The administration received much support and active involvement in program
implementation from key stakeholders such as peoples organization, farmers
association, NGOs and from prominent landowners themselves.
On the other hand, the administration also face challenges in the implementation of
CARP for example on land evaluation, one very specific case is the Garchitorena land
scam. There were also issues on the absence of a clear cut guideline that would answer
problems on land use conversion. Minimal efforts were exerted to discouraged and/or
prevent conversion of lands into other use.
Despite the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), the administration experienced a major
budgetary shortfall due to low remittances from the Asset Privatization Trust and the
Presidential Commission on Good Government.
The administration also experienced constant changes in DAR leadership. This led to
lack of continuity of priority, programs and projects.
Allegation on lack of political wills leadership and genuine commitment to implement the
program. Critics say that the President could have implemented a genuine agrarian
reform program because of her revolutionary powers after People Power I.
Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998)
The Ramos administration is recognized for bringing back support of key
stakeholders of CARP by bridging certain policy gaps on land acquisition and distribution,
land evaluation, and case resolution. It is also credited for enhancing internal operating
systems and strengtheningthe capabilities of the DAR bureaucracy and for tapping more
resources to help implement the program.
During this time guidelines and procedures were formulated to facilitate
acquisition and distribution of lands:
DAR AO No. 2 (1992)
- consists of rules and procedures governing the distribution of cancelled or
expired pasture lease agreements and Timber License Agreements under EO 407.
DAR AO No. 1 (1993)
- amendment to certain provisions of the Administrative Order No. 9 Series of
1990, entitled Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Acquisition of
Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition
Pursuant to RA 6657.
Joint DAR-LBP AO No. 3 (1994)
- policy guidelines and procedures governing the acquisition and distribution of
agricultural lands affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
DAR AO No. 1 (1995)
- consists of the rules and procedures governing the Acquisition and Distribution
of all Agricultural Lands Subject of Sequestration/Acquisition by the PCGG and
APT whose ownership in Under Court Litigation.
DAR AO No. 2 (1995)
- the revised rules and procedures governing the Acquisition of Private Agricultural
Lands Subject of Voluntary Land Transfer or a Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS)
Pursuant to RA 6657.
DAR AO No. 2 (1996)
- rules and regulations governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands subject of
Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to RA 6657.
DAR AO No. 2 (1997)
- rules and regulations for the Acquisition of Private Agricultural Lands Subject of
Mortgage or Foreclosure of Mortgage.
DAR AO No. 8 (1997)
- revised guidelines on the Acquisition and Distribution of Compensable
Agricultural Lands under VLT/Direct Payment Scheme.
DAR MC No. 7 (1993)
- refers to the implementing guidelines on the Distribution and Tilling of the Public
Agricultural Lands turned over by the National Livelihood and Support Fund to
the DAR for distribution under the CARP pursuant to EO 407, Series of 1990 as
 amended by EO 448, Series of 1991 and as clarified under Memorandum Order development district program, were designed to help farmers attain a level of economic
No. 107 of the President of the Philippines dated March 23, 1993. viability.

Despite all of these, there are challenges that the administration faced during It has forged alliances among countries implementing AR through the
implementation of the program. One of which is the failure in enforcing the installation International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. The department
of some farmer beneficiaries on awarded lands. Critics also say that non-physical then began aggressively to assert its place in national development planning processes to
installation of FBs has been the norm rather than the exception. raise DARs profile both in national and international fora. With this, DAR was able to
secure a seat in the annual consultative group meeting between the Philippiness
Some sectors also complained on the slowness of this administration in the economic management team and the donor community. This period also launched the
acquisition and distribution of privately owned lands. Although this administration was DAR-DA-DENR convergence initiative.
credited for having the biggest accomplishment in terms of LAD, critics say this is because
the land acquired and distributed were more on public lands and rice and corn lands. But there were also some hindrances that the administration faced like the fiscal
constraints encountered that resulted to unpaid or delayed payment of landowners
covered under the compulsory acquisition and VOS schemes.
Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001) There were also issues on inter and intra ARBs conflicts due to arguments for control
over negotiations with prospective joint venture partners, some of which became
During this administration the Magkabalikat Para sakaunlarangAgraryo
violent.
(MAGKASAKA) which was launched which is directed for the investors to bring in capital,
technology and management support while the farmers will contribute, at most, the use
of their land itself. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001 2010)
The GMA administration has adopted the BAYAN-ANIHAN concept as the
The MAGKASAKA aims to encourage investors to bring investments into the
implementing framework for CARP. Bayan means people and Anihan means harvest and
countryside and to enhance the income of the farmers through joint venture schemes
Bayanihan means working together. Applied to CARP, Bayan Anihan means a united
and contract growing schemes. The program also aims to enable the farmers to be more
people working together for the successful implementation of agrarian reform.
efficient and be globally competitive.
The Bayan-Anihan Framework has different implementing strategies namely:
This administration saw the urgency of land distribution, and believed that it can
be served if it is built on farmers capacities to pursue their own development. One of
Salin-Lupa: Accelerating land transfer and improving land tenure.
the first things this administration did was to rework performance targets by focusing
on the number of hectares of land distributed coupled with an accounting of farmer
Katarungan: Prompt and fair settlement of agrarian disputes and delivery of agrarian
beneficiaries and the specific croplands and farm systems covered. This approach sought
reform justice.
to integrate land distribution and support services. It was during this period that DAR
launched a series of land occupations by working with farmer claimants, the LGU and
Bayanihan: Better delivery by the government of appropriate support services to ARBs
government security forces.
and the mobilization of the ARBs themselves in the transformation of the agrarian reform
communities into an agrarian reform zones and into progressive farming.
To help speed up litigation, DAR also helped set up the agrarian justice fund for
farmer beneficiaries as well as DAR field workers who, due to the nature of the job, are
Kabayanihan or the Konsehong Bayan Para saAnihan: Institutionalization not only of the
named as respondents in cases filed by recalcitrant landowners. Support services took a
system of dialogue and consultation but also joint problem solving with AR stakeholders,
much more entrepreneurial approach during this administration. Sustainable rural
particularly peoples organizations, cooperatives and NGOs.
Kamalayan: Raising the awareness of DAR personnel, agrarian reform beneficiaries and
the general public on agrarian reform and its contribution to social justice and
development.
Under Arroyos administration introduced the KapitBisigsaKahirapan Agrarian Reform
Zones (KARZONEs) as a program strategy of the DAR in CARP Implementation. KARZONEs
is a partnership and convergence strategy aimed at achieving asset reform, poverty
reduction, food sufficiency, farm productivity, good governance, social equity and
empowerment of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) both in ARCs and non-ARCs.
Other specific programs under this administration to enhance CARP were also
implemented like the:
GulayanMagsasakangAgraryo.
- intends to add income and food security to farmers and their communities.
Educational opportunities were also ushered in to farmers children and
dependents through the DiosdadoMacapagal Scholar Program.
This administration is also credited in heightening agrarian case resolution by
introducing a quota system to compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian cases and
train farmers into paralegals.
Benigno Simeon Noynoy C. Aquino III (20102016)
Under the governance of President Noynoy Aquino, the DAR which is the lead
agency for CARP implementation is bent on sustaining the gains of agrarian reform
through its three major components Land Tenure Improvement (LTI), Program
Beneficiaries Development (PBD) and Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD). The following are
the strategic directions of the Aquino Administration for the agrarian reform program:
To substantially complete asset reform as mandated by R.A. No. 9700 by:
1. Completing the land acquisition and distribution (LAD) in the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER) or Republic Act 9700
balance through: Focus on large-sized private agricultural lands; Redeployment
of competent DAR personnel to the 20 high LAD provinces; Streamline LAD
processes and procedures; and Enhance the database of landholdings for ease in
targeting and monitoring the LAD;
2. Prioritizing the subdivision of collective Certificates of Land Ownership Awards
(CLOAs) involving LBP-compensable lands;
3. Fast tracking the documentation and settlement of landowner compensation for
already distributed lands;
4. Synergizing and rationalizing the efforts of the CARP implementing agencies in all
processes of LAD;
5. Partnering with the civil society organizations (CSOs) in the delivery of LTI
services, particularly the large-sized private agricultural lands (PAL);
6. Adopting a job-sharing scheme wherein under the ONE-DAR concept, provinces
will share responsibilities (low-LAD provinces with high LAD provinces) to
minimize the need to hire new personnel; and
7. Increasing the utilization of the services of geodetic engineers to assist the
provincial and municipal offices in land acquisition considering the difficulty of
hiring new personnel and the demands of a post-2014 scenario.
Under President Aquinos administration, the DARs Program Beneficiaries
Development (PBD) priorities are geared in:
1. Undertaking convergence initiatives with rural development agencies to
complement the resources and streamline the efforts of DAR, DA and DENR;
2. Inking public-private partnerships (PPPs) develop models of collaboration and
business models in AR areas with the participation of the CSOs, academe,
research and development institutions and LGUs;
3. Expanding official development assistance (ODA) portfolio in order to augment
incomes for PBD;
4. Integrating LTI and PBD on a province-to-province basis;
5. Shifting focus of low-LAD balance provinces to PBD; and
6. Unlocking credit facilities for the agrarian reform beneficiaries through capacity
development for credit providers and farmer-borrowers.
To speed up resolution of AR related cases, the Agrarian Justice Delivery component is
geared at:
1. Putting the legal framework in place to expedite the LAD process and undertake
PBD lawyering to ensure ARBs free and informed consent on agribusiness
agreements;
2. Developing common templates and legal outlines in order to rationalize the DAR
lawyers and paralegals appreciation and decision on cases;
3. Improving the capabilities of DAR lawyers and legal officers; and
4. Utilizing information, communication technology (ICT) to enhance legal work.
--- O ---- O ---- O ----
 CHAPTER III.
LAND ACQUISITION
A. DOCTRINE ON STATES EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER AND EMINENT DOMAIN
POLICE POWER
- the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, establish
all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the
State and its people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967)
- basic purposes of police power are:
1. To promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the
people; (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343;
US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85
2. To promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA,
September 21, 1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS.
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50 Phil. 595apprehend and confine lepers in a
leprosarium)
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CARL
RA 6657 is Constitutional
In the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, the Supreme Court held:
"The case before us presents no knotty complication insofar as the question of
compensable taking is concerned. To the extent that the measures under challenge
merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power
for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where,
to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever
lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking
under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is
imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land.
What is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary.
This is definitely an exercise not of the police power but of the power of eminent domain.
"Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to
each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same
particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements:
(1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here
challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.
"Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must
be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. The petitioner
have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a different
treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other properties
must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. There
is a substantial distinction between 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 any
event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification. Its
decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its
discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights.
EMINENT DOMAIN
- right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular
uses to promote public welfare. It is an indispensable attribute of sovereignty; a
power grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the common need
and advance the general welfare.
- Thus, our own Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation. Furthermore, the due process and equal
protection clauses act as additional safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of
this governmental power.
Since the exercise of the power of eminent domain affects an individuals right to
private property, a constitutionally-protected right necessary for the preservation and
enhancement of personal dignity and intimately connected with the rights to life and
liberty, the need for its circumspect operation cannot be overemphasized.
 In City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila we said.
The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State, or by its
authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights, and the rule in that
case is that the authority must be strictly construed. No species of property is held by
individuals with greater tenacity, and none is guarded by the constitution and the
laws more sedulously, than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. When the
legislature interferes with that right, and, for greater public purposes, appropriates
the land of an individual without his consent, the plain meaning of the law should
not be enlarged by doubtful interpretation. (Bensley vs. Mountainlake Water Co., 13
Cal., 306 and cases cited [73 Am. Dec. 576].)
The statutory power of taking property from the owner without his consent is one of
the most delicate exercise of governmental authority. It is to be watched with jealous
scrutiny. Important as the power may be to the government, the inviolable sanctity which
all free constitutions attach to the right of property of the citizens, constrains the strict
observance of the substantial provisions of the law which are prescribed as modes of the
exercise of the power, and to protect it from abuse. (Dillon on Municipal Corporations
[5th Ed.], sec. 1040, and cases cited; Tenorio vs. Manila Railroad Co., 22 Phil., 411.)
The power of eminent domain is essentially legislative in nature. However, such
power may be validly delegated to local government units, other public entities and
public utilities, although the scope of this delegated legislative power is necessarily
narrower than that of the delegating authority and may only be exercised in strict
compliance with the terms of the delegating law.
The basis for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units
is section 19 of RA 7160 which provides that:
A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an
ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, purpose, or welfare for
the benefits of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant
to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws; Provided, however, That the
power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been
previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted; Provided, further, That
the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the
filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court
of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the
current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated; Provided, finally, That the
amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court,
based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
Despite the existence of this legislative grant in favor of local governments, it is still
the duty of the courts to determine whether the power of eminent domain is being
exercised in accordance with the delegating law. In fact, the courts have adopted a more
censorious attitude in resolving questions involving the proper exercise of this delegated
power by local bodies, as compared to instances when it is directly exercised by the
national legislature.
The courts have the obligation to determine whether the following requisites have been
complied with by the local government unit concerned:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent
domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for
the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the
Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property
sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court reveals that expropriation proceedings are
comprised of two stages:
(1) the first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to
exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context
of the facts involved in the suit; it ends with an order, if not in a dismissal of the
action, of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the
complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date
of the filing of the complaint;
(2) the second phase is concerned with the determination by the court of the just
compensation for the property sought to be taken; this is done by the court with the
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners.
Clearly, although the determination and award of just compensation to the
defendant is indispensable to the transfer of ownership in favor of the plaintiff, it is but
the last stage of the expropriation proceedings, which cannot be arrived at without an
initial finding by the court that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought
to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint. An order of
condemnation or dismissal at this stage would be final, resolving the question of whether
or not the plaintiff has properly and legally exercised its power of eminent domain.
If the LGU fails to acquire a private property for public use, purpose, or welfare
through purchase, LGU may expropriate said property through a resolution of the
sanggunian authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation proceedings.
B. PROCEDURE FOR LAND ACQUISITION: THE TRANSFER OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC
LANDS TO FARMER BENEFICIARES
Section 3-a Definition of Agrarian Reform
Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to
farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement,
to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status
of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution
of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution
of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits
of the lands they work.
Section 6. Scope of the Program
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or
indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to
the following qualifications:
1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and
2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That
landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be
allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further,
That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the
original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas
as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention
by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar
or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he
shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses
his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must
exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention. 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.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or
transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of
the Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this 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. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving
agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
Section 7. Priorities of Coverage
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in coordination with the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all
agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands
shall be acquired and distributed as follows:
Phase One:
Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all therein may be implemented ahead of the above schedules. In effecting the transfer
private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform; all lands foreclosed within these guidelines, priority must be given to lands that are tenanted.
by the government financial institutions; all lands acquired by the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG); and all other lands owned by the The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution
government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and scheme, including the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: Provided, That
distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be an owner-tiller may be a beneficiary of the land he does not own but is actually
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years; cultivating to the extent of the difference between the area of the land he owns and the
award ceiling of three (3) hectares.
Phase Two:
All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all arable public agricultural lands Section 8. Multinational Corporations
under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops
All lands of the public domain leased, held or possessed by multinational corporations or
in accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands
associations, and other lands owned by the government or by government-owned or
which are to be opened for new development and resettlement; and all private
controlled corporations, associations, institutions, or entities, devoted to existing and
agricultural lands in excess of fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is
operational agri-business or agro-industrial enterprises, operated by multinational
concerned, to implement principally the rights of farmers and regular farmworkers, who
corporations and associations, shall be programmed for acquisition and distribution
are the landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till, which shall be
immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed
distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be
within three (3) years.
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years.
Lands covered by the paragraph immediately preceding, under lease, management,
Phase Three:
grower or service contracts, and the like, shall be disposed of as follows:
All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings and proceeding
(a) Lease, management, grower or service contracts covering such lands covering
to medium and small landholdings under the following schedule:
an aggregate area in excess of 1,000 hectares, leased or held by foreign individuals in
(a) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares, to
excess of 500 hectares are deemed amended to conform with the limits set forth in
begin on the fourth (4th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within
Section 3 of Article XII of the Constitution.
three (3) years; and
(b) Contracts covering areas not in excess of 1,000 hectares in the case of such
(b) Landholdings from the retention limit up to twenty-four (24) hectares, to
corporations and associations, and 500 hectares, in the case of such individuals, shall be
begin on the sixth (6th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within
allowed to continue under their original terms and conditions but not beyond August 29,
four (4) years; to implement principally the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who
1992, or their valid termination, whichever comes sooner, after which, such agreements
are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till.
shall continue only when confirmed by the appropriate government agency. Such
contracts shall likewise continue even after the lands has been transferred to
The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by this
beneficiaries or awardees thereof, which transfer shall be immediately commenced
program shall be made in accordance with the above order of priority, which shall be
and implemented and completed within the period of three (3) years mentioned in the
provided in the implementing rules to be prepared by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
first paragraph hereof.
Council (PARC), taking into consideration the following; the need to distribute land to the
(c) In no case will such leases and other agreements now being
tillers at the earliest practicable time; the need to enhance agricultural productivity; and
implemented extend beyond August 29, 1992, when all lands subject hereof shall have
the availability of funds and resources to implement and support the program.
been distributed completely to qualified beneficiaries or awardees. Such agreements can
continue thereafter only under a new contract between the government or qualified
In any case, the PARC, upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform
beneficiaries or awardees, on the one hand, and said enterprises, on the other. Lands
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces or region as priority
leased, held or possessed by multinational corporations, owned by private individuals
land reform areas, in which the acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands
and private non-governmental corporations, associations, institutions and entities,
citizens of the Philippines, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and
distribution upon the expiration of the applicable lease, management, grower or service
contract in effect as of August 29, 1987, or otherwise, upon its valid termination,
whichever comes sooner, but not later than after ten (10) years following the effectivity
of the Act. However during the said period of effectivity, the government shall take steps
to acquire these lands for immediate distribution thereafter.
In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual workerbeneficiaries. In
case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then they shall form a
workers' cooperative or association which will deal with the corporation or business
association or any other proper party for the purpose of entering into a lease or growers
agreement and for all other legitimate purposes. Until a new agreement is entered into
by and between the workers' cooperative or association and the corporation or business
association or any other proper party, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes
effect between the former and the previous landowner shall be respected by both the
workers' cooperative or association and the corporation, business, association or such
other proper party. In no case shall the implementation or application of this Act justify
or result in the reduction of status or diminution of any benefits received or enjoyed by
the worker-beneficiaries, or in which they may have a vested right, at the time this Act
becomes effective,.
The provisions of Section 32 of this Act, with regard to production and income-sharing
shall apply to farms operated by multinational corporations. During the transition period,
the new owners shall be assisted in their efforts to learn modern technology in
production. Enterprises which show a willingness and commitment and good-faith efforts
to impart voluntarily such advanced technology will be given preferential treatment
where feasible.
In no case shall a foreign corporation, association, entity or individual enjoy any rights or
privileges better than those enjoyed by a domestic corporation, association, entity or
individual.
Section 9. Ancestral Lands
For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall
include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and
occupation of the community and its members: Provided, That the Torrens Systems shall
be respected. The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected
to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with the principles of self-
determination and autonomy, the systems of land ownership, land use, and the modes of
settling land disputes of all these communities must be recognized and respected.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the
implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying
and delineating such lands: Provided, That in the autonomous regions, the respective
legislatures may enact their own laws on ancestral domain subject to the provisions of
the Constitution and the principles enunciated in this Act and other national laws.
Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.
For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
1) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR
shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by
personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in
the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is
located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding
value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other
pertinent provisions hereof.
2) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative
shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
3) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30)
days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government
and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
4) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct
summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the
land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit
evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from
the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30)
days after it is submitted for decision.
5) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with
an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in
LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession
of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
 The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the the former and the previous landowner shall be respected by both the workers'
qualified beneficiaries. cooperative or association and the corporation or business association.
6) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. Corporate Landowners (Stock Distribution Option)
Corporate landowners may voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural
Section 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales.
landholdings to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to
Landowners, other than banks and other financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their qualified beneficiaries, under such terms and conditions, consistent with this Act, as they
lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment. may agree upon, subject to confirmation by the DAR. Upon certification by the DAR,
corporations owning agricultural lands may give their qualified beneficiaries the right to
Transferability of Awarded Lands (Section 27) purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural
land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total
Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed
assets, under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no case shall
except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other
the compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are
qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the
distributed be reduced. The same principle shall be applied to associations, with respect
children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from
to their equity or participation. Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a
the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of
proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other
the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)
qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the
of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
provisions of the Act: Provided, That the following conditions are complied with:
Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by
a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to
the BARC. If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land
dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the corporation or association shall
may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the
be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries;
beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or
conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall
b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association, the
be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the
beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one:(1) representative in the board of directors,
manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph. In the event of such transfer
or in a management or executive committee, if one exists, of the corporation or
to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts
association; and
the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on
the land.
c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same
rights and features as all other shares. d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original
Land Acquisition of Corporate Farms (Sec. 29)
beneficiaries shall be void ab initio unless said transaction is in favor of a qualified and
Farms Owned or Operated by Corporations or Other Business Associations. In the case registered beneficiary within the same corporation. If within two (2) years from the
of farms owned or operated by corporations or other business associations, the following approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer envisioned above is not made or realized
rules shall be observed by the PARC: In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the or the plan for such stock distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the
individual worker-beneficiaries. In case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the
the land, then it shall be owned collectively by the workers' cooperative or association compulsory coverage of this Act. Acd
which will deal with the corporation or business association. Until a new agreement is
entered into by and between the workers' cooperative or association and the corporation
or business association, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes effect between
Section. 6 par 1- Award of Lands to Children of Landowners
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to
the following qualifications:
(1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and
(2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm:
Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder:
Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who
still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the
same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
--- O --- O --- O ---
CHAPTER IV:
RETENTION, EXEMPTION AND EXCLUSION
SECTION 6. Retention Limits.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or
indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to
the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that
he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That
landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be
allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That
original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the
original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as
long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention
by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar
or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he
shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses
his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must
exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention. 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.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or
transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of
the Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this 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. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving
agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
SECTION 11. Commercial Farming.
Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock,
poultry and swine raising, and aquaculture including saltbeds, fishponds and prawn
ponds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and cacao, coffee and
rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and
distribution after (10) years from the effectivity of the Act. In the case of new farms, the
ten-year period shall begin from the first year of commercial production and operation,
as determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the government shall initiate the
steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land
and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or
associations, which shall hereafter manage the said lands for the worker-beneficiaries. If
the DAR determines that the purposes for which this deferment is granted no longer
exist, such areas shall automatically be subject to redistribution. The provisions of
Section 32 of the Act, with regard to production-and incomesharing, shall apply to
commercial farms.
A. LAND COVERED
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL
LANDS as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of
landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for
acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. [Section 4]
1. Agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land [Section 3(c)].
2. Agricultural activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of
fruit trees, raising of fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other
farm activities and prac-tices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such
farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical [Section 3(b)].
Specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program:
1. All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for
agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands
shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into
account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have
determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;
2. All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by
Congress in the preceding paragraph;
3. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture;
and
4. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the
agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.
B. EXCLUSIONS FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARL
1. Under Section 10 , excluded from the coverage of the CARL are lands actually,
directly and exclusively used for:
a. Parks;
b. Wildlife;
c. Forest reserves;
d. Reforestation;
e. Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds;
f. Watersheds and mangroves.
2. Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and
fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said
prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms
deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the
actual regular workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year
from the effectivity of this Act. When the workers or tenants do not agree to this
exemption, the fishponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker
beneficiaries or tenants who shall form a cooperative or association to manage the same.
3. Likewise, execluded from the coverage the CARL are lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for:
a. National defense;
b. School sites and campuses including experimental farm stations
operated by public or private schools for educational purposes;
c. Seeds and seedling research and pilot production center;
d. Church sites and convents appurtenant thereto;
e. Mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto;
f. Communal burial grounds and cemeteries;
g. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates; and
 h. Government and private research and quarantine centers.
4. All lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over which are not developed
for agriculture are exempted from the coverage of CARL.
An eighteen percent slope is not equivalent to an eighteen degree angle.
Eighteen percent slope is obtained by having a 100 meter run and an 18 meter
rise.
farmworkers to own directly or collectively the lands they till. As also mentioned by
Commissioner Tadeo, farmworkers include those who work in piggeries and poultry
projects. I was wondering whether I am wrong in my appreciation that if somebody
puts up a piggery or a poultry project and for that purpose hires farmworkers therein,
these farmworkers will automatically have the right to own eventually, directly or
ultimately or collectively, the land on which the piggeries and poultry projects were
constructed. (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, p. 618).
xxx xxx xxx"

In the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Supreme Court
has excluded agricultur-al Lands Devoted to Commercial Livestock, Poultry and Swine --- O --- O --- O ---
Raising from the coverage of CARL.
The Supreme Court said:
"The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986
on the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of
the framers of the Constitu-tion to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage
of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.

"The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under

Section 166 of RA 3844, as lands devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop
lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986,
Vol. III, p. 11).

"The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of the word

"agriculture." Commis-sioner Jamir proposed to insert the word "ARABLE" to
distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands as commercial and industrial
lands and residential properties because all of them fall under the general
classification of the word "agricultural." This proposal, however, was not consid-ered
because the Committee contemplated that agricultural lands are limited to arable and
suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include commercial, industrial and
residential lands (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 30).

"In the interpellation, then Commissioner Regalado (now a Supreme Court

Justice), posed several questions, among others, quoted as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
"Line 19 refers to genuine reform program founded on the primary right of
CHAPTER V:
farmers and farmworkers. I wonder if it means that leasehold tenancy is thereby
proscribed under this provision because it speaks of the primary right of farmers and DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION
a. Just Compensation (sec. 17) in relation to Administrative Order No. 6 of 1998.
1. Determination of Just Compensation.
In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the
standing crop, the current: value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, the assessment made by government
assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to
the final decision of the proper court. The social and economic benefits contributed by
the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government t o the property as well as the
nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the
said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation [Section 17].
2. Under EO 405 (1990), Land Bank of the Philippines shall be primarily responsible
for the determination of the land valuation and compensation.
3. Valuation and Mode of Payment [Section 18]
a. Cash under the following scheme:
i. For lands above 50 hectares- 25%
ii. For lands above 24 and up to 50- 30%
iii. For lands 24 and below- 35%
In case of VOS, the landowner shall be entitled to an additional 5% cash
payment. [Section 19]
b. Balance in any of the following:
i. Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP
preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments;
j. Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;
k. Land Bank of the Philippines Bonds which shall have the following features:
o Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates;
o Ten percent (10%) of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from
the date of issuance until the tenth year; and
o Transferability and negotiability
4. Exemptions from Taxes and Fees
a. Transactions under CARL involving a transfer of ownership, whether from natural
or juridical persons, shall be exempted from taxes arising from capital gains.
These transactions shall also be exempted from the payment of registration fees,
and all other taxes and fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof; Provided, That
all arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty or interest, shall be de-
ducted from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled. [Section 66]
b. All Registers of Deeds are hereby directed to register, free from payment of all fees
and other charges, patents, titles and documents required for the implementation
of CARP. [Section 67]
Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands:
1. DAR identifies the land, its landowner and beneficiary;
2. DAR then sends a notice about the land acquisition and the price offer to the
landowner through:
a. Personal notice or registered mail; and
b. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous place in the barangay hall and
municipal hall where the land is located.
3. The landowner may accept or reject the offer or disagree with DARs decision.
a. If the landowner accepts the offered price the Land Bank will pay the
landowner within 30 days from execution and delivery of the Deed of
Transfer;
b. If the landowner rejects the offer- the DAR will determine the just
compensation through summary administrative proceedings;
c. If the landowner disagrees with DARs decision, he may bring the matter
to the regular courts of justice for final determination of just
compensation.
4. Immediate possession of the land by the DAR shall be taken if:
a. The landowner receives the corresponding payment; or
b. If the landowner does not respond to the Notice of Acquisition.
5. DAR shall request from the Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of
Title to the Republic of the Philippines;
6. Distribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
Two notices are required for validity of implementation:
1. Notice of Coverage pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 12, series of
1989; and
 2. Notice of Acquisition pursuant to Section 16 of the Comprehensive Agrarian A. BENEFICIARIES [SECTION 22], IN THEIR ORDER OF PRIORITY, ARE:
Reform Law.
1. Agricultural lessees and share tenants;
2. Regular Farmworkers: a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an
Land acquisition procedure under the agrarian reform law is strictly construed.
agricultural enterprise or farm [Section 3(h)];
Title or ownership of the land is transferred to the State only after full payment of just
a. Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of
compensation.
land or the production of agricultural crops, livestock and/or fisheries either
by himself/herself, or primarily with the assistance of his/her immediate
--- O --- O --- O ---
farm household, whether the land is owned by him/her, or by another
person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with
the owner thereof [Section 3(f)].

b. Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as an

employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of
whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw"
basis. It includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of,
or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained
a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment [Section 3(g)].
3. Seasonal farmworkers: a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or
intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or an
non-permanent laborer, such as "dumaan", "sacada", and the like [Section 3(i)];
4. Other farmworkers: a farmworker who is not a regular nor a seasonal farmworker
[Section 3];
5. Actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
6. Collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and Cooperatives shall refer to
organizations composed primarily of small agricultural producers, farmers, farmworkers,
or other agrarian reform beneficiaries who voluntarily organize themselves for the
purpose of pooling land, human, technological, financial or other economic resources,
and operated on the principle of one member, one vote. A juridical person may be a
member of a cooperative, with the same rights and duties as a natural person [Section
3(k)].
7. Others directly working on the land. Before any award is given to a farmer, the
qualified children of the landowner must receive their three hectare award. Rural women
refer to women who are engaged directly or indirectly in farming and/or fishing as their
source of livelihood, whether paid or unpaid, regular or seasonal, or in food preparation,
managing the household, caring for the children, and other similar activities [Section
3(l)].
CHAPTER VI:
LAND DISTRIBUTION TO QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
B. DISQUALIFICATIONS OF BENEFICIARIES [SECTION 22]
1. Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiary's fault,
abandoned their land; the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal obligation to make the
2. Beneficiaries guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to repayment affordable.
them; 2. Payment shall be:
* The mere fact that the expected quantity of harvest, as visualized and a. Thirty (30) annual amortizations (First 3 years may be at reduced amounts);
calculated by agricultural experts, is not actually realized, or that the harvest did b. Six percent (6%) interest per annum; and
not increase, is not a sufficient basis for concluding that the tenants failed to c. First five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the
follow proven farm practices. [Belmi v. CAR8] value of the annual gross production.
3. Beneficiaries with at least three (3) hectares of agricultural land; and * Under the
CARL, a beneficiary is landless if he owns less than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. E. OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS ON THE AWARDED LANDS
[Section 25]
1. Transferability of Awarded Lands. - Lands acquired by beneficiaries may not be sold,
4. Beneficiaries whose land have been the subject of foreclosure by the Land Bank of the
transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or
Philippines. [Section 26] * Under the CARL, the LBP may foreclose on the mortgage for
to the Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten
non-payment of the beneficiary of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations.
(10) years. [Section 27]
[Section 26]
* If the land is sold to the government or to the LBP, the children or the spouse
of the transferee shall have a right to repurchase within a period of two (2) years.
C. AWARDS
2. Conversions of Lands. - An application for conversion may be entertained only after
1. Emancipation Patents (EPs) are issued for lands covered under Operation Land the lapse of five (5) years from the award, when the land ceases to be economically
Transfer (OLT) of Presidential Decree No. 27. feasible and sound for agricultural purposes or the locality has become urbanized and
2. Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) are issued for private agricultural lands the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial
and resettlement areas covered under Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the purpose. [Section 66]
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
--- O --- O --- O ---
3. Free Patents are issued for public agricultural lands.
* Under Section 15 of EO 229 (1987), all alienable and disposable lands of the
public domain suitable for agriculture and outside proclaimed settlements shall
be redistributed by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR).
4. Certificates of Stewardship Contracts are issued for forest areas under the Integrated
Social Forestry Program.

D. MANNER OF PAYMENT [SECTION 26]

1. Lands awarded shall be paid by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. The payments for the first three (3)
years after the awards may be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC: Provided,
That the first five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the
value of the annual gross production as established by the DAR. Should the scheduled
annual payments after the fifth year exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual gross
 CHAPTER VII: There are important differences between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law
IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL RELATIONS lease. The subject matter of leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural lands; that of civil
law lease may be either rural or urban property. As to attention and cultivation, the law
A. LEASEHOLD TENANCY requires the leasehold tenant to personally attend to, and cultivate the agricultural land,
whereas the civil law lessee need not personally cultivate or work the thing leased. As to
Tenancy in General
purpose, the landholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture, whereas in civil
Agricultural tenancy is the physical possession by a person of land devot-ed to law lease, the purpose may be for any other lawful pursuit. As to the law that governs,
agriculture, belonging to or legally possessed by another for the purpose of pro-duction the civil law lease is governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is governed
through the labor of the former and of the members of his immediate farm household in by special laws. [Gabriel v. Pangilinan7]
consideration of which the former agrees to share the harvest with the latter or to pay a
price certain or ascertainable, either in produce or in money, or in both [Section 3 of RA Leasehold Tenancy Civil Law Lease
1199, Guerrero v. CA5] Subject Matter
Agricultural lands only Both rural and urban prop-erties
Types of Tenancy Relation: Attention and Cultivation
i. Sharehold Tenancy; and Tenant must personally cultivate Lessee does not have to personally
ii. Leasehold Tenancy cultivate
Leasehold vs. Sharehold Tenancy Purpose
Agriculture only Any lawful purpose
The two tenancy systems are distinct and different form each other. In sharehold, Governing Law
the tenant may choose to shoulder, in addition to labor, any one or more of the items of Special laws Civil Code
contributions (such as farm implements, work animals, final harrowing, transplanting),
while in leasehold, the tenant or lessee always shoulders all items of production except Purpose of the Leasehold Relation:
the land. Under the sharehold system, the tenant and the landholder are co-managers, To protect and improve the tenurial and economic status of the farmers in
whereas in leasehold, the tenant is the sole manager of the farmholding. Finally, in tenanted lands. [Section 12]
sharehold tenancy, the tenant and the landholder divide the harvest in proportion to
their contributions, while in leasehold tenancy, the tenant or lessee gets the whole Application [Section 12]
produce with the mere obligation to pay a fixed rental. [People v. Adillo]
a. Tenanted lands under the retention limit; and
Sharehold Leasehold b. Tenanted lands not yet acquired under the CARL
Expenses of Production
B. PRODUCTION SHARING PLAN
Tenant & Landowner Tenant
Management
Application [Section 13]
Tenant & Landowner Tenant
Payment a. Any enterprise adopting the scheme provided for in Section 32;
Tenant and landowner divide the Tenant gets the whole produce with the b. Any enterprise operating under a production venture, lease, management contract
harvest in proportion to their mere obligation to pay rent. or other similar arrangement;
contributions. c. Any farm covered by Section 8 (Private agricultural lands leased by Multinational
Leasehold vs. Civil Lease corporations) and Section 11 (Commercial farming); and
d. Corporate farms pending final land transfer.
Period for Compliance CONVERSION
Within ninety (90) days from effectivity of CARL 1. actual change of the land use from agricultural to residential, industrial, or
commercial, of lands which could have potentially been covered under the CARP.
Scheme 2. the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some
Applies to those individuals or enterprises realizing gross sales in excess of five million other use, to wit:
pesos per annum, unless the DAR sets a lower ceiling) [Section 32] a. For residential, commercial, industrial, and other non-agricultural
purposes;
a. Three percent (3%) of the gross sales from the production of such lands; b. For another type of agricultural activity such as livestock, poultry, and
b. Distributed within sixty (60) days of the end of the fiscal year; fishpond the effect of which is to exempt the land from CARP coverage;
c. Treated as additional compensation to regular and other farmworkers of such c. For non-agricultural use other
lands; than that previously authorized.
d. During the transitory period (before the land is turned over to the farmworker- 3. Change of crops to commercial crops or high value crops is considered as a
beneficiaries), at least one percent (1%) of the gross sales shall be distributed to conversion in the use or nature of the land.
the managerial, supervisory and technical group; and *The conversion of private agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses shall be
e. If profit is realized, an additional ten percent (10%) of the net profit after tax shall guided by the principles and policies enunciated in Section 2 of RA 6657 and EO
be distributed to the regular and other farmworkers within ninety (90) days of 229, S. of 1987. (DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 01-90)
the end of the fiscal year.
CONVERSION RECLASSIFICATION
--- O --- O --- O ---
The act of changing the current use The act of specifying how
of a agricultural
piece of agricultural land into some lands shall be utilized for non-
other use as approved by the DAR agricultural
uses such as residential, industrial,
and
commercial, as embodied in the
land use
plan, subject to the requirements
and
procedures for land use conversion.
Does not automatically allow the
landowner to change its use. He has
to
undergo the process of conversion
before he is permitted to use the
agricultural land for other purposes.
CHAPTER VIII:
CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Section 20. Reclassification of Lands
Who Can Apply for Conversion?
(a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after
a) The beneficiary; or
conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural
lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: b) The landowner with respect only to his retained area which is tenanted.
(1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes The application for conversion can be filed after the lapse of 5 years from the award of
as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have the land.
substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes,
as determined by the sanggunian concerned: Provided, That such reclassification shall be Conditions for Application for Conversion
limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the a) When the land ceases to be economically feasible for agricultural purposes; or
passage of the ordinance:
(1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%); b) When the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic
(2) For component cities and first to the third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
and(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further,
That agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Who will Approve the Application?
Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657). otherwise The DAR, after the effectivity of RA 6657, on June 15, 1988.
known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law", shall not be affected by the
said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be NOTE: Agricultural lands that were already or reclassified as non-agricultural prior to
governed by Section 65 of said Act. June 15, 1998 does not require any conversion clearance or authority from the DAR
because said lands are not covered by the agrarian reform program.
(b) The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of
the National Economic and Development Authority, authorize a city or municipality to Lands that Cannot Absolutely be Subject to Conversion
reclassify lands in excess of the limits set in the next preceding paragraph.
a) Agricultural lands within protected areas designated under the National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS), including watershed and recharged
(c) The local government units shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare
areas of aquifers as determined by the DENR;
their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which
shall be the primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided.
b) All irrigable lands, as delineated by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and/or
That the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion
NationalIrrigation Authority (NIA), where water is available to support rice and
shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such plans.
other cropproduction, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice
and other crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility
(d) Where approval by a national agency is required for reclassification, such approval
rehabilitation by the DA and/or the NIA;
shall not be unreasonably withheld. Failure to act on a proper and complete application
for reclassification within three (3) months from receipt of the same shall be deemed as
c) All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding
approval thereof.
commitments,as delineated by DA and/or the NIA;
SEC. 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. No injunction,
d) All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities operated by private organizations
restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the
EXEMPTION FROM TAXES (Sec. 66)
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program.
 Deeds of transfer of ownership to agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether MECHANISMS FOR PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
voluntary transfer or compulsory acquisition are exempted from capital gains tax,
and other applicable taxes and fees.

NOTE: all real property taxes in arrears, without penalty or interest, shall be
deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled.

FREE REGISTRATION (Sec. 67)

Lands acquired by agrarian reform beneficiaries and those retained by the
landowner are exempted from transfer fees, registration fees, etc.

IMMUNITY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FROM UNDUE INTERFERENCE (Sec. 68)

DAR, DA, DENR and the DOJ in the implementation of their program, are exempt
from injunction, restraining order, prohibition and mandamus issued by the RTC
and other lower courts. PURPOSE: To ensure the unhampered, speedy, and
smooth implementation of the agrarian reform program.

--- O --- O --- O ---

CHAPTER IX:
 CHAPTER X
FINANCING PROGRAMS
FINANCING
1. SECTION 63. FUNDING SOURCE. The initial amount needed to implement this Act
for the period of ten (10) years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229.
Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed
to augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of
this Act.
Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust;
b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered
through the Presidential Commission on Good Government;
c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign
countries;
d) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign
grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific
purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures, and other support
services required by this Act;
e) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated.
All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered
continuing appropriations during the period of its implementation.
NOTES:
The source of funds in payments for the just compensation to the landowners must come
from the Agrarian Reform Fund.
Executive Order 229
Financing
SEC. 20. Agrarian Reform Fund. As provided in Proclamation No. 131 dated July 22, 1987, a special fund is created,
known as The Agrarian Reform Fund, an initial amount of FIFTY BILLION PESOS (P50 billion) to cover the estimated cost of
the CARP from 1987 to 1992 which shall be sourced from the receipts of the sale of the assets of the Asset Privatization
Trust (APT) and receipts of sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Government
and such other sources as government may deem appropriate. The amount collected and accruing to this special fund
shall be considered automatically appropriated for the purpose authorized in this Order.
SEC. 21. Supplemental Appropriations. The amount of TWO BILLION SEVEN
HUNDRED MILLION PESOS (P2.7 billion) is hereby appropriated to cover the
supplemental requirements of the CARP for 1987, to be sourced from the receipts of the
sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good
Government and the proceeds from the sale of assets by the APT. The amount collected
from these sources shall accrue to The Agrarian Reform Fund and shall likewise be
considered automatically appropriated for the purpose authorized in this Order.
2. SECTION 64. FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY FOR THE CARP. The Land Bank of the
Philippines shall be the financial intermediary for the CARP, and shall insure that the
social justice objectives of the CARP shall enjoy a preference among its priorities.
NOTES:
The financial arm of the agrarian reform program is solely given to the Land Bank of the
Philippines. The Land Banks valuation determines the just compensation under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform.
3. RA 8532: AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
REFORM PROGRAM (CARP), BY PROVIDING AUGMENTATION FUND THEREFOR,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 63 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS "THE CARP LAW OF 1988"
Section 1. Sec. 63 of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 63. Funding source. The amount needed to implement this Act until the year
2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund.
"Additional amounts necessary for this purpose are hereby authorized to be
appropriated in excess of the initial funds, amounting to Fifty billion pesos
(P50,000,000,000.00) provided under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229.
"The additional amount hereby authorized to be appropriated shall in no case exceed Fifty billion pesos
(P50,000,000,000.00).
"Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
a) "a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust;
b) "b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth
recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Government;
c) "c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign
countries, for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructure
and other support services required by this Act;
 e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official
d) "d) All income and collections arising from the agrarian reform operations, foreign. aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for
projects and programs of CARP implementing agencies; the specific purposes of financing productions, credits, infrastructures, and other
support services required by this Act:
e) "e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Five billion pesos (P5,000,000,000.00) from
foreign aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the General Appropriations Act;
the specific purposes of financing production, credits, infrastructures, and other g) Gratuitous financial assistance from legitimate sources; and
support services required by this Act; h) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated.
"All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered
f) "f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Three billion pesos (P3,000,000,000.00) continuing appropriations during the period of its implementation: Provided, That if the
from the General Appropriations Act; need arises, specific amounts for bond redemptions, interest payments and other
"g) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated." existing obligations arising from the implementation of the program shall be included in
the annual General Appropriations Act: Provided, further, That all just compensation
Section 2. This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following the completion of its payments to landowners, including execution of judgments therefore, shall only be
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund: Provided, however, That just compensation
payments that cannot be covered within the approved annual budget of the program
4. SECTION 21. SECTION 63 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, AS AMENDED, IS HEREBY shall be chargeable against the debt service program of the national government, or any
FURTHER AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: unprogrammed item in the General Appropriations Act: Provided, finally, That after the
"SEC. 63. Funding Source. - The amount needed to further implement the CARP as completion of the land acquisition and distribution component of the CARP, the yearly
provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act appropriation shall be allocated fully to support services, agrarian justice delivery and
No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and operational requirements of the DAR and the other CARP implementing agencies."
other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos
(P150,000,000,000.00). --- O --- O --- O ---
"Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to
augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act
during the five (5)-year extension period.
"Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
a) Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO);
b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered
through the PCGG excluding the amount appropriated for compensation to
victims of human rights violations under the applicable law;
c) Proceeds of the disposition and development of the properties of the
Government in foreign countries, for the specific purposes of financing
production credits, infrastructure and other support services required by this
Act;
d) All income and, collections of whatever form and nature arising from the
agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CARP
implementing agencies;
 CHAPTER XI:
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION OR THE RESOLUTION OF AGRARIAN DESPUTES
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE DAR
The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR):
Primary Jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate Agrarian Reform Matters: and Exclusive
Original Jurisdiction over all matter involving the implementation of agrarian reform;
except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Machete vs CA, 250
SCRA 176 (1995)
The DAR has original, exclusive, jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, except on the aspects
of
a) just compensation; and
b) criminal jurisdiction over which regular courts have jurisdiction. (Vda. De Tangub
vs. CA, 191 SCRA 885)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB).
The Adjudication of Cases involves the adjudication of cases by the DARAB. The
adjudication of cases deals with disputes pertaining to tenancy relations; valuation of
lands acquired by DAR under compulsory acquisition mode; rights and obligations of
persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management cultivation and use of
all agricultural lands; ejectment and dispossession of tenants/leaseholders; review of
leasehold rentals; and other similar disputes.
CASES THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY COGNIZABLE AND UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE
OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DAR.
DARAB has JURISDICTION over Agrarian Disputes: (Central Mindanao University vs.
DARAB, 215 SCRA 96)
Where there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever between
the parties that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws,
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has no jurisdiction. (Heirs of the
Late Herman Rey Santos vs. CA, 327 SCRA 293).
Cases under the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB
1. Cases involving rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical,
engaged in the management cultivation and use of all agricultural lands (Caballes
vs. DAR, 168 SCRA 259 (1988; Oarde vs. CA, 280 SCARA 235 (1997);
2. Preliminary administrative determination of just compensation; (Executive Order
No. 405.);
3. Annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their
amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the
DAR or LBP;
4. Ejectment and dispossession of tenants/leaseholders:
5. Sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of agricultural lands;
6. Correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of
registered CLOAs and EPs;
7. Review of leasehold rentals;
8. Collection of amortizations on payments for lands awarded under PD No. 27,
including payment for residential, commercial and industrial lots within
settlement and resettlement areas;
9. Annulment or rescission of lease contracts and deeds of sale and the cancellation
or amendments of titles of lands under the administration of DAR, homestead
patents, free patents, miscellaneous sales patents, to setters in settlement and
resettlement areas;
10. Boundary disputes;
11. Determination of title of agricultural lands where the issue is raised in an
agrarian dispute;
12. Cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12; PD No. 946;
13. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the
Secretary of DAR.
1. Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the
agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of CLOAs and EPs, including
protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of such coverage;
2. Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or
disqualification of potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries;
3. Subdivision surveys of land under CARP;
4. Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, Certificates of Land
Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the
purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall, or
cancellation of EPs or CLOAs not yet registered with Register of Deeds;
 5. Exercise of the right of retention by the landowner;
6. Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10 of RA 6657;
7. Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion
NO. 44 (1990);
8. Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock, swine,
and poultry raising;
9. Cases of exemption/exclusion of fish pond and prawn farms from the
coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881;
10. Issuance of Certificate of exemption for land subject Voluntary Officer to Sell
(VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for agricultural
purposes;
11. Application for conversion of agricultural land to residential, commercial,
industrial, or other non agricultural uses and purposes including protests or
oppositions thereto;
12. Determination of the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries to homelots;
13. Disposition of excess area of the tenants/farmer-beneficiarys landholdings;
14. Increase in area of tillage of a tenant/farmer-beneficiary;
15. Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its
predecessors;
SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT (SAC)
The Supreme Court shall designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) within each province to act as Special Agrarian Court.
These Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Sec.
57 of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
(a) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners,
(b) the prosecution of all criminal offenses under the Act. (Machete vs. CA, 250
SCRA 176)
Just Compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from
its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, that the
measure is not the takers gain but the owners loss. The word just is used to intensify
the meaning of the word compensation to convey the idea that the equivalent to be
rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.
(Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989).
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less original and exclusive,
because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not
a continuation of the administrative determination. For the matter, the law may provide
that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to courts
cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of
administrative action (Phil. Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 132767, January
18, 2000).
Rule XIII, Section II, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide
petition for determination of just compensation has already been transformed into an
appellate jurisdiction.
Primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a
preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under
the CARP, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.
VALUATION OF LANDS UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27
The value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one half (2-1/2) times the AVERAGE
HARVEST OF THREE NORMAL CROP YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
PROMULGATION OF THIS DECREE
LBP vs. CA and Jose Pascual, G.R. No. 128557, Dec. 29, 1990- The Supreme Court
decided not to apply the 6% increment to the valuation because the Court of
Appeals affirmed the PARADs use of the 1992 Gross Selling Price in the valuation of
the private respondents lands following the ruling the Court of Appeals in the case of
Galeon vs. Pastoral, CA-G.R. No. 23168.
SECTION 50-53 of RA 6657 as amended
Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.
The DAR is hereby vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR).
1) It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall
proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most
expeditious manner,
2) It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony,
require submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents
 and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum,
and enforce its writs through sheriffs
3) Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their
fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR:
provided, however, that when there are two or more representatives for any
individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among
themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings.
4) Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall
be immediately executory.
5) Any case or controversy before it shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it
is submitted for resolution.
6) One motion for reconsideration shall be allowed
7) Any decision after the lapse of 15 days shall be final
8) The DAR may impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to fines or
censures upon erring parties to prevent frivolous appeals
9) The DAR shall not take cognizance of any agrarian dispute or controversy unless a
certification from the BARC that the dispute has been submitted to it for
mediation and conciliation without any success of settlement is presented:
provided, however, that if no certification is issued by the BARC within thirty (30)
days after a matter or issue is submitted to it for mediation or conciliation the
case or dispute may be brought before the PARC.
Difference between Agrarian Law Implementation Program(admin cases) and Cases for
Adjudication DAR Admin. Order No 3
(ALI vs DARAB)
Agrarian Law Implementation Program (administrative cases)
A.) Who has the authority to decide on an ALI case?
An agrarian administrative matter or ALI case falls under the appellate jurisdiction of the
DAR Secretary and primary jurisdiction of the Regional Director (RD ).
B.) Where should the application be filed?
Without or prior to issuance of notice of CARP coverage the applicant/petitionermay file
his/her initiatory pleading or application before the RD or Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO).
However, after the issuance of notice of coverage, the appellant should file his/her
initiatory pleading at the DAR Municipal Office.
C.) Who is allowed to file a petition?
Only the real - party - interest may file a pro test or petition to lift CARP coverage within
sixty (60) days from receipt of the notice of coverage or from publication date. Failure to
file a protest/petition within the period will be considered a waiver.
D.) Who notifies the concerned Farmer Beneficiaries/occupants of the subject land of
the initiation of the case?
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) notifies all tenants, leaseholders,
farmworkers, and occupants of the subject l and of the initiation of the case.
The proof of notice to all persons above will be part of the case records.
E.) Who conducts the investigation of ALI cases?
The PARO, or any Investigating Officer or Committee, which the RD may designate, will
conduct the investigation and perform whatever is necessary to achieve a just,
expeditious, and inexpensive disposition of the case.
DARAB Cases
A.) Who has the authority to decide on a DARAB case?
The DAR Adjudicator has the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate Agrarian Disputes.
B.) DARAB cases are focused on Agrarian Disputes
2009 Rules of Procedure of the DARAB
1) DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under R.A. No. 6657, as
amended by R.A. No. 9700, E.O. Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as
amended by R.A. No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws
and their Implementing Rules and Regulations.
2) DARAB has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter, or
affirm resolutions, orders and decisions of the Adjudicators.

PETITION
1) Filing of the petition - An action before the Adjudicator shall be initiated by filing
a sworn complaint or verified petition with the Adjudicator in the Province where
the land involved is located.
2) Upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or
proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in full.
3) The complaint or petition may be amended, or supplemented at any time before
a responsive pleading is served or, in case of a reply, at any time within five (5)
days after it is served.
4) A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action.
5) A complainant or petitioner having more than one cause of action against the
same defendant or respondent arising out of the same questioned relationship
shall join all of them in one complaint or petition.
PARTIES
1) Every agrarian case must be initiated and defended in the name of the real party
in interest. All parties having an interest in the matter shall be joined as
complainant or petitioner.
2) The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to substitute the deceased without
requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator.
Pauper Litigant. A party who is an agricultural lessee, share tenant, actual tiller,
amortizing owner-cultivator, farm-worker, a member of any farmers' organization,
association, or a farmers' cooperative, as alleged and applied for in a sworn complaint or
motion, shall be entitled to the rights and privileges of a pauper litigant under these
Rules without further proof thereof. He shall continue to enjoy such status as a pauper
litigant at all levels of adjudication until the case is terminated.
SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
A.) The party filing the pleading subsequent to the complaint shall serve the opposing
party with a copy thereof in the manner provided for in these Rules and proof of such
service shall be filed with the records of the case
B.) Summons, notices, and copies of resolutions, orders shall be served personally as far
as practicable, or by registered mail upon the party himself, his counsel, or his duly
authorized representative. However, notice to the counsel is notice to the party himself
whether he is a complainant or petitioner, or a defendant or respondent.
PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
After the last pleading shall have been served and filed, or upon receipt of the BARC
certification of non-settlement in instances when the case was referred to the BARC for
mediation/conciliation, the Adjudicator shall set the case for a preliminary conference.
During the preliminary conference and at any stage of the proceedings, the Board or the
Adjudicator shall exert all efforts and take positive steps for the amicable settlement of
the case.
PROCEEDINGS
The proceedings before the Adjudicator shall be non-litigious in nature.
The Adjudicator shall personally conduct the hearing. He shall take full control of the
proceedings. He may examine the parties and witnesses freely with respect to the
matters at issue, and shall limit the right of the parties or their counsels to ask questions
only for the purpose of clarifying the points of law at issue or of facts involved in the
case. He shall also limit the presentation of evidence by the contending parties only to
matters relevant and material to the issues and necessary for a just, expeditious, and
inexpensive disposition of the case
Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed
Who May Intervene. A person who has a legal interest on the matter in litigation, or in
the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, or has a substantial right
or interest in the subject matter of the case before the Adjudicator or Board, may be
allowed to intervene in the action by filing a pleading-in-intervention.
FINAL ORDERS
The decisions/resolutions/final orders of the Adjudicator shall be in writing, prepared
and signed by him and filed with the Regional or Provincial Clerk of the Adjudicator. It
shall clearly and completely state the findings of fact and specify the evidence and the
law or jurisprudence upon which the decision is based.
After the judgment/resolution/final order is signed by the Adjudicator or Members of the
Board, the same shall be filed with the Regional or Provincial Clerk of the Adjudicator or
of the Board, respectively, who shall indicate thereon the date of promulgation thereof.
If no appeal or motion for reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these rules,
the decision/resolution/final order of the Board or Adjudicator shall be entered in the
Book of Entries of Decisions by the Clerk of the Board and the Regional or Provincial
Clerk of the Adjudicator, respectively. The date of finality of the decision/resolution/final
order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry.
APPEALS
An appeal may be taken to the Board from a resolution, decision or final order of the
Adjudicator that completely disposes of the case by either or both of the parties within a
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution/decision/final order appealed
from or of the denial of the movant's motion for reconsideration
APPEAL TO THE CA
Any decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of the Board on any agrarian dispute or
any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, interpretation of
agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, may be brought
on appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals
in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The findings of fact of the Board, if based on substantial evidence,
Except for the Supreme Court, no court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue
any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the Board or its
Adjudicators in any case, dispute or controversy arising from
RELIEF FROM FINAL ORDER
When a decision/resolution/final order is rendered by the Adjudicator against any party,
through fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence and such party has no other
adequate remedy available to him in the ordinary course of law, he may file a petition for
relief with said Adjudicator, praying that the decision/resolution/final order be set aside.
EXECUTION UPON FINAL ORDER
Execution shall issue upon an order, resolution or decision that finally disposes of the
action or proceeding. Such execution shall issue as a matter of course and upon the
expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
AUTHORITY OF THE DAR SECRETARY TO NULLIFY TITLES UNDER THE CARP (cases)
DEPT OF AGRARIAN REFORM VS CUENCA
The RTCs have not been completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters.
Section 56 of RA 6657 confers special jurisdiction on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are
actually RTCs designated as such by the Supreme Court. The DAR could not be ousted
from its authority by the simple expediency of appending an allegedly constitutional or
legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.. the jurisprudential trend is for courts
to refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the special
competence of administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also
judicial in character,"
VDA De Tangub vs CA
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of jurisdiction
over agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers "special
jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are Regional Trial Courts designated by
the Supreme Court at least one (1) branch within each province to act as such.
These Regional Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Section 57 of
the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to land-owners," and
2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under . . [the] Act."
DAR vs Cuenca
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it follows that
the RTC of La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to issue the assailed Writ
of Preliminary Injunction. That Writ must perforce be stricken down as a nullity. Such
nullity is particularly true in the light of the express prohibitory provisions of the CARP
and this Courts Administrative Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002. These Circulars enjoin
all trial judges to strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads:
Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference.
No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower
courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture
(DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department
of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program.
Beneficiaries vs Lapanday
"All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original
authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters.
Jurisdiction over the present controversy lies with the DARAB. As the RTC had correctly
dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it was superfluous for the trial
court -- and the CA for that matter -- to have ruled further on the issue of the validity of
the agreement.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy
over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special
competence.2
Since the DARAB had already ruled in a separate case on the validity of the Joint Venture
Agreement,the proper remedy for petitioner was to question the Boards judgment
through a timely appeal with the CA. Because of the manifest lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the RTC, we must defer any opinion on the other issues raised by petitioner until
an appropriate review of a similar case reaches this Court.
Rafael Magpily vs Dela Jesus
Private respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was an agricultural
tenant of Magpily and that the instant case involves an agrarian dispute cognizable by
the DARAB. The MTC thus lawfully took cognizance of the present controversy which
involves the gratuitous occupation of anothers property which became unlawful by
virtue of the owners withdrawal of consent or tolerance to such occupation.
Possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful when the
possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by the owner. A person
who occupies the land of another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any
contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise to vacate upon
demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy.
--- O --- O --- O ---
CHAPTER XII
DETERMINATION OF CASES IN COURTS AND PROSECUTORS OFFICE
1.) Determination of an Agrarian Dispute for cases filed in courts and prosecutors office
Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended
"SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. - No court or prosecutor's office
shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those
provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation
from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a
farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or
the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from
referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the
DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal
trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial
court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of
Appeals.
"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction,
agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall
have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective
rights and/or interests under the CARP.
"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government
agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and
interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."
2.) DAR Administrative Order No. 3 Series 2011 July 19, 2011
Whether or not a case is agrarian in nature is discussed in the case of DAR vs. Roberto
Cuenca, et al., (G.R. No. 154112, 23 September 2004) where the Supreme Court held
that: "All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original
authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters."
From the foregoing, it is therefore declared that the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) shall have exclusive jurisdiction on all cases that are agrarian in nature.
These guidelines shall apply to the procedure on the referral of cases which are agrarian
in nature to the DAR by the Prosecutor's Office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court (MCTC, MTC,
MeTC, and RTC, respectively), whether it be criminal or civil in nature, except those
involving issues of just compensation or the prosecution of criminal offenses as provided
for by Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700.
The determination by the DAR as to whether an agrarian dispute exists or not, or on
whether the case is agrarian in nature, shall be done through a summary proceeding
involving a strictly factual investigation. No motion for extension of time or any similar
pleading of a dilatory character shall be entertained nor given due course. To this end,
the Chief of the Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, shall exert all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts based on the testimonies and evidence
presented. They may verify the position papers submitted by the parties, ascertaining
that the concerned party is the one causing the preparation thereof, and that the
allegations therein are true based on personal knowledge or authentic records and
documents.
To preclude conflict of interest, in no case should the DAR lawyer serving as counsel for
the farmer-beneficiary be assigned as the hearing officer. Moreover, no hearing officer
should handle a case involving a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or
affinity who is a party thereto.
If there is a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is
agrarian in nature, the burden of proving the contrary shall be on the party alleging the
same.
3.) DOJ DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 40 dated June 7, 2010
No court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the
implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall
be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall
determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute
exists:
Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial
recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the
appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court, and in cases referred by the regional
trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction,
agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall
have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective
rights and/or interests under the CARP.
"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government
agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and
interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."
When the case is subject of inquest and there is an allegation by any of the parties that
the case is agrarian in nature or an agrarian dispute and one of them is a farmer,
farmworker or tenant, or involves the implementation of the CARP, the inquest
prosecutor shall immediately refer the case to the PARO and release the respondent for
further preliminary investigation. The above allegations must be written, made under
oath, and the party making such allegations signs the Minutes of the Inquest.
For cases that are already pending and are under preliminary investigation (at the time of
the effectivity of this Circular), upon motion by any of the parties or motu propio, if
previous pleadings filed contain allegations which may be the grounds for referral, the
investigating prosecutor shall proceed in accordance with Section 4.A.2 hereof.
4.) OCA Circular No. 62-2010 dated April 26, 2010
Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, only
farmers (tenants or lessees) and regular farmworkers actually tilling the lands, as
certified under oath by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) and attested under
oath by the landowners, are the qualified beneficiaries. The intended beneficiary shall
state under oath before the judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing to
work on the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation of paying the
amortization for the compensation of the land and the land taxes thereon; . . . ."
Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, where the Court stated that "[a]
controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even
though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original
authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters." (Emphasis supplied)
In Salazar v. de Leon, the Court dismissed the Complaint for recovery of possession of
real property and declared that the dispute between the parties as landowner and
tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the domain of the DARAB. The Court also noted
that such ruling is "in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the
regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with
an administrative body of special competence." CHAPTER XIV:
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR BENEFICIARIES
This jurisprudential trend shows the Court's recognition of DAR as the administrative
body of special competence and expertise granted by law with primary and exclusive
original jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. In furtherance of the Court's policy to
expedite the resolution of cases involving agrarian disputes and to fully implement the
objectives of agrarian reform laws, all courts and judges concerned are hereby enjoined
to strictly observe Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, and refer
all cases before it alleged to involve an agrarian dispute to the DAR for the necessary
determination and certification.

--- O --- O --- O ---

CHAPTER XV:
SSS LAW & GSIS LAW

SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION (P.D. 626)

What is Social Legislation?
It consists of statutes, regulations and jurisprudence that afford protection to
labor, especially to working women and minors, and is in full accord with the
constitutional provisions on the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and
economic security of all the people

A. SSS LAW (R.A. NO. 8282)

CHAPTER XIII: COVERAGE

ROLE OF SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURTS Compulsory
(1) Employers as defined above;
 (2) Employees not over 60 years including domestic helpers with at least P1,000 BENEFITS
monthly pay; and
Monthly pension
(3) Self-employed as may be determined by the Commission, but not limited to:
Computation of monthly pension: the monthly pension shall be the highest of the
a. Self-employed professionals
following amounts:
b. Partners and single proprietors of businesses
(1) P300 + [20% x (ave. monthly credit)] + [2% x (ave. monthy credit) x (# of cash
c. Actors and actresses, directors, scriptwriters, and news correspondents
credited years of service in excess of 10 years)]; or
who do not fall within the definition of the term employee under Sec.
(2) 40% x [ave. monthly credit]; or (3) P1,000; provided, that the monthly pension
8 (d)
shall in no case be paid for an aggregate amount of less than 60 months.
d. Professional athletes, coaches, trainers and jockeys
(3) Notwithstanding the abovementioned, minimum pension is P1,200 for members
e. Individual farmers and fishermen
with at least 10 years credit service, P2,400 for those with 20 years
Voluntary
Dependents pension
(1) Spouses who devote full time to managing household and family affairs, unless
(a) Paid when member dies, retires or with permanent total disability;
they are also engaged in other vocation or employment (which is subject of
(b) Paid to each child conceived on or prior to contingency, but not exceeding 5,
compulsory coverage);
beginning with the youngest and preferring the legitimate;
(2) OFWs recruited by foreign-based employers;
(c) Amount is either P250 or 10% of the monthly pension as computed above,
(3) Employees (previously under compulsory coverage) already separated from
whichever is higher
employment or those self-employed (also under compulsory coverage) with no
realized income for a given month, who chose to continue with contributions to
Retirement benefits
maintain right to full benefit
Eligibility requirements
(1) 120 monthly contributions; (2) Age (a) 65 years old; or
Note: Foreign governments, international organizations or their wholly owned
(2) a member who has reached 60 years may also avail if he is already separated
instrumentality employing workers in the Philippines may enter into an agreement with
from employment or has ceased to be self-employed.
the Philippine government to include their employees in the SSS except those already
covered by their civil service retirement system
Benefit entitlement to monthly pension from retirement until death.
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
Lump Sum Alternative
(1) Employment purely casual and not for the purpose of occupation or business of Member may opt to receive his first 18 monthly pensions in lump sum but such is
the employer; discounted at a preferential rate of interest.
(2) Service performed on or in connection with an alien vessel by an employee if he
is employed when such vessel is outside the Philippines; To those ineligible to the 60 year old with less than 120 monthly contributions who is
(3) Service performed in the employ of the Philippine Government or no longer employed or self-employed, and who is not continuing contributions
instrumentality or agency thereof; independently, he is entitled to a lump sum equal to his total contributions paid
(4) Service performed in the employ of a foreign government or international
organization, or their wholly-owned instrumentalities; and Permanent disability benefits
(5) Services performed by temporary and other employees which may be excluded (a) Eligibility requirement: 36 monthly contributions prior to the semester of disability;
by SSS regulation. Employees of bona fide independent contractors shall not be same as death benefit; only difference is that the pension is paid directly to the
deemed employees of the employer engaging the services of said contractors member.
(b) In case the permanently disabled member dies, it would be given the same
treatment as a retiree dying.
(c) For permanent partial disability, the pension is not lifetime. (e.g. loss of thumb
entitles member to only 10 months of pension, while loss of arm 50 months).
i. It shall be paid in lump sum if the period is less than 12 months.
ii. For multiple partial disabilities, they shall be additive when related or
deteriorating the percentage shall be equal to the number of months the
partial disability is entitled to divided by 75 months. (e.g. loss of sight in one eye
25/75; loss of arm 50/75; if both occur due to same cause, then 25/75 +
50/75 = 100% so treated as if it were permanent total disability.)
Death benefits
Eligibility requirement: 36 monthly contributions prior to the semester of death.
Benefit monthly pension to primary or secondary beneficiaries.
To those ineligible lump sum benefit which shall be the higher between the two:
(a) (monthly pension) x 12; or
(b) (monthly pension) x (# of monthly contributions)
Funeral benefits
P12,000 in cash or in kind, upon death of member
Loan. Social Security Commission Resolution No. 669. Moreover, several SSS-issued
circulars such as Circular No. 21-P and No. 52 pertain to the treatment of salary loans,
sometimes providing for more flexible payment terms or condonation for delinquent
payers; Santiago v. CA and SSS, GR # L-39949 (1984) resolved an issue involving the
treatment of salary loan repayments; SSS website also shows loans
Sickness benefits
Eligibility requirements and other conditions
(1) Inability to work due to sickness or injury
(2) Confined for at least 4 days either in a hospital or elsewhere with SSS approval;
(3) At least 3 months of contributions in the 12 month period immediately before
the semester of sickness or injury has been paid;
(4) All company sick leaves with pay for the current year has been used up;
(5) Maximum of 120 days per 1 calendar year [so maximum permissible for the
same sickness and confinement is 240 days for 2 consecutive years];
(6) The employer has been notified, or, if a separated, voluntary or self-employed
member, the SSS directly notified within 5 days of confinement;
(7) Notice to employer or SSS not needed when confinement is in a hospital; notice
to employer not required as well when Employee became sick or injured while
working or within premises of the employer.
Benefit: daily cash allowance paid for the number of days a member is unable to work
due to sickness or injury equivalent to 90% x (average daily salary credit)
Maternity leave benefits. (limited only to first four deliveries or miscarriage)
Note: All of these benefits are tax-exempt.
BENEFICIARIES
Primary
(a) Dependent spouse until remarriage (see above);
(b) Dependent children (legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted, and illegitimate)
(see above); illegitimate children are entitled only to 50% of the share of
legitimate children unless there are no legitimate children, in which case, they
get 100%.
Secondary shall only receive when the primary beneficiaries are absent
(a) Dependent parents
Others shall only receive when the primary and secondary beneficiaries are absent
(a) Any other person designated by member as his/her secondary beneficiary.
B. GSIS [ RA 8291 ]
COVERAGE
All public sector employees below the compulsory retirement age of 65, irrespective of
employment status.
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
(a) AFP and PNP;
(b) Members of the Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions who are covered only
by life insurance as they have separate retirement schemes;
(c) Contractual employees with no employer-employee relationship with the agency
they serve.
BENEFITS
Monthly pension
The amount shall be:
(a) 37.5% x (revalued ave. monthly compensation)
(b) Plus 2.5 x (revalued ave. monthly compensation) x [years in service in excess of
15 years].
The monthly pension shall not exceed 90% of the average monthly
compensation.
It shall not be less than P2,400 for those with 20 years of service and not less
than P1,300 for everyone else.
Retirement benefits
Eligibility requirements
(1) 15 years service;
(2) 60 years of age; and
(3) Not receiving pension benefit from permanent total disability.
Note: Retirement is compulsory for employees 65 years of age who have rendered at
least 15 years of service; if employee has less than 15 years of service, he may be allowed
to continue in accordance with civil service laws.
Benefit:
A choice between :
(a) 60 x [basic monthly pension] lump sum payment at the time of retirement plus
basic monthly pension payable monthly for life after expiry of the 5-year
guaranteed period which is already covered by the lump sum; or
(b) Cash payment equivalent to 18 x [basic monthly pension] plus monthly pension
for life immediately but with no 5-year guarantee
Permanent disability benefits
Eligibility requirements for Permanent Total Disability
(1) Disability not due to employees own grave misconduct, notorious negligence,
habitual intoxication, or willful intention to kill himself or another;
(2) Employee is: in service at the time of disability; or b] even if separated, he has
paid at least 36 monthly contributions within the 5-year period immediately
prior to disability or has paid a total of at least 180 monthly contributions prior
to disability; and
(3) Member is not enjoying old-age retirement benefit.
Injuries deemed as Permanent Total Disability
(1) Complete loss of sight of both eyes
(2) Loss of two limbs at one or above the ankle or wrist
(3) Permanent complete paralysis of two limbs
(4) Brain injury resulting in incurable imbecility, insanity, or other irreversible
conditions
Benefit for Permanent Total Disability
Monthly income benefit for life equal to basic monthly pension This is effective from
date of disability;
If member is in service at the time of disability and he has paid at least 180
monthly contributions, in addition to the monthly income benefit, he shall receive an
additional cash payment of 18 times basic monthly pension
To the ineligible
If member has rendered at least 3 years of service, then he shall receive cash payment
equal to 100% of ave. monthly compensation for each year of service (essentially total
amount of contributions made) or P12,000 whichever is higher.
Partial Disability
Injuries deemed as Permanent Partial Disability
Complete and permanent loss of the use of: any one finger, any toe, one arm, one hand,
one foot, one leg, one or both ears, sight of one eye or such other cases as may be
determined by the GSIS
Computation of benefits
(1) If member is in the service, benefit is:
Cash payment (CP) = Basic Monthly Pension (BMP) X nos. of Permanent Partial Disability
(PPD) months as recommended by the GSIS medical evaluator
(2) If the member is separated from the service but has paid 36 monthly contributions
within the last 5 years immediately preceding the disability or has paid at least 180
monthly contributions, benefit is:
CP = BMP X nos. of PPD months as recommended by the GSIS medical evaluator
Death Benefits
When member dies, the primary beneficiaries are entitled to only one of the following:
(a) Survivorship pension (check G.1 above)
i. If he was in the service when he died; or
ii. Even if separated from the service, he has at least 3 years of service and has paid
36 monthly contributions within the 5 years immediately preceding death; or (3)
Even if separated from the service, he has paid 180 monthly contributions prior
to death.
(b) Survivorship pension plus cash payment of 100% ave. monthly compensation for
every year of service [so essentially, pension plus total contributions made]
i. If he was in the service when he died; and
ii. With 3 years of service.
(c) Cash payment equivalent to 100% ave. monthly compensation for each year of
service he paid contributions or P12,000 whichever is higher
i. With 3 years of service; and
ii. He has failed to qualify in the prior 2 schemes.
Funeral benefits
Fixed by GSIS rules and regulations (currently at P20,000)
Entitled to this are the following:
(1) Active member;
(2) Member separated from service but still entitled to funeral benefit;
(3) Pensioner;
(4) Retiree who at the time of retirement was of pensionable age but opted to retire
under RA 1616.
Loan GSIS website provides for this
Temporary disability benefits (similar to sickness)
Eligibility requirements and other conditions:
Employee must be
(a) in service at the time of disability; or
(b) if separated, he has rendered at least 3 years of service and paid at least 6
monthly contributions in the 12 month period immediately prior to disability;
All sick leave credits including CBA sick leaves for the current year has been used
up; and
Maximum of 120 days per 1 calendar year (so maximum permissible for the
same sickness and confinement is 240 days for 2 consecutive years).
Benefit
75% of the current daily compensation for every day or fraction thereof of disability or
P70 whichever is higher.
Separation benefits
Eligibility requirements
(1) 60 years of age, or separation from service with at least 3 years but not over 15
years served
(2) Below 60 years of age, but at least 15 years of service rendered.
Benefit
(1) For 60 years of age or separated from service with 3 to 15 years of service: cash
payment of 100% of ave. monthly compensation for each year of service (so
essentially, the total amount of all contributions paid) or P12,000 whichever is
higher.
(2) Below 60 years of age and at least 15 years of service: cash payment equivalent
to 18 x (monthly pension) at the time of resignation or separation plus an old-age
pension benefit equal to basic monthly pension.
Unemployment benefits Sec 11
Eligibility requirements
(a) Employee separated from service due to abolition of his office or position; and
(b) Employee has been paying integrated contributions for at least 1 year prior to
separation.
Benefit
Monthly cash payments of 50% of average monthly compensation for a duration which is
proportional to years rendered, ranging from 2 months to 6 months.
Survivorship benefits
Beneficiaries are entitled to the following:
(a) Basic survivorship pension which is 50% of basic monthly pension; and
(b) Dependent childrens pension not exceeding 50% of the basic monthly pension.
Life insurance benefits
Note: Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions are entitled to life insurance only.
 c. actors, directors, scriptwriters, news
BENEFICIARIES correspondents not considered as
employees under the above definition;
d. athletes, coaches, trainers, jockeys; and
Primary e. individual farmers and fishers
(a) Dependent spouse until remarriage; Dependents: Same except that a child here is below 18
(b) Dependent children (legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted, and illegitimate) (a) Legal spouse entitled by law to receive
but RA 8291 does not distinguish share of legitimate and illegitimate children. support; (b) Child unmarried, not gainfully
employed, and below 21 or
(c) Child over 21 if he or she became
Secondary shall only receive when the primary beneficiaries are absent
permanently incapacitated and incapable of
(a) Dependent parents self-support, physically or mentally,; child may
(b) Legitimate descendants, subject to the restrictions on dependent children. be legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted, or
illegitimate; Parent who is receiving regular
SSS LAW GSIS LAW support.
Enabling Law Beneficiaries Same except that RA 8291 does not distinguish
RA 1161 as amended by RA 8282: Social RA 8291 amending PD 1146 (1) Primary share of legitimate and illegitimate children
Security Act of 1997 (a) Dependent spouse until remarriage (see
Definition of Terms above);
Employer any person, natural or juridical, Employer National government, its political (b) Dependent children (see above);
domestic or foreign, who carries on in the subdivisions, branches, agencies or illegitimate children are entitled only to 50% of
Philippines any trade business, industry, instrumentalities, including government-owned the share of legitimate children unless there are
undertaking, and uses the services of another or controlled corporations and financial no legitimate children, in which case, they get
person who is under his orders as regards the institutions with original charters (GOCCs); 100%.
employment, except those considered as constitutional commissions; and judiciary
employer under the GSIS. (2) Secondary shall only receive when the
Employee any person receiving compensation primary beneficiaries are absent: Dependent
A self-employed person shall be both employer while in service of an employer whether by parents
and employee at the same time. election or appointment, irrespective of status
of appointment; baranggay officials; and (3) Other any other person designated by the
Employee any person who performs services sangguniang officials member as his/her secondary beneficiary.
for an employer in which either or both mental Compensation all actual remuneration for Compensation basic pay received excluding
and physical efforts are used and who receives Note: No counterpart for self-employed. employment, including living allowance, as well per diems, bonuses, overtime, honoraria,
compensation for such services, where there is as the cash value of any remuneration paid in allowances and other emoluments not
an employeremployee relationship; also, a any medium other than cash except that integrated into the basic pay under existing laws
self-employed person who is both employee portion already above the max salary credit
and employer at the same time under Sec. 18 of the Act.
Coverage
Self-employed any person whose income is Compulsory Public sector employees below the compulsory
not derived from employment, including, but (a) Employers as defined above; retirement age of 65.
not limited to: (b) Employees not over 60 years including Exceptions:
a. self-employed professionals; household helpers with at least P1,000 monthly (a) AFP and PNP;
b. partners and single proprietors of pay; and (b) Members of the Judiciary and Constitutional
businesses;
(c) Self-employed. Commissions who are covered only by life Effects of Separation from Employment
insurance as they have separate retirement (1)Employers contribution, and Continued membership for the unemployed
Voluntary schemes; (2) Employees obligation to pay contribution member; and entitlement to whatever benefits
(a) Spouses who devote full time to managing (c)Contractual employees with no employee- both cease at the end of the month of he has qualified to in the event of any
household and family affairs; employer relationship with the agency they separation; compensable contingency.
(b) OFWs recruited by foreign-based employers; serve. (3) EE shall be credited with all contributions
(c) Employees already separated from paid on his behalf and entitled to all benefits set
employment or those self-employed with no forth by the law
realized income for a given month, who chose Dispute Settlement
to continue with contributions to maintain right Social Security Commission GSIS
to full benefit. CA [Rule 43; questions of law and fact] SC CA [Rule 43] SC [Rule 45]; appeal does not stay
[Rule 45; questions of law only] execution.
Note: Foreign governments, international Prescriptive Period
organizations or their wholly owned 20 years 4 years
instrumentality employing workers in the
Philippines may enter into an agreement with
the Philippine government to include their
--- O --- O --- O ---
employees in the SSS except those already
covered by their civil service retirement system.
Effective Date of Coverage
Employer: 1st day of operation Employee: 1st
day at work Self-employed: upon registration CHAPTER XVI:
with SSS OTHER SPECIAL LAWS
Summary of Benefits
(a) Monthly pension (a) Monthly pension A. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9994
(b) Dependents pension (b) Retirement benefits EXPANDED SENIOR CITIZENS ACT OF 2010
(c) Retirement benefits (c) Permanent disability benefits
(d) Permanent disability benefits (d) Death Benefits
(e) Death benefits (e) Funeral benefits SENIOR CITIZEN
(f) Funeral benefits (f) Loan GSIS website provides for this - Refers to a resident citizen of the Philippines at least sixty (60) years old.
(g) Loan Social Security Commission (g) Temporary disability benefits [similar to
Resolution No. 669. sickness] - It includes Filipinos with dual citizenship status, provided they have at least six
(h) Separation benefits (6) months residency in the Philippines.
Moreover, several SSS-issued circulars such as (i)Unemployment benefits Sec 11
Circular No. 21-P and No. 52 pertain to the (j) Survivorship benefits
treatment of salary loans, sometimes providing (k) Life insurance benefits Privileges of Senior Citizens
for more flexible payment terms or condonation
for delinquent payers; Santiago v. CA and SSS, - 20% discount and exemption from the value-added tax (VAT) for their exclusive
GR # L-39949 [1984] resolved an issue involving Note: Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions use and enjoyment
the treatment of salary loan repayments; SSS are entitled to life insurance only. o Purchase of medicines
website also shows loans o Professional fees of attending physician (private)
(h) Sickness benefits o Professional fees of health workers (private)
(i)Maternity leave benefits o Medical and dental services, diagnostic and laboratory fees (private)
 o Actual fare for land transportation travel
o Utilization of services in hotels, restaurants and recreation centers - Philippine passport
o Funeral and burial services
o Admission fees charged by theaters, cinema houses, and concert halls, - Other documents showing the age and Filipino citizenship (e.g. drivers license,
circuses, carnivals, and other similar places of culture, leisure and voters ID, SSS/GSIS ID, Postal ID, PRC card)
amusement

- Exemption from the payment of individual income taxes No Double Discounts

- If goods and services are on promo. Discount, the senior citizen can choose
- 5% discount on the monthly utilization of water and electricity supplied by public between the promo. Discount or the 20% discount under the Act, whichever is
utilities higher

- Free medical and dental services in all government facilities - If the senior citizen is also a person with disability (PWD), the senior citizen may
choose whether to avail of his Senior Citizen Card or his PWD Card
- Exemption from trainer fees for socio-economic programs

- Educational assistance for post secondary, tertiary, post tertiary, vocational and Indigent Senior Citizens
technical education, as well as short-term courses for retooling in both public - Free vaccination from the DOH against the influenza virus and pneumococcal
and private schools disease

- Continuance of the same benefits and privileges given by the GSIS, the SSS, and - Monthly stipend from the government in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos
the Pag-Ibig, as the case may be (P500.00)

- Special discounts in special programs for senior citizens on purchase of basic - Philhealth coverage
commodities
Death benefit assistance from the government in the amount of at least Two Thousand
- Express lanes in all commercial and government establishments Pesos (P2,000.00)
Criminal Offenses and Penalties
- Death benefit assistance of a minimum of Two thousand pesos (Php2,000.00) to Refusal to honor the senior citizen card
be given to the nearest surviving relative of a deceased senior citizen
First violation:
o Imprisonment ranging from 2 years to 6 years; and
Senior Citizen Discount and VAT Exemption applies also to credit card o Fine of P50,000.00 to P100,000.00;
- The 20% discount and VAT exemption also apply to purchases of goods and
services paid through credit cards Subsequent violation:
o Imprisonment ranging from 2 years to 6 years; and
o Fine of P100,000.00 to P200,000.00
Proof of Entitlement
Abuse of senior citizen privileges
- Senior citizens ID issued by the Offices for the Senior Citizens Affairs (OSCA)

Penalties:
o Imprisonment for 6 months; and
o Fine of P50,000.00 to P100,000.00
Office for Senior Citizens Affairs
All cities and municipalities are obliged to have an Office for Senior Citizens
Affairs (OSCA) to be headed by a senior citizen who shall be appointed by the mayor for a
term of three (3) years without reappointment but without prejudice to an extension if
exigency so requires.
B. REPUBLIC ACT 9262: ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINTS WOMEN & THIER CHILDER ACT OF
2004 (VAWC)
Before 1995:
- Gender based violence was not recognized in Philippine laws.
- Revised Penal Code covered offenses committed against women, e.g., physical
injuries, rape, acts of lasciviousness, seduction, parricide, homicide, murder
Civil Law
- Had discriminatory provisions on women, treated as subordinate to husbands
- Could not accept gifts from men other than their husbands without their consent
- Husband had sole administration of the conjugal partnership
1987 CONSTITUTION: State Policies
Sec. 2 adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land (CEDAW, CRC, other Conventions)
- Full respect for human rights
Sec. 14. fundamental equality before the law of women and men
The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working
conditions
LAWS ON VAW since 1995
- Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995
- Anti-Rape Act of 1997
- Rape Victims Assistance Act (1998)
- An Act penalizing matching of Filipino mail order brides (1998)
- Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
- Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
RA 9262: Anti VAWC Act
- Effective March 27, 2004
- A special law protecting women and their children from all forms of abuse
- Criminal statute
- Civil action Temporary & Permanent Protection Order
- With remedy of Barangay (village) Protection Order
PURPOSE (Sec. 2)
It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and
guarantees full respect for human rights
To protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence
and threats to their personal safety and security
DEFINITION OF TERMS (Sec. 3)
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom
he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but
is not limited to, the following acts:

PHYSICAL VIOLENCE acts that include bodily or physical harm
SEXUAL VIOLENCE an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her
child, including but not limited to:
1. rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as
a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically
attacking the sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch obscene
publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do
indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to
live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser;
2. acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by
force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm
or coercion;
3. Prostituting the woman or child.
PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE - acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or
emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment,
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and
mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual
or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to
witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or
unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children
ECONOMIC ABUSE - acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent
which includes, but is not limited to the following:
1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any
legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein
the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as
defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the
use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in
common;
3. destroying household property;
4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the
conjugal money or properties.
BATTERY - an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the
physical and psychological or emotional distress.
BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME - scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
STALKING - an intentional act committed by a person who, knowingly and without lawful
justification follows the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under
surveillance directly or indirectly or a combination thereof.
DATING RELATIONSHIP - a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis
during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization
between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship.
SEXUAL RELATIONS - a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a
common child
ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (Sec. 5)
The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the
following acts:
1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
5. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct
which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct
which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or
restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or
threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited
to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or
restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:
Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody
to her/his family;
 Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial ELEMENTS
support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's
children insufficient financial support; (3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the a. Relationship, past or present
woman or her child of a legal right; b. Married or not; living in or not
Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, c. Sexual or dating relationship
business or activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties, or d. Including lesbian relationships
solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties; e. With common child
Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of f. Falling under Sec. 5 (punishable acts)
controlling her actions or decisions;
Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual VENUE (Sec. 7)
activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical RTC designated as Family Court (EOJ)
harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his
immediate family; RELIEFS/REMEDIES
Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through PROTECTION ORDER (Sec. 8)
another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to A protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further
the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts of violence against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and
acts: granting other necessary relief.
1. Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private
places; KINDS:
2. Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the
1. Barangay protection order (BPO) (Sec. 14) issued by the Punong Barangay
woman or her child;
ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts under Sec. 5 (a) and (b)
3. Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman
of this Act
or her child against her/his will;
2. Temporary protection order (TPO) (Sec. 15) issued by the court on the date of
4. Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to
filing of the application after ex parte determination that such order should be
animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
issued; effective for 30 days
5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
3. Permanent Protection order (PPO) (Sec. 16) issued by the court after notice
6. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to
and hearing
the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal
and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of
WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR PO (Sec. 9)
minor children of access to the woman's child/children.
1. Offended party
2. Parents or guardians of offended party
WHO ARE LIABLE?
3. Ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree of
a. Husbands; consanguinity or affinity
b. Former Husbands; 4. Officers or social workers of the DSWD or social workers of LGUs
c. Present & Former Boyfriends or Live-In Partners; 5. Police officers, preferably those in charge of women and childrens desks
d. Those with whom the woman has a common child; or 6. Punong barangay or Barangay Kagawad
e. Anyone with whom she has/had sexual or dating relationship. 7. Lawyer, counsellor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner
At least 2 concerned responsible citizens of the city or municipality where the violence
against.
 SOME CASES AND DOCTRINES IN AGRARIAN REFORM
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC, VS. HONORABLE ISSUE:
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, G.R. NO. 78742 JULY 14, 1989
Whether or not the laws being challenged is a valid exercise of Police power or Power of
Eminent Domain.
ARSENIO AL. ACUNA, ET. AL. VS. JOKER ARROYO, PHILIP E. JUICO AND PARC G.R. NO.
79744 JULY 14, 1989
RULING:
INOCENTES PABICO VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM G.R.
NO. 79777 JULY 14, 1989 Police Power through the Power of Eminent Domain, though there are traditional
distinction between the police power and the power of eminent domain, property
NICOLAS S. MANAAY ET. AL. VS. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET. AL. condemned under police power is noxious or intended for noxious purpose, the
compensation for the taking of such property is not subject to compensation, unlike the
FACTS: taking of the property in Eminent Domain or the power of expropriation which requires
the payment of just compensation to the owner of the property expropriated.
These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including serious
challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 also known as the "Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988"

In G.R. No. 79777, the petitioners are questioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O Nos. 228 and
229 on the grounds inter alia of separation of powers, due process, equal protection and
the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use
without just compensation.

In G.R. No. 79310, the petitioners in this case claim that the power to provide for a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to the
Congress and not to the President, the also allege that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No.
229 should be annulled for violation of the constitutional provisions on just
compensation, due process and equal protection. They contended that the taking must
be simultaneous with payment of just compensation which such payment is not
contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.

In G.R. No. 79744, the petitioner argues that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued
by the President and that the said executive orders violate the constitutional provision
that no private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation which
was denied to the petitioners.

In G.R. No 78742 the petitioners claim that they cannot eject their tenants and so are
unable to enjoy their right of retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform has
so far not issued the implementing rules of the decree. They therefore ask the Honorable
Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue the said rules.
HACIENDA LUISITA INC. (HLI) V. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIANREFORM COUNCIL (PARC), ET
AL., G.R. NO. 171101, NOVEMBER 22, 2011
FACTS
On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (11-0) to DISMISS/DENY
the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the resolutions of the PARC
revoking HLIs Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject lands in Hacienda
Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) of the government.
The Court however did not order outright land distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court noted
that there are operative there are operative facts that occurred in the interim and which
the Court cannot validly ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SDP
must, by application of the operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original
6,296 qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether they want to
remain as HLI stockholders or [choose actual land distribution]. It thus ordered the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to immediately schedule meetings with the said
6,296 FWBs and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical
implications of their choice, after which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret
voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks,
as the case may be, over their printed names.
The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court
decision.
ISSUES:
(1) Is the operative fact doctrine available in this case?
(2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional?
(3) Cant the Court order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the
full 6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac
Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by
HLIs SDP?
(4) Is the date of the taking (for purposes of determining the just compensation
payable to HLI) November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP?
(5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657
lapsed on May 10, 1999 (since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP coverage
through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989), and thus the qualified FWBs should
now be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties,
whether they have fully paid for the lands or not?
THE CRUCIAL ISSUE: Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified
FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be reconsidered?
THE RULING
The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the motions for reconsideration of respondents PARC, et
al. with respect to the option granted to the original farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) of
Hacienda Luisita to remain with petitioner HLI, which option the Court thereby RECALLED
and SET ASIDE. It reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be
given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, and UNANIMOUSLY directed immediate
land distribution to the qualified FWBs.
1. YES, the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case.
The Court maintained its stance that the operative fact doctrine is applicable in
this case since, contrary to the suggestion of the minority, the doctrine is not limited only
to invalid or unconstitutional laws but also applies to decisions made by the President or
the administrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. Prior to the
nullification or recall of said decisions, they may have produced acts and consequences
that must be respected. It is on this score that the operative fact doctrine should be
applied to acts and consequences that resulted from the implementation of the PARC
Resolution approving the SDP of HLI. The majority stressed that the application of the
operative fact doctrine by the Court in its July 5, 2011 decision was in fact favorable to
the FWBs because not only were they allowed to retain the benefits and homelots they
received under the stock distribution scheme, they were also given the option to choose
for themselves whether they want to remain as stockholders of HLI or not.
2. NO, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 NOT unconstitutional.
The Court maintained that the Court is NOT compelled to rule on the
constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, reiterating that it was not raised at the earliest
opportunity and that the resolution thereof is not the lismota of the case. Moreover, the
issue has been rendered moot and academic since SDO is no longer one of the modes of
acquisition under RA 9700. The majority clarified that in its July 5, 2011 decision, it made
no ruling in favor of the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but found nonetheless
that there was no apparent grave violation of the Constitution that may justify the
resolution of the issue of constitutionality.
3. NO, the Court CANNOT order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita
cover the full 6,443 hectares and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLIs
SDP.
 Since what is put in issue before the Court is the propriety of the revocation of
the SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then
the Court is constrained to rule only as regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural
land.Nonetheless, this should not prevent the DAR, under its mandate under the
agrarian reform law, from subsequently subjecting to agrarian reform other agricultural
lands originally held by Tadeco that were allegedly not transferred to HLI but were
supposedly covered by RA 6657.
However since the area to be awarded to each FWB in the July 5, 2011 Decision
appears too restrictive considering that there are roads, irrigation canals, and other
portions of the land that are considered commonly-owned by farmworkers, and these
may necessarily result in the decrease of the area size that may be awarded per FWB
the Court reconsiders its Decision and resolves to give the DAR leeway in adjusting the
area that may be awarded per FWB in case the number of actual qualified FWBs
decreases. In order to ensure the proper distribution of the agricultural lands of
Hacienda Luisita per qualified FWB, and considering that matters involving strictly the
administrative implementation and enforcement of agrarian reform laws are within the
jurisdiction of the DAR, it is the latter which shall determine the area with which each
qualified FWB will be awarded.
On the other hand, the majority likewise reiterated its holding that the 500-
hectare portion of Hacienda Luisita that have been validly converted to industrial use and
have been acquired by intervenors Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) and
Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), as well as the separate 80.51-hectare SCTEX
lot acquired by the government, should be excluded from the coverage of the assailed
PARC resolution. The Court however ordered that the unused balance of the proceeds of
the sale of the 500-hectare converted land and of the 80.51-hectare land used for the
SCTEX be distributed to the FWBs.
4. YES, the date of taking is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP.
For the purpose of determining just compensation, the date of taking is
November 21, 1989 (the date when PARC approved HLIs SDP) since this is the time that
the FWBs were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita.
To be precise, these lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the
stock distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on November 21,
1989. Such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory
acquisition. On the contention of the minority (Justice Sereno) that the date of the notice
of coverage [after PARCs revocation of the SDP], that is, January 2, 2006, is
determinative of the just compensation that HLI is entitled to receive, the Court majority
noted that none of the cases cited to justify this position involved the stock distribution
scheme. Thus, said cases do not squarely apply to the instant case. The foregoing
notwithstanding, it bears stressing that the DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and
is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner. The landowner can file an
original action with the RTC acting as a special agrarian court to determine just
compensation. The court has the right to review with finality the determination in the
exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.
5. NO, the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657
has NOT lapsed on May 10, 1999; thus, the qualified FWBs should NOT yet be
allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties.
Under RA 6657 and DAO 1, the awarded lands may only be transferred or
conveyed after 10 years from the issuance and registration of the emancipation patent
(EP) or certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). Considering that the EPs or CLOAs
have not yet been issued to the qualified FWBs in the instant case, the 10-year
prohibitive period has not even started. Significantly, the reckoning point is the issuance
of the EP or CLOA, and not the placing of the agricultural lands under CARP coverage.
Moreover, should the FWBs be immediately allowed the option to sell or convey their
interest in the subject lands, then all efforts at agrarian reform would be rendered
nugatory, since, at the end of the day, these lands will just be transferred to persons not
entitled to land distribution under CARP.
6. YES, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified FWBs be given an
option to remain as stockholders of HLI should be reconsidered.
The Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be
given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will
never gain control [over the subject lands] given the present proportion of shareholdings
in HLI. The Court noted that the share of the FWBs in the HLI capital stock is [just]
33.296%. Thus, even if all the holders of this 33.296% unanimously vote to remain as HLI
stockholders, which is unlikely, control will never be in the hands of the FWBs. Control
means the majority of [sic] 50% plus at least one share of the common shares and other
voting shares. Applying the formula to the HLI stockholdings, the number of shares that
will constitute the majority is 295,112,101 shares (590,554,220 total HLI capital shares
divided by 2 plus one [1] HLI share). The 118,391,976.85 shares subject to the SDP
approved by PARC substantially fall short of the 295,112,101 shares needed by the FWBs
to acquire control over HLI.
STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 112526 OCTOBER 12, 2001
PARDO, J.:
On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman answered
The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the
the protest and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% but only 5-10%
Court of Appeals1 affirming the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform
and that the land is suitable and economically viable for agricultural purposes, as
Adjudication Board2 (hereafter DARAB) ordering the compulsory acquisition of
evidenced by the Certification of the Department of Agriculture, municipality of
petitioner's property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Cabuyao, Laguna.8
On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre made a summary investigation report
Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the
and forwarded the Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI) to the Provincial
registered owner of two parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna
Agrarian Reform Officer (hereafter, PARO).9
covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, with a total area of 254.6 hectares. According to
petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which provide clean potable water to the
On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda forwarded his endorsement of the
Canlubang community, and that ninety (90) light industries are now located in the area. 3
compulsory acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo C. Visperas of the Bureau of Land
Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its rights over the property, thereby
Acquisition and Development, DAR forwarded two (2) Compulsory Acquisition Claim
destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed a civil
Folders covering the landholding of SRRDC, covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891 to
case4 with the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, seeking an easement of a right of way to and
the President, Land Bank of the Philippines for further review and evaluation. 10
from Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment
of private respondents.
On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two
(2) notices of acquisition11 to petitioner, stating that petitioner's landholdings covered by
In October 1986 to August 1987, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao,
TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, containing an area of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares, valued
Laguna separate complaints for forcible entry against respondents. 5
at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, respectively, had been placed under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of
On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two letters 12 separately addressed to Secretary
Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the
Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, sent its
CARP.
formal protest, protesting not only the amount of compensation offered by DAR for the
property but also the two (2) notices of acquisition.
On August 11, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao, Laguna
issued a notice of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or representatives to a
On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB for summary
conference on August 18, 1989.6 During the meeting, the following were present:
proceedings to determine just compensation under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16.
representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of the Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of
On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2) claim folders previously referred for
Laguna, MARO of Laguna, the BARC Chairman of Barangay Casile and some potential
review and evaluation to the Director of BLAD mentioning its inability to value the SRRDC
farmer beneficiaries, who are residents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was the
landholding due to some deficiencies.
consensus and recommendation of the assembly that the landholding of SRRDC be
placed under compulsory acquisition.
On March 28, 1990, Executive Director Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote Land Bank President
Deogracias Vistan to forward the two (2) claim folders involving the property of SRRDC to
On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO),
the DARAB for it to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation
Cabuyao, Laguna a "Protest and Objection" to the compulsory acquisition of the property
for the land.
on the ground that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was
On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that
rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the occupants of the land were
its property under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP coverage because
squatters, who were not entitled to any land as beneficiaries. 7
they had been classified as watershed area and were the subject of a pending petition
for land conversion.
On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of BLAD turned over the two (2) claim
folders (CACF's) to the Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board for proper
administrative valuation. Acting on the CACF's, on September 10, 1990, the Board
promulgated a resolution asking the office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to
first resolve two (2) issues before it proceeds with the summary land valuation
proceedings.13
The issues that need to be threshed out were as follows: (1) whether the subject parcels
of land fall within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition Program of the CARP; and
(2) whether the petition for land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted.
On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary, DAR, through the Undersecretary for
Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and the Regional Director of
Region IV, submitted a report answering the two issues raised. According to them, firstly,
by virtue of the issuance of the notice of coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of
acquisition on December 12, 1989, the property is covered under compulsory
acquisition. Secondly, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also
supports the DAR position on the coverage of the said property. During the consideration
of the case by the Board, there was no pending petition for land conversion specifically
concerning the parcels of land in question.
On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of hearing to all the parties interested,
setting the hearing for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels of land on
March 6, 1991. However, on February 22, 1991, Atty. Ma. Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva,
counsel for SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for its assistance in the reconstruction of
the records of the case because the records could not be found as her co-counsel, Atty.
Ricardo Blancaflor, who originally handled the case for SRRDC and had possession of all
the records of the case was on indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The Board
granted counsel's request and moved the hearing to April 4, 1991.
On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to resolve
SRRDC's petition for exemption from CARP coverage before any administrative valuation
of their landholding could be had by the Board.
On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the case was held and subsequently,
different dates of hearing were set without objection from counsel of SRRDC. During the
April 15, 1991 hearing, the subdivision plan of subject property at Casile, Cabuyao,
Laguna was submitted and marked as Exhibit "5" for SRRDC. At the hearing on April 23,
1991, the Land Bank asked for a period of one month to value the land in dispute.
At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from Deputy Zoning Administrator
Generoso B. Opina was presented. The certification issued on September 8, 1989, stated
that the parcels of land subject of the case were classified as "industrial Park" per
Sanguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 dated March 29, 1989.
To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might distribute the lands to the farmer
beneficiaries, on April 30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition with DARAB to disqualify
private respondents as beneficiaries. However, DARAB refused to address the issue of
beneficiaries.
In the meantime, on January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24,
rendered a decision, finding that private respondents illegally entered the SRRDC
property, and ordered them evicted.
On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued a memorandum directing the
Land Bank of the Philippines to open a trust account in favor of SRRDC, for
P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the SRRDC property.
On December 19, 1991, DARAB promulgated a decision, the decretal portion of which
reads:
"WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Board hereby orders:
"1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against the compulsory coverage
of the landholdings of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (Transfer
Certificates of Title Nos. 81949 and 84891 with an area of 254.766 hectares) in
Barangay Casile, Municipality of Cabuyao, Province of Laguna under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is hereby affirmed;
"2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation the amount of Seven Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand,
Nine Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos and Sixty-Four centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its
landholdings covered by the two (2) Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned
above. Should there be a rejection of the payment tendered, to open, if none has
yet been made, a trust account for said amount in the name of Sta. Rosa Realty
Development Corporation;
"3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to cancel with dispatch
Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 and new one be issued in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines, free from liens and encumbrances;
"4 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources either through its
Provincial Office in Laguna or the Regional Office, Region IV, to conduct a final
segregation survey on the lands covered by Transfer certificate of Title Nos.
 84891 and 81949 so the same can be transferred by the Register of Deeds to the
name of the Republic of the Philippines;
"5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through its
Municipal and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to take immediate possession
on the said landholding after Title shall have been transferred to the name of the
Republic of the Philippines, and distribute the same to the immediate issuance of
Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Cabuyao, Laguna." 17
On January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a decision in
Civil Case No. B-233318ruling that respondents were builders in bad faith.
On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review of
the DARAB decision.19 On November 5, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated a
decision affirming the decision of DARAB. The decretal portion of the Court of Appeals
decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB decision dated September 19,
1991 is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development
Corporation ventilating its case with the Special Agrarian Court on the issue of
just compensation."20Hence, this petition.21
On December 15, 1993, the Court issued a Resolution which reads:
"G. R. Nos. 112526 (Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, et. al.) Considering the compliance, dated December 13, 1993, filed by
counsel for petitioner, with the resolution of December 8, 1993 which required
petitioner to post a cash bond or surety bond in the amount of P1,500,000.00
Pesos before issuing a temporary restraining order prayed for, manifesting that it
has posted a CASH BOND in the same amount with the Cashier of the Court as
evidenced by the attached official receipt no. 315519, the Court resolved to
ISSUE the Temporary Retraining Order prayed for.
"The Court therefore, resolved to restrain: (a) the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board from enforcing its decision dated December 19, 1991
in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001, which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals in a Decision dated November 5, 1993, and which ordered, among
others, the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through its
Municipal and Provincial Reform Office to take immediate possession of the
landholding in dispute after title shall have been transferred to the name of the
Republic of the Philippines and to distribute the same through the immediate
issuance of Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as determined by
the Municipal Agrarian Officer of Cabuyao, Laguna, (b) The Department of
Agrarian Reform and/or the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board,
and all persons acting for and in their behalf and under their authority from
entering the properties involved in this case and from introducing permanent
infrastructures thereon; and (c) the private respondents from further clearing
the said properties of their green cover by the cutting or burning of trees and
other vegetation, effective today until further orders from this Court." 22
The main issue raised is whether the property in question is covered by CARP despite the
fact that the entire property formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of
R. A. No. 6657.
Under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private land:
compulsory and voluntary. In the case at bar, the Department of Agrarian Reform sought
the compulsory acquisition of subject property under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16, to wit:
"Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition
of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
a.) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries,
the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof,
by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a
conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the
place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of
the DAR to pay corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set
forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
b.) Within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of written notice
by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator
or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of
the offer.
c.) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the
landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he
executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and
other muniments of title.
d.) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land
requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the
above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR
shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for
decision.
e.) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in
case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit
with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in
cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this act, the DAR shall make
 immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to
of Deeds to issue Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCT) in the name of the hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the Under Sec. 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. the land, the landowners and the farmer beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how
f.) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the the identification process shall be made. To fill this gap, on July 26, 1989, the DAR issued
court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1989, which set the operating procedure in the
identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows:
In compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and farmer
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), with the assistance of the
beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a notice of
pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall:
acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a
1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his
conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the
area of responsibility; the masterlist should include such information as required
property is located.
under the attached CARP masterlist form which shall include the name of the
landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of acquisition, the landowner, his
2. Prepare the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title
administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the
(OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those
offer.
for which the landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes
of land acquisition. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished
If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
forms:
government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty (30) days from the
a) CARP CA Form 1MARO investigation report
execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner
b) CARP CA Form No 2 Summary investigation report findings and
the purchase price. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer
evaluation
in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days from
c) CARP CA Form 3Applicant's Information sheet
the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the
d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries undertaking
owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a
e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal report to the PARO
reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just
The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-
compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and other interested
mentioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are
parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice.
true and correct.
Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner
3. Send notice of coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to
of its decision and the amount of just compensation.
the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to
the said conference meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-
Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack
beneficiaries, the BARC representatives, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP
representative, and the other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the
bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land
valuation of the property.
and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the
He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views,
Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party
objection, agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner
may question the decision of the DAR in the special agrarian courts (provisionally the
shall also ask to indicate his retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be
Supreme Court designated branches of the regional trial court as special agrarian courts)
signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an integral part of the
for final determination of just compensation.
CACF.
 3. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).
B. The PARO shall:
1. Ensure the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs.
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land
in accordance with A.O. No. 6, series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and the
related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all
the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms.
3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular
inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection and verification
shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds P500,000 per estate.
4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with
the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the Central
Office.
The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each
of his report.
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (BLAD), shall:
1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review,
evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the
case folder. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly
certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the
review and final valuation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized
representative, a notice of acquisition (CARP Form 8) for the subject property.
Serve the notice to the landowner personally or through registered mail within
three days from its approval. The notice shall include among others, the area
subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered
by DAR.
3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare
and submit to the Secretary for approval the order of acquisition. However, in
case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct
a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in
accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13,
series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just
compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval
the required order of acquisition.
4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon
deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response,
the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue
the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic
of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO,
shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries."
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his
area of responsibility containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a
Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO
then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a
"conference/ meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to
the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested
parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views,
suggestions, objections or agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is
asked to indicate his retention area.
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification
of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory when the computed value of the estate
exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all
papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR
Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall
prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a notice
of acquisition of the subject property. From this point, the provisions of R. A. No. 6657,
Section 16 shall apply.
For a valid implementation of the CARP Program, two notices are required: (1) the notice
of coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner,
the representative of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties
pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2) the notice of acquisition sent to the
landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, that is, the notice of coverage and the letter of
invitation to a conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps
designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The
implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of
eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the
landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in
accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners
are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a
taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and
physical possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor
of the farmer beneficiary.
In the case at bar, DAR has executed the taking of the property in question. However,
payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the procedural requirement.
The law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by trust account as was done by
DAR.
In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform , we
held that "The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP
bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No
outright change of ownership is contemplated either."
Consequently, petitioner questioned before the Court of Appeals DARAB's decision
ordering the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property. Here, petitioner pressed the
question of whether the property was a watershed, not covered by CARP.
Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides:
"Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface water or
overlying any ground water may be declared by the Department of Natural
resources as a protected area. Rules and Regulations may be promulgated by
such Department to prohibit or control such activities by the owners or
occupants thereof within the protected area which may damage or cause the
deterioration of the surface water or ground water or interfere with the
investigation, use, control, protection, management or administration of such
waters."
Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and
enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds."
Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why was the Casile property
titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of the titling, the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources had not declared the property as
watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared as "PARK" by a
Zoning Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution voiding the zoning classification of the land at
Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land is now classified as agricultural land.
The authority of the municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning classification is an
exercise of its police power, not the power of eminent domain. "A zoning ordinance is
defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes,
defines and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and
future projection of needs."
In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform we held that lands classified as
non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL may not be compulsorily acquired for
distribution to farmer beneficiaries.
However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact that
subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in question form a vital
part of a watershed area.
Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land in dispute is a "watershed or part of
the protected area for watershed purposes." Ecological balances and environmental
disasters in our day and age seem to be interconnected. Property developers and tillers
of the land must be aware of this deadly combination. In the case at bar, DAR included
the disputed parcels of land for compulsory acquisition simply because the land was
allegedly devoted to agriculture and was titled to SRRDC, hence, private and alienable
land that may be subject to CARP.
However, the scenario has changed, after an in-depth study, survey and reassessment.
We cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area
that need to be protected for watershed purposes. In a report of the Ecosystems
Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), a research arm of the DENR, regarding the
environmental assessment of the Casile and Kabanga-an river watersheds, they
concluded that:
"The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in question is situated in the heartland of
both watersheds. Considering the barangays proximity to the Matangtubig
waterworks, the activities of the farmers which are in conflict with proper soil
and water conservation practices jeopardize and endanger the vital waterworks.
Degradation of the land would have double edge detrimental effects. On the
Casile side this would mean direct siltation of the Mangumit river which drains to
the water impounding reservoir below. On the Kabanga-an side, this would mean
destruction of forest covers which acts as recharged areas of the Matang Tubig
springs. Considering that the people have little if no direct interest in the
protection of the Matang Tubig structures they couldn't care less even if it would
be destroyed.
 The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can be considered a most vital life
support system to thousands of inhabitants directly and indirectly affected by it.
From these watersheds come the natural God-given precious resource water. x
xxxx
Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally inconsistent with sound watershed
management. More so, the introduction of earth disturbing activities like road
building and erection of permanent infrastructures. Unless the pernicious
agricultural activities of the Casile farmers are immediately stopped, it would not
be long before these watersheds would cease to be of value. The impact of
watershed degredation threatens the livelihood of thousands of people
dependent upon it. Toward this, we hope that an acceptable comprehensive
watershed development policy and program be immediately formulated and
implemented before the irreversible damage finally happens.
Hence, the following are recommended:
7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated and given financial assistance.
7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as critical and in need of
immediate rehabilitation.
7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed management plan and
program be formulated and implemented by the Canlubang Estate in
coordination with pertinent government agencies."
The ERDB report was prepared by a composite team headed by Dr. Emilio Rosario, the
ERDB Director, who holds a doctorate degree in water resources from U.P. Los Banos in
1987; Dr. Medel Limsuan, who obtained his doctorate degree in watershed management
from Colorado University (US) in 1989; and Dr. Antonio M. Dano, who obtained his
doctorate degree in Soil and Water management Conservation from U.P. Los Banos in
1993.
Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala submitted a Memorandum for the President dated
September 7, 1993 (Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: 933103 Presidential Instructions on the
Protection of Watersheds of the Canlubang Estates at Barrio Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna)
which reads:
"It is the opinion of this office that the area in question must be maintained for
watershed purposes for ecological and environmental considerations, among
others. Although the 88 families who are the proposed CARP beneficiaries will be
affected, it is important that a larger view of the situation be taken as one should
also consider the adverse effect on thousands of residents downstream if the
watershed will not be protected and maintained for watershed purposes.
"The foregoing considered, it is recommended that if possible, an alternate area
be allocated for the affected farmers, and that the Canlubang Estates be
mandated to protect and maintain the area in question as a permanent
watershed reserved."
The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The most
important product of a watershed is water which is one of the most important human
necessity. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future
generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss
of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational responsibility" that needs to be
answered now.
Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing,
petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which
exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section 10, provides:
"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and exclusively
used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration,
fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national
defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations
operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and
seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents
appurtenent thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies
and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private
research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope
and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from coverage of this
Act."
Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the disputed parcels
of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP because of
its very high slopes.
To resolve the issue as to the true nature of the parcels of land involved in the case at
bar, the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the issue.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R.
SP No. 27234.
In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and
determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its
coverage by the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed farmer
beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order issued on
December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final decision on the case.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ROXAS & CO., INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. NO. 127876 DECEMBER 17, 1999
This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner and the
validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the government under Republic Act No.
6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three
haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the
Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and is
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 985. This land is covered by Tax
Declaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468, 0470, 0234 and 0354. Hacienda Banilad is 1,050
hectares in area, registered under TCT No. 924 and covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0236,
0237 and 0390. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area and is registered under
TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665.
The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then President Corazon C.
Aquino. In February 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 promulgating a
Provisional Constitution. As head of the provisional government, the President exercised
legislative power "until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution."
1 In the exercise of this legislative power, the President signed on July 22, 1987,
Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and
Executive Order No. 229 providing the mechanisms necessary to initially implement the
program.
On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over
legislative power from the President. 2 This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the
President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988.
Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent DAR a
voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229.
Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by
respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL.
Hacienda Palico
On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice entitled "Invitation to
Parties" to petitioner. The Invitation was addressed to "Jaime Pimentel, Hda.
Administrator, Hda. Palico." 3 Therein, the MARO invited petitioner to a conference on
October 6, 1989 at the DAR office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the DAR
investigation of Hacienda Palico, which was "scheduled for compulsory acquisition this
year under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."
On October 25, 1989, the MARO completed three (3) Investigation Reports after
investigation and ocular inspection of the Hacienda. In the first Report, the MARO found
that 270 hectares under Tax Declaration Nos. 465, 466, 468 and 470 were "flat to
undulating (0-8% slope)" and actually occupied and cultivated by 34 tillers of sugarcane.
5 In the second Report, the MARO identified as "flat to undulating" approximately 339
hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0234 which also had several actual occupants and
tillers of sugarcane; 6 while in the third Report, the MARO found approximately 75
hectare under Tax Declaration No. 0354 as "flat to undulating" with 33 actual occupants
and tillers also of sugarcane.
On October 27, 1989, a "Summary Investigation Report" was submitted and signed
jointly by the MARO, representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)
and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), and by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO). The Report recommended that 333.0800 hectares of Hacienda Palico be subject
to compulsory acquisition at a value of P6,807,622.20. 8 The following day, October 28,
1989, two (2) more Summary Investigation Reports were submitted by the same officers
and representatives. They recommended that 270.0876 hectares and 75.3800 hectares
be placed under compulsory acquisition at a compensation of P8,109,739.00 and
P2,188,195.47, respectively.
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR through then Department Secretary Miriam D.
Santiago sent a "Notice of Acquisition" to petitioner. The Notice was addressed as
follows:
Roxas y Cia, Limited
Soriano Bldg., Plaza Cervantes
Manila, Metro Manila.
Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in Hacienda Palico were
subject to immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL;
that based on the DAR's valuation criteria, the government was offering compensation of
P3.4 million for 333.0800 hectares; that whether this offer was to be accepted or
rejected, petitioner was to inform the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD)
of the DAR; that in case of petitioner's rejection or failure to reply within thirty days,
respondent DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings with notice to
petitioner to determine just compensation for the land; that if petitioner accepts
respondent DAR's offer, or upon deposit of the compensation with an accessible bank if
it rejects the same, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land.

Almost two years later, on September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the
LBP Land Valuation Manager three (3) separate Memoranda entitled "Request to Open
Trust Account." Each Memoranda requested that a trust account representing the
valuation of three portions of Hacienda Palico be opened in favor of the petitioner in
view of the latter's rejection of its offered value.
Meanwhile in a letter dated May 4, 1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion
of Haciendas Palico and Banilad from agricultural to non-agricultural lands under the
provisions of the CARL. 13 On July 14, 1993, petitioner sent a letter to the DAR Regional
Director reiterating its request for conversion of the two haciendas.
Despite petitioner's application for conversion, respondent DAR proceeded with the
acquisition of the two Haciendas. The LBP trust accounts as compensation for Hacienda
Palico were replaced by respondent DAR with cash and LBP bonds. On October 22, 1993,
from the mother title of TCT No. 985 of the Hacienda, respondent DAR registered
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6654. On
October 30, 1993, CLOA's were distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
Hacienda Banilad
On August 23, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MARO of Nasugbu,
Batangas, sent a notice to petitioner addressed as follows:
Mr. Jaime Pimentel
Hacienda Administrator
Hacienda Banilad
Nasugbu, Batangas
The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to compulsory
acquisition under the CARL; that should petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes
such as Voluntary Offer to Sell or Voluntary Land Transfer, respondent DAR was willing to
provide assistance thereto.
On September 18, 1989, the MARO sent an "Invitation to Parties" again to Pimentel
inviting the latter to attend a conference on September 21, 1989 at the MARO Office in
Nasugbu to discuss the results of the MARO's investigation over Hacienda Banilad.
On September 21, 1989, the same day the conference was held, the MARO submitted
two (2) Reports. In his first Report, he found that approximately 709 hectares of land
under Tax Declaration Nos. 0237 and 0236 were "flat to undulating (0-8% slope)." On this
area were discovered 162 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane. In the second
Report, it was found that approximately 235 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0390
were "flat to undulating," on which were 92 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane.
The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference. Present in the conference
were representatives of the prospective farmer beneficiaries, the BARC, the LBP, and
Jaime Pimentel on behalf of the landowner. After the meeting, on the same day,
September 21, 1989, a Summary Investigation Report was submitted jointly by the
MARO, representatives of the BARC, LBP, and the PARO. They recommended that after
ocular inspection of the property, 234.6498 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0390 be
subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution by CLOA. The following day,
September 22, 1989, a second Summary Investigation was submitted by the same
officers. They recommended that 737.2590 hectares under Tax Declaration Nos. 0236
and 0237 be likewise placed under compulsory acquisition for distribution.
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department Secretary, sent to
petitioner two (2) separate "Notices of Acquisition" over Hacienda Banilad. These Notices
were sent on the same day as the Notice of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the
Notice over Hacienda Palico, however, the Notices over Hacienda Banilad were
addressed to:
Roxas y Cia. Limited
7th Floor, Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. 101 Aguirre St., Leg.
Makati, Metro Manila.
Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of P15,108,995.52 for 729.4190
hectares and P4,428,496.00 for 234.6498 hectares.
On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation
Manager a "Request to Open Trust Account" in petitioner's name as compensation for
234.6493 hectares of Hacienda Banilad. A second "Request to Open Trust Account" was
sent on November 18, 1991 over 723.4130 hectares of said Hacienda.
On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts of P4,428,496.40 and
P21,234,468.78 in cash and LBP bonds had been earmarked as compensation for
petitioner's land in Hacienda Banilad.
On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
Hacienda Caylaway
Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988
before the effectivity of the CARL. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares
and is covered by four (4) titles TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665. On
January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director for Region IV, sent to
petitioner two (2) separate Resolutions accepting petitioner's voluntary offer to sell
Hacienda Caylaway, particularly TCT Nos. T-44664 and T-44663. The Resolutions were
addressed to:
Roxas & Company, Inc.
7th Flr. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg.
Aguirre, Legaspi Village
Makati, M. M
On September 4, 1990, the DAR Regional Director issued two separate Memoranda to
the LBP Regional Manager requesting for the valuation of the land under TCT Nos. T-
44664 and T-44663. 32 On the same day, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director,
sent to petitioner a "Notice of Acquisition" over 241.6777 hectares under TCT No. T-
44664 and 533.8180 hectares under TCT No. T-44663. 33 Like the Resolutions of
Acceptance, the Notice of Acquisition was addressed to petitioner at its office in Makati,
Metro Manila.
Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent
a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed
respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from
agricultural to other nuses.
In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that
a reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent
Secretary also denied petitioner's withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal
could only be based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or
if the slope of the land is over 18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped.
Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993,
petitioner filed its application for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad. On
July 14, 1993, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo Roxas, reiterated its request to
withdraw the VOS over Hacienda Caylaway in light of the following:
a. Certification issued by Conrado I. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge,
Department of Agriculture, Region 4, 4th Floor, ATI (BA) Bldg., Diliman,
Quezon City dated March 1, 1993 stating that the lands subject of
referenced titles "are not feasible and economically sound for further
agricultural development.
b. Resolution No. 19 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas
approving the Zoning Ordinance reclassifying areas covered by the
referenced titles to non-agricultural which was enacted after extensive
consultation with government agencies, including [the Department of
Agrarian Reform], and the requisite public hearings.
c. Resolution No. 106 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas dated
March 8, 1993 approving the Zoning Ordinance enacted by the
Municipality of Nasugbu.
d. Letter dated December 15, 1992 issued by Reynaldo U. Garcia of the
Municipal Planning & Development, Coordinator and Deputized Zoning
Administrator addressed to Mrs. Alicia P. Logarta advising that the
Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas has no objection to the conversion of
the lands subject of referenced titles to non-agricultural.
On August 24, 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. N-0017-96-46 (BA) with respondent
DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOA's issued by
respondent DAR in the name of several persons. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality
of Nasugbu, where the haciendas are located, had been declared a tourist zone, that the
land is not suitable for agricultural production, and that the
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to non-agricultural.
In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved
the prejudicial question of whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence,
this question should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for
determination.
On October 29, 1993, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No. 32484. It
questioned the expropriation of its properties under the CARL and the denial of due
process in the acquisition of its landholdings.
Meanwhile, the petition for conversion of the three haciendas was denied by the MARO
on November 8, 1993.
Petitioner's petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 28, 1994. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied on January 17, 1997 by
respondent court.
Hence, this recourse. Petitioner assigns the following errors:

A. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION IS PREMATURE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN VIEW OF THE PATENT ILLEGALITY OF THE RESPONDENTS'
ACTS, THE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE CAUSED BY SAID ILLEGAL ACTS, AND THE ABSENCE OF
A PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW ALL OF
WHICH ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SAID DOCTRINE.
B. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO COVERAGE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE
AGRARIAN REFORM LAW, IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT PETITIONER'S
LANDHOLDINGS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES BY PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION NO. 1520 WHICH DECLARED THE MUNICIPALITY NASUGBU, BATANGAS
AS A TOURIST ZONE, AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU
RE-CLASSIFYING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS AS NON-
AGRICULTURAL, BOTH OF WHICH PLACE SAID LANDHOLDINGS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, OR AT THE VERY LEAST ENTITLE PETITIONER TO APPLY FOR
CONVERSION AS CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT DAR.
C. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT DAR VOID FOR FAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE
PROCESS, CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PROCEDURE
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS UNDER R.A. 6657, MORE PARTICULARLY, IN
FAILING TO GIVE DUE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE
SPECIFIC AREAS SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED.
D. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO
RECOGNIZE THAT PETITIONER WAS BRAZENLY AND ILLEGALLY DEPRIVED OF ITS
PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT
PAID JUST COMPENSATION BEFORE IT WAS UNCEREMONIOUSLY STRIPPED OF ITS
LANDHOLDINGS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF CLOA'S TO ALLEGED FARMER
BENEFICIARIES, IN VIOLATION OF R.A. 6657.
The assigned errors involve three (3) principal issues: (1) whether this Court can take
cognizance of this petition despite petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative
remedies; (2) whether the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid
and in accordance with law; and (3) assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from
agricultural to non-agricultural, whether this court has the power to rule on this issue.
I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.
In its first assigned error, petitioner claims that respondent Court of Appeals gravely
erred in finding that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. As a general
rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he
is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress. This is not absolute,
however. There are instances when judicial action may be resorted to immediately.
Among these exceptions are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal; (2) when the
administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; (4)
when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when the respondent acted in
disregard of due process; (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts,
as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter; (7)
when irreparable damage will be suffered; (8) when there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; (9) when strong public interest is involved; (10) when the subject of
the controversy is private land; and (11) in quo warranto proceedings.
Petitioner rightly sought immediate redress in the courts. There was a violation of its
rights and to require it to exhaust administrative remedies before the DAR itself was not
a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) to farmer
beneficiaries over portions of petitioner's land without just compensation to petitioner. A
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a
beneficiary under R.A. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Before
this may be awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the State
from the landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer of possession
and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the
landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation
with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner. There was no
receipt by petitioner of any compensation for any of the lands acquired by the
government.
The kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The law provides that
the deposit must be made only in "cash" or "LBP bonds." Respondent DAR's opening of
trust account deposits in petitioner' s name with the Land Bank of the Philippines does
not constitute payment under the law. Trust account deposits are not cash or LBP bonds.
The replacement of the trust account with cash or LBP bonds did not ipso facto cure the
lack of compensation; for essentially, the determination of this compensation was
marred by lack of due process. In fact, in the entire acquisition proceedings, respondent
DAR disregarded the basic requirements of administrative due process. Under these
circumstances, the issuance of the CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries necessitated
immediate judicial action on the part of the petitioner.
II. The Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings Over the Haciendas.
Petitioner's allegation of lack of due process goes into the validity of the acquisition
proceedings themselves. Before we rule on this matter, however, there is need to lay
down the procedure in the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the law.
A. Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657
Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), provides
for two (2) modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and voluntary. The
procedure for the compulsory acquisition of private lands is set forth in Section 16 of R.A.
6657, viz:
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition of
private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
a) a). After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries,
the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by
personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in
the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is
located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding
value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other
pertinent provisions hereof.
b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative
shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner
the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and
delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the
Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land
requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence
as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of
the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed
submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after
it is submitted for decision.
e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an
accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of
the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR
shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
beneficiaries.
f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and the
farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a
Notice of Acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post
it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where
the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the
landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or
rejection of the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of
transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty
days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to
make a reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just
compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and other interested
parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice.
Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner
of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the
corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, the
DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The
DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer
certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be
redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR
in the regular courts for final determination of just compensation.
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of the land acquisition to
hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 46
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification
of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the
identification process must be made. To fill in this gap, the DAR issued on July 26, 1989
Administrative Order No. 12, Series or 1989, which set the operating procedure in the
identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows:

II. OPERATING PROCEDURE
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, with the assistance of the pertinent
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall:
1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area
of responsibility. The masterlist shall include such information as required under the
attached CARP Masterlist Form which shall include the name of the landowner,
landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number.
2. Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or
landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the
landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land acquisition. A
case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms:
a) CARP CA Form 1 MARO Investigation Report
b) CARP CA Form 2 Summary Investigation Report of Findings
and Evaluation
c) CARP CA Form 3 Applicant's Information Sheet
d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries Undertaking
e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal Report to the PARO
The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned
forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct.
3. Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to
the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said
conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC
representative(s), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and other
interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property. He shall discuss
the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views, objection, agreements or
suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner shall also be asked to indicate his
retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the
conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF.
4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).
B. The PARO shall:
1. Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his
MAROs.
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of
the land in accordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of 1988. 47 The
valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be
duly certified correct by the PARO and all the personnel who
participated in the accomplishment of these forms.
3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through
ocular inspection and verification of the property. This ocular
inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the computed
value exceeds = 500,000 per estate.
4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder,
together with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his
recommendations, to the Central Office. The LBP representative and
the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report.
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (BLAD), shall:
1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review,
evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the case
folder. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by
the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the review and final
valuation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative,
a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the Notice to
the landowner personally or through registered mail within three days from its approval.
The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and
the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare
and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of
rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary
administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance with the
procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1989. Immediately
upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and
submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon
deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the
Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the
corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take
possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his
area of responsibility containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a
Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO
then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a
"conference/meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to
the prospective farmer-beneficiaries the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested
parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views,
suggestions, objections or agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is
asked to indicate his retention area.
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification
of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory when the computed value of the estate
exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all
papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR
Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall
review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property. The BLAD shall
prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a Notice
of Acquisition for the subject property. From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of
R.A. 6657 then apply.
For a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice
of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner,
the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties
pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the
landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation
to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed
to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of
the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of eminent domain. To
the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an
exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the
Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands
they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power
of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the
land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary.
The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law." The CARL was not intended to take away property without
due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due
process be observed in the taking of private property.
DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first sprung, was
amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series
of 1993. The Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to the conference meeting were
expanded and amplified in said amendments.
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules Governing the Acquisition of
Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant
to R.A. 6657," requires that:
B. MARO
1. Receives the duly accomplished CARP Form Nos. 1 & 1.1 including supporting
documents.
2. Gathers basic ownership documents listed under 1.a or 1.b above and prepares
corresponding VOCF/CACF by landowner/landholding.
3. Notifies/invites the landowner and representatives of the LBP, DENR, BARC and
prospective beneficiaries of the schedule of ocular inspection of the property at
least one week in advance.
4. MARO/LAND BANK FIELD OFFICE/BARC
a) Identify the land and landowner, and determine the suitability for agriculture
and productivity of the land and jointly prepare Field Investigation Report (CARP
Form No. 2), including the Land Use Map of the property.
b) Interview applicants and assist them in the preparation of the Application For
Potential CARP Beneficiary (CARP Form No. 3).
c) Screen prospective farmer-beneficiaries and for those found qualified, cause the
signing of the respective Application to Purchase and Farmer's Undertaking
(CARP Form No. 4).
d) Complete the Field Investigation Report based on the result of the ocular
inspection/investigation of the property and documents submitted. See to it that
Field Investigation Report is duly accomplished and signed by all concerned.

5. MARO
a) Assists the DENR Survey Party in the conduct of a boundary/ subdivision survey
delineating areas covered by OLT, retention, subject of VOS, CA (by phases, if
possible), infrastructures, etc., whichever is applicable.
b) Sends Notice of Coverage (CARP Form No. 5) to landowner concerned or his duly
authorized representative inviting him for a conference.
c) Sends Invitation Letter (CARP Form No. 6) for a conference/public hearing to
prospective farmer-beneficiaries, landowner, representatives of BARC, LBP,
DENR, DA, NGO's, farmers' organizations and other interested parties to discuss
the following matters:
a) Result of Field Investigation
b) Inputs to valuation
c) Issues raised
Comments/recommendations by all parties concerned.
d) Prepares Summary of Minutes of the conference/public hearing to be guided by
CARP Form No. 7.
e) Forwards the completed VOCF/CACF to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office
(PARO) using CARP Form No. 8 (Transmittal Memo to PARO).
xxx xxx xxx
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS)
and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) transactions involving lands enumerated under Section
7 of the CARL. 54 In both VOS and CA. transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary
Offer to Sell Case Folder (VOCF) and the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF), as
the case may be, over a particular landholding. The MARO notifies the landowner as well
as representatives of the LBP, BARC and prospective beneficiaries of the date of the
ocular inspection of the property at least one week before the scheduled date and invites
them to attend the same. The MARO, LBP or BARC conducts the ocular inspection and
investigation by identifying the land and landowner, determining the suitability of the
land for agriculture and productivity, interviewing and screening prospective farmer
beneficiaries. Based on its investigation, the MARO, LBP or BARC prepares the Field
Investigation Report which shall be signed by all parties concerned. In addition to the
field investigation, a boundary or subdivision survey of the land may also be conducted
by a Survey Party of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to be
assisted by the MARO. 55 This survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation
Land Transfer (OLT), areas retained by the landowner, areas with infrastructure, and the
areas subject to VOS and CA. After the survey and field investigation, the MARO sends a
"Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly authorized representative inviting him
to a conference or public hearing with the farmer beneficiaries, representatives of the
BARC, LBP, DENR, Department of Agriculture (DA), non-government organizations,
farmer's organizations and other interested parties. At the public hearing, the parties
shall discuss the results of the field investigation, issues that may be raised in relation
thereto, inputs to the valuation of the subject landholding, and other comments and
recommendations by all parties concerned. The Minutes of the conference/public
hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files shall be forwarded by the MARO
to the PARO. The PARO reviews, evaluates and validates the Field Investigation Report
and other documents in the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards the records to the RARO for
another review.
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 was amended by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. DAR A.O.
No. 1, Series of 1993 provided, among others, that:
IV. OPERATING PROCEDURES:
Steps Responsible Activity Forms/ Agency/Unit Document (requirements)
A. Identification and Documentation
xxx xxx xxx
1. DARMO Issue Notice of Coverage CARP to LO by personal deliver Form No.
2 with proof of service, or registered mail with return card, informing him that
his property is now under CARP coverage and for LO to select his retention area,
if he desires to avail of his right of retention; and at the same time invites him to
join the field investigation to be conducted on his property which should be
scheduled at least two weeks in advance of said notice. A copy of said Notice
shall CARP be posted for at least one Form No. 17 week on the bulletin board
of the municipal and barangays halls where the property is located. LGU office
concerned notifies DAR about compliance with posting requirements thru return
indorsement on CARP Form No. 17
2. DARMO Send notice to the LBP, CARP BARC, DENR representatives Form
No. 3 and prospective ARBs of the schedule of the field investigation to be
conducted on the subject property.
3. DARMO With the participation of CARP BARC the LO, representatives of Form
No. 4 LBP the LBP, BARC, DENR Land Use DENR and prospective ARBs, Map Local
Office conducts the investigation on subject property to identify the
landholding, determines its suitability and productivity; and jointly prepares the
Field Investigation Report (FIR) and Land Use Map. However, the field
investigation shall proceed even if the LO, the representatives of the DENR and
prospective ARBs are not available provided, they were given due notice of the
time and date of investigation to be conducted. Similarly, if the LBP
representative is not available or could not come on the scheduled date, the field
investigation shall also be conducted, after which the duly accomplished Part I of
CARP Form No. 4 shall be forwarded to the LBP representative for validation. If
he agrees to the ocular inspection report of DAR, he signs the FIR (Part I) and
accomplishes Part II thereof. In the event that there is a difference or variance
between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to the propriety of covering the
land under CARP, whether in whole or in part, on the issue of suitability to
agriculture, degree of development or slope, and on issues affecting idle lands,
the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of DAR, LBP, DENR and DA
which shall jointly conduct further investigation thereon. The team shall submit
its report of findings which shall be binding to both DAR and LBP, pursuant to
Joint Memorandum Circular of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA dated 27 January
1992.
4. DARMO Screen prospective ARBs BARC and causes the signing of CARP the
Application of Purchase Form No. 5 and Farmer's Undertaking (APFU).
5. DARMO Furnishes a copy of the CARP duly accomplished FIR toForm No. 4 the
landowner by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail will
return card and posts a copy thereof for at least one week on the bulletin board
of the municipal and barangay halls where the property is located. LGU office
concerned CARP notifies DAR about Form No. 17 compliance with posting
requirement thru return endorsement on CARP Form No. 17. B. Land Survey.
6. DARMO Conducts perimeter or Perimeter And/or segregation survey or DENR
delineating areas covered Segregation Local Office by OLT, "uncarpable
Survey Plan areas such as 18% slope and above, unproductive/
unsuitable to agriculture, retention, infrastructure. In case of segregation or
subdivision survey, the plan shall be approved by DENR-LMS.
C. Review and Completion of Documents
A. DARMO Forward VOCF/CACF CARP to DARPO. Form No. 6
xxx xxx xxx.
DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and increased the
number of government agencies involved in the identification and delineation of the land
subject to acquisition. 56 This time, the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner
before the conduct of the field investigation and the sending must comply with specific
requirements. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office (DARMO) must send the
Notice of Coverage to the landowner by "personal delivery with proof of service, or by
registered mail with return card," informing him that his property is under CARP
coverage and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention, he may choose which
area he shall retain. The Notice of Coverage shall also invite the landowner to attend the
field investigation to be scheduled at least two weeks from notice. The field investigation
is for the purpose of identifying the landholding and determining its suitability for
agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be posted for at
least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the
property is located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by the DAR
Municipal Office to representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR and prospective farmer
beneficiaries. The field investigation shall be conducted on the date set with the
participation of the landowner and the various representatives. If the landowner and
other representatives are absent, the field investigation shall proceed, provided they
were duly notified thereof. Should there be a variance between the findings of the DAR
and the LBP as to whether the land be placed under agrarian reform, the land's
suitability to agriculture, the degree or development of the slope, etc., the conflict shall
be resolved by a composite team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall jointly
conduct further investigation. The team's findings shall be binding on both DAR and LBP.
After the field investigation, the DAR Municipal Office shall prepare the Field
Investigation Report and Land Use Map, a copy of which shall be furnished the
landowner "by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with return
card." Another copy of the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week
in the municipal or barangay halls where the property is located.
Clearly then, the notice requirements under the CARL are not confined to the Notice of
Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. They also include the Notice of Coverage
first laid down in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A.O.
No. 9, Series of 1990 and DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. This Notice of Coverage does
not merely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that
he is entitled to exercise his retention right; it also notifies him, pursuant to DAR A.O. No.
9, Series of 1990, that a public hearing, shall be conducted where he and representatives
of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field
investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent matters. Under DAR A.O. No. 1,
Series of 1993, the Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field
investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the other
representatives may be present.
B. The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad
In the case at bar, respondent DAR claims that it, through MARO Leopoldo C. Lejano, sent
a letter of invitation entitled "Invitation to Parties" dated September 29, 1989 to
petitioner corporation, through Jaime Pimentel, the administrator of Hacienda Palico. 57
The invitation was received on the same day it was sent as indicated by a signature and
the date received at the bottom left corner of said invitation. With regard to Hacienda
Banilad, respondent DAR claims that Jaime Pimentel, administrator also of Hacienda
Banilad, was notified and sent an invitation to the conference. Pimentel actually
attended the conference on September 21, 1989 and signed the Minutes of the meeting
on behalf of petitioner corporation. 58 The Minutes was also signed by the
representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries. 59 No letter of invitation
was sent or conference meeting held with respect to Hacienda Caylaway because it was
subject to a Voluntary Offer to Sell to respondent DAR. 60
When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), sent to
the various parties the Notice of Coverage and invitation to the conference, DAR A.O. No.
12, Series of 1989 was already in effect more than a month earlier. The Operating
Procedure in DAR Administrative Order No. 12 does not specify how notices or letters of
invitation shall be sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, the LBP, the
farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties. The procedure in the sending of these
notices is important to comply with the requisites of due process especially when the
owner, as in this case, is a juridical entity. Petitioner is a domestic corporation, 61 and
therefore, has a personality separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and
employees.
The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to be sent to the
landowner by "personal delivery or registered mail." Whether the landowner be a
natural or juridical person to whose address the Notice may be sent by personal delivery
or registered mail, the law does not distinguish. The DAR Administrative Orders also do
not distinguish. In the proceedings before the DAR, the distinction between natural and
juridical persons in the sending of notices may be found in the Revised Rules of
Procedure of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Service of pleadings before the
DARAB is governed by Section 6, Rule V of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
Notices and pleadings are served on private domestic corporations or partnerships in the
following manner:
Sec. 6. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation or Partnership. If the defendant is
a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly
registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or
any of its directors or partners.
Similarly, the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, in Section 13, Rule 14 provides:
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. If the defendant is
a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly
registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or
any of its directors.
Summonses, pleadings and notices in cases against a private domestic corporation
before the DARAB and the regular courts are served on the president, manager,
secretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors. These persons are those through whom
the private domestic corporation or partnership is capable of action. 62
Jaime Pimentel is not the president, manager, secretary, cashier or
director of petitioner corporation. Is he, as administrator of the two
Haciendas, considered an agent of the corporation?
The purpose of all rules for service of process on a corporation is to make
it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and proper
notice in an action against it. 63 Service must be made on a
representative so integrated with the corporation as to make it a priori
supposable that he will realize his responsibilities and know what he
should do with any legal papers served on him, 64 and bring home to the
corporation notice of the filing of the action. 65 Petitioner's evidence
does not show the official duties of Jaime Pimentel as administrator of
petitioner's haciendas. The evidence does not indicate whether
Pimentel's duties is so integrated with the corporation that he would
immediately realize his responsibilities and know what he should do with
any legal papers served on him. At the time the notices were sent and
the preliminary conference conducted, petitioner's principal place of
business was listed in respondent DAR's records as "Soriano Bldg., Plaza
Cervantes, Manila," 66 and "7th Flr. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg., 101 Aguirre
St., Makati, Metro Manila." 67 Pimentel did not hold office at the
principal place of business of petitioner. Neither did he exercise his
functions in Plaza Cervantes, Manila nor in Cacho-Gonzales Bldg., Makati,
Metro Manila. He performed his official functions and actually resided in
the haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas, a place over two hundred
kilometers away from Metro Manila.
Curiously, respondent DAR had information of the address of petitioner's
principal place of business. The Notices of Acquisition over Haciendas
Palico and Banilad were addressed to petitioner at its offices in Manila
and Makati. These Notices were sent barely three to four months after
Pimentel was notified of the preliminary conference. 68 Why respondent
DAR chose to notify Pimentel instead of the officers of the corporation
was not explained by the said respondent.
Nevertheless, assuming that Pimentel was an agent of petitioner
corporation, and the notices and letters of invitation were validly served
on petitioner through him, there is no showing that Pimentel himself
was duly authorized to attend the conference meeting with the MARO,
BARC and LBP representatives and farmer beneficiaries for purposes of
compulsory acquisition of petitioner's landholdings. Even respondent
DAR's evidence does not indicate this authority. On the contrary,
petitioner claims that it had no knowledge of the letter-invitation, hence,
could not have given Pimentel the authority to bind it to whatever
matters were discussed or agreed upon by the parties at the preliminary
conference or public hearing. Notably, one year after Pimentel was
informed of the preliminary conference, DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990
was issued and this required that the Notice of Coverage must be sent
"to the landowner concerned or his duly authorized representative." 69
Assuming further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP coverage
of its haciendas, the areas found actually subject to CARP were not
properly identified before they were taken over by respondent DAR.
Respondents insist that the lands were identified because they are all
registered property and the technical description in their respective titles
specifies their metes and bounds. Respondents admit at the same time,
however, that not all areas in the haciendas were placed under the
comprehensive agrarian reform program invariably by reason of
elevation or character or use of the land. 70
The acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of
the two haciendas, but only portions thereof. Hacienda Palico has an
area of 1,024 hectares and only 688.7576 hectares were targetted for
acquisition. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050 hectares but only
964.0688 hectares were subject to CARP. The haciendas are not entirely
agricultural lands. In fact, the various tax declarations over the haciendas
describe the landholdings as "sugarland," and "forest, sugarland, pasture
land, horticulture and woodland." 71
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the sending of the Notice of Acquisition
specifically requires that the land subject to land reform be first
identified. The two haciendas in the instant case cover vast tracts of
land. Before Notices of Acquisition were sent to petitioner, however, the
exact areas of the landholdings were not properly segregated and
delineated. Upon receipt of this notice, therefore, petitioner corporation
had no idea which portions of its estate were subject to compulsory
acquisition, which portions it could rightfully retain, whether these
retained portions were compact or contiguous, and which portions were
excluded from CARP coverage. Even respondent DAR's evidence does not
show that petitioner, through its duly authorized representative, was
notified of any ocular inspection and investigation that was to be
conducted by respondent DAR. Neither is there proof that petitioner was
given the opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in
those portions to be acquired compulsorily. The right of retention and
how this right is exercised, is guaranteed in Section 6 of the CARL, viz:
Sec. 6. Retention Limits. . . . .
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner; Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention
by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar
or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he
shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses
his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must
exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention.
Under the law, a landowner may retain not more than five hectares out of the total area
of his agricultural land subject to CARP. The right to choose the area to be retained,
which shall be compact or contiguous, pertains to the landowner. If the area chosen for
retention is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain on
the portion or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
comparable features.

C. The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway
Petitioner was also left in the dark with respect to Hacienda Caylaway, which was the
subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). The VOS in the instant case was made on May
6, 1988, 72 before the effectivity of R.A. 6657 on June 15, 1988. VOS transactions were
first governed by DAR Administrative Order No. 19, series of 1989, 73 and under this
order, all VOS filed before June 15, 1988 shall be heard and processed in accordance with
the procedure provided for in Executive Order No. 229, thus:
III. All VOS transactions which are now pending before the DAR and for which no
payment has been made shall be subject to the notice and hearing requirements
provided in Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989, dated 26 July 1989, Section II,
Subsection A, paragraph 3.
All VOS filed before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of the CARL, shall be heard and
processed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Executive Order No. 229.
xxx xxx xxx.
Sec. 9 of E.O. 229 provides:
Sec. 9. Voluntary Offer to Sell. The government shall purchase all agricultural lands it
deems productive and suitable to farmer cultivation voluntarily offered for sale to it at a
valuation determined in accordance with Section 6. Such transaction shall be exempt
from the payment of capital gains tax and other taxes and fees.
Executive Order 229 does not contain the procedure for the identification of private land
as set forth in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989. Section 5 of E.O. 229 merely reiterates the
procedure of acquisition in Section 16, R.A. 6657. In other words, the E.O. is silent as to
the procedure for the identification of the land, the notice of coverage and the
preliminary conference with the landowner, representatives of the BARC, the LBP and
farmer beneficiaries. Does this mean that these requirements may be dispensed with
regard to VOS filed before June 15, 1988? The answer is no.
First of all, the same E.O. 229, like Section 16 of the CARL, requires that the land,
landowner and beneficiaries of the land subject to agrarian reform be identified before
the notice of acquisition should be issued. 74 Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered
for sale in 1989. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by
four (4) titles. In two separate Resolutions both dated January 12, 1989, respondent DAR,
through the Regional Director, formally accepted the VOS over the two of these four
titles. 75 The land covered by two titles has an area of 855.5257 hectares, but only
648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage of R.A. 6657. 76 Petitioner claims it
does not know where these portions are located.
Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four
titles were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied
participation therein, The results of the survey and the land valuation summary report,
however, do not indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and
received by petitioner or its duly authorized representative. 77 To reiterate, Executive
Order No. 229 does not lay down the operating procedure, much less the notice
requirements, before the VOS is accepted by respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner,
however, cannot be dispensed with. It is part of administrative due process and is an
essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to exercise, at the very least, his right
of retention guaranteed under the CARL.
III. The Conversion of the three Haciendas.
It is petitioner's claim that the three haciendas are not subject to agrarian reform
because they have been declared for tourism, not agricultural
purposes. 78 In 1975, then President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1520 declaring the
municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas a tourist zone. Lands in Nasugbu, including the
subject haciendas, were allegedly reclassified as non-agricultural 13 years before the
effectivity of R. A. No. 6657. 79 In 1993, the Regional Director for Region IV of the
Department of Agriculture certified that the haciendas are not feasible and sound for
agricultural development. 80 On March 20, 1992, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1520,
the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas adopted Resolution No. 19 reclassifying
certain areas of Nasugbu as non-agricultural. 81 This Resolution approved Municipal
Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1992, the Revised Zoning Ordinance of Nasugbu 82 which
zoning ordinance was based on a Land Use Plan for Planning Areas for New Development
allegedly prepared by the University of the Philippines. 83 Resolution No. 19 of the
Sangguniang Bayan was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas on
March 8, 1993. 84
Petitioner claims that proclamation No. 1520 was also upheld by respondent DAR in 1991
when it approved conversion of 1,827 hectares in Nasugbu into a tourist area known as
the Batulao Resort Complex, and 13.52 hectares in Barangay Caylaway as within the
potential tourist belt. 85 Petitioner present evidence before us that these areas are
adjacent to the haciendas subject of this petition, hence, the haciendas should likewise
be converted. Petitioner urges this Court to take cognizance of the conversion
proceedings and rule accordingly. 6
We do not agree. Respondent DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of
petitioner's landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over
petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-
agricultural. The agency charged with the mandate of approving or disapproving
applications for conversion is the DAR.
At the time petitioner filed its application for conversion, the Rules of Procedure
governing the processing and approval of applications for land use conversion was the
DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 1990. Under this A.O., the application for conversion is filed
with the MARO where the property is located. The MARO reviews the application and its
supporting documents and conducts field investigation and ocular inspection of the
property. The findings of the MARO are subject to review and evaluation by the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). The PARO may conduct further field
investigation and submit a supplemental report together with his recommendation to
the Regional Agrarian Reform Officer (RARO) who shall review the same. For lands less
than five hectares, the RARO shall approve or disapprove applications for conversion. For
lands exceeding five hectares, the RARO shall evaluate the PARO Report and forward the
records and his report to the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs. Applications over areas
exceeding fifty hectares are approved or disapproved by the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform.
The DAR's mandate over applications for conversion was first laid down in Section 4 (j)
and Section 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987 and reiterated in the CARL
and Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President. The
DAR's jurisdiction over applications for conversion is provided as follows:
A. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to "approve or
disapprove applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of
agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses," pursuant to Section 4 (j) of
Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987.
B. Sec. 5 (l) of E.O. 129-A, Series of 1987, vests in the DAR, exclusive authority to
approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands for
residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses.
C. Sec. 65 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988, likewise empowers the DAR to authorize under certain
conditions, the conversion of agricultural lands.
D. Sec. 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the
President, provides that "action on applications for land use conversion on
individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of the DAR, which shall
utilize as its primary reference, documents on the comprehensive land use plans
and accompanying ordinances passed upon and approved by the local
government units concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy,
pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 and E.O. No. 129-A. 87
Applications for conversion were initially governed by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of
1990 entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agricultural Lands and Non-Agricultural Uses," and DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of
1990 entitled "Rules of Procedure Governing the Processing and Approval of
Applications for Land Use Conversion." These A.O.'s and other implementing
guidelines, including Presidential issuances and national policies related to land
use conversion have been consolidated in DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 1997. Under
this recent issuance, the guiding principle in land use conversion is:
to preserve prime agricultural lands for food production while, at the same time,
recognizing the need of the other sectors of society (housing, industry and
commerce) for land, when coinciding with the objectives of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law to promote social justice, industrialization and the optimum
use of land as a national resource for public welfare. 88
"Land Use" refers to the manner of utilization of land, including its allocation,
development and management. "Land Use Conversion" refers to the act or
process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some
other use as approved by the DAR. 89 The conversion of agricultural land to uses
other than agricultural requires field investigation and conferences with the
occupants of the land. They involve factual findings and highly technical matters
within the special training and expertise of the DAR. DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of
1997 lays down with specificity how the DAR must go about its task. This time,
the field investigation is not conducted by the MARO but by a special task force,
known as the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI-
DAR Central Office). The procedure is that once an application for conversion is
filed, the CLUPPI prepares the Notice of Posting. The MARO only posts the notice
and thereafter issues a certificate to the fact of posting. The CLUPPI conducts the
field investigation and dialogues with the applicants and the farmer beneficiaries
to ascertain the information necessary for the processing of the application. The
Chairman of the CLUPPI deliberates on the merits of the investigation report and
recommends the appropriate action. This recommendation is transmitted to the
Regional Director, thru the Undersecretary, or Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
Applications involving more than fifty hectares are approved or disapproved by
the Secretary. The procedure does not end with the Secretary, however. The
Order provides that the decision of the Secretary may be appealed to the Office
of the President or the Court of Appeals, as the case may be, viz:
Appeal from the decision of the Undersecretary shall be made to the Secretary,
and from the Secretary to the Office of the President or the Court of Appeals as
the case may be. The mode of appeal/motion for reconsideration, and the
appeal fee, from Undersecretary to the Office of the Secretary shall be the same
as that of the Regional Director to the Office of the Secretary. 90
Indeed, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate
unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. 91
Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for
conversion, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the
matter. The power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway
are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the CARL lies with the
DAR, not with this Court.
Finally, we stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the
requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court
the power to nullify the CLOA's already issued to the farmer beneficiaries. To
assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to
run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its
procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. In Hacienda Palico alone,
CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in 1993. 92 Since then until the
present, these farmers have been cultivating their lands. 93 It goes against the
basic precepts of justice, fairness and equity to deprive these people, through no
fault of their own, of the land they till. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the
property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted in part and the acquisition
proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure
to observe due process therein. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in
this decision and the applicable administrative procedure, the case is hereby
remanded to respondent DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and
determination of petitioner's application for conversion.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 170346 March 12, 2007
HEIRS OF NICOLAS JUGALBOT, Represented by LEONILA B. JUGALBOT, Petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF VIRGINIA A. ROA, Represented by LOLITA R. GOROSPE,
Administratrix, Respondents.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Petitioners, Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot, represented by their attorney-in-fact Leonila
Jugalbot, assail the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated October 19, 2005 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 81823 where the petitioners title to the disputed property, as evidenced by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. E-103, was cancelled and the previous title, TCT No.
T-11543, was reinstated in the name of Virginia A. Roa. The appellate court reversed the
Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) Central Office in DARAB Case No. 7966, affirming the Decision4 of the Provincial
Adjudicator and the Order5 denying the motion for reconsideration in DARAB Case No. X
(06-1358) filed in Misamis Oriental, for Cancellation of TCT No. E-103, Recovery of
Possession and Damages.
On September 28, 1997, an Emancipation Patent (EP) was issued to Nicolas Jugalbot
based on the latters claim that he was the tenant of Lot 2180-C of the Subdivision plan
(LRC) TSD-10465, subject property of the case at bar, with an area of 6,229 square
meters, located at Barangay Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City. The subject property was
registered in the name of Virginia A. Roa under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
11543, the same being issued on April 1, 1970 in the name of "Virginia A. Roa married to
Pedro N. Roa." The property was originally registered in the name of Marcelino Cabili
from whom Virginia A. Roa purchased the same sometime in 1966.6
Nicolas Jugalbot alleged that he was a tenant of the property continuously since the
1950s. On a Certification dated January 8, 1988 and issued by Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) Team Leader Eduardo Maandig, the subject property was declared to be
tenanted as of October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to rice and corn. On March 1,
1988, the Emancipation Patent was registered with the Register of Deeds and Nicolas
Jugalbot was issued TCT No. E-103.7
On August 10, 1998, the heirs of Virginia A. Roa, herein private respondents, filed before
the DARAB Provincial Office of Misamis Oriental a Complaint for Cancellation of Title (TCT
No. E-103), Recovery of Possession and Damages against Nicolas Jugalbot, docketed as
DARAB Case No. X (06-1358).8
On October 23, 1998, a Decision was rendered by the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator
dismissing private respondents complaint and upholding the validity of the
Emancipation Patent. Private respondents motion for reconsideration was denied.9
On appeal, the DARAB Central Office affirmed the Provincial Adjudicators decision on
the sole ground that private respondents right to contest the validity of Nicolas
Jugalbots title was barred by prescription. It held that an action to invalidate a certificate
of title on the ground of fraud prescribes after the expiration of one year from the decree
of registration.10
On November 10, 2003, the DARAB denied private respondents motion for
reconsideration,11 hence they filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals
which was granted. The appellate court reversed the Decision and Resolution of the
DARAB Central Office on four grounds: (1) the absence of a tenancy relationship; (2) lack
of notice to Virginia Roa by the DAR; (3) the area of the property which was less than one
hectare and deemed swampy, rainfed and kangkong-producing; and (4) the classification
of the subject property as residential, which is outside the coverage of Presidential
Decree No. 27.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The sole issue for determination is whether a tenancy relationship exists between
petitioners Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot, and private respondents, Heirs of Virginia A. Roa,
under Presidential Decree No. 27. Simply stated, are petitioners de jure tenants of
private respondents?
As clearly laid down in Qua v. Court of Appeals12 and subsequently in Benavidez v. Court
of Appeals,13 the doctrine is well-settled that the allegation that an agricultural tenant
tilled the land in question does not automatically make the case an agrarian dispute. It is
necessary to first establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between the party
litigants. The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy
relationship: (a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (b) the subject matter is
agricultural land; (c) there is consent; (d) the purpose is agricultural production; (e) there
is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) there is a sharing of harvests between the
parties.14
Valencia v. Court of Appeals15 further affirms the doctrine that a tenancy relationship
cannot be presumed. Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to
security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the
claimant to security of tenure. There must be evidence to prove the allegation that an
agricultural tenant tilled the land in question. Hence, a perusal of the records and
documents is in order to determine whether there is substantial evidence to prove the
allegation that a tenancy relationship does exist between petitioner and private
respondents. The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is
intent.16
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does
upon the land. It is also a legal relationship, as ruled in Isidro v. Court of Appeals.17 The
intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written
agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even
more important.18
Petitioners allege that they are bona fide tenants of private respondents under
Presidential Decree No. 27. Private respondents deny this, citing inter alia, that Virginia
A. Roa was not given a notice of coverage of the property subject matter of this case;
that Virginia A. Roa and the private respondents did not have any tenant on the same
property; that the property allegedly covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 was
residential land; that the lot was paraphernal property of Virginia A. Roa; and the
landholding was less than seven (7) hectares.
The petition is devoid of merit.
The petitioners are not de jure tenants of private respondents under Presidential Decree
No. 27 due to the absence of the essential requisites that establish a tenancy relationship
between them.
Firstly, the taking of subject property was done in violation of constitutional due process.
The Court of Appeals was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due
process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to
the proper party. The records show that notices were erroneously addressed and sent in
the name of Pedro N. Roa who was not the owner, hence, not the proper party in the
instant case. The ownership of the property, as can be gleaned from the records, pertains
to Virginia A. Roa. Notice should have been therefore served on her, and not Pedro N.
Roa.
Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals19 held that the presumption under civil law that all
property of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership applies only when there is
proof that the property was acquired during the marriage. Otherwise stated, proof of
acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the
presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.20 In Spouses Estonina, petitioners
were unable to present any proof that the property in question was acquired during the
marriage of Santiago and Consuelo Garcia. The fact that when the title over the land in
question was issued, Santiago Garcia was already married to Consuelo as evidenced by
the registration in the name of "Santiago Garcia married to Consuelo Gaza," does not
suffice to establish the conjugal nature of the property.21
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the phrase "married to"
appearing in certificates of title is no proof that the properties were acquired during the
spouses coverture and are merely descriptive of the marital status of the person
indicated therein. The clear import from the certificate of title is that Virginia is the
owner of the property, the same having been registered in her name alone, and being
"married to Pedro N. Roa" was merely descriptive of her civil status.22 Since no proof
was adduced that the property was acquired during the marriage of Pedro and Virginia
Roa, the fact that when the title over the land in question was issued, Virginia Roa was
already married to Pedro N. Roa as evidenced by the registration in the name of "Virginia
A. Roa married to Pedro N. Roa," does not suffice to establish the conjugal nature of the
property.
In addition, the defective notice sent to Pedro N. Roa was followed by a DAR certification
signed by team leader Eduardo Maandig on January 8, 1988 stating that the subject
property was tenanted as of October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to rice and corn
despite the fact that there was no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding
investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he
was a tenant of the property. The absence of such ocular inspection or on-site fact-
finding investigation and report likewise deprives Virginia A. Roa of her right to property
through the denial of due process.
By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals23 applies to the case at bar since there
was likewise a violation of due process in the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law when the petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and
investigation to be conducted by the DAR before acquisition of the property was to be
undertaken. Neither was there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at least
choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired.24 Both in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and Presidential Decree No. 27, the right of
retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed by law.
Since land acquisition under either Presidential Decree No. 27 and the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law govern the extraordinary method of expropriating private property,
the law must be strictly construed. Faithful compliance with legal provisions, especially
those which relate to the procedure for acquisition of expropriated lands should
therefore be observed. In the instant case, no proper notice was given to Virginia A. Roa
by the DAR. Neither did the DAR conduct an ocular inspection and investigation. Hence,
any act committed by the DAR or any of its agencies that results from its failure to
comply with the proper procedure for expropriation of land is a violation of
constitutional due process and should be deemed arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Secondly, there is no concrete evidence on record sufficient to establish that Nicolas
Jugalbot or the petitioners personally cultivated the property under question or that
there was sharing of harvests, except for their self-serving statements. Clearly, there is no
showing that Nicolas Jugalbot or any of his farm household cultivated the land in
question. No proof was presented except for their self-serving statements that they were
tenants of Virginia A. Roa. Independent evidence, aside from their self-serving
statements, is needed to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvests, or consent of
the landowner, and establish a tenancy relationship.
Furthermore, in the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, it was undisputed that
Nicolas Jugalbot was a soldier in the United States Army from June 15, 1946 to April 27,
194925 and upon retirement, migrated to the United States and returned to the
Philippines sometime in 1998.26 It was established that Jugalbots wife Miguela and
daughter Lilia P. Jugalbot are residents of 17623 Grayland Avenue, Artesia, California,
U.S.A., where Nicolas Jugalbot spent his retirement.27 Thus, the DAR, in particular its
team leader Eduardo Maandig, haphazardly issued a certification dated January 8, 1988
that the subject property was tenanted as of October 21, 1972 by Nicolas Jugalbot and
primarily devoted to rice and corn without the benefit of any on-site fact-finding
investigation and report. This certification became the basis of the emancipation patent
and subsequently, TCT No. E-103 issued on March 1, 1988, which was less than two
months from the issuance of the unsubstantiated DAR certification. Coincidentally,
October 21, 1972 is the date Presidential Decree No. 27 was signed into law.
Neither was there any evidence that the landowner, Virginia A. Roa, freely gave her
consent, whether expressly or impliedly, to establish a tenancy relationship over her
paraphernal property.
As declared in Castillo v. Court of Appeals,28 absent the element of personal cultivation,
one cannot be a tenant even if he is so designated in the written agreement of the
parties.29
In Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,30 we ruled that the respondents self-serving
statements regarding their tenancy relations could not establish the claimed relationship.
The fact alone of working on anothers landholding does not raise a presumption of the
existence of agricultural tenancy. Substantial evidence does not only entail the presence
of a mere scintilla of evidence in order that the fact of sharing can be established; there
must be concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove the element of
sharing.31 We further observed in Berenguer, Jr.:
With respect to the assertion made by respondent Mamerto Venasquez that he is not
only a tenant of a portion of the petitioners landholding but also an overseer of the
entire property subject of this controversy, there is no evidence on record except his own
claim in support thereof. The witnesses who were presented in court in an effort to
bolster Mamertos claim merely testified that they saw him working on the petitioners
landholding. More importantly, his own witnesses even categorically stated that they did
not know the relationship of Mamerto and the petitioner in relation to the said
landholding. x x x The fact alone of working on anothers landholding does not raise a
presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. Other factors must be taken into
consideration like compensation in the form of lease rentals or a share in the produce of
the landholding involved. (Underscoring supplied)
xxxx
In the absence of any substantial evidence from which it can be satisfactorily inferred
that a sharing arrangement is present between the contending parties, we, as a court of
last resort, are duty-bound to correct inferences made by the courts below which are
manifestly mistaken or absurd. x x x
Without the essential elements of consent and sharing, no tenancy relationship can exist
between the petitioner and the private respondents. (Underscoring supplied)32
Bejasa v. Court of Appeals33 likewise held that to prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or
any other evidence must be presented as self-serving statements are deemed
inadequate. Proof must always be adduced.34 In addition
The Bejasas admit that prior to 1984, they had no contact with Candelaria. They
acknowledge that Candelaria could argue that she did not know of Malabanans
arrangement with them. True enough Candelaria disavowed any knowledge that the
Bejasas during Malabanans lease possessed the land. However, the Bejasas claim that
this defect was cured when Candelaria agreed to lease the land to the Bejasas for
P20,000.00 per annum, when Malabanan died in 1983. We do not agree. In a tenancy
agreement, consideration should be in the form of harvest sharing. Even assuming that
Candelaria agreed to lease it out to the Bejasas for P20,000 per year, such agreement did
not create a tenancy relationship, but a mere civil law lease.35
Thirdly, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. In
Caballes v. Department of Agrarian Reform,36 we restated the well-settled rule that all
the requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties
and the absence of one or more requisites does not make the alleged tenant a de facto
tenant as contradistinguished from a de jure tenant. This is so because unless a person
has established his status as a de jure tenant he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is
he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy
laws.37 The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy laws may be invoked only by
tenants de jure, not by those who are not true and lawful tenants.38
As reiterated in Qua,39 the fact that the source of livelihood of the alleged tenants is not
derived from the lots they are allegedly tenanting is indicative of non-agricultural
tenancy relationship.40
Finally, it is readily apparent in this case that the property under dispute is residential
property and not agricultural property. Zoning Certification No. 98-084 issued on
September 3, 1998 clearly shows that the subject property Lot 2180-C covered by TCT
No. T-11543 with an area of 6,229 square meters and owned by Virginia A. Roa is located
within the Residential 2 District in accordance with paragraph (b), Section 9, Article IV of
Zoning Ordinance No. 880, Series of 1979 issued by the City Planning and Development
Office of Cagayan de Oro City.41 To bolster the residential nature of the property, it must
also be noted that no Barangay Agrarian Reform Council was organized or appointed by
the DAR existed in Barangay Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, as all lands have been
classified as residential or commercial, as certified by Barangay Captain of Lapasan.42
In Gonzales v. Court of Appeals,43 we held that an agricultural leasehold cannot be
established on land which has ceased to be devoted to cultivation or farming because of
its conversion into a residential subdivision. Petitioners were not agricultural lessees or
tenants of the land before its conversion into a residential subdivision in 1955. Not
having been dispossessed by the conversion of the land into a residential subdivision,
they may not claim a right to reinstatement.44
This Court in Spouses Tiongson v. Court of Appeals45 succinctly ruled that the land
surrounded by a residential zone is always classified as residential. The areas surrounding
the disputed six hectares are now dotted with residences and, apparently, only this case
has kept the property in question from being developed together with the rest of the lot
to which it belongs. The fact that a caretaker plants rice or corn on a residential lot in the
middle of a residential subdivision in the heart of a metropolitan area cannot by any
strained interpretation of law convert it into agricultural land and subject it to the
agrarian reform program.46
Despite the apparent lack of evidence establishing a tenancy relationship between
petitioners and private respondents, the DARAB improperly recognized the existence of
such a relationship in complete disregard of the essential requisites under Presidential
Decree No. 27. DARAB committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in issuing an Emancipation Patent to Nicolas Jugalbot.
Once again, Benavidez v. Court of Appeals47 is illustrative in its pronouncement that an
alleged agricultural tenant tilling the land does not automatically make the case an
agrarian dispute which calls for the application of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the
assumption of jurisdiction by the DARAB. It is absolutely necessary to first establish the
existence of a tenancy relationship between the party litigants. In Benavidez, there was
no showing that there existed any tenancy relationship between petitioner and private
respondent. Thus, the case fell outside the coverage of the Agricultural Tenancy Act;
consequently, it was the Municipal Trial Court and not the DARAB which had jurisdiction
over the controversy between petitioner and private respondent.48
Verily, Morta, Sr. v. Occidental49 ruled that for DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case,
there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy
agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all the
indispensable elements of a landlord-tenant relationship:
The regional trial court ruled that the issue involved is tenancy-related that falls within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. It relied on the findings in DARAB Case No. 2413
that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan appears to be the lawful owner of the land and Jaime
Occidental was her recognized tenant. However, petitioner Morta claimed that he is the
owner of the land. Thus, there is even a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the
land, Josefina Opiana-Baraclan or petitioner Morta. The issue of ownership cannot be
settled by the DARAB since it is definitely outside its jurisdiction. Whatever findings made
by the DARAB regarding the ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle the
matter. The issue of ownership shall be resolved in a separate proceeding before the
appropriate trial court between the claimants thereof.50
At any rate, whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case cannot be
considered as tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the other requirements.
Assuming arguendo that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan is the owner, then the case is not
between the landowner and tenant. If, however, Morta is the landowner, Occidental
cannot claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and
Morta. Thus, for failure to comply with the above requisites, we conclude that the issue
involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB. 51
In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,52 the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform is limited to the following: (a) adjudication of all matters involving
implementation of agrarian reform; (b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure
related problems; and (c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or
readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial and other non-
agricultural uses.53
To recapitulate, petitioners are not de jure tenants of Virginia A. Roa, to which
Presidential Decree No. 27 is found to be inapplicable; hence, the DARAB has no
jurisdiction over this case. The DARAB not only committed a serious error in judgment,
which the Court of Appeals properly corrected, but the former likewise committed a
palpable error in jurisdiction which is contrary to law and jurisprudence. For all the
foregoing reasons, we affirm the appellate court decision and likewise hold that the
DARAB gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that
the subject matter of the present action is residential, and not agricultural, land, and that
all the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship were sorely lacking in the case at bar.
On one final note, it may not be amiss to stress that laws which have for their object the
preservation and maintenance of social justice are not only meant to favor the poor and
underprivileged. They apply with equal force to those who, notwithstanding their more
comfortable position in life, are equally deserving of protection from the courts. Social
justice is not a license to trample on the rights of the rich in the guise of defending the
poor, where no act of injustice or abuse is being committed against them.54
As the court of last resort, our bounden duty to protect the less privileged should not be
carried out to such an extent as to deny justice to landowners whenever truth and justice
happen to be on their side. For in the eyes of the Constitution and the statutes, EQUAL
JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW remains the bedrock principle by which our Republic abides.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 81823 promulgated on October 19, 2005 is AFFIRMED. The Register of Deeds of
Cagayan de Oro City is ordered to CANCEL Transfer Certificate of Title No. E-103 for
having been issued without factual and legal basis, and REINSTATE Transfer Certificate of
Title No. T-11543 in the name of Virginia A. Roa. The city Assessors Office of Cagayan de
Oro is likewise directed to CANCEL Tax Declaration No. 80551 issued to Nicolas Jugalbot
and RESTORE Tax Declaration No. 270922 in the name of Virginia Angcod Roa. The heirs
of Nicolas Jugalbot, represented by Leonila B. Jugalbot or any other person claiming a
right or interest to the disputed lot through the latters title are directed to VACATE the
premises thereof and peaceably turn over its possession to petitioners Heirs of Virginia
A. Roa, represented by Lolita R. Gorospe. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.
G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989
ARSENIO AL. ACUNA, NEWTON JISON, VICTORINO FERRARIS, DENNIS JEREZA,
HERMINIGILDO GUSTILO, PAULINO D. TOLENTINO and PLANTERS' COMMITTEE, INC.,
Victorias Mill District, Victorias, Negros Occidental, petitioners,
vs.
JOKER ARROYO, PHILIP E. JUICO and PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL,
respondents.
G.R. No. 79744 July 14, 1989
INOCENTES PABICO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. PHILIP E. JUICO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, HON.
JOKER ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, and Messrs.
SALVADOR TALENTO, JAIME ABOGADO, CONRADO AVANCENA and ROBERTO TAAY,
respondents.
G.R. No. 79777 July 14, 1989
NICOLAS S. MANAAY and AGUSTIN HERMANO, JR., petitioners,
vs.
HON. PHILIP ELLA JUICO, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, and LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
In ancient mythology, Antaeus was a terrible giant who blocked and challenged Hercules
for his life on his way to Mycenae after performing his eleventh labor. The two wrestled
mightily and Hercules flung his adversary to the ground thinking him dead, but Antaeus
rose even stronger to resume their struggle. This happened several times to Hercules'
increasing amazement. Finally, as they continued grappling, it dawned on Hercules that
Antaeus was the son of Gaea and could never die as long as any part of his body was
touching his Mother Earth. Thus forewarned, Hercules then held Antaeus up in the air,
beyond the reach of the sustaining soil, and crushed him to death.
Mother Earth. The sustaining soil. The giver of life, without whose invigorating touch
even the powerful Antaeus weakened and died.
The cases before us are not as fanciful as the foregoing tale. But they also tell of the
elemental forces of life and death, of men and women who, like Antaeus need the
sustaining strength of the precious earth to stay alive.
"Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the
distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is more than a slogan.
Through the brooding centuries, it has become a battle-cry dramatizing the increasingly
urgent demand of the dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as their place in the sun.
Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social justice to
"insure the well-being and economic security of all the people," 1 especially the less
privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal adding specifically that "the
State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private
property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits." 2 Significantly, there was
also the specific injunction to "formulate and implement an agrarian reform program
aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil." 3
The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these sentiments, it
also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights,
containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere provisions for the uplift of the common
people. These include a call in the following words for the adoption by the State of an
agrarian reform program:
SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share
of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention
limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining
retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall
further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code,
had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line
with the above-stated principles. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later
by P.D. No. 27, which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to
provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-
farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners.
The people power revolution of 1986 did not change and indeed even energized the
thrust for agrarian reform. Thus, on July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and
providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the
manner of their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential
Proclamation No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and
E.O. No. 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation.
Subsequently, with its formal organization, the revived Congress of the Philippines took
over legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations, including
extensive public hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The result,
after almost a year of spirited debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino
signed on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned
enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not
inconsistent with its provisions. 4
The above-captioned cases have been consolidated because they involve common legal
questions, including serious challenges to the constitutionality of the several measures
mentioned above. They will be the subject of one common discussion and resolution,
The different antecedents of each case will require separate treatment, however, and will
first be explained hereunder.
G.R. No. 79777
Squarely raised in this petition is the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and
229, and R.A. No. 6657.
The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned
by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland worked by four
tenants and owned by petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. The tenants were declared full
owners of these lands by E.O. No. 228 as qualified farmers under P.D. No. 27.
The petitioners are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter
alia of separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional
limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use without just
compensation.
They contend that President Aquino usurped legislative power when she promulgated
E.O. No. 228. The said measure is invalid also for violation of Article XIII, Section 4, of the
Constitution, for failure to provide for retention limits for small landowners. Moreover, it
does not conform to Article VI, Section 25(4) and the other requisites of a valid
appropriation.
In connection with the determination of just compensation, the petitioners argue that
the same may be made only by a court of justice and not by the President of the
Philippines. They invoke the recent cases of EPZA v. Dulay 5 and Manotok v. National
Food Authority. 6 Moreover, the just compensation contemplated by the Bill of Rights is
payable in money or in cash and not in the form of bonds or other things of value.
In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land, the executive order also
deprives the petitioners of their property rights as protected by due process. The equal
protection clause is also violated because the order places the burden of solving the
agrarian problems on the owners only of agricultural lands. No similar obligation is
imposed on the owners of other properties.
The petitioners also maintain that in declaring the beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 to be
the owners of the lands occupied by them, E.O. No. 228 ignored judicial prerogatives and
so violated due process. Worse, the measure would not solve the agrarian problem
because even the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.
In his Comment, the Solicitor General stresses that P.D. No. 27 has already been upheld
in the earlier cases of Chavez v. Zobel, 7 Gonzales v. Estrella, 8 and Association of Rice
and Corn Producers of the Philippines, Inc. v. The National Land Reform Council. 9 The
determination of just compensation by the executive authorities conformably to the
formula prescribed under the questioned order is at best initial or preliminary only. It
does not foreclose judicial intervention whenever sought or warranted. At any rate, the
challenge to the order is premature because no valuation of their property has as yet
been made by the Department of Agrarian Reform. The petitioners are also not proper
parties because the lands owned by them do not exceed the maximum retention limit of
7 hectares.
Replying, the petitioners insist they are proper parties because P.D. No. 27 does not
provide for retention limits on tenanted lands and that in any event their petition is a
class suit brought in behalf of landowners with landholdings below 24 hectares. They
maintain that the determination of just compensation by the administrative authorities is
a final ascertainment. As for the cases invoked by the public respondent, the
constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 was merely assumed in Chavez, while what was decided in
Gonzales was the validity of the imposition of martial law.
In the amended petition dated November 22, 1588, it is contended that P.D. No. 27, E.O.
Nos. 228 and 229 (except Sections 20 and 21) have been impliedly repealed by R.A. No.
6657. Nevertheless, this statute should itself also be declared unconstitutional because it
suffers from substantially the same infirmities as the earlier measures.
A petition for intervention was filed with leave of court on June 1, 1988 by Vicente Cruz,
owner of a 1. 83- hectare land, who complained that the DAR was insisting on the
implementation of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 despite a compromise agreement he had
reached with his tenant on the payment of rentals. In a subsequent motion dated April
10, 1989, he adopted the allegations in the basic amended petition that the above-
mentioned enactments have been impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 6657.
G.R. No. 79310
The petitioners herein are landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District,
Victorias, Negros Occidental. Co-petitioner Planters' Committee, Inc. is an organization
composed of 1,400 planter-members. This petition seeks to prohibit the implementation
of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229.
The petitioners claim that the power to provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to Congress and not the President.
Although they agree that the President could exercise legislative power until the
Congress was convened, she could do so only to enact emergency measures during the
transition period. At that, even assuming that the interim legislative power of the
President was properly exercised, Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 would still have to be
annulled for violating the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process,
and equal protection.
They also argue that under Section 2 of Proc. No. 131 which provides:
Agrarian Reform Fund.-There is hereby created a special fund, to be known as the
Agrarian Reform Fund, an initial amount of FIFTY BILLION PESOS (P50,000,000,000.00) to
cover the estimated cost of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program from 1987 to
1992 which shall be sourced from the receipts of the sale of the assets of the Asset
Privatization Trust and Receipts of sale of ill-gotten wealth received through the
Presidential Commission on Good Government and such other sources as government
may deem appropriate. The amounts collected and accruing to this special fund shall be
considered automatically appropriated for the purpose authorized in this Proclamation
the amount appropriated is in futuro, not in esse. The money needed to cover the cost of
the contemplated expropriation has yet to be raised and cannot be appropriated at this
time.
Furthermore, they contend that taking must be simultaneous with payment of just
compensation as it is traditionally understood, i.e., with money and in full, but no such
payment is contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O. No. 229. On the contrary, Section 6,
thereof provides that the Land Bank of the Philippines "shall compensate the landowner
in an amount to be established by the government, which shall be based on the owner's
declaration of current fair market value as provided in Section 4 hereof, but subject to
certain controls to be defined and promulgated by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council." This compensation may not be paid fully in money but in any of several modes
that may consist of part cash and part bond, with interest, maturing periodically, or direct
payment in cash or bond as may be mutually agreed upon by the beneficiary and the
landowner or as may be prescribed or approved by the PARC.
The petitioners also argue that in the issuance of the two measures, no effort was made
to make a careful study of the sugar planters' situation. There is no tenancy problem in
the sugar areas that can justify the application of the CARP to them. To the extent that
the sugar planters have been lumped in the same legislation with other farmers,
although they are a separate group with problems exclusively their own, their right to
equal protection has been violated.
A motion for intervention was filed on August 27,1987 by the National Federation of
Sugarcane Planters (NASP) which claims a membership of at least 20,000 individual sugar
planters all over the country. On September 10, 1987, another motion for intervention
was filed, this time by Manuel Barcelona, et al., representing coconut and riceland
owners. Both motions were granted by the Court.
NASP alleges that President Aquino had no authority to fund the Agrarian Reform
Program and that, in any event, the appropriation is invalid because of uncertainty in the
amount appropriated. Section 2 of Proc. No. 131 and Sections 20 and 21 of E.O. No. 229
provide for an initial appropriation of fifty billion pesos and thus specifies the minimum
rather than the maximum authorized amount. This is not allowed. Furthermore, the
stated initial amount has not been certified to by the National Treasurer as actually
available.
Two additional arguments are made by Barcelona, to wit, the failure to establish by clear
and convincing evidence the necessity for the exercise of the powers of eminent domain,
and the violation of the fundamental right to own property.
The petitioners also decry the penalty for non-registration of the lands, which is the
expropriation of the said land for an amount equal to the government assessor's
valuation of the land for tax purposes. On the other hand, if the landowner declares his
own valuation he is unjustly required to immediately pay the corresponding taxes on the
land, in violation of the uniformity rule.
In his consolidated Comment, the Solicitor General first invokes the presumption of
constitutionality in favor of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229. He also justifies the necessity
for the expropriation as explained in the "whereas" clauses of the Proclamation and
submits that, contrary to the petitioner's contention, a pilot project to determine the
feasibility of CARP and a general survey on the people's opinion thereon are not
indispensable prerequisites to its promulgation.
On the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar planters have failed to
show that they belong to a different class and should be differently treated. The
Comment also suggests the possibility of Congress first distributing public agricultural
lands and scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural lands later. From this
viewpoint, the petition for prohibition would be premature.
The public respondent also points out that the constitutional prohibition is against the
payment of public money without the corresponding appropriation. There is no rule that
only money already in existence can be the subject of an appropriation law. Finally, the
earmarking of fifty billion pesos as Agrarian Reform Fund, although denominated as an
initial amount, is actually the maximum sum appropriated. The word "initial" simply
means that additional amounts may be appropriated later when necessary.
On April 11, 1988, Prudencio Serrano, a coconut planter, filed a petition on his own
behalf, assailing the constitutionality of E.O. No. 229. In addition to the arguments
already raised, Serrano contends that the measure is unconstitutional because:
(1) Only public lands should be included in the CARP;
(2) E.O. No. 229 embraces more than one subject which is not expressed in the title;
(3) The power of the President to legislate was terminated on July 2, 1987; and
(4) The appropriation of a P50 billion special fund from the National Treasury did not
originate from the House of Representatives.
G.R. No. 79744
The petitioner alleges that the then Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform, in
violation of due process and the requirement for just compensation, placed his
landholding under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Certificates of Land Transfer
were subsequently issued to the private respondents, who then refused payment of
lease rentals to him.
On September 3, 1986, the petitioner protested the erroneous inclusion of his small
landholding under Operation Land transfer and asked for the recall and cancellation of
the Certificates of Land Transfer in the name of the private respondents. He claims that
on December 24, 1986, his petition was denied without hearing. On February 17, 1987,
he filed a motion for reconsideration, which had not been acted upon when E.O. Nos.
228 and 229 were issued. These orders rendered his motion moot and academic because
they directly effected the transfer of his land to the private respondents.
The petitioner now argues that:
(1) E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the President of the Philippines.
(2) The said executive orders are violative of the constitutional provision that no private
property shall be taken without due process or just compensation.
(3) The petitioner is denied the right of maximum retention provided for under the 1987
Constitution.
The petitioner contends that the issuance of E.0. Nos. 228 and 229 shortly before
Congress convened is anomalous and arbitrary, besides violating the doctrine of
separation of powers. The legislative power granted to the President under the Transitory
Provisions refers only to emergency measures that may be promulgated in the proper
exercise of the police power.
The petitioner also invokes his rights not to be deprived of his property without due
process of law and to the retention of his small parcels of riceholding as guaranteed
under Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution. He likewise argues that, besides denying
him just compensation for his land, the provisions of E.O. No. 228 declaring that:
Lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer-beneficiary after October 21, 1972
shall be considered as advance payment for the land.
is an unconstitutional taking of a vested property right. It is also his contention that the
inclusion of even small landowners in the program along with other landowners with
lands consisting of seven hectares or more is undemocratic.
In his Comment, the Solicitor General submits that the petition is premature because the
motion for reconsideration filed with the Minister of Agrarian Reform is still unresolved.
As for the validity of the issuance of E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, he argues that they were
enacted pursuant to Section 6, Article XVIII of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Constitution which reads:
The incumbent president shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first
Congress is convened.
On the issue of just compensation, his position is that when P.D. No. 27 was promulgated
on October 21. 1972, the tenant-farmer of agricultural land was deemed the owner of
the land he was tilling. The leasehold rentals paid after that date should therefore be
considered amortization payments.
In his Reply to the public respondents, the petitioner maintains that the motion he filed
was resolved on December 14, 1987. An appeal to the Office of the President would be
useless with the promulgation of E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, which in effect sanctioned the
validity of the public respondent's acts.
G.R. No. 78742
The petitioners in this case invoke the right of retention granted by P.D. No. 27 to owners
of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares as long as they are cultivating or
intend to cultivate the same. Their respective lands do not exceed the statutory limit but
are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such lands.
According to P.D. No. 316, which was promulgated in implementation of P.D. No. 27:
No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn shall be ejected
or removed from his farmholding until such time as the respective rights of the tenant-
farmers and the landowner shall have been determined in accordance with the rules and
regulations implementing P.D. No. 27.
The petitioners claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their
right of retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform has so far not issued the
implementing rules required under the above-quoted decree. They therefore ask the
Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to issue the said rules.
In his Comment, the public respondent argues that P.D. No. 27 has been amended by LOI
474 removing any right of retention from persons who own other agricultural lands of
more than 7 hectares in aggregate area or lands used for residential, commercial,
industrial or other purposes from which they derive adequate income for their family.
And even assuming that the petitioners do not fall under its terms, the regulations
implementing P.D. No. 27 have already been issued, to wit, the Memorandum dated July
10, 1975 (Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small Landowners, with an accompanying
Retention Guide Table), Memorandum Circular No. 11 dated April 21, 1978,
(Implementation Guidelines of LOI No. 474), Memorandum Circular No. 18-81 dated
December 29,1981 (Clarificatory Guidelines on Coverage of P.D. No. 27 and Retention by
Small Landowners), and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1985 (Providing for a
Cut-off Date for Landowners to Apply for Retention and/or to Protest the Coverage of
their Landholdings under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27). For failure to
file the corresponding applications for retention under these measures, the petitioners
are now barred from invoking this right.
The public respondent also stresses that the petitioners have prematurely initiated this
case notwithstanding the pendency of their appeal to the President of the Philippines.
Moreover, the issuance of the implementing rules, assuming this has not yet been done,
involves the exercise of discretion which cannot be controlled through the writ of
mandamus. This is especially true if this function is entrusted, as in this case, to a
separate department of the government.
In their Reply, the petitioners insist that the above-cited measures are not applicable to
them because they do not own more than seven hectares of agricultural land. Moreover,
assuming arguendo that the rules were intended to cover them also, the said measures
are nevertheless not in force because they have not been published as required by law
and the ruling of this Court in Tanada v. Tuvera. 10 As for LOI 474, the same is ineffective
for the additional reason that a mere letter of instruction could not have repealed the
presidential decree.
A conclusion, its only criterion will be the Constitution as God and its conscience give it the
Although holding neither purse nor sword and so regarded as the weakest of the three
departments of the government, the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the power to
annul the acts of either the legislative or the executive or of both when not conformable
to the fundamental law. This is the reason for what some quarters call the doctrine of
judicial supremacy. Even so, this power is not lightly assumed or readily exercised. The
doctrine of separation of powers imposes upon the courts a proper restraint, born of the
nature of their functions and of their respect for the other departments, in striking down
the acts of the legislative and the executive as unconstitutional. The policy, indeed, is a
blend of courtesy and caution. To doubt is to sustain. The theory is that before the act
was done or the law was enacted, earnest studies were made by Congress or the
President, or both, to insure that the Constitution would not be breached.
In addition, the Constitution itself lays down stringent conditions for a declaration of
unconstitutionality, requiring therefor the concurrence of a majority of the members of
the Supreme Court who took part in the deliberations and voted on the issue during
their session en banc. 11 And as established by judge made doctrine, the Court will
assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential
requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied. Thus, there must be
an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial
determination, the constitutional question must have been opportunely raised by the
proper party, and the resolution of the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision
of the case itself. 12
With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in the cases before
us, we hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners and intervenors because each of
them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the
acts or measures complained of. 13 And even if, strictly speaking, they are not covered by
the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement
and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional
questions raised.
In the first Emergency Powers Cases, 14 ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to
question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President Quirino
although they were invoking only an indirect and general interest shared in common with
the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they were not proper parties and
ruled that "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that
they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure." We have since then applied this exception in many other cases. 15
The other above-mentioned requisites have also been met in the present petitions.
In must be stressed that despite the inhibitions pressing upon the Court when
confronted with constitutional issues like the ones now before it, it will not hesitate to
declare a law or act invalid when it is convinced that this must be done. In arriving at this
light to probe its meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and political
considerations are irrelevancies that cannot influence its decision. Blandishment is as
ineffectual as intimidation.
For all the awesome power of the Congress and the Executive, the Court will not hesitate
to "make the hammer fall, and heavily," to use Justice Laurel's pithy language, where the
acts of these departments, or of any public official, betray the people's will as expressed
in the Constitution.
It need only be added, to borrow again the words of Justice Laurel, that
... when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert
any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an
act of the Legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and
to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument
secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed
"judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the
Constitution. 16
The cases before us categorically raise constitutional questions that this Court must
categorically resolve. And so we shall.

B power was then solely vested in the President of the Philippines, who embodied, as it
We proceed first to the examination of the preliminary issues before resolving the more
serious challenges to the constitutionality of the several measures involved in these
petitions.
The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his powers under
martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella and we find no reason to
modify or reverse it on that issue. As for the power of President Aquino to promulgate
Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, the same was authorized under Section 6 of the
Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, quoted above
The said measures were issued by President Aquino before July 27, 1987, when the
Congress of the Philippines was formally convened and took over legislative power from
her. They are not "midnight" enactments intended to pre-empt the legislature because
E.O. No. 228 was issued on July 17, 1987, and the other measures, i.e., Proc. No. 131 and
E.O. No. 229, were both issued on July 22, 1987. Neither is it correct to say that these
measures ceased to be valid when she lost her legislative power for, like any statute, they
continue to be in force unless modified or repealed by subsequent law or declared
invalid by the courts. A statute does not ipso facto become inoperative simply because of
the dissolution of the legislature that enacted it. By the same token, President Aquino's
loss of legislative power did not have the effect of invalidating all the measures enacted
by her when and as long as she possessed it.
Significantly, the Congress she is alleged to have undercut has not rejected but in fact
substantially affirmed the challenged measures and has specifically provided that they
shall be suppletory to R.A. No. 6657 whenever not inconsistent with its provisions. 17
Indeed, some portions of the said measures, like the creation of the P50 billion fund in
Section 2 of Proc. No. 131, and Sections 20 and 21 of E.O. No. 229, have been
incorporated by reference in the CARP Law. 18
That fund, as earlier noted, is itself being questioned on the ground that it does not
conform to the requirements of a valid appropriation as specified in the Constitution.
Clearly, however, Proc. No. 131 is not an appropriation measure even if it does provide
for the creation of said fund, for that is not its principal purpose. An appropriation law is
one the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize the release of public funds
from the treasury. 19 The creation of the fund is only incidental to the main objective of
the proclamation, which is agrarian reform.
It should follow that the specific constitutional provisions invoked, to wit, Section 24 and
Section 25(4) of Article VI, are not applicable. With particular reference to Section 24,
this obviously could not have been complied with for the simple reason that the House
of Representatives, which now has the exclusive power to initiate appropriation
measures, had not yet been convened when the proclamation was issued. The legislative
were, both houses of Congress.
The argument of some of the petitioners that Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be
invalidated because they do not provide for retention limits as required by Article XIII,
Section 4 of the Constitution is no longer tenable. R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such
limits now in Section 6 of the law, which in fact is one of its most controversial provisions.
This section declares:
Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or
retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall
vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity
produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the
landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of
the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15)
years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm;
Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further, That
original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as
they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The argument that E.O. No. 229 violates the constitutional requirement that a bill shall
have only one subject, to be expressed in its title, deserves only short attention. It is
settled that the title of the bill does not have to be a catalogue of its contents and will
suffice if the matters embodied in the text are relevant to each other and may be
inferred from the title. 20
The Court wryly observes that during the past dictatorship, every presidential issuance,
by whatever name it was called, had the force and effect of law because it came from
President Marcos. Such are the ways of despots. Hence, it is futile to argue, as the
petitioners do in G.R. No. 79744, that LOI 474 could not have repealed P.D. No. 27
because the former was only a letter of instruction. The important thing is that it was
issued by President Marcos, whose word was law during that time.
But for all their peremptoriness, these issuances from the President Marcos still had to
comply with the requirement for publication as this Court held in Tanada v. Tuvera. 21
Hence, unless published in the Official Gazette in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil
Code, they could not have any force and effect if they were among those enactments
successfully challenged in that case. LOI 474 was published, though, in the Official
Gazette dated November 29,1976.)
Finally, there is the contention of the public respondent in G.R. No. 78742 that the writ of
mandamus cannot issue to compel the performance of a discretionary act, especially by
a specific department of the government. That is true as a general proposition but is
subject to one important qualification. Correctly and categorically stated, the rule is that
mandamus will lie to compel the discharge of the discretionary duty itself but not to
control the discretion to be exercised. In other words, mandamus can issue to require
action only but not specific action.
Whenever a duty is imposed upon a public official and an unnecessary and unreasonable
delay in the exercise of such duty occurs, if it is a clear duty imposed by law, the courts
will intervene by the extraordinary legal remedy of mandamus to compel action. If the
duty is purely ministerial, the courts will require specific action. If the duty is purely
discretionary, the courts by mandamus will require action only. For example, if an inferior
court, public official, or board should, for an unreasonable length of time, fail to decide a
particular question to the great detriment of all parties concerned, or a court should
refuse to take jurisdiction of a cause when the law clearly gave it jurisdiction mandamus
will issue, in the first case to require a decision, and in the second to require that
jurisdiction be taken of the cause. 22
And while it is true that as a rule the writ will not be proper as long as there is still a
plain, speedy and adequate remedy available from the administrative authorities, resort
to the courts may still be permitted if the issue raised is a question of law. 23
C Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, which sustained a zoning law under the police
There are traditional distinctions between the police power and the power of eminent
domain that logically preclude the application of both powers at the same time on the
same subject. In the case of City of Baguio v. NAWASA, 24 for example, where a law
required the transfer of all municipal waterworks systems to the NAWASA in exchange
for its assets of equivalent value, the Court held that the power being exercised was
eminent domain because the property involved was wholesome and intended for a
public use. Property condemned under the police power is noxious or intended for a
noxious purpose, such as a building on the verge of collapse, which should be
demolished for the public safety, or obscene materials, which should be destroyed in the
interest of public morals. The confiscation of such property is not compensable, unlike
the taking of property under the power of expropriation, which requires the payment of
just compensation to the owner.
In the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 25 Justice Holmes laid down the limits of
the police power in a famous aphorism: "The general rule at least is that while property
may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a
taking." The regulation that went "too far" was a law prohibiting mining which might
cause the subsidence of structures for human habitation constructed on the land surface.
This was resisted by a coal company which had earlier granted a deed to the land over its
mine but reserved all mining rights thereunder, with the grantee assuming all risks and
waiving any damage claim. The Court held the law could not be sustained without
compensating the grantor. Justice Brandeis filed a lone dissent in which he argued that
there was a valid exercise of the police power. He said:
Every restriction upon the use of property imposed in the exercise of the police power
deprives the owner of some right theretofore enjoyed, and is, in that sense, an
abridgment by the State of rights in property without making compensation. But
restriction imposed to protect the public health, safety or morals from dangers
threatened is not a taking. The restriction here in question is merely the prohibition of a
noxious use. The property so restricted remains in the possession of its owner. The state
does not appropriate it or make any use of it. The state merely prevents the owner from
making a use which interferes with paramount rights of the public. Whenever the use
prohibited ceases to be noxious as it may because of further changes in local or social
conditions the restriction will have to be removed and the owner will again be free to
enjoy his property as heretofore.
Recent trends, however, would indicate not a polarization but a mingling of the police
power and the power of eminent domain, with the latter being used as an implement of
the former like the power of taxation. The employment of the taxing power to achieve a
police purpose has long been accepted. 26 As for the power of expropriation, Prof. John
J. Costonis of the University of Illinois College of Law (referring to the earlier case of
power) makes the following significant remarks:
Euclid, moreover, was decided in an era when judges located the Police and eminent
domain powers on different planets. Generally speaking, they viewed eminent domain as
encompassing public acquisition of private property for improvements that would be
available for public use," literally construed. To the police power, on the other hand, they
assigned the less intrusive task of preventing harmful externalities a point reflected in
the Euclid opinion's reliance on an analogy to nuisance law to bolster its support of
zoning. So long as suppression of a privately authored harm bore a plausible relation to
some legitimate "public purpose," the pertinent measure need have afforded no
compensation whatever. With the progressive growth of government's involvement in
land use, the distance between the two powers has contracted considerably. Today
government often employs eminent domain interchangeably with or as a useful
complement to the police power-- a trend expressly approved in the Supreme Court's
1954 decision in Berman v. Parker, which broadened the reach of eminent domain's
"public use" test to match that of the police power's standard of "public purpose." 27
The Berman case sustained a redevelopment project and the improvement of blighted
areas in the District of Columbia as a proper exercise of the police power. On the role of
eminent domain in the attainment of this purpose, Justice Douglas declared:
If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be
beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the
way.
Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the
exercise of eminent domain is clear.
For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end. 28
In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 29 decided by a 6-3 vote in 1978, the
U.S Supreme Court sustained the respondent's Landmarks Preservation Law under which
the owners of the Grand Central Terminal had not been allowed to construct a multi-
story office building over the Terminal, which had been designated a historic landmark.
Preservation of the landmark was held to be a valid objective of the police power. The
problem, however, was that the owners of the Terminal would be deprived of the right to
use the airspace above it although other landowners in the area could do so over their
respective properties. While insisting that there was here no taking, the Court
nonetheless recognized certain compensatory rights accruing to Grand Central Terminal
which it said would "undoubtedly mitigate" the loss caused by the regulation. This "fair
compensation," as he called it, was explained by Prof. Costonis in this wise:
In return for retaining the Terminal site in its pristine landmark status, Penn Central was
authorized to transfer to neighboring properties the authorized but unused rights
accruing to the site prior to the Terminal's designation as a landmark the rights which
would have been exhausted by the 59-story building that the city refused to countenance
atop the Terminal. Prevailing bulk restrictions on neighboring sites were proportionately
relaxed, theoretically enabling Penn Central to recoup its losses at the Terminal site by
constructing or selling to others the right to construct larger, hence more profitable
buildings on the transferee sites. 30
The cases before us present no knotty complication insofar as the question of
compensable taking is concerned. To the extent that the measures under challenge
merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power
for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to
carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever
lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking
under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is
imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What
is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said excess
and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. This is
definitely an exercise not of the police power but of the power of eminent domain.
Whether as an exercise of the police power or of the power of eminent domain, the
several measures before us are challenged as violative of the due process and equal
protection clauses.
The challenge to Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 299 on the ground that no
retention limits are prescribed has already been discussed and dismissed. It is noted that
although they excited many bitter exchanges during the deliberation of the CARP Law in
Congress, the retention limits finally agreed upon are, curiously enough, not being
questioned in these petitions. We therefore do not discuss them here. The Court will
come to the other claimed violations of due process in connection with our examination
of the adequacy of just compensation as required under the power of expropriation.
The argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal protection because
of the absence of retention limits has also become academic under Section 6 of R.A. No.
6657. Significantly, they too have not questioned the area of such limits. There is also the
complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an
objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a particular
class with particular interests of their own. However, no evidence has been submitted to
the Court that the requisites of a valid classification have been violated.
Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other
in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. 31 To be
valid, it must conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial
distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must not be limited
to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
32 The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here
challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be
treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. 33 The
petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a
different treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other
properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be
rejected. There is a substantial distinction between 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 any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid
classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice
except only where its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights.
It is worth remarking at this juncture that a statute may be sustained under the police
power only if there is a concurrence of the lawful subject and the lawful method. Put
otherwise, the interests of the public generally as distinguished from those of a particular
class require the interference of the State and, no less important, the means employed
are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the purpose sought to be achieved and
not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 34 As the subject and purpose of agrarian
reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself, we may say that the first
requirement has been satisfied. What remains to be examined is the validity of the
method employed to achieve the constitutional goal.
One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the rights of the
individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means. It is not enough that there
be a valid objective; it is also necessary that the means employed to pursue it be in
keeping with the Constitution. Mere expediency will not excuse constitutional shortcuts.
There is no question that not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent
public need, subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of an
individual's rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a, person invoking a right guaranteed
under Article III of the Constitution is a majority of one even as against the rest of the
nation who would deny him that right.
That right covers the person's life, his liberty and his property under Section 1 of Article
III of the Constitution. With regard to his property, the owner enjoys the added
protection of Section 9, which reaffirms the familiar rule that private property shall not
be taken for public use without just compensation.
This brings us now to the power of eminent domain.
D
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire
private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner.
Obviously, there is no need to expropriate where the owner is willing to sell under terms
also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an ordinary deed of sale may be agreed
upon by the parties. 35 It is only where the owner is unwilling to sell, or cannot accept
the price or other conditions offered by the vendee, that the power of eminent domain
will come into play to assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of
the property owner. Private rights must then yield to the irresistible demands of the
public interest on the time-honored justification, as in the case of the police power, that
the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
But for all its primacy and urgency, the power of expropriation is by no means absolute
(as indeed no power is absolute). The limitation is found in the constitutional injunction
that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation" and
in the abundant jurisprudence that has evolved from the interpretation of this principle.
Basically, the requirements for a proper exercise of the power are: (1) public use and (2)
just compensation.
Let us dispose first of the argument raised by the petitioners in G.R. No. 79310 that the
State should first distribute public agricultural lands in the pursuit of agrarian reform
instead of immediately disturbing property rights by forcibly acquiring private agricultural
lands. Parenthetically, it is not correct to say that only public agricultural lands may be
covered by the CARP as the Constitution calls for "the just distribution of all agricultural
lands." In any event, the decision to redistribute private agricultural lands in the manner
prescribed by the CARP was made by the legislative and executive departments in the
exercise of their discretion. We are not justified in reviewing that discretion in the
absence of a clear showing that it has been abused.
A becoming courtesy admonishes us to respect the decisions of the political departments
when they decide what is known as the political question. As explained by Chief Justice
Concepcion in the case of Taada v. Cuenco: 36
The term "political question" connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy. It refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government."
It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
It is true that the concept of the political question has been constricted with the
enlargement of judicial power, which now includes the authority of the courts "to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
37 Even so, this should not be construed as a license for us to reverse the other
departments simply because their views may not coincide with ours.
The legislature and the executive have been seen fit, in their wisdom, to include in the
CARP the redistribution of private landholdings (even as the distribution of public
agricultural lands is first provided for, while also continuing apace under the Public Land
Act and other cognate laws). The Court sees no justification to interpose its authority,
which we may assert only if we believe that the political decision is not unwise, but
illegal. We do not find it to be so.
In U.S. v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Company, 38 it was held:
Congress having determined, as it did by the Act of March 3,1909 that the entire St.
Mary's river between the American bank and the international line, as well as all of the
upland north of the present ship canal, throughout its entire length, was "necessary for
the purpose of navigation of said waters, and the waters connected therewith," that
determination is conclusive in condemnation proceedings instituted by the United States
under that Act, and there is no room for judicial review of the judgment of Congress ... .
As earlier observed, the requirement for public use has already been settled for us by the
Constitution itself No less than the 1987 Charter calls for agrarian reform, which is the
reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the
prescribed maximum retention limits. The purposes specified in P.D. No. 27, Proc. No.
131 and R.A. No. 6657 are only an elaboration of the constitutional injunction that the
State adopt the necessary measures "to encourage and undertake the just distribution of
all agricultural lands to enable farmers who are landless to own directly or collectively
the lands they till." That public use, as pronounced by the fundamental law itself, must
be binding on us.
The second requirement, i.e., the payment of just compensation, needs a longer and
more thoughtful examination.
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its
owner by the expropriator. 39 It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the
measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. 40 The word "just" is used to
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full,
ample. 41
It bears repeating that the measures challenged in these petitions contemplate more
than a mere regulation of the use of private lands under the police power. We deal here
with an actual taking of private agricultural lands that has dispossessed the owners of
their property and deprived them of all its beneficial use and enjoyment, to entitle them
to the just compensation mandated by the Constitution.
As held in Republic of the Philippines v. Castellvi, 42 there is compensable taking when
the following conditions concur: (1) the expropriator must enter a private property; (2)
the entry must be for more than a momentary period; (3) the entry must be under
warrant or color of legal authority; (4) the property must be devoted to public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and (5) the utilization of the
property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the property. All these requisites are envisioned in the measures
before us.
Where the State itself is the expropriator, it is not necessary for it to make a deposit upon
its taking possession of the condemned property, as "the compensation is a public
charge, the good faith of the public is pledged for its payment, and all the resources of
taxation may be employed in raising the amount." 43 Nevertheless, Section 16(e) of the
CARP Law provides that:
Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or
no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated
by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the
DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of
Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the
qualified beneficiaries.
Objection is raised, however, to the manner of fixing the just compensation, which it is
claimed is entrusted to the administrative authorities in violation of judicial prerogatives.
Specific reference is made to Section 16(d), which provides that in case of the rejection
or disregard by the owner of the offer of the government to buy his land-
... the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the
compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested
parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15)
days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter
is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days
after it is submitted for decision.
To be sure, the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts
of justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government.
EPZA v. Dulay 44 resolved a challenge to several decrees promulgated by President
Marcos providing that the just compensation for property under expropriation should be
either the assessment of the property by the government or the sworn valuation thereof
by the owner, whichever was lower. In declaring these decrees unconstitutional, the
Court held through Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.:
The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes
impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile
in a matter which under this Constitution is reserved to it for final determination.
Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the
power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the applicable
decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as
declared either by the owner or the assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be
useless for the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, the need to satisfy the due process clause in the taking of private property is
seemingly fulfilled since it cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was not had before
the actual taking. However, the strict application of the decrees during the proceedings
would be nothing short of a mere formality or charade as the court has only to choose
between the valuation of the owner and that of the assessor, and its choice is always
limited to the lower of the two. The court cannot exercise its discretion or independence
in determining what is just or fair. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for the
judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just compensation is concerned.
xxx
In the present petition, we are once again confronted with the same question of whether
the courts under P.D. No. 1533, which contains the same provision on just compensation
as its predecessor decrees, still have the power and authority to determine just
compensation, independent of what is stated by the decree and to this effect, to appoint
commissioners for such purpose.
This time, we answer in the affirmative.
xxx
It is violative of due process to deny the owner the opportunity to prove that the
valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to the basic
concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or
clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court promulgated only after expert
commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments pro and
con have been presented, and after all factors and considerations essential to a fair and
just determination have been judiciously evaluated.
A reading of the aforecited Section 16(d) will readily show that it does not suffer from the
arbitrariness that rendered the challenged decrees constitutionally objectionable.
Although the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and other
interested parties are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence on the
real value of the property. But more importantly, the determination of the just
compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner
or any other interested party, for Section 16(f) clearly provides:
Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper
jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties
concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality
the said determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.
The second and more serious objection to the provisions on just compensation is not as
easily resolved.
This refers to Section 18 of the CARP Law providing in full as follows:
SEC. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. The LBP shall compensate the
landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and
the LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other
pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just
compensation for the land.
The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes, at the option of the
landowner:
(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions:
a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned
Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in government
financial instruments negotiable at any time.
b) For lands above twenty-four (24) hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares Thirty
percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments
negotiable at any time.
c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below Thirty-five percent (35%) cash,
the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any
time.
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred
shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set
by the PARC;
(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;
(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:
a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent (10%) of
the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance
until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose to
forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid
correspondingly in LBP bonds;
b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner,
his successors-in- interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face value, for
any of the following:
c) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including assets
under the Asset Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by
government financial institutions in the same province or region where the lands
for which the bonds were paid are situated;
d) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or controlled corporations
or shares of stock owned by the government in private corporations;
e) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused
persons, or for performance bonds;
f) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the
proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a
small and medium- scale industry, in the same province or region as the land for
which the bonds are paid;
g) Payment for various taxes and fees to government: Provided, That the use of
these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the
outstanding balance of the financial instruments; Provided, further, That the
PARC shall determine the percentages mentioned above;
h) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
government universities, colleges, trade schools, and other institutions;
i) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
government hospitals; and
j) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.
The contention of the petitioners in G.R. No. 79777 is that the above provision is
unconstitutional insofar as it requires the owners of the expropriated properties to
accept just compensation therefor in less than money, which is the only medium of
payment allowed. In support of this contention, they cite jurisprudence holding that:
The fundamental rule in expropriation matters is that the owner of the property
expropriated is entitled to a just compensation, which should be neither more nor less,
whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the money equivalent of said
property. Just compensation has always been understood to be the just and complete
equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason
of the expropriation . 45 (Emphasis supplied.)
In J.M. Tuazon Co. v. Land Tenure Administration, 46 this Court held:
It is well-settled that just compensation means the equivalent for the value of the
property at the time of its taking. Anything beyond that is more, and anything short of
that is less, than just compensation. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss
sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the
expropriating entity. The market value of the land taken is the just compensation to
which the owner of condemned property is entitled, the market value being that sum of
money which a person desirous, but not compelled to buy, and an owner, willing, but not
compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received for such property.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the United States, where much of our jurisprudence on the subject has been derived,
the weight of authority is also to the effect that just compensation for property
expropriated is payable only in money and not otherwise. Thus
The medium of payment of compensation is ready money or cash. The condemnor
cannot compel the owner to accept anything but money, nor can the owner compel or
require the condemnor to pay him on any other basis than the value of the property in
money at the time and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and the statutes.
When the power of eminent domain is resorted to, there must be a standard medium of
payment, binding upon both parties, and the law has fixed that standard as money in
cash. 47 (Emphasis supplied.)

Part cash and deferred payments are not and cannot, in the nature of things, be regarded
as a reliable and constant standard of compensation. 48
"Just compensation" for property taken by condemnation means a fair equivalent in
money, which must be paid at least within a reasonable time after the taking, and it is
not within the power of the Legislature to substitute for such payment future obligations,
bonds, or other valuable advantage. 49 (Emphasis supplied.)
It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium for the payment of just
compensation is money and no other. And so, conformably, has just compensation been
paid in the past solely in that medium. However, we do not deal here with the traditional
excercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where
only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from
its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.
What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of
whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed
their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a
particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino
nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted
owner. Its purpose does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes
beyond in time to the foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the
vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos. Generations yet to come
are as involved in this program as we are today, although hopefully only as beneficiaries
of a richer and more fulfilling life we will guarantee to them tomorrow through our
thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no less than the
Constitution itself that has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just
distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their
dreams but can now become the key at least to their deliverance.
Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous.
Considering the vast areas of land subject to expropriation under the laws before us, we
estimate that hundreds of billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the
amount of P50 billion initially appropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our
present standards. Such amount is in fact not even fully available at this time.
We assume that the framers of the Constitution were aware of this difficulty when they
called for agrarian reform as a top priority project of the government. It is a part of this
assumption that when they envisioned the expropriation that would be needed, they
also intended that the just compensation would have to be paid not in the orthodox way
but a less conventional if more practical method. There can be no doubt that they were
aware of the financial limitations of the government and had no illusions that there
would be enough money to pay in cash and in full for the lands they wanted to be
distributed among the farmers. We may therefore assume that their intention was to
allow such manner of payment as is now provided for by the CARP Law, particularly the
payment of the balance (if the owner cannot be paid fully with money), or indeed of the
entire amount of the just compensation, with other things of value. We may also
suppose that what they had in mind was a similar scheme of payment as that prescribed
in P.D. No. 27, which was the law in force at the time they deliberated on the new
Charter and with which they presumably agreed in principle.
The Court has not found in the records of the Constitutional Commission any categorical
agreement among the members regarding the meaning to be given the concept of just
compensation as applied to the comprehensive agrarian reform program being
contemplated. There was the suggestion to "fine tune" the requirement to suit the
demands of the project even as it was also felt that they should "leave it to Congress" to
determine how payment should be made to the landowner and reimbursement required
from the farmer-beneficiaries. Such innovations as "progressive compensation" and
"State-subsidized compensation" were also proposed. In the end, however, no special
definition of the just compensation for the lands to be expropriated was reached by the
Commission. 50
On the other hand, there is nothing in the records either that militates against the
assumptions we are making of the general sentiments and intention of the members on
the content and manner of the payment to be made to the landowner in the light of the
magnitude of the expenditure and the limitations of the expropriator.
With these assumptions, the Court hereby declares that the content and manner of the
just compensation provided for in the afore- quoted Section 18 of the CARP Law is not
violative of the Constitution. We do not mind admitting that a certain degree of
pragmatism has influenced our decision on this issue, but after all this Court is not a
cloistered institution removed from the realities and demands of society or oblivious to
the need for its enhancement. The Court is as acutely anxious as the rest of our people to
see the goal of agrarian reform achieved at last after the frustrations and deprivations of
our peasant masses during all these disappointing decades. We are aware that
invalidation of the said section will result in the nullification of the entire program, killing
the farmer's hopes even as they approach realization and resurrecting the spectre of
discontent and dissent in the restless countryside. That is not in our view the intention of
the Constitution, and that is not what we shall decree today.
Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is not always required to be
made fully in money, we find further that the proportion of cash payment to the other
things of value constituting the total payment, as determined on the basis of the areas of
the lands expropriated, is not unduly oppressive upon the landowner. It is noted that the
smaller the land, the bigger the payment in money, primarily because the small
landowner will be needing it more than the big landowners, who can afford a bigger
balance in bonds and other things of value. No less importantly, the government financial
instruments making up the balance of the payment are "negotiable at any time." The
other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option, are also not
unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, other properties
or assets, tax credits, and other things of value equivalent to the amount of just
compensation.
Admittedly, the compensation contemplated in the law will cause the landowners, big
and small, not a little inconvenience. As already remarked, this cannot be avoided.
Nevertheless, it is devoutly hoped that these countrymen of ours, conscious as we know
they are of the need for their forebearance and even sacrifice, will not begrudge us their
indispensable share in the attainment of the ideal of agrarian reform. Otherwise, our
pursuit of this elusive goal will be like the quest for the Holy Grail.
The complaint against the effects of non-registration of the land under E.O. No. 229 does
not seem to be viable any more as it appears that Section 4 of the said Order has been
superseded by Section 14 of the CARP Law. This repeats the requisites of registration as
embodied in the earlier measure but does not provide, as the latter did, that in case of
failure or refusal to register the land, the valuation thereof shall be that given by the
provincial or city assessor for tax purposes. On the contrary, the CARP Law says that the
just compensation shall be ascertained on the basis of the factors mentioned in its
Section 17 and in the manner provided for in Section 16.
The last major challenge to CARP is that the landowner is divested of his property even
before actual payment to him in full of just compensation, in contravention of a well-
accepted principle of eminent domain.
The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the
owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation.
Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here and in other democratic
jurisdictions. Thus:
Title to property which is the subject of condemnation proceedings does not vest the
condemnor until the judgment fixing just compensation is entered and paid, but the
condemnor's title relates back to the date on which the petition under the Eminent
Domain Act, or the commissioner's report under the Local Improvement Act, is filed. 51
... although the right to appropriate and use land taken for a canal is complete at the
time of entry, title to the property taken remains in the owner until payment is actually
made. 52 (Emphasis supplied.)
In Kennedy v. Indianapolis, 53 the US Supreme Court cited several cases holding that title
to property does not pass to the condemnor until just compensation had actually been
made. In fact, the decisions appear to be uniformly to this effect. As early as 1838, in
Rubottom v. McLure, 54 it was held that "actual payment to the owner of the
condemned property was a condition precedent to the investment of the title to the
property in the State" albeit "not to the appropriation of it to public use." In Rexford v.
Knight, 55 the Court of Appeals of New York said that the construction upon the statutes
was that the fee did not vest in the State until the payment of the compensation
although the authority to enter upon and appropriate the land was complete prior to the
payment. Kennedy further said that "both on principle and authority the rule is ... that
the right to enter on and use the property is complete, as soon as the property is actually
appropriated under the authority of law for a public use, but that the title does not pass
from the owner without his consent, until just compensation has been made to him."
Our own Supreme Court has held in Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus and Paredes, 56 that:
If the laws which we have exhibited or cited in the preceding discussion are attentively
examined it will be apparent that the method of expropriation adopted in this
jurisdiction is such as to afford absolute reassurance that no piece of land can be finally
and irrevocably taken from an unwilling owner until compensation is paid ... . (Emphasis
supplied.)
It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as
October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land
consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title to the land owned by him was to be
actually issued to him unless and until he had become a full-fledged member of a duly
recognized farmers' cooperative." It was understood, however, that full payment of the
just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
requirement.
When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:
All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21, 1972 of
the land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27. (Emphasis supplied.)
it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said decree, after
proof of full-fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives and full payment of just
compensation. Hence, it was also perfectly proper for the Order to also provide in its
Section 2 that the "lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer- beneficiary after
October 21, 1972 (pending transfer of ownership after full payment of just
compensation), shall be considered as advance payment for the land."
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the
land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or
the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible
bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. 57 No outright change of
ownership is contemplated either.
Hence, the argument that the assailed measures violate due process by arbitrarily
transferring title before the land is fully paid for must also be rejected.
It is worth stressing at this point that all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D.
No. 27, as recognized under E.O. No. 228, are retained by him even now under R.A. No.
6657. This should counter-balance the express provision in Section 6 of the said law that
"the landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be
allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further, That original
homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at
the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue
to cultivate said homestead."
In connection with these retained rights, it does not appear in G.R. No. 78742 that the
appeal filed by the petitioners with the Office of the President has already been resolved.
Although we have said that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies need
not preclude immediate resort to judicial action, there are factual issues that have yet to
be examined on the administrative level, especially the claim that the petitioners are not
covered by LOI 474 because they do not own other agricultural lands than the subjects of
their petition.
Obviously, the Court cannot resolve these issues. In any event, assuming that the
petitioners have not yet exercised their retention rights, if any, under P.D. No. 27, the
Court holds that they are entitled to the new retention rights provided for by R.A. No.
6657, which in fact are on the whole more liberal than those granted by the decree.
E
The CARP Law and the other enactments also involved in these cases have been the
subject of bitter attack from those who point to the shortcomings of these measures and
ask that they be scrapped entirely. To be sure, these enactments are less than perfect;
indeed, they should be continuously re-examined and rehoned, that they may be sharper
instruments for the better protection of the farmer's rights. But we have to start
somewhere. In the pursuit of agrarian reform, we do not tread on familiar ground but
grope on terrain fraught with pitfalls and expected difficulties. This is inevitable. The
CARP Law is not a tried and tested project. On the contrary, to use Justice Holmes's
words, "it is an experiment, as all life is an experiment," and so we learn as we venture
forward, and, if necessary, by our own mistakes. We cannot expect perfection although
we should strive for it by all means. Meantime, we struggle as best we can in freeing the
farmer from the iron shackles that have unconscionably, and for so long, fettered his soul
to the soil.
By the decision we reach today, all major legal obstacles to the comprehensive agrarian
reform program are removed, to clear the way for the true freedom of the farmer. We
may now glimpse the day he will be released not only from want but also from the
exploitation and disdain of the past and from his own feelings of inadequacy and
helplessness. At last his servitude will be ended forever. At last the farm on which he toils
will be his farm. It will be his portion of the Mother Earth that will give him not only the
staff of life but also the joy of living. And where once it bred for him only deep despair,
now can he see in it the fruition of his hopes for a more fulfilling future. Now at last can
he banish from his small plot of earth his insecurities and dark resentments and "rebuild
in it the music and the dream."
WHEREFORE, the Court holds as follows:
1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are
SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections raised in the herein petitions.
2. Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full
payment of compensation to their respective owners.

3. All rights previously acquired by the tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27 are retained and
recognized.
4. Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights of retention under P.D. No. 27
shall enjoy the retention rights granted by R.A. No. 6657 under the conditions therein
prescribed.
5. Subject to the above-mentioned rulings all the petitions are DISMISSED, without
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Cases;
HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON, HON. REY B.
BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents. G.R. No. 131457. April 24, 1998
The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum
shopping has been laid down in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez (145 SCRA 34), x
xx and that is, forum shopping exists where the elements of litispendentia are
present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the
other, as follows:
There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC Case No.
86-36563 identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same
interests in both actions, as well as identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on the two
preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action,
will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the
action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action
pendant.'[58]
It is clear from the above-quoted rule that the petitioners are not guilty
of forum shopping. The test for determining whether a party has violated the
rule against forum shopping is where a final judgment in one case will amount to
res adjudicata in the action under consideration. A cursory examination of the
cases filed by the petitioners does not show that the said cases are similar with
each other. The petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals sought the
nullification of the DAR Secretarys order to proceed with the compulsory
acquisition and distribution of the subject property. On the other hand, the civil
case in RTC of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for the annulment and cancellation of title
issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, with damages, was based
on the following grounds: (1) the DAR, in applying for cancellation of petitioner
NQSRMDCs title, used documents which were earlier declared null and void by
the DARAB; (2) the cancellation of NQSRMDCs title was made without payment
of just compensation; and (3) without notice to NQSRMDC for the surrender of
its title. The present petition is entirely different from the said two cases as it
seeks the nullification of the assailed Win-Win Resolution of the Office of the
President dated November 7, 1997, which resolution was issued long after the
previous two cases were instituted.
The fourth and final preliminary issue to be resolved is the motion for
intervention filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, which we have to deny for lack
of merit. In their motion, movants contend that they are the farmer-beneficiaries
of the land in question, hence, are real parties in interest. To prove this, they
attached as Annex I in their motion a Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries.
Apparently, the alleged master list was made pursuant to the directive in the
dispositive portion of the assailed Win-Win Resolution which directs the DAR to
carefully and meticulously determine who among the claimants are qualified
farmer-beneficiaries. However, a perusal of the said document reveals that
movants are those purportedly Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval.
In other words, movants are merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in interest is a party who
would be benefited or injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to the
avails of the suit. Real interest means a present substantial interest, as
distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or
consequential interest.[59] Undoubtedly, movants interest over the land in
question is a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in interest.
Furthermore, the challenged resolution upon which movants based their
motion is, as intimated earlier, null and void. Hence, their motion for
intervention has no leg to stand on.
Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision dated
March 29,1996 can still be substantially modified by the Win-Win Resolution.
We rule in the negative.
The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the
President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. 18.
Section 7 thereof provides:
 SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall,
except as otherwise provided for by special laws, become final after the
lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties,
unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period.
Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be
allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious cases.
(Emphasis ours)
It is further provided for in Section 9 that The Rules of Court shall apply
in a suppletory character whenever practicable.
Jose Luis Pos, et.al.,vs DAR, GR No. 132477 August 31,2005
Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657 states that agricultural lands refers to the land
devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this act and not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 has ruled that, with
respect to the conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non-
agricultural uses, the authority of DAR to approve such conversion may be
exercised from the date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands that
are already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before 15 June
1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.
The authority of the DAR to approve conversions of agricultural lands
covered by Rep. Act No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses has not been pierced by
the passage of the Local Government Code. The Code explicitly provides[26] that
nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any
manner the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657.
It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the
DAR, the complaint for injunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and
appellate courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This Court, in
Bautista v. Mag-isaVda. De Villena,[27] found occasion to reiterate the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving
a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an
administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform cases,
jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more
specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial powers to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This law divested the
regional trial courts of their general jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters.
Under Republic Act 6657, the DAR retains jurisdiction over all agrarian
reform matters. The pertinent provision reads:
Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested
with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but
shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most
expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of
every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case.
Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just,
expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before
it. . . .
CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. vs THE SECRETARY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, G.R. No. 183409 June 18, 2010
Finally, the third and fourth issues which may be summed up into
whether or not an injunction is the appropriate remedy against the order of the
DAR enjoining petitioners in developing the subject land, we rule in the negative.
Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 6657 provides:
A tribunal, board, or officer is said to be exercising judicial function
where it has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of
the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function, on the other
hand, is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
administrative officers or bodies x xx required to investigate facts or ascertain the
existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for
their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.[34]
Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial
acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of
persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the
controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer
clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the
respective rights of the contending parties.[35]
The Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not fall within the ambit of a
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The
issuance and enforcement by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform of the questioned
DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88 were done in the
exercise of his quasi-legislative and administrative functions and not of judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.