Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Midterm Reviewer 2017 Based On Pointers

Agrarian
Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 1

Midterm Reviewer 2017 (Based on Pointers) | Prepared by: Phil Jaramillo, EH405

I. R EVOLUTIONARY K IND OF E XPROPRIATION suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its
provisions.
We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of
eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary)
specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought
the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. exception from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A.
What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. 6657. The Association is comprised of landowners of ricelands and
cornlands whose landholdings do not exceed 7 hectares. They
The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands invoke that since their landholdings are less than 7 hectares, they
whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess should not be forced to distribute their land to their tenants under
of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of R.A. 6657 for they themselves have shown willingness to till their
expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a particular own land. In short, they want to be exempted from agrarian reform
community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire program because they claim to belong to a different class.
Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished
farmer to the land-glutted owner. Its purpose does not cover only G.R. No. 79777: (Manaay vs Juico)
the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the Nicolas Manaay questioned the validity of the agrarian reform laws
foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the (PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground that these laws already
vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos. valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program and that the
specific amount must be determined by the Department of Agrarian
Generations yet to come are as involved in this program as we are Reform (DAR). Manaay averred that this violated the principle in
today, although hopefully only as beneficiaries of a richer and more eminent domain which provides that only courts can determine just
fulfilling life we will guarantee to them tomorrow through our compensation. This, for Manaay, also violated due process for under
thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no the constitution, no property shall be taken for public use without
less than the Constitution itself that has ordained this revolution in just compensation.
the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers of lands Manaay also questioned the provision which states that landowners
that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams but can now may be paid for their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash.
become the key at least to their deliverance. (Association of Small Manaay averred that just compensation has always been in the form
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian of money and not in bonds.
Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, 1989)
Issue:
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v Secretary 1. Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection
of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, July 14, clause.
1989 2. Whether or not there is a violation of due process.
3. Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform
Facts: program, must be paid in cash
These are four consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (R.A. No. 6657 and Ruling:
related laws i.e., Agrarian Land Reform Code or R.A. No. 3844). 1. No. The Association had not shown any proof that they belong to
a different class exempt from the agrarian reform program. Under
Brief background: Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice the law, classification has been defined as the grouping of persons
and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different
agrarian reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must
agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and conform to the following requirements:
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law;
to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844 was enacted (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
in 1963. P.D. No. 27 was promulgated in 1972 to provide for the (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly
tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and
landowners. the liabilities imposed. The Association have not shown that they
belong to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The
In 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full argument that not only landowners but also owners of other
land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and providing properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land
for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between
well as the manner of their payment. these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those
who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. In
In 1987, P.P. No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a
program (CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. No. 229, providing the valid classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect
mechanics for its (PP131’s) implementation, was also enacted. by the courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to
Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive the detriment of the Bill of Rights. In the contrary, it appears that
Agrarian Reform Law in 1988. This law, while considerably changing Congress is right in classifying small landowners as part of the
the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them agrarian reform program.
Agrarian Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 2

2. No. It is true that the determination of just compensation is a Issues:
power lodged in the courts. However, there is no law which 1. WON paragraphs d, e, and f of Sec. 16 of RA6657 are
prohibits administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just unconsitutional?
compensation. In fact, just compensation can be that amount 2. Is compulsory acquisition of land valid?
agreed upon by the landowner and the government – even without
judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. The DAR can Ruling:
determine just compensation through appraisers and if the 1. No. The validity of Section 16, including paragraphs (d), (e) and (f)
landowner agrees, then judicial intervention is not needed. What is thereof, of RA 6657 has already been affirmed in Association of
contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation Small Landowners, which sets forth the manner of acquisition of
determined by an administrative body is merely preliminary. If the private agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation, in
landowner does not agree with the finding of just compensation by this wise:
an administrative body, then it can go to court and the
determination of the latter shall be the final determination. This is Where the State itself is the expropriator, it is not necessary for it to
even so provided by RA 6657: make a deposit upon its taking possession of the condemned
Section 16 (f): Any party who disagrees with the decision property, as "the compensation is a public charge, the good faith of
may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for the public is pledged for its payment, and all the resources of
final determination of just compensation. taxation may be employed in raising the amount." Nevertheless,
Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that:
3. No. Money as sole payment for just compensation is merely a Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding
concept in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian payment, or in case of rejection or no response from the
reform program is a revolutionary exercise of eminent domain. The landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank
program will require billions of pesos in funds if all compensation designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in
will have to be made in cash. If everything is in cash, then the LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take
government will not have sufficient money. Hence, bonds, and other immediate possession of the land and shall request the
securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for just compensation. proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of
CONFED v DAR , G.R. No. 169514, March 30, 2007 the land to the qualified beneficiaries.

Facts: Objection is raised, however, to the manner of fixing the just
Confederation of Sugar Producers Association, Inc (CONFED), the compensation, which it is claimed is entrusted to the administrative
National Federation of Sugarcane Planters, Inc. (NFSP), United Sugar authorities in violation of judicial prerogatives. Specific reference is
Producers Federation of the Phil., Inc. (UNIFED), made to Section 16(d), which provides that in case of the rejection
the Panay Federation of Sugarcane Farmers, Inc. (PANAYFED). It or disregard by the owner of the offer of the government to buy his
seeks, inter alia, to enjoin the Department of Agrarian Reform(DAR), land —
the Land Bank of the Philippines(LBP), and the Land Registration . . . the DAR shall conduct summary administrative
Authority(LRA) from "subjecting the sugarcane farms of Petitioner proceedings to determine the compensation for the land
Planters to eminent domain or compulsory acquisition without filing by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested
the necessary expropriation proceedings pursuant to the provisions parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for
of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and/or without the application or the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the
conformity of a majority of the regular farmworkers on said farms." notice. After the expiration of the above period, the
matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall
Petitioners CONFED, NFSP, UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that their decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted
members own or administer private agricultural lands devoted to for decision.
sugarcane. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been To be sure, the determination of just compensation is a function
planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly since time immemorial. addressed to the courts of justice and may not be usurped by any
While their petition is denominated as one for prohibition and other branch or official of the government.
mandamus, the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs (d),
(e) and (f) of Section 16 of RA 6657, otherwise known as the The determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. In other words, their any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other
arguments, are anchored on the proposition that these provisions interested party, for Section 16 (f) clearly provides:
are unconstitutional. (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring
the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final
The petitioners thus contend that a landowner cannot be deprived determination of just compensation.
of his property until expropriation proceedings are instituted in The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless
court. They insist that the expropriation proceedings to be followed accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice
are those prescribed under Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court. In will still have the right to review with finality the said determination
other words, for a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain, in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.
the Government must institute the necessary expropriation
proceedings in the competent court in accordance with the 2. Yes. Contrary to the petitioners’ submission that the compulsory
provisions of the Rules of Court. acquisition procedure adopted by the DAR is without legal basis, it is
actually based on Section 16 of RA 6657. Under the said law, there

are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural lands: continues in possession of the land for cultivation, there shall be
compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for compulsory presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the provisions of
acquisition is that prescribed under Section 16 of RA 6657. this Code, without prejudice to the right of the landowner and the
former tenant to enter into any other lawful contract in relation to
In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court painstakingly the land formerly under tenancy contract, as long as in the interim
outlined the procedure for compulsory acquisition… in this manner: the security of tenure of the former tenant under Republic Act
Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, and as
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the provided in this Code, is not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a
landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. lawful leasehold tenancy contract was entered into prior to the
After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the effectivity of this Code, the rights and obligations arising therefrom
landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a shall continue to subsist until modified by the parties in accordance
conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the with the provisions of this Code.
place where the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt
of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or Shared tenancy – the relationship which exists whenever two
representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of persons agree on a joint undertaking for cultural production wherein
the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or
of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate both contributing any one of the several items of production, the
of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of tenant cultivating the land personally with aid of labor available
transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the from members of his immediate farm household, and the produce
purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR’s offer or fails to thereof to be divided by the landowner and the tenant.
make a reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative
proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The Security of Tenure
landowner, the LBP representative and other interested parties may Section 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The
submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon
notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the
case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The
compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his
payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by
the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with the Court for causes herein provided.
an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of
the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the IOW, the landowner cannot just dispossess, remove or eject a
name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be tenant or lessee from the land without authorized cause.
redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization:
the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination 1. Fine or imprisonment
of just compensation. 2. Damages suffered
3. Attorney’s fees
II. RA 3844 - A GRICULTURAL L AND R EFORM C ODE 4. Remuneration of last income

Abolition of Share Tenancy Grounds to extinguish
Section 4. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy - Agricultural Section 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The
share tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary agricultural leasehold relation established under this Code shall be
to public policy and shall be abolished: Provided, That existing share extinguished by:
tenancy contracts may continue in force and effect in any region or a. Abandonment of the landholding w ithout the knowledge
locality, to be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of the agricultural lessor;
of Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as b. Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural
amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the National lessee, written notice of which shall be served three
Land Reform Council proclaims that all the government machineries months in advance; or
and agencies in that region or locality relating to leasehold c. Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed to
envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such contracts provide the lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapacity
for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercise his option to elect of the lessee.
the leasehold system: Provided, further, That in order not to
jeopardize international commitments, lands devoted to crops Raymundo Coderias v Estate of Juan Cidoco, G.R. No. 180476, June
covered by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a 26, 2013
separate proclamation that adequate provisions, such as the
organization of cooperatives, marketing agreements, or other Facts:
similar workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient The deceased Juan O. Chioco (Chioco) owned a 4-hectare farm in

management on all matters requiring synchronization of the Lupao, Nueva Ecija (the farm). As tiller of the farm, petitioner
agricultural with the processing phases of such crops: Provided, Raymundo Coderias was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT)

furthermore, That where the agricultural share tenancy contract has on April 26, 1974. In 1980, individuals connected with Chioco – who
ceased to be operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a was a former Governor of Nueva Ecija – threatened to kill petitioner
tenancy contract has been entered into in violation of the provisions if he did not leave the farm. His standing crops (corn and vegetables)
of this Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the tenant and house were bulldozed. For fear of his life, petitioner, together

with his family, left the farm. To strengthen the security of tenure of tenants, Section 10 of R.A.
No. 3844 provides that the agricultural leasehold relation shall not
In 1993 upon learning of Chioco’s death, petitioner and his family re- be extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal
established themselves on the farm. possession of the landholding. With unyielding consistency, we have
held that transactions involving the agricultural land over which an
,
On March 9, 1995 petitioner filed with the Department of Agrarian agricultural leasehold subsists resulting in change of ownership, such
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Talavera, Nueva Ecija a as the sale or transfer of legal possession, will not terminate the

Petition against respondent Chioco’s estate praying that his rights of the agricultural lessee who is given protection by the law by
possession and cultivation of the farm be respected; that the making such rights enforceable against the transferee or the
corresponding agricultural leasehold contract between them be landowner's successor in interest.
executed; that he be awarded actual damages for the destruction of
his house, his standing crops, unrealized harvest from 1980 up to In addition, Section 7 of the law enunciates the principle of security

1993, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation. Respondent moved to of tenure of the tenant, such that it prescribes that the relationship
dismiss the Petition, contending that petitioner’s cause of action has of landholder and tenant can only be terminated for causes

prescribed under Section 38 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3844, as provided by law. Security of tenure is a legal concession to
amended, since the alleged dispossession took place in 1980 but the agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of
Petition was filed only in 1995, or beyond the statutory three-year their landholdings is tantamount to deprivation of their only means

period for filing such claims. Petitioner filed an opposition arguing of livelihood. Perforce, the termination of the leasehold relationship
that his tenure/tillage should be deemed uninterrupted since his can take place only for causes provided by law.
departure was due to threats made by Chioco’s henchmen; thus, the The CA has failed to recognize this vinculum juris, this juridical tie,
three-year prescriptive period should not be applied to his case. that exists between the petitioner and Chioco, which the latter is
bound to respect.
Ruling of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD): The

PARAD issued a Decision dismissing the Petition on the ground of Under Section 8 of RA 3844, the agricultural leasehold relation shall
prescription. be extinguished only under any of the following three
circumstances, to wit: "(1) abandonment of the landholding without
Ruling of the DARAB: The appealed decision is set aside. the knowledge of the agricultural lessor; (2) voluntary surrender of
the landholding by the agricultural lessee, written notice of which
Ruling of the CA: The CA SET ASIDE DARAB’s decision. It held that shall be served three months in advance; or (3) absence of the
undoubtedly, a tenancy relation existed between Chioco and persons under Section 9 to succeed the lessee x x x." None of these
petitioner under RA 3844. Nevertheless, it found that petitioner’s is obtaining in this case. In particular, petitioner cannot be said to
action had prescribed, in that the complained acts occurred in 1980 have abandoned the landholding. It will be recalled that Chioco
but petitioner filed only in 1995, or beyond the three-year forcibly ejected him from the property through threats and
prescriptive period under Section 38 of RA 3844. The CA held that intimidation. His house was bulldozed and his crops were destroyed.
this delayed action by petitioner amounts to laches as well. Petitioner left the farm in 1980 and returned only in 1993 upon
learning of Chioco’s death. Two years after, or in 1995, he filed the
Issue: instant Petition.
Whether or not the CA committed an error in setting aside the
decision of DARAB, thereby making petitoner’s contention Indeed, Section 38 of RA 3844 specifically provides that "an action to
untenable due to prescription. enforce any cause of action under this Code shall be barred if not
commenced within three years after such cause of action accrued."
Ruling: In this case, we deem it proper to reckon petitioner’s cause of action
The Court grants the Petition. The Court cannot sanction the use of to have accrued only upon his knowledge of the death of Chioco in
force to evict beneficiaries of land reform. Eviction using force is 1993, and not at the time he was forcibly ejected from the
reversion to the feudal system, where the landed elite have free landholding in 1980. For as long as the intimidation and threats to
reign over their poor vassals. In effect, might is right. petitioner’s life and limb existed, petitioner had a cause of action
against Chioco to enforce the recognition of this juridical tie. Since
It must be recalled from the facts that the farm has been placed the threats and intimidation ended with Chioco’s death, petitioner’s
under the coverage of RA 3844. It is also undisputed that a tenancy obligation to file a case to assert his rights as grantee of the farm
relation existed between Chioco and petitioner. In fact, a CLT had under the agrarian laws within the prescriptive period commenced.
been issued in favor of the petitioner; thus, petitioner already had These rights, as enumerated above, include the right to security of

an expectant right to the farm. A CLT serves as "a provisional title of tenure, to continue in possession of the land he works despite the
ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full expiration of the contract or the sale or transfer of the land to third
payment of just compensation or for as long as the tenant-farmer is persons, the pre-emptive right to buy the land, as well as the right to
an amortizing owner. This certificate proves inchoate ownership of redeem the land, if sold to a third person without his knowledge.
an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn production. It
is issued in order for the tenant-farmer to acquire the land he was Petitioner may not be faulted for acting only after Chioco passed

tilling." Since the farm is considered expropriated and placed under away for his life and the lives of members of his family are not worth

the coverage of the land reform law, Chioco had no right to evict gambling for a piece of land. The bulldozing of his house – his castle
petitioner and enter the property. More significantly, Chioco had no – is only an example of the fate that could befall them. Under the
right to claim that petitioner’s cause of action had prescribed. circumstances, it is therefore understandable that instead of fighting
for the farm, petitioner opted to leave and keep his family safe. Any

man who cherishes his family more than the most valuable material agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of
thing in his life would have done the same. his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized
by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due
Force and intimidation restrict or hinder the exercise of the will, and hearing it is shown that:
so long as they exist, petitioner is deprived of his free will. He could (1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon
not occupy his farm, plant his crops, tend to them, and harvest recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited
them. He could not file an agrarian case against Chioco, for that for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban
meant having to return to Nueva Ecija. He could not file the case purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
anywhere else; any other agrarian tribunal or agency would have disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of
declined to exercise jurisdiction. the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding
calendar years;
The Agricultural Land Reform Code has been designed to promote (2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of
economic and social stability. Being a social legislation, it must be the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of
interpreted liberally to give full force and effect to its clear intent, this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force
which is ‘to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers’ and majeure;
to make them ‘more independent, self-reliant and responsible (3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for
citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society. a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as
We have ruled time and again that litigants should have the amplest determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;
opportunity for a proper and just disposition of their cause – free, as (5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is
much as possible, from the constraints of procedural technicalities. substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably
In the interest of its equity jurisdiction, the Court may disregard deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural
procedural lapses so that a case may be resolved on its merits. Rules lessee;
of procedure should promote, not defeat, substantial justice. Hence, (6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls
the Court may opt to apply the Rules liberally to resolve substantial due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to
issues raised by the parties. crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a
fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for
Our law on agrarian reform is a legislated promise to emancipate dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that
poor farm families from the bondage of the soil. P.D. No. 27 was particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or
promulgated in the exact same spirit, with mechanisms which hope (7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation
to forestall a reversion to the antiquated and inequitable feudal of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.
system of land ownership. It aims to ensure the continued
possession, cultivation and enjoyment by the beneficiary of the land Section 37. Burden of Proof - The burden of proof to show the
that he tills which would certainly not be possible where the former existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural
owner is allowed to reacquire the land at any time following the lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.
award – in contravention of the government’s objective to
emancipate tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil. Section 38. Statute of Limitations - An action to enforce any cause of
action under this Code shall be barred if not commenced within
Does death or incapacity extinguish agricultural leasehold? three years after such cause of action accrued.
Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death
or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of death or permanent In Sum, the following are the grounds to dispossess an agricultural
incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the lessee:
leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the 1. Land has been declared as residential, commercial,
person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the industrial, or other urban purposes by an authorized
agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent government agency;
incapacity, from among the following: Disturbance Compensation = 5x the average
a. the surviving spouse; gross harvest of the landholding in the last 5
b. the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or years
c. the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their 1. Failure of the lessee to comply with the terms and
age: conditions of the lease contract;
Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of the 2. Planted different crops or used the landholding other than
agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice what was agreed upon;
shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided, 3. Failure to adopt proven farm practices (consideration on
further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his the financial capacity and credit facilities available)
choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in 5. Damage or destruction of the land or permanent
accordance with the order herein established. improvements by the fault or negligence of the lessee;
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, 6. Failure to pay rental when it falls due;
the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs. 7. Employment of a sub-lessee

Grounds to dispossess ATTY GCC:
Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions - Notwithstanding One of the most important ground is this non-payment of the rental
any agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an when due. In their relationship, landowner provides the land, and

the lessee provides the labor and when there is production they are the fault of defendants-appellants herein that the rentals did not
supposed to divide the produce. The produce there to be given by reach the plaintiffs-appellees... because the latter choose to lend a
the lessee to the landowner is the rental. The rental is FIXED by law. deaf ear to the notices sent to them.
The rental shall not exceed 25% of the average normal harvest.
CA affirmed the factual findings of the PARAD that petitioner and
Rental should not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the Marciano failed to pay the rentals and that there was no valid
average normal harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately tender of payment The CA added that this failure to pay was tainted
preceding the date of leasehold after deducting amount used for the with bad faith and deliberate intent. Thus, petitioner and Marciano
seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and did not legally comply with their duties as tenants.
processing.
Issues:
Non-payment of rental as ground to dispossess 1. Whether the subject land had already become residential,
Otilia Sta. Ana v Sps. Leon and Aurora Carpo, GR No. 164340, Nov. commercial and/or industrial, thus, excluded from the coverage of
28, 2008 our laws on agrarian reform;
2. Whether the petitioner, as an agricultural tenant, failed to pay her
Facts: lease rentals when the same fell due as to warrant her dispossession
Respondent Leon Carpo (Leon) and his brother Francisco G. Carpo of the subject land.
are the registered co-owners of a parcel of land designated as Lot
No. 2175 of the Santa Rosa Estate Subdivision, situated at Sta. Rosa, Ruling:
Laguna. A portion thereof, consisting of 3.5 hectares, pertained to 1. No. Without doubt, the PARAD acted without jurisdiction when it
Leon and his wife, respondent Aurora Carpo. It was devoted to rice held that the subject land was no longer covered by our agrarian
and corn production (subject land) and was tenanted by one laws because of the retention rights of the respondents. The CA
Domingo Pastolero (Domingo), husband of Adoracion Pastolero likewise acted without jurisdiction when it ruled that the land had
(Adoracion). become... non-agricultural based on a zoning ordinance of 1981-- on
the strength of a mere vicinity map. These rulings violated the
However, on December 29, 1983, Adoracion, by executing a doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
notarized Pinanumpaang Salaysay with the conformity of Leon, and
for a consideration of P72,500.00, transferred her rights in favor of Verily, there is an established tenancy relationship between
petitioner Otilia Sta. Ana. petitioner and respondents in this case. An action for Ejectment for
Non-Payment of lease rentals is clearly an agrarian dispute,
Petitioner, together with her husband, Marciano de la Cruz cognizable at the initial stage by... the PARAD and thereafter by the
(Marciano), became the new tenants of the subject land.At the DARAB.
outset, the parties had a harmonious tenancy relationship.
In their Complaint for Ejectment due to Non-Payment of Lease Proof necessary for the resolution of the issue of the land being
Rentals dated December 1, 1989, respondents alleged that it was covered by, or excluded/exempted from, P.D. No. 27, R.A. No. 6657,
their agreement with petitioner and Marciano to increase the and other pertinent agrarian laws, as well as of the issue of the right
existing rentals from 36 cavans to 45 cavans, and that, if... of retention of the respondents, was not offered in evidence. Under
respondents wanted to repossess the property, they only had to pay Section 37 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, coupled with the
the petitioner the amount of P72,500.00, the same amount paid by fact that the respondents are the complainants themselves, the
the latter to Adoracion.. burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the
ejectment of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee... rests upon the
In their Answer dated January 26, 1990, petitioner and Marciano respondents as agricultural lessors.
denied that there was an agreement to increase the existing rental Respondents failed to discharge such burden.
which was already fixed at 36 cavans of palay, once or twice a year
depending on the availability of irrigation water;... that neither was 2. No. The agricultural tenant's failure to pay the lease rentals must
there an agreement as to the future surrender of the land in favor of be willful and deliberate in order to warrant his dispossession of the
the respondents; that they did not refuse to pay the rentals because land that he tills. The term "deliberate" is characterized by or results
they even sent verbal and written notices to the respondents, from slow, careful, thorough calculation and consideration of effects
advising them to accept the same. and consequences. The term "willful," on the other hand, is defined
as one governed by will without yielding to reason or without...
PARAD: Petitioner and Marciano deliberately defaulted in the regard to reason. DARAB correctly said that it was not the fault of
payment of the rentals due the respondents. petitioner that the lease rentals did not reach the respondents
because the latter chose to ignore the notices sent to them.
DARAB: It is a fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that for non- To note, as early as November 10, 1986, Marciano executed an
payment of lease rentals to warrant the dispossession and Affidavit stating that Leon refused to receive the respective lease
ejectment of a tenant, the same must be made in a willful and rentals consisting of 37 cavans for November 1985 and July 1986.
deliberate manner. For a valid ouster or ejectment of a farmer- These factual circumstances negate the PARAD findings of
tenant, the willful and deliberate intent not to pay lease rentals Marciano's and petitioner's deliberate and willful intent not to pay
and/or share can be ascertained when there is a determination of lease rentals.
will not to do a certain act. Considering the circumstances obtaining
in this case, it cannot be concluded that the defendants-appellants Good faith was clearly demonstrated by Marciano and petitioner
deliberately failed or refused to pay their lease rentals. It was not when, because respondents refused to accept the proffered

payment, they... even went to the point of seeking government rental arrearages have accumulated over a considerable length of
intervention in order to address their problems with respondents. time, i.e., from 1985 to 2005 but rely on the fortuitous event
defense, which as above-mentioned, cannot herein be sustained.
Natividad vs. Mariano , GR No. 179643, June 3, 2013
Verily, agricultural leasehold rentals, as in rentals in ordinary lease
In this case, respondents were paying, but to previous owners. contracts, constitute fixed payments which the lessor has both the
Further, the respondents’ alleged non-payment did not last for the right and expectation to promptly receive in consideration of being
required two- year period. The rental payments were not yet due deprived of the full enjoyment and possession of his property.
and the respondents were not in default at the time Ernesto filed Unless caused by a fortuitous event, or reprieved by virtue of a
the petition for ejectment as Ernesto failed to prove his alleged prior finding that the non-payment of leasehold rentals was not actually
verbal demands. Additionally, assuming arguendo that the willful and deliberate, there appears to be no credible justification,
respondents failed to pay the lease rentals, we do not consider the both in reason and in law, to deny the agricultural lessor the right to
failure to be deliberate or willful. The receipts on record show that recover his property and thereby eject the agricultural lessee in the
the respondents had paid the lease rentals for the years 1988-1998. event that the latter fails to comply with his rent obligations as they
fall due. Indeed, while the Constitution commands the government
Non-payment of the lease rentals whenever they fall due is a ground to tilt the balance in favor of the poor and the underprivileged
for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee under paragraph 6, whenever doubt arises in the interpretation of the law, the jural
Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844. In relation to Section 2 of Presidential postulates of social justice should not sanction any false sympathy
Decree (P.D.) No. 816, deliberate refusal or continued refusal to pay towards a certain class, nor be used to deny the landowner's
the lease rentals by the agricultural lessee for a period of two (2) rights, as in this case.
years shall, upon hearing and final judgment, result in the
cancellation of the CLT issued in the agricultural lessee's favor. Period of Redemption
Sec. 12. Lessee's right of Redemption. - In case the landholding is
The agricultural lessee's failure to pay the lease rentals, in order to sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural
warrant his dispossession of the landholding, must be willful and lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a
deliberate and must have lasted for at least two (2) years. The term reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are
"deliberate" is characterized by or results from slow, careful, two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right
thorough calculation and consideration of effects and consequences, of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by
while the term "willful" is defined, as one governed by will without him. The right of the redemption under this Section may be
yielding to reason or without regard to reason. Mere failure of an exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing
agricultural lessee to pay the agricultural lessor's share does not which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the
necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former absent a Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale,
deliberate intent on the part of the agricultural lessee to pay. and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The
redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the
Atty GCC: time of the sale.
- PD 816 covers rice and corn
- RA 3844 is silent on the period for non-payment of rentals Upon the filing of the corresponding petition or request with the
- There is no fact established in the case whether the subject department or corresponding case in court by the agricultural lessee
property is rice or corn (although it can be assumed to be because or lessees, the said period of one hundred and eighty days shall
of the words “crop year”) cease to run.

Any petition or request for redemption shall be resolved within sixty
Nieves v. Duldulao, G.R. No. 190276, April 2, 2014
days from the filing thereof; otherwise, the said period shall start to

run again.
In the present case, petitioner seeks the dispossession of

respondents from the subject land on the ground of non-payment of
The Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate, while the Land
leasehold rentals based on item 6, Section 36 of RA 3844.
Bank shall finance, said redemption as in the case of pre-emption.
While respondents indeed admit that they failed to pay the full
amount of their respective leasehold rentals as they become due,
they claim that their default was on account of the debilitating Po and Mutia vs. Dampal, GR 173329, December 21, 2009
effects of calamities like flashfloods and typhoons. This latter
assertion is a defense provided under the same provision which, if Facts:
successfully established, allows the agricultural lessee to retain On December 19, 1984, two farm lots located in Bukidnon with an
possession of his landholding. The records of this case are, however, approximate area of 2.5773 and 2.0651 hectares, respectively, were
bereft of any showing that the aforestated claim was substantiated mortgaged for P33,000.00 by the spouses Florencio and Ester
by any evidence tending to prove the same. Keeping in mind Causin, through their attorney-in-fact Manuel Causin, to the now-
that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not defunct Rural Bank of Tagoloan, Inc. For failure to pay the obligation,
equivalent to proof, the Court cannot therefore lend any credence the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold the lots at public auction
to respondents' fortuitous event defense. to petitioner who was the highest bidder. The original certificates of
title were subsequently cancelled and TCTs in their stead were
Respondents' failure to pay leasehold rentals to the landowner also issued in favor of Po, following the spouses Causin’s failure to
appears to have been willful and deliberate. They, in fact, do not redeem the property.
deny — and therefore admit — the landowner's assertion that their

On September 13, 1993, petitioner sold one of the bought lot to her lands
herein co-petitioner Mutia who was issued new TCT. On September Petitioner DNTDC claims:
29, 1994, the spouses Causin and their tenant-herein respondent - They purchased the property in good fair from Flores and
Dampal filed with the Regional Trial Court a complaint against the Nepomuceno in 1995
bank for Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and Sale. - Lease contract with Saligas and Eharas ended in 1986
- Prior to the sale, the Davao City Office of the Zoning Administrator
While the civil case was pending or on June 16, 1997, respondent confirmed that the property was not classified as agricultural
filed a complaint against petitioners before the DARAB for Legal - Affidavit of non-tenancy executed by the vendors affirmed the
Redemption with Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. DARAB absence of any recognized agricultural lessees on the property
disallowed the redemption prayed for on the ground of prescription, - Property had already been classified to be within an
albeit he declared that Dampal is entitled to security of tenure as a "urban/urbanizing zone" in the "1979-2000 Comprehensive Land
tenant; and that although Dampal was not given notice in writing of Use Plan for Davao City", duly adopted by the City Council of Davao
the public auction sale, he was deemed to have knowledge thereof City and approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission
because of the civil case for annulment, hence, there was substantial (HSRC) (now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board [HLURB]).
compliance with the rules.
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled in favor of
DARAB Central Office reversed the Adjudicator’s ruling. petitioner DNTDC, but ordered DNTDC to pay Sps Saliga 20k and Sps
On appeal, the appellate court held that petitioners should have Ehara 15k as disturbance compensation plua 150 sqm homelots
appealed the DARAB Decision via Rule 43, instead of Rule 65, and each. PARAD ruled that property has been reclassified from agri to
dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari. non-agi when CARL took effect. Not under coverage of CARL.

Issue: MTCC orders Saligas and Eharas to vacate premises upon DNTDC's
Whether or not the need for sending notice in writing could be complaint for unlawful detainer.
dispensed with Respondents’ children raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, arguing
that the case involved an agrarian dispute. They contended that the
Ruling: law considers them immediate members of the farm household, to
No. The lack of written notice does not start the running of the whom R.A. No. 3844 and R.A. No. 6657 extend tenurial security.
prescriptive period. In its disquisition, the DARAB held that absence Thus, they claimed that they, as tenants, were entitled to continue
of written notice to the tenant of the sale, as well as to the DAR, is occupying the disputed portion. Respondents' children and DNTDC
indispensable, particularly in view of Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. enter into compromise agreement. 20k for demolition of houses.
3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, which mandates that
the 180-day period must be reckoned from the notice in writing Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
upon registration of the sale. reversed PARAD ruling. DARAB was not convinced that the property
had already been reclassified to non-agricultural uses so as to
Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform remove it from the coverage of CARL. DARAB also pointed out that
Code of 1963, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389 expressly while Davao City Ordinance No. 363, series of 1982 (adopting the
provides that “the right of the redemption under this Section may be Comprehensive Development Plan of Davao City), reclassified the
exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing property to be within the "urban/urbanizing zone," the DNTDC did
which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the not submit the required certifications from the HLURB, adopting the
Department of Agrarian Reform”. zoning ordinance, and from the DAR, approving the conversion to
make the reclassification valid.
The admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus
tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioners’ contention CA affirmed in toto the January 12, 2001 decision of the DARAB. The
that Dampal must be considered to have had constructive CA was also convinced that the property was still agricultural and
knowledge thereof fails in light of the express requirement for notice was, therefore, covered by R.A. No. 6657. While the CA conceded
to be in writing. that the conversion of the use of lands that had been reclassified as
residential, commercial or industrial, prior to the effectivity of R.A.
Reclassification of land as ground to extinguish leasehold No. 6657, no longer requires the DAR’s approval, the CA pointed out
that the landowner must first comply with certain pre-conditions for
Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. vs. Sps. Gloria Saliga, et. Al. , G.R. No. exemption and/or conversion. Among other requirements, the
174588, December 11, 2013 landowner must secure an exemption clearance from the DAR,
HLURB.
Facts:
In dispute are two parcels of land –4.9964 hectares6 and 2.5574 Issue:
hectares situated in Catalunan Pequeño, Davao City. Whether the property had been reclassified from agricultural to
Respondents Saligas and Eharas claims: non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988 so as to remove it from
- They have been tenants of the property since 1965. the coverage of CARL?
- Executed 5-year lease contract with former owner Atty. Mendiola.
Saligas and Eharas claimed that the instrument was actually a device Ruling:
Mendiola used to evade the land reform law. Yes. Local government units have the power to reclassify lands from
- Saligas and Eharas claimed ownership based on PD No. 27 (The agricultural to nonagricultural uses. DAR approval is not required.
Land Reform Program of the Government) covering agricultural

City Council of Davao City has the authority to adopt zoning Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) because the case is an agrarian
resolutions and ordinances. Under Section 3 of R.A. No. 226430 (the dispute; he worked with Bernabe in tilling the land since 1975; he
then governing Local Government Code), municipal and/or city continued working on the land after the death of Bernabe. He
officials are specifically empowered to "adopt zoning and defended his non-payment of rental due to the fact that the land
subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the has lost its suitability for agricultural production. Since the
National Planning Commission." implementation of Operation Land Transfer, he had been deemed
the owner of the land, and had no more obligation to pay rents to
This power of the local government units to reclassify or convert the spouses. In fact he was already paying amortisations to the LBP.
lands to non-agricultural uses is not subject to the approval of the
DAR. (Pasong Bayabas Farmers Asso., Inc. v. Court of Appeals) In The RTC dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. It also denied
Junio v. Secretary Garilao, SC clarified, once and for all, that "with the motion for reconsideration for failure to comply with the 3-day
respect to areas classified and identified as zonal areas not for notice rule, thus, the spouses elevated the case to the Court of
agricultural uses, the DAR’s clearance is no longer necessary for Appeals. During the pendency of the case with the CA, Jesus became
conversion. the registered owner of the land under Original Certificate of Title
No. EP-992-C. Before he could inform the CA of this development,
Atty GCC: however, the CA rendered a decision granting the petition for
But, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not certiorari filed by the CA. It ruled that petitioner failed to establish
automatically allow a landowner to change its use and because of tenancy relationship between the parties. According to the appellate
this cause the ejectment of the tenants. He must undergo the court, the elements of consent and sharing of harvest are lacking.
process of conversion before he is permitted to use the land for Moreover, petitioner was held as unqualified to be a successor-
other purposes. tenant by virtue of hereditary succession because he is not among
those listed under Section 9 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3844, he being
Conversion – the act of changing the current use of a piece of only a relative by affinity. Hence, Jesus sought recourse with the
agricultural land into some other use as approved by the DAR. Supreme court.

Reclassification – the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be Issue:
utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, Which has jurisdiction over the case: the RTC or the DARAB?
commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the
requirements and procedure for land use conversion. The Ruling:
RTC retains jurisdiction of the instant case.
Crisostomo vs. Victoria, GR No. 175098, Aug 26, 2015
Only DARAB can adjudicate an agrarian dispute.
There was a lease contract entered into by Crisostomo and Hipolito Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6657 defines an agrarian dispute in this wise:
that would expire on Hipolito’s death. When Hipolito died, x x x x
Crisostomo wanted to reclaim possession over the property but (d) Agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to
found Victoria there who alleged that Hipolito was his uncle. tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy,
Court held that Hipolito’s status as the acknowledged tenant did not stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
clothe him with capacity to designate respondent as tenant. The agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers’
right to hire a tenant is basically a personal right of the landowner associations or representation of persons in negotiating,
except as may be provided by law. But certainly nowhere in Sec. 6 fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms
does it say that a civil law lessee of a landholding is automatically or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands
authorized to install a tenant thereon.
acquired under R.A. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer

of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other
Still, there is no consent from Crisostomo which is an essential
agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the
element of tenancy. While there are receipts, Crisostomo never
proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and
failed to write down in the receipts that it was Hipolito who was the
tenant, or lessor and lessee.
valid lessee.

For DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there must be tenancy
Velasquez v. Spouses Cruz, G.R. No. 191479, September 21, 2015
relationship between the parties. Tenancy relationship is a juridical

tie which arises between a landowner and a tenant once they agree,
Facts:
expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land
The spouses Cruz are the registered owners of a parcel of land
belonging to the landowner, as a result of which relationship the
situated in Hagonoy, Bulacan covered by Tax Declaration No. 020-
tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the
10-022-11-027. In their complaint for recovery of possession with
land. The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed
accounting and damages against Jesus Velasquez (petitioner), they
and allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to
alleged that Jesus’ father-in-law, Bernabe was their tenant in the
security of tenure.
land until April 6, 1985 when he surrendered his tenancy rights by

virtue of a Sinumpaang Salaysay; that since then, no other person
In order for a tenancy agreement to arise, it is essential to establish
was installed as tenant; that Jesus entered the farm land without
all its indispensable elements, viz.:
their consent, and he had not paid rent since 1985. They prayed that
(1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
Jesus vacate the land. In his Answer with Motion to Dismiss, Jesus
lessee;
averred that jurisdiction pertains to the Department of Agrarian

(2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; demanded the payment thereof, but Reynalda ignored such
(3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; demand. Tan heirs filed a case for estafa for her failure to pay and
(4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural deliver the share.
production; Petitioner: The agreement was extinguished due to non-payment of
(5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or lease (the 2/3 of the harvest).
agricultural lessee; and Respondent: The Tans demand excessive amount.
(6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or
agricultural lessee. All these requisites are necessary to create a Issue:
tenancy relationship, and the absence of one or more requisites will WON Reynalda is obliged to pay only ¼ or 25% of the normal harvest
not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant. and not 2/3 when the subject land was not yet placed under the
Leasehold System pursuant to Sec.12 of RA 6657
It appears that the element of consent and sharing of harvests are
clearly lacking. [Petitioner] merely alleged that he was verbally Ruling:
asked by all the heirs of Guillerma Coronel to continue working on Yes. In this case, the Tans seek ejectement of Reynalda from the
the land. The fact that [petitioner] was allowed to stay on the Land due to non-payment of lease rental. In order for non-payment
property does not mean that [respondents] impliedly recognized the of the lease rental to be a valid ground to dispossess the agricultural
existence of a leasehold relation with [petitioner]. Occupancy and lessee of the landholding, the amount of the lease rental must first
continued possession of the land will not ipso facto make one a of all be lawful. If the amount of lease rental claimed exceeds the
dejure tenant. limit allowed by law, non-payment of lease rental cannot be a
ground to dispossess the agricultural lessee of the landholding.
In this case, [petitioner] could not present any evidence showing
that [respondents] had recognized him as tenant. The other pieces Section 34 of RA 3844 as amended mandates that not x x x more
of evidence submitted by the [petitioner] do not prove the alleged than 25% of the average normal harvest shall constitute the just and
tenancy relationship as the certifications he presented could only fair rental for leasehold. In this case, the Tan Heirs demanded
show that he is the actual occupant of the land, a fact recognized by Reynalda to deliver 2/3 of the harvest as lease rental, which clearly
the [respondents] and the reason why they instituted an action for exceeded the 25% maximum amount prescribed by law. Therefore,
recovery of possession. Being an actual occupant of the land is the Tan Heirs cannot validly dispossess Reynalda of the landholding
definitely different from being a tenant thereof. More importantly, for non-payment of rental precisely because the lease rental claimed
[petitioner] was not able to show that he shared his harvests, not by the Tan Heirs is unlawful.
even once, with the [respondents]. He just reasoned out that he was
not able to remit his dues because the land became unproductive
III. P.D. 27: T ENANTS E MANCIPATION D ECREE
due to the intrusion of saline waters. No explanation was offered to

show that he exerted efforts to make the land productive for
Suppletory application on just compensation
agricultural production. Instead, he took the opportunity to release
The determination of just compensation should be based on RA
bangus fingerlings but without giving any share of this income to the
6657 for lands covered under PD 27.
[respondents]
PD 27 applies suppletorily.

Petittioner’s claim that he succeeded Navarro as tenant is
questionable. Petitioner, a relative by affinity of Navarro, is, to the The Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law
operates distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and
Court of Appeals, not qualified to succeed as tenant. Thus, the RTC
retains jurisdiction over the instant action for recovery of private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain
possession. suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No.
131 and Executive Order No. 229; while, P.D. 27 covers rice and corn

lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides for the mechanism of
Heirs of Enrique Tan Sr. vs. Reynalda Pollescas, G.R. No. 145568,
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically states:
Nov. 17. 2005
"(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate

with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. . . ."
Facts:

Petitioners Tan were co-owners of a coconut farmland.Esteban
It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or
Pollescas was the original tenant of the land. Upon Esteban’s death,
supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D.
his son Enrique succeeded him and was appointed tenant by the
27 that are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the
landowners. However, respondent Reynalda, Esteban’s surviving
latter, and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are
second spouse, demanded that the Tans recognize her as Esteban’s
retained even with the passage of R.A. 6657. (Sigre v. Court of
successor.
Appeals, G.R. No. 109568, 113454, August 8, 2002)

Reynalda filed a complaint before DARAB, questioning the tenancy
Atty GCC: Another reason should be the “reasonableness” of the
relationship of Tan and Enrique. DARAB ruled in favor of Reynalda,
factors in determining just compensation under RA 6657 compared
declaring her as the lawful tenant of the Land. DARAB apportioned
toPD27.
the harvests between the Tans and Reynalda based on the
customary sharing system which is 2/3 to the landowner and 1/3 to
the tenant.

Reynalda failed to deliver the 2/3 of the harvest. Tan heirs

IV. R.A. N O . 6657 OR CARL
(AS AMENDED BY R.A. N OS. 7881, 7905, 8532, 9700) The use of land is incidental to but not the principal factor or
consideration of productivity in this industry. It was never the
Date of Effectivity intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock
June 15, 1988 and poultry industry in the coverage of the agrarian reform program
of the government. The intention of the Committee was to limit the
Agricultural activity vis-à-vis raising of livestock application of the word “agriculture”.
Section 3 (b). “Agriculture” or “Agricultural Activity” – Means the
cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing fruit trees, raising Thus, Section II of RA 6657 which includes “private agricultural lands
of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising” in the
products and other farm activities and practices performed by a definition of “commercial farms” is invalid, to the extent that the
farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the
whether natural or juridical. agrarian reform program of the State.

Luz Farms vs Sec. of DAR, G.R. No. 86889. December 4, 1990. 2. YES. As there is no reason to include livestock and poultry lands
in the coverage of agrarian reform, there is no need to call
Facts: upon them to distribute from 3% of their gross sales and 10% of
In 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines. their net profits to their workers as additional compensation.
It includes the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage.
In 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the IRR of Republic of the Philippines, represented by the DAR vs. Salvador N.
Secs. 11, 13, and 39 of the said law. Lopez Agri-Business Corp., G.R. No. 178895/ G.R. No. 179071:
January 10, 2011

Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry
business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the Facts:
enforcement of some provisions of CARP. Luz Farms questions the Two properties of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC)
following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as they are made to apply were placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law CARL). SNLABC sought exemption of their properties,
to it:
arguing that due to the ruling in the Luz Farms case, land devoted to
a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock
(and poultry)" in the definition of "Agricultural, livestock is outside the coverage of the CARL.
Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity.
b) Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as Upon ocular inspection, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
"private agricultural lands devoted to commercial, (MARO) found that one of the parcels of land, the Lopez land, were
exempt from CARL coverage. The other parcel, the Limot land, was
livestock, poultry and swine raising . . ."
c) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a not exempt.
production-sharing plan.
d) Section 16(d) and 17 which vest on the Department SNLABC appealed the finding with the Secretary of the Department
of Agrarian Reform the authority to summarily of Agriculture. The DAR, however, ruled that both Lopez and Limot
determine the just compensation to be paid for lands lands were subject to the CARL.
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
e) Section 32 which spells out the production-sharing SNLABC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which
plan mentioned in Section 13 rendered the assailed decision. The CA affirmed the findings of the
f) ". . . (W)hereby three percent (3%) of the gross sales MARO, that the Lopez land was exclusively used for livestock. The
from the production of such lands are distributed MARO found that the Lopez lands were used for grazing, and that
within sixty (60) days of the end of the fiscal year as such was its purpose even before the Luz Farms ruling. It was
compensation to regular and other farmworkers in sufficiently established by testimonies of the people thereabouts.
such lands over and above the compensation they Despite the presence of coconut trees in the Lopez lands, it is still
used primarily for raising livestock. There are also structures meant
currently receive xxx
for such a purpose.

The Limot lands, on the other hand, were used both for coconut and
Issues:
rubber plantations. The MARO found that it was only used as an
1. WON the CARL should include the raising of livestock,
extension of grazing land, inconsistently at best.
poultry and swine in its coverage.

2. WON the requirement in Sections 13 and 32 of RA 6657
Both the DAR and SNLABC appealed the decision.
directing “corporate farms” to execute and implement

“production-sharing plans” is unreasonable for being
confiscatory and violative of due process, with respect to Issue:
Whether or not the Lopez and Limot Lands are under the coverage
livestock and poultry raisers.
of CARL

Ruling:
Ruling:
1. NO. Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 are unconstitutional in so
Both petitions are dismissed.
far as they include lands devoted to raising livestock, swine and

poultry within its coverage.
The DAR argues that the tax declaration of the Lopez lands classify it

as agricultural land. Also, that the SNLABC was incorporated after (1) that the land must be devoted to agricultural activity; and
the implementation of the CARL shows that there is an attempt to (2) that the land must not be classified as mineral, forest, residential,
evade CARL coverage. commercial or industrial land.

It is, however, doctrinal that tax declarations themselves are not For land to be covered under PD 27, it must be devoted to rice or
conclusive evidence as to the classification of land. Also, it is the corn crops, and there must be a system of share-crop or lease-
actual usage of the land, not its classification, which determines its tenancy obtaining therein. Unfortunately, the Dakila property did
eligibility for CARL. not meet these requirements.

As for the Lopez lands, it as inherited by the owner of SNLABC as Definition of agricultural land
livestock land. Its use has been for raising livestock even before the Section 3 (c). Agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural
incorporation of SNLABC. Hence, the time of incorporation, and the activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
tax declaration are irrelevant. residential, commercial or industrial land.

As for the Limot lands, it is not enough that such are used as Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developer and Investors Corp v DAR,
seasonal extensions of grazing land. The livestock are not regularly GR No 103302, August 12, 1993
situated in the land in question, but are only brought there at times
for grazing. It is land actually devoted to coconut and rubber. Hence, Facts:
it cannot be exempted. Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of
120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares and 2.7080 hectares or a total of
125.0078 hectares, which are covered by TCT No. 31527.
RA 7881 amended RA 6657: Section 3 (b) and removed the phrase
“the raising of livestock, poultry or fish.” Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land
as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the
Holy Trinity v Victorio Dela Cruz, et. Al;, G.R. No. 200454, October metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan
22, 2014 Townsite. The Natalia properties are situated within the areas
proclaimed as townsite reservation. Since private landowners were
Facts: allowed to develop their properties into low-cost housing
The Dakila property used to be tenanted by Susana Surio and the subdivisions with the reservation, petitioner EDIC as developer of
others but the tenants freely and voluntarily relinquished their Natalia applied for and was granted preliminary approval and
tenancy rights in favor of Santiago through their respective location clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory
sinumpaang pahayag in exchange for some financial assistance and Commission, which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills
individual homelots titled and distributed in their names. Subdivision.

Holy Trinity purchased the remaining 208,050 sq.m. of the Dakila On June 15 1988, RA 6657 took effect. Respondent issed a Notice of
property from Santiago who caused the transfer of the title to Holy Coverage on the undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
Trinity and subdivided the Dakila property into 6 lots. Holy Trinity Natalia and EDIC immediately registered its objection to the notice
then develop the property by dumping filing materials on the of coverage and requested the cancellation of the Notice of
topsoil, erected a perimeter fence and steel gate and later on Coverage.
established its field office on the property.
Natalia and EDIC both argued that the properties ceased to be
The Sanggunian Bayan ng Malolos passed Municipal Resolution No. agricultural lands when they were included in the areas reserved by
16-98 reclassifying four of the six subdivided lots belonging to the Presidential Proclamation for the townsite reservation.
Holy Trinity into residential lots.
DAR then contended that the permits granted were not valid and
In 2006, Silvino Manalad and the alleged heirs of Felix Surio wrote to binding since they did not comply with t he implementing Standards,
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of Bulacan to request an Rules and Regulations of PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium
investigation of the sale of the Dakila property. DAR Provincial Office Buyers Protective Decree), and that there was no valid conversion of
of Bulacan filed a petition to annul the sale of the Dakila property the properties.
with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Bulacan.
Issue:
Issue: Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved
Was the Dakila property agricultural land within the coverage of RA by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its agencies prior
6657 or PD 27? to June 15, 1988 are still covered by RA 6657

Ruling: Ruling:
No. Land on which no agricultural activity is being conducted is not No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of
subject to the coverage of either Presidential Decree No. 27 or tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and
Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). private agricultural lands.

Consequently, before land may be placed under the coverage of RA Agricultural lands is referred to as land devoted to agricultural
6657, two requisites must be met, namely: activity and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial

or industrial land. landholding had already been earmarked for residential use in 1982,
as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity for
Thus, the underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision the passage of the 1994 Ordinance.
cannot be considered as agricultural lands for this land was intended
for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of In order to be exempt from CARP coverage, the subject property
the Presidential Proclamation No. 1637. must have been classified as industrial/residential before June 15,
1988. In this case, the DAR's examination of the zoning ordinances
Alangilan Realty v Office of the President, G.R. No. 180471, March and certifications pertaining to the subject property, as well as its
26, 2010 field investigation, disclosed that the same remains to be
agricultural. The Zoning Certifications to the effect that the land is
Facts: within the city's potential growth area for urban expansion are
Petitioner is the owner/developer of a 17.4892-hectare land in inconsequential as they do not reflect the present classification of
Barangays Alangilan and Patay in Batangas City. Petitioner filed an the land but merely its intended land use.
Application and/or Petition for Exclusion/Exemption from
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Coverage of the Not having been converted into, or classified as, residential before
Alangilan landholding with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office June 15, 1988, the Alangilan landholding is, therefore, covered by
(MARO) of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). It averred the CARP. The subsequent reclassification of the landholding as
that, in 1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of Batangas City classified the residential in 1994 cannot place the property outside the ambit of
subject landholding as reserved for residential under a zoning the CARP, because there is no showing that the DAR Secretary
ordinance (1982 Ordinance), which was approved by the Human approved the reclassification.
Settlement Regulatory Commission. It further alleged that, on May
17, 1994, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Batangas City approved Heirs of Deleste vs. LBP, et. Al , G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011
the City Zoning Map and Batangas Comprehensive Zoning and Land
Use Ordinance (1994 Ordinance), reclassifying the landholding as Facts:
residential. Spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria)
were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo,
Petitioner thus claimed exemption of its landholding from the Iligan City, consisting of 34.7 hectares (subject property). Said
coverage of the CARP. spouses were childless, but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio
Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman.
Then DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao issued an Order denying
petitioners application for exemption. The DAR Secretary noted that, When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the
as of February 15, 1993, the Alangilan landholding remained subject property. On February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the
agricultural, reserved for residential. Petitioner moved for subject property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP 16,000. The
reconsideration but the same was denied. deed of sale was notarized on February 17, 1954 and registered on
March 2, 1954. Also, the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was
On appeal, the OP affirmed the decision of the DAR secretary. canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of
Petitioner went up to the CA via a petition for review on certiorari, Deleste.
assailing the OP decision but the CA dismissed the petition. Upon
denial of its motion for reconsideration, the present petition is filed. On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued.
This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought
Issue: under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to
Is the subject property undeer the coverage of CARL? farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property was placed under
the said program. However, only the heirs of Gregorio were
Ruling: identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the
Yes. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to convince us that the landowners. Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to
Alangilan landholding ceased to be agricultural at the time of the the coverage were sent to these heirs.
effectivity of the CARL.
In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as
It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as the Zoning Regulation of Iligan City, reclassifying the subject
agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as property as commercial/residential. Eventually, on February 12,
residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioners assertion, the 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of
term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the
from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR subject property. The CLTs were registered on July 15, 1986. On
Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with
intended land use. It does not denote that the property has already the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a
been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for petition seeking to nullify private respondents EPs.
residential is not a land classification category.
On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the (PARAD) rendered a Decision declaring that the EPs were null and
subject landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the void in view of the pending issues of ownership, the subsequent
fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in reclassification of the subject property into a residential/commercial
1994, reclassifying the landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the land, and the violation of petitioners constitutional right to due

process of law. construed as automatically vesting upon these tenant-farmers
Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486, reversed the absolute ownership over the land they were tilling. Certain
ruling of the PARAD in its Decision dated March 15, 2004. It held, requirements must also be complied with, such as payment of just
among others, that the EPs were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste compensation, before full ownership is vested upon the tenant-
who should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case farmers.
No. 698 at the time the subject property was placed under the
coverage of the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a party Prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements, tenant-
to the said case. Further, it stated that the record is bereft of any farmers have, at most, an inchoate right over the land they were
evidence that the city ordinance has been approved by the Housing tilling. In recognition of this, a CLT is issued to a tenant-farmer to
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), as mandated by DAR serve as a provisional title of ownership over the landholding while
Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and held that whether the lot owner is awaiting full payment of just compensation or for as
the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT Program is an long as the tenant-farmer is an amortizing owner.
administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies
exclusively with the DAR Secretary or the latters authorized Land transfer under PD 27 is effected in two (2) stages. The first
representative. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise stage is the issuance of a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary as soon as the
denied by the DARAB in its Resolution dated July 8, 2004. DAR transfers the landholding to the farmer-beneficiary in
recognition that said person is its deemed owner. And the second
Issues: stage is the issuance of an EP as proof of full ownership of the
1. Whether or not the subject property is outside the coverage of landholding upon full payment of the annual amortizations or lease
the agrarian reform program rentals by the farmer-beneficiary.
2. Whether or not respondents acquired vested rights over the land
under PD 27 In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all
intents and purposes, it was only in 1984 that private respondents,
Ruling: as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an inchoate right
1. Yes. We agree with petitioners that the subject property, over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed
particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian requirements. Considering that the local zoning ordinance was
reform program in view of the enactment by the City of Iligan of its enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978,
local zoning ordinance, City Ordinance No. 1313. private respondents still had no vested rights to speak of during this
period, as it was only in 1984 that private respondents were issued
It is undeniable that the local government has the power to the CLTs and were deemed owners.
reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands. In Pasong Bayabas
Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA, this Court held that pursuant to Sec. The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since
3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local Government reclassification had taken place twenty-six (26) years prior to their
Code, municipal and/or city councils are empowered to adopt issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued prior to
zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property,
with the National Planning Commission. It was also emphasized particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian
therein that the power of the local government to convert or reform program.
reclassify lands from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to
the passage of RA 6657 is not subject to the approval of the DAR. LBP V. Estate of Araneta, G.R. No. 161796, Feb. 8, 2012

Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which Facts:
was enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject At the heart of the controversy is a large tract of land with an area of
property into a commercial/residential area. DARAB, however, 1,645 hectares, more or less, which was originally registered in the
believes that the approval of HLURB is necessary in order for the name of Alfonso Doronilla (Doronilla) under Original Certificate of
reclassification to be valid. Title (OCT) No. 7924 of the Rizal Registry.

We differ. As previously mentioned, City Ordinance No. 1313 was On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283,
enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975. Significantly, there was still no carving out a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in
HLURB to speak of during that time. It was the Task Force on Human Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the segregated area for townsite
Settlements, the earliest predecessor of HLURB, which was already purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be”.
in existence at that time, having been created on September 19,
1973 pursuant to Executive Order No. 419. It should be noted, In 1978, the OSG filed with the then CFI of Rizal an expropriation
however, that the Task Force was not empowered to review and complaint against the Doronilla property. Meanwhile, on 1979,
approve zoning ordinances and regulations. Doronilla issued a Certification, copy furnished the Agrarian Reform
Office, among other agencies, listing seventy-nine (79) "bona fide
Since the subject property had been reclassified as planters" he allegedly permitted to occupy a portion of his land. On
residential/commercial land with the enactment of City Ordinance 1987 or nine (9) years after it commenced expropriation
No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an agricultural proceedings, the OSG moved for and secured the dismissal of the
land within the ambit of RA 6657. expropriation case.

2. No. It should be clarified that even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased,
are deemed owners as of October 21, 1972, this is not to be acquired ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of

court litigation. A little over a week later, he had OCT No. 7924 agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the
canceled and secured the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and
(TCT) No. N-70860 in his name. tenant, or lessor and lessee.

Issue: Section. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court
Whether or not the disputed lots are covered by CARL or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to
the implementation of the CARP except those provided under
Ruling: Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an
Partly yes and partly no. allegation from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature
The primary governing agrarian law with regard to agricultural lands, and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case
be they of private or public ownership and regardless of tenurial shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the
arrangement and crops produced, is now RA 6657. DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from
referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the
The provisions of RA 6657 apply only to agricultural lands under determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial
which category the Doronilla property, during the period material, recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the
no longer falls, having been effectively classified as residential by prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial
force of Proclamation 1637. It ceased, following Natalia Realty, Inc., court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal
to be agricultural land upon approval of its inclusion in the LS shall be to the Court of Appeals. Xxx
Townsite Reservation pursuant to the said reclassifying presidential
issuance. Section 8. Prima Facie Presumption of an Existence of Agrarian
Dispute or that the Case is Agrarian in Nature. — The
Before Proclamation 1637 came to be, there were already PD 27 presence of any of the following facts or circumstances shall
tenant-farmers in said property. In a very real sense, the "private automatically give rise to a prima facie presumption that
rights" belong to these tenant-farmers. Since the said farmer- an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature:
beneficiaries were deemed owners of the agricultural land awarded (a) A previous determination by the DAR that
to them as of October 21, 1972 under PD 27 and subsequently an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in
deemed full owners under EO 228, the logical conclusion is clear and nature, or the existence of a pending action with the DAR,
simple: the township reservation established under Proclamation whether an Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case or a
1637 must yield and recognize the "deemed ownership rights" case before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), which
bestowed on the farmer-beneficiaries under PD 27. Another way of involves the same landholding;
looking at the situation is that these farmer-beneficiaries are (b) A previous determination by the National Labor
subrogated in the place of Doronilla and eventual transferee Relations Commission or its Labor Arbiters that the
Araneta. farmworker is/was an employee of the complainant;
(c) A notice of coverage was issued or a petition for
Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that CARL shall ‘cover, regardless of coverage under any agrarian reform program was filed on
tenurial agreement and commodity produced, all public and private the subject landholding; or
agricultural lands.’ As to what constitutes ‘agricultural land,’ it is (d) Other analogous circumstances.
referred to as ‘land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this If there is a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists
Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or or that the case is agrarian in nature, the burden of proving the
industrial land.’ The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission contrary shall be on the party alleging the same.
confirm this limitation. (Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 19 of R.A. No.
9700 (Jurisdiction on and Referral of Cases that Are Agrarian in
‘Agricultural lands’ are only those lands which are ‘arable and Nature), DAR Administrative Order No. 03-11, [July 19, 2011])
suitable agricultural lands’ and do not include commercial, industrial
and residential lands.’ "Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural Essential Requisites of leasehold relationship:
activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands 1. Parties (landowner and tenants)
previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity 2. Subject matter is agricultural land
of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. 3. Consent of parties
4. Purpose is agricultural production
Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. v Sps. Gloria Saliga, supra. (See case 5. Personal cultivation by the tenant
digest in previous pages) 6. Sharing of harvest between parties

Agrarian Dispute Note: All requisites must concur. Absence of one does not make one
Section 3 (d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to a tenant.
tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes Isidro v. CA, G.R. No. L-105586, December 15, 1993
concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange Facts:
terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. Private respondent is owner of land. Sister of private respondent
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to
acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer vacate upon demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed
of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other against Isidro. RTC dismissed because land is agricultural and so

agrarian. Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) praying that petitioners be
ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land in the
Issue: name of the De Leon sisters.
Are the requisites for the existence of tenancy present?
Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of
Ruling: the land since time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of
No. Jurisdiction over subject matter is determined from the the owners, who were her sisters-in-law and that petitioners
allegations in the complaint. Court does not lose jurisdiction by entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice planted on
defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if the land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy
tenancy is shown, the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. equipment; that the incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian
Case involving agricultural land does not automatically make such Reform Office (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist Order 5 but
case agrarian. Six requisites were not present. There was no contract to no avail.
to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was
paying rent for use of land. Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her
tenancy rights over the land; restore the land to its original
Bejasa v. CA, G.R. No. 108941, July 6, 2000 condition and not to convert the same to non -agricultural use; that
any act of disposition of the land to any other person be declared
Facts: null and void because as a tenant, she allegedly had a right of pre-
Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to emption or redemption over the land.
Malabanan. Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject
clear it, with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
continued to stay on the land and did not give any consideration for (CARP). He alleged that respondent is no longer physically capable of
its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest tilling the land; that the MARO issued a certification that the land
had no registered tenant; that respondent could not be regarded as
Issue: a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns and resides in the
Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired through
Bejasas. inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy was executed by the
De Leon sisters when they sold the property to him.
Ruling:
No. There was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There Moreover, Lim claimed that respondent and her family
was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. surreptitiously entered the subject land and planted a few crops to
Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land. pass themselves off as cultivators thereof; that respondent tried to
There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas negotiate with petitioner Lim for the sale of the land to her, as the
to be the tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of latter was interested in entering into a joint venture with another
tenancy were met in this case. There was no proof of sharing in residential developer, which shows that respondent has sufficient
harvest. resources and cannot be a beneficiary under the CARP; that the land
is no longer classified as agricultural and could not thus be covered
Almuete v. Andres, G.R. No. 122276, Nov. 20, 2001 by the CARP. Per certification issued by the Office of the Municipal
Planning and Development Coordinator of Bacoor, Cavite, the land is
classified as residential pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Facts:
approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown to
Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to
investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived his Issue: Whether there is an agrarian dispute
rights. Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to
Masiglat for radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him for a Ruling:
carabao and P600. Almuete filed an action for recovery of No. There is no substantial evidence to support that respondent is a
possession and reconveyance before trial court. Issue is who bona fide tenant on the subject property.
between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above.
It was not shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy
Issue: Whether there is agrarian dispute relationship or that the De Leon sisters received any share in the
harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a
proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a
Ruling:
No. This controversy relates to ownership of farmland so it is beyond tenancy relationship.
the ambit of agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and
tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent. RTC was The affidavits merely stated that the De Leon sisters have known
competent to try the case. respondent to be the cultivator of the land since time immemorial. It
cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest sharing. That
respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without
Nicorp Devt v. De Leon, G.R. No. 176942, Aug. 28, 2008
opposition, does not mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly

recognized the existence of a leasehold relation with respondent.
Facts:
Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not ipso facto
Respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial
make one a de jure tenant.

Sps. Fajardo vs. Flores , G.R. No. 167891, Jan. 15, 2010 should be primordial. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary
that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present.
Facts:
Parties executed a Kasunduan where it was admitted that Jesus The affidavits executed by three of respondents' neighbors are
Fajardo was the tiller of the land. In another agreement, an area of insufficient to establish a finding of tenancy relationship between
10,923 sq. m. was given to petitioners. The portion of the land Pastor and Macario. As correctly observed by the estate of Pastor
where petitoners’ home is erected is the subject of the instant case Samson, the affiants did not provide details based on their personal
for unlawful detainer. knowledge as to how the crop-sharing agreement was implemented,
how much was given by Macario to Pastor, when and where the
Issue: Whether it is MTC or DARAB which has jurisdiction over the payments were made, or whether they have at any instance
case. witnessed Pastor receive his share of the harvest from Macario.
Such failure is fatal to respondents' claim particularly since the
Ruling: respondents have the burden of proving their affirmative allegation
DARAB has jurisdiction. of tenancy. In fine, the conclusions of the RARAD, DARAB and the CA
SC agreed with RTC which pointed out that the resolution of this respecting the existence of tenancy relationship between Pastor and
case hinges on the correct interpretation of the contracts executed Macario are not supported by substantial evidence on record.
by the parties. The issue of who has a better right of possession over
the subject and cannot be determined without resolving first the Atty GCC:
matter as to whom the subject property was allotted. Thus, it not a You can use affidavits of neighbors for as long as it has the specific
case for unlawful detainer because it is incapable of pecuniary details showing:
estimation. - how the agreement was implemented
- how much was given
There exists an agrarian dispute because the controversy involves - when and where the payments were made
the home lot of petitioners—an incident arising from the landlord- - whether they have a witness when the landowner is receiving the
tenant relationship. share.

Petitioner’s claim that the tenancy relationship has been terminated Heirs of Quilo v. DBP, G.R. No. 184369, Oct. 23, 3013
by the Kasulatan is of no moment. As long as the subject matter of
the dispute is the legality of the termination of the relationship, or if Facts:
the dispute originates from such relationship, the case is cognizable The spouses Emilio Oliveros and Erlinda de Guzman (spouses

by the DARAB. Oliveros) owned four parcels of land. In 1966, Florentino Quilo

(Quilo) started planting vegetables thereon. Sometime in 1975,
Estate of Pastor Samson vs. Susano, G.R.No. 179024, May 30, 2011 Quilo filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) a
Complaint against the spouses Oliveros regarding unspecified issues
Facts: in their alleged agrarian relations. Hence, on 12 September 1975, a
This case deals with affidavits executed by the neighbors of the Notice of Conference was sent to the spouses by a DAR Team
occupants claiming that they were tenants of the land. Leader. However, the Complaint did not prosper.

Issue: Was there tenancy? The spouses Oliveros later on mortgaged the parcels of land to the
Development Bank of the Philippines, Dagupan City Branch
Ruling: (respondent bank) to secure a loan, for which they executed an

No. The existence of a tenancy relationship is a question of fact. Affidavit of Non-Tenancy. Since they were unable to pay the loan,
There was no specific evidence cited to support such conclusion the mortgage was foreclosed, and the title to the landholding
other than their observation that Pastor failed to protest Macario’s consolidated with respondent bank.
possession and cultivation over the subject land for more than 30 On 15 April 1983, respondent bank sold the parcels of land to the
years. Contrary to what is required by law, no independent and spouses Roberto and Carlina del Mindo (respondent spouses) for
[11]
concrete evidence were adduced. P34,000. Respondent spouses began to fence the subject

landholding shortly after.
It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an
agricultural land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. Upon learning about the sale, Quilo filed a Complaint for
Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal Redemption with Damages against respondents with the Regional
cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner. Trial Court, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan (RTC). He alleged that
Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing as an agricultural tenant of the land, he had the preference and the

cannot be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence; there must be priority to buy it. He further said that he was ready to repurchase it,
concrete evidence on record adequate to prove the element of and that he had deposited with the Clerk of Court the amount of
sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other credible ?34,000 and other necessary expenses as redemption price.
evidence must be presented, because self-serving statements are
inadequate. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed; the Issue: Was there tenancy?
elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done
away with by conjectures. Leasehold relationship is not brought Ruling:
about by the mere congruence of facts but, being a legal No. Notice of conference and the affidavits only showed that Quinto
relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that relationship filed a complaint against the spouses Oliveros regarding the land he

was cultivating. The affidavits confirmed merely that Quinto had that since the year 1995 until the date of the affidavit, the subject
been planting on the land. Documents no way confirmed that his land was not being used for farming, cultivation or any agricultural
presence on the land was based on a tenancy relationship that the purpose. These evidence can only mean that the leasehold contract
spouses Oliveros had agreed to. was falsified.

Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not In addition, it should be kept in mind that Zenaida was convicted of
automatically establish a leasehold relation or make one a tenant. falsification of public documents as affirmed in our Resolution dated
The affidavit only stated that Quilo had given his share of the 8 December 2008 in G.R. No. 184728. Zenaida registered and
harvest to the spouses (the details fell short). transferred to her name four land titles owned by Pablo Floro by
forging the signature of Pablo Floro in a deed of sale. Likewise, in
Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other evidence to G.R. No. 169674 for annulment of title, we affirmed the ruling of the
show that there were sharing of harvest and that there was an appellate court in declaring the titles issued in the name of Zenaida
agreed system of sharing between them. Deposit cannot prove the and Sun Industrial as void.
existence of a sharing agreement. It must be showed that the
deposit is made in relation to tenancy. In sum, the certifications from Bautista and the MARO declaring
Reyes to be a tenant are not enough evidence to prove that there is
Reyes v. Heirs of Floro, G.R. No. 200713, Dec. 11, 2013 a tenancy relationship. One claiming to be a de jure tenant has the
burden to show, by substantial evidence, that all the essential
Facts: elements of a tenancy relationship are present. Since Reyes is not
Reyes contends that (1) the Pagpapatunay dated 17 September a de jure tenant or lessee, he is not entitled to the benefits of
1983 from Carmen Bautista, the original owner of the land, stating redemption, pre-emption, peaceful possession, occupation and
that Reyes was one of her tenants; and (2) the Certification dated 4 cultivation of the subject land, as provided under existing tenancy
May 1995 from the MARO stating that Reyes is an agricultural lessee laws.
over the land owned by Zenaida, are enough evidence to prove that
he is a tenant. Reyes insists that the consent of the Floros is not What is the value of a notarized document?
necessary since tenancy relations is not terminated by changes in Before a document is received by the court, they will look into the
ownership in case of sale or transfer of legal possession. question of admissibility. If notarized, there is no need to present a
witness, since there is a presumption.
Respondent heirs, on the other hand, maintain that Reyes is not an If not notarized, you need a witness to testify on the document.
agricultural lessee because: (1) there was no valid contract between
Reyes and Zenaida nor between Reyes and Bautista; (2) Reyes has Davao New Town Dev’t Corp. vs. Sps. Gloria Saliga, supra. (See case
not personally cultivated the parcel of land; (3) Reyes did not share digest in previous pages)
any harvest with any landowner; and (4) the claim of Reyes is not
supported by substantial evidence. Issue:
Was there an agricultural leasehold relationship
Issue:
WON Reyes is a de jure tenant or lessee who is entitled to Ruling:
redemption, pre-emption, peaceful possession, occupation and No tenancy relationship exists between DNTDC and the respondents
cultivation of the subject land for the tenancy relationship between the ceased when the property
was reclassified.
Ruling: Court outlined the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship, all
No. The MARO certification is merely preliminary and does not bind of which must concur for the relationship to exist.
the courts as conclusive evidence that Reyes is a lessee who - The parties are the landowner and the tenant
cultivates the land for purposes of agricultural production. - The subject is agricultural land
In Bautista v. Araneta, we held that certifications issued by - There is consent
administrative agencies or officers that a certain person is a tenant - The purpose is agricultural production
are merely provisional and not conclusive on the courts. Here, the - There is personal cultivation
certification from Bautista has little evidentiary value, without any - There is sharing of harvests
corroborative evidence. The certification was not notarized and
Bautista was not even presented as a witness. Similarly, Reyes was The absence of any of these requisites does not make an occupant a
not included as a legitimate and properly registered agricultural cultivator, or a planter, a de jure tenant. Consequently, a person
tenant in the supposed Deed of Absolute Sale with Agricultural who is not a de jure tenant is not entitled to security of tenure nor
Tenants Conformity which Bautista executed in favor of Zenaida. covered by the land reform program of the government under any
existing tenancy laws. In this case, we hold that no tenancy
Further, the genuineness of the agricultural leasehold contract that relationship exists between DNTDC, as the owner of the property,
Zenaida entered into with Reyes is doubtful. The records show that and the respondents, as the purported tenants; the second essential
respondent heirs submitted two documentary evidence with the requisite as outlined above – the subject is agricultural land – is
PARAD which the provincial adjudicator disregarded: (1) a MARO lacking. To recall, the property had already been reclassified as non-
Certification dated 9 May 2005 manifesting that there is no copy on agricultural land. Accordingly, the respondents are not de jure
file, with the Municipal Land Reform Office of Malolos, Bulacan, of tenants and are, therefore, not entitled to the benefits granted to
the supposed leasehold contract; and (2) a Pagpapatunay dated 8 agricultural lessees under the provisions of P.D. No. 27, in relation to
June 2004 from the Punong Barangay of Malolos, Bulacan attesting R.A. No. 6657.

Automat v Sps. Cruz, G.R. No. 192026, Oct. 1, 2014 Further, said lands reclassified to non-agricultural prior to June
15, 1988 ceased to be considered as "agricultural lands" and
Facts: removed from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Petitioner Automat Realty and Development Corporation (Automat) Reform Program.
is the registered owner of two parcels of land located in Barangay
Malitlit, Sta. Rosa, Laguna, covered by TCT Nos. T-210027 and T- Third requisite: Consent; nature of relationship
209077. Petitioner Leonor Lim (petitioner Lim) was the real estate The landowner's consent to an agricultural tenancy relationship
broker behind Automat's purchase of the property. must be shown. While this court agrees with the conclusion that no
agricultural tenancy relationship can exist in this case, we find that
Respondent spouses dela Cruz sometimes referred to petitioner Lim the element of consent in establishing a relationship, not necessarily
some Sta. Rosa real estate properties available for sale. They of agricultural tenancy, is present.
received a share in the broker's fees either from the seller or buyer.
The land was not occupied in 1990 when it was purchased by The Supreme Court found that Automat consented to a relationship
Automat. Respondent Ofelia dela Cruz volunteered her services to with respondent spouses when (a) through petitioner Lim, it
petitioner Lim as caretaker to prevent informal settlers from constituted respondent Ofelia dela Cruz as caretaker of the property
entering the property. Automat agreed, through its authorized with the understanding that she would vacate when asked by
administrator, petitioner Lim, on the condition that the caretaker Automat, and (b) it accepted rental payments from respondent
would voluntarily vacate the premises upon Automat's demand. spouses.
Respondent spouses' family stayed in the property as rent-paying
tenants. They cultivated and improved the land. They shared their Other requisites were no longer discussed by SC.
produce with Automat through its authorized agent, petitioner Lito Respondent spouses were allowed to stay in the property as
Cecilia (petitioner Cecilia). He also remitted the rentals paid by caretakers and, in turn, they paid petitioners rent for their use of the
respondent Ofelia Dela Cruz to petitioner Lim in Makati and to property. Petitioners' acceptance of rental payments may be
Automat's office in Quezon City. considered as ratification of an unwritten lease agreement whose
period depends on their agreed frequency of rental payments.
Sometime in August 2000, Automat asked respondent spouses to However, this court is not a trier of facts and can only entertain
vacate the premises as it was preparing the groundwork for questions of law. The causes of action of respondent spouses, if
developing the property. Respondent spouses refused to vacate these can be supported by the facts and evidence, may be pursued
unless they were paid compensation. They claimed "they were in the proper case either under builder, planter, or sower provisions,
agricultural tenants [who] enjoyed security of tenure under the law. or civil lease provisions before the proper court.

Issue: Caluzor v. Llanillo, Moldex Realty, G.R. No. 155580, July 1, 2015
Whether an agricultural tenancy relationship exists between
Automat and respondent spouses. Facts:
Petitioner Romeo Caluzor alleges that Lorenzo Llanillo took him as a
Ruling: tenant, giving him (Caluzor) a sketch of the the land he will be
No, there is absence of an agricultural tenancy relationship between cultivating. Even after the death of Lorenzo, Caluzor continued
Automat and respondent spouses. giving Lorenzo’s share to his overseer, Martin Ricardo. In 1990,
Deogracias Llanillo, son of Lorenzo, offered to pay Caluzor P17,000
There must be substantial evidence on the presence of all these per hectare of the cultivated land in exchange for turning his
requisites; otherwise, there is no de jure tenant. Only those who (Caluzor’s) tillage over to Deogracias. However, no payment was
have established de jure tenant status are entitled to security of made and instead, Caluzor was ejected from the land. Efforts before
tenure and coverage under tenancy laws. Respondent spouses were the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council proved futile which gave
the ones claiming they had a tenancy relationship with Automat. authority to Caluzor to file the instant case.
Thus, they had the burden of proof to show that such relationship
existed. Issue:
Whether a tenancy relationship exists between Caluzor and Llanillo.
st
On the 1 requisite: Actual Tillers
A MARO certification "concerning the presence or the absence of a Ruling:
tenancy relationship between the contending parties, is considered No. There is no tenancy relationship between Caluzor and Llanillo.
merely preliminary or provisional, hence, such certification does not Tenancy relationship and entitlement to disturbance compensation
bind the judiciary." MARO certifications are limited to factual requires factual and legal bases.
determinations such as the presence of actual tillers. It cannot make
legal conclusions on the existence of a tenancy agreement. In establishing tenancy relationship, independent evidence should
prove the consent of the landowner to the relationship and the
On the Second requisite: property must be agricultural land sharing of the harvest. In this case, the third and sixth elements are
The land in this case cannot be considered as agricultural land. not present. Caluzor testified that Lorenzo allowed him to cultivate
First, it is undisputed that the DAR Region IV-A CALABARZON had the land by giving to him (Caluzor) the sketch of the lot in order to
already issued two orders, both dated March 30, 2010, exempting delineate the portion of his tillage. Yet, the sketch did not establish
the property from CARP coverage. These orders were submitted that Lorenzo had categorically taken the petitioner as his agricultural
before the Court of Appeals and raised again before this court. The tenant. This element (consent) demanded that the landowner and
order provides in part: tenant should have agreed to the relationship freely and voluntarily,

with neither of them unduly imposing his will on the other. In this with the aid available from within their immediate farm households
case, there is no showing of such consent. — cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with the
latter's consent, for purposes of production, sharing the produce
Even assuming that Lorenzo permitted Caluzor to till the land, there with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to
is still no tenancy relationship established because they had not the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or money

discussed any fruit sharing scheme, with Lorenzo simply telling him or both under the leasehold tenancy system. Under this definition, a
that he would just ask his share from Caluzor. Petitioner disclosed tenant is entitled to the products of the land he or she cultivates.
that he did not see Lorenzo after he received the sketch and until The landowner's share in the produce depends on the agreement
Lorenzo’s death. Although he still continued sharing the fruits between the parties.
through Ricardo evidenced by a list of produce to support his
claim, the list did not indicate Ricardo’s receiving the fruits listed. It Hence, the harvesting done by the tenant is with the landowner's
did not also contain Ricardo’s authority to receive Lorenzo’s share. consent. The existence of the DARAB Decision adjudicating the issue
of tenancy between petitioner and private complainant negates the
The absence of the clear cut sharing agreement between Caluzor existence of the element that the taking was done without the
and Lorenzo could only signify that the latter merely tolerated owner's consent. The DARAB Decision implies that petitioner had
Caluzor’s cultivation sans tenancy. It did not make him de jure legitimate authority to harvest the abaca. The prosecution,
tenant. There must be concrete evidence on record adequate to therefore, failed to establish all the elements of theft.
prove the element of sharing. To prove sharing of harvests, a
receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented. Tenancy DAR V. Paramount Holdings, G.R. No. 176838, June 13, 2013
relationship cannot be presumed. Leasehold tenancy is not
brought about by mere congruence of facts but, being a legal Facts:
relationship, the mutual will of the parties to that relationship The case stems from the petition docketed as DARAB Case No. R-
should be primordial. 0403-0009-02, filed with the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator
(PARAD) by the DAR through Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
Monico Ligtas v. People G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015, (PARO) Felixberto Q. Kagahastian. The petition sought to nullify the
sale to the respondents of several parcels of land.
Facts:
Anecita Pacate filed a complaint for theft against Ligtas alleging that The PARO argued that the properties were agricultural land yet their
she is the owner of an abaca plantation. She asked Cabero, the sale was effected without DAR Clearance as required under Republic
plantation's administrator, and several men, including Cipres, to Act No. 6657(R.A. No. 6657), otherwise known as the
harvest abaca however they were surprised to find Ligtas harvesting Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
abaca at the plantation. Ligtas was accompanied by three (3)
unidentified men. Allegedly, Ligtas threatened that there would be The respondents opposed the petition, contending that since the
loss of life if they persisted in harvesting the abaca. Cabero reported matter involves an administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657,
the incident to Anecita Pacate and the police. On the part of Ligtas, the case is cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, not the
he said that that he had been a tenant Anecita Pacate. Meanwhile, DARAB. They also sought the petition's dismissal on the grounds of
Ligtas filed a Complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform prescription,litis pendentia,res judicataand forum shopping.
Adjudication Board (DARAB) for Maintenance of Peaceful
Possession. Subsequently, the DARAB rendered the Decision ruling On October 16, 2002, Provincial Adjudicator Virgilio M. Sorita (PA
that Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land. Sorita) issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for lack of
jurisdiction.
In the Decision rendered by the RTC, it held that the prosecution
was able to prove the elements of theft. The Court of Appeals Issue:

affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction

Issue: Ruling:
Should petitioner Monico Ligtas be convicted for theft under Article DARAB has no jurisdiction.
308 of the Revised Penal Code It is easily discernable . . . that the cause of action of the [DAR]
sufficiently established a suit for the declaration of the sale of the
Ruling: subject landholdings null and void (in violation of Administrative
No. The uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian Order No. 1, Series of 1989). Obviously,it does not involve an
Reform Adjudication Board that Monico Ligtas was a tenant negates agrarian suit, hence, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the
a finding of theft beyond reasonable doubt. Tenants having rights to DARAB. It must be emphasized that there must be a tenancy
the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their own produce. relationship between the party litigants for the DARAB to validly
take cognizance of a controversy.
The essential elements of theft are: (1) taking of personal property;
(2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking was done Our finding on the DARAB's lack of jurisdiction over the PARO's
without the owner's consent; (4) there was intent to gain; and (5) petition renders it needless for the Court to discuss the other issues
the taking was done without violence against or intimidation of the that are raised in the petition. In any case, the Court finds it worthy
person or force upon things.
to discuss that the original petition remains dismissible on the
merits.
Tenants have been defined as: persons who — in themselves and

There is no record of tenancy or written agricultural leasehold the PARO's petition for annulment of sale and cancellation of titles
contract with respect to the subject lands, nor are the same covered falls under the jurisdiction of the DARAB, as it contains allegations to
by Operation Land Transfer pursuant toP.D. 27. Thus, for being the effect that it involves sales of agricultural lands under the
industrial in nature, the subject lands are outside the ambit of coverage of the CARL.
existing agricultural tenancy laws.
Significantly, unlike in this case where the transfer of the subject
The Housing Land Use Regulatory Board has affirmed through a properties appears to have been done to evade the retention limits
Certificationdated May 22, 1991 that the zoning ordinance referred and coverage under CARP, the Court found the original petition
to was approved on December 2, 1981. Thus, the respondents in Paramount dismissible on the merits as the records clearly
correctly argued that since the subject properties were already showed that the subject lands were already classified as "industrial"
classified as "industrial" long before the effectivity of the CARL, their long before the effectivity of the CARL.
sale could not have been covered by the CARP and the requirement
for a DAR clearance. Landicho v. Limqueco, G.R. Nos. 194554 & 194556, December 7,
2016
DAR v. Robles, G.R. No. 190482, December 9, 2015
Facts:
Facts: In this case, the petitions filed before the PARAD asking for the
Same factual milieu in Paramount. In this case, what is being nullification of the contracts of sale and recovery of the CLOAs did
assailed in the DAR's petition for annulment of deeds of sale and not contain any allegation of tenurial relations constitutive of an
cancellation of titles is the legality of the transfer of title over the agrarian dispute as the parties were not subjects of a landowner and
subject properties in favor of respondents, and not their tenant relationship, or an allegation that they were lessors and
corresponding TCTs, due to the absence of DAR clearance and for lessees of each other as reinforced by the categorical admission of
possible violation of Section 6, paragraph 4 of R.A. No. 6657. the parties in their pleadings that no such contract exists.

Issue: Issue:
Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction Was there an agrarian dispute to sufficiently confer jurisdiction to
DARAB
Ruling:
Yes. Despite the fact that the same jurisdictional issue is involved in Ruling:
this case, the Court's ruling in Paramount is inapplicable because of Yes. Absence of the above allegations do not necessarily mean that
the difference between the material allegations in the PARO's the controversy is no longer agrarian in nature.
petitions in both cases.
The second sentence of Section 3 (d) of the CARL clearly provides
Given that the PARO's petition in this case likewise failed to allege that an agrarian dispute also includes "any controversy relating to
any tenancy or agrarian relations and to indicate an agrarian compensation of lands acquired under the CARP law and other
dispute, and its cause of action is merely founded on the absence of terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to
a clearance to cover the sale and registration of the subject lands, it farmworkers, tenants, and other agrarian reform beneficiaries,
bears emphasis that the DARAB's jurisdiction is not limited to whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm
agrarian disputes where tenancy relationship between the parties operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and
exists. Under Section 1 (1.13), Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of lessee."
Procedure, the DARAB also has jurisdiction over agrarian reform
matters referred to it by the Secretary of DAR, such as the PARO's Here, the controversy pertains to respondent's act of selling to a
petition for annulment of deeds of sale and annulment of titles filed third person the lands acquired by the petitioners under the CARP.
pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 01-89 and DAR M.C. No. 02-01 for The farmer-beneficiaries were made to sign deeds of sale, which
violation of the legal requirement for clearances in the sale and they did not understand. Hence, the case is still an agrarian dispute
transfer of agricultural lands. and within the jurisdiction of the DARAB and PARAD.

In contrast to Paramount where it is undisputed that the subject Contrary to respondent’s claim that there were no allegations, there
lands had not been subject of any notice of coverage under the were actually several allegations that plainly show that the
CARP, the PARO's petition in this case alleged that one of the subject petitioners are invoking their rights as beneficiaries of the CARL; that
lands was issued a notice of coverage. At any rate, the Court holds they consider the conveyance of their properties as having been
that such notice is unnecessary in order for the DARAB to have made in violation of the terms and conditions of the CARL; and that
jurisdiction over a case that involves the sale of "agricultural lands all of the transfers should be nullified because they were procured
under the coverage of the CARP," pursuant to Section 1 (1.5), Rule II through fraud, undue influence and mistake.
of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure. As held in Sarne v.
Maquiling, the said phrase includes all private lands devoted to or All these constitute an agrarian dispute in the context of a
suitable for agriculture, as defined under Section 4 of RA No. 6657. controversy relating to terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership from landowner to agrarian reform beneficiaries. This is
In view of the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter and because the main contention of the parties was clearly couched on
nature of the petition is determined by the allegations therein and the alleged denial by the respondent of their established rights as
the character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of whether the beneficiaries over the subject properties under agrarian reform
petitioner is entitled to any or all such reliefs, the Court finds that laws.

DAR vs. Woodland, G.R. No. 188174, June 29, 2015 That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is
tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
Facts: remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another
NOC dated 11 Dec. 2003 and NOA dated 3 October 2004 were issued agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the
over the portion of respondent’s land. tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be
considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary
Issue: under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in
Can petitioner still issue NOC and NOA after June 15, 1998? another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the
land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this
Ruling: option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
For us to sustain Woodland's theory that the DAR can no longer manifests his choice of the area for retention.
issue those notices after 15 June 1998 despite the enactment of R.A.
8532 would thwart the CARP's purpose. In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on
the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected.
Clearly, Section 63 refers to the implementation of the CARL in its
entirety, not just the funding source. Indeed, R.A. 8532 specifically Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease,
amended Section 63 of R.A. 6657, but it does not follow that only management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands
Section 63 had been affected by the amendment. The fact that executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be
Section 63 falls under the chapter on "Financing" only emphasizes its null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this
general applicability. Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds
within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act.
Hence, the phrase "until the year 2008" used in R.A. 8532 Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of
unmistakably extends the DAR's authority to issue NOCs for Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction
purposes of acquiring and distributing private agricultural lands. involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
Finally, R.A. 9700 extended the acquisition and distribution of all
agricultural lands until 30 June 2014. Homestead Patent
Section 6 Par. 1, last proviso: Provided, further, That original
The title alone of R.A. 9700 — An Act Strengthening the homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending the the original homestead at the time of the approval of this act shall
Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate the
Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of homestead.
Republic Act No. 6657, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, As Amended, and Appropriating Qualifications under Sec. 6 in order to retain the homestead:
Funds Therefor — reveals that the CARP was indeed extended from 1. original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
1998 to 2008 via R.A. 8532. 2. who still own the homestead
3. as long as they continue to cultivate (most important)
Had there been no prior extension from 1998 to 2008, how else
could the CARP have been extended by R.A. 9700 until 30 June Homestead Patent: A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable
2014? There could have been an extension only if the program lands of public domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon
sought to be extended had not expired. actual cultivation and residence.

Section 6. Retention Limits Where do you file the application?
Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Before the CENRO where the land being applied is located.
Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or
private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to Who are qualified?
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity Citizens of Philippines over 18 years old and not an owner of more
produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder,
but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) Who can claim exemption; Retention limit of landowner;
hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the Section 6 par 1: … in no case shall retention by the landowner
landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each
least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1)
land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually
whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall tilling the land or directly managing the farm…
be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them
thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or What is not covered?; How many hectares are not covered?
their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead Section 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. — Provincial, city and
at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as municipal government units acquiring private agricultural lands by
long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual,
direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges,
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government
or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent

with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and
subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section xxx. for establishing seed and seeding research.
(Sec. 4, RA 9700)
The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of
Atty GCC: That means that in an agricultural land, the landowner CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth
cannot use his right of retention to prevent the LGU from exercising of a university in years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a
its right to expropriate. school established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for
vast tract of agriculture land for future programs of expansion is
Reason: Public purposes such as road, bridges, public market, school obvious.
sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and
barangay plazas or squares. While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now
Del Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly
So what the landowner can do is choose another area to retain. That connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational
is if it is consistent with the comprehensive land use of the LGU. institution

Award to child of landowner As to determination of when and what lands are found to be
Three hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, necessary for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve &
subject to the following qualifications: answer the question. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless
- That he is at least fifteen (15) years of age it is manifest that CMU has no real need for land.
- That he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm
Things to take note in this case:
Atty GCC: - One part used for school and campus site - Another part not used,
Remember: The word used by law with respect to the children or part is leased to Del Monte Phil. Packing Co.
child of the landowner is NOT retention but AWARD. - Central Mindanao is an agricultural school
Meaning: For a child to be awarded by the government with 3 Supreme Court did not use the phrase “found to be necessary”, but
hectares, he has to comply with these qualifications impliedly it was referring to it. Because even if that portion of land
was not used, if it was found to be necessary for future expansion, it
Who normally examines the qualifications? is to be exempted from coverage.
MARO. And with due respect with MAROs, it is also possible that it is
in the appreciation of these qualifications that corruption can come DAR v DECS, G.R. No. 158228, March 23, 2004
in, with or without consideration.
Facts:
Exemption from coverage Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D which were donated by the late
Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of

a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, Education). Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the
forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding name of respondent DECS .
grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the
coverage of this Act. Respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation
b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from 1984-1994. The
farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10
Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been agricultural crop years or until 2005. On June 10, 1993, Eugenio
distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm
to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian workers of the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory
Reform Program. Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal
xxx Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante.
"c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of
necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that the subject lands are
experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a
educational purposes, seeds and seedling research and pilot conference with the farmer beneficiaries. The recommendation for
production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, coverage was approved by DAR Regional Director Dominador B.
mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal Andres.
burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms
actually worked by the inmates, government and private research Issue:
and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the
slope and over, except those already developed, shall be exempt coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the
from the coverage of this Act." (Sec. 2, RA. 7881) Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).

CMU v DARAB, G.R. No. 100091, Oct. 22, 1992 Ruling:
No. While respondent DECS sought exemption from CARP coverage
From Atty’s slides: on the ground that all the income derived from its contract of lease
The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly & with Anglo Agricultural Corporation were actually, directly and
exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus, exclusively used for educational purposes, such as for the repairs

and renovations of schools in the nearby locality, the court is pigs, and other livestock
inclined with the petitioner’s argument that the lands subject hereof
are not exempt from the CARP coverage because the same are not On June 10, 1988, CARL took effect. In May 1993, petitioner applied
actually, directly and exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as for the exemption/exclusion of its 316.0422-hectare property
they are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this Court in Luz Farms.
be exempt from the coverage, it is the land per se, not the income Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, DAR issued AO No. 9, Series of
derived therefrom, that must be actually, directly and exclusively 1993, setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of
used for educational purposes. agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from
CARP coverage.
Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are
exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of Milestone re-documented its application pursuant to said AO. DAR’s
their exemption specifying those “lands actually, directly and Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) conducted
exclusively used and found to be necessary for national an ocular inspection on petitioner’s property and recommended the
defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm exemption of petitioner’s 316.0422-hectare property from the
stations operated by public or private schools for educational coverage of CARP.
purposes, …, shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.”
DAR Regional Director Dalugdug adopted LUCEC’s recommendation.
Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be The Pinugay Farmers, represented by Balajadia, moved for the
exempt from the coverage: reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied by
1) the land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used Director Dalugdug. Hence, they filed an appeal with DAR Secretary
and found to be necessary;" and
2) the purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including Subsequently, Milestone filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against
experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for Balajadia.
educational purposes."
Issue:
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139592, October 5, 2000 Whether or not Milestone’s property should be exempted from the
coverage of CARP
Facts:
Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. Ruling:
DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied for exemption. No. When CA made its decision, DAR AO No. 9 was not yet declared
Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus, it could not be said
a commission to conduct ocular inspection and survey the land. that the CA erred or gravely abused its discretion in respecting the
mandate of DAR A.O. No. 9, which was then subsisting and in full
Later, based on the report submitted by the commission, the Court force and effect.
of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands
from CARL. Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as As correctly held by respondent OP, the CA correctly held that the
agriculture & which cannot be altered by mere ocular inspection. subject property is not exempt from the coverage of the CARP, as
substantial pieces of evidence show that the said property is not
Issue: Is the land exempt? exclusively devoted to livestock, swine, and/or poultry raising.

Ruling: Registration
Yes. There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax Section 14.Registration of Landowners. — Within one hundred
declaration is conclusive; tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of eighty (180) days from the effectivity of this Act, all persons, natural
classification of land. or juridical, including government entities, that own or claim to own
agricultural lands, whether in their names or in the name of others,
SC gave credence to commission’s report. Based on their report, it except those who have already registered pursuant to Executive
was found that the land use map submitted by private respondent Order No. 229, who shall be entitled to such incentives as may be
was an appropriate document consistent with the existing land use. provided for the PARC, shall file a sworn statement in the proper
assessor's office in the form to be prescribed by the DAR, stating the
It was confirmed that the lands are not wholly agricultural as they following information:
consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope. The CARL (a)the description and area of the property;
has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except (b)the average gross income from the property for at least
those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of CARL. three (3) years;
(c)the names of all tenants and farmworkers therein; cda
(d)the crops planted in the property and the area covered
Milestone Farms v OP, G.R. No. 182332, Feb.23, 2011 by each crop as of June 1, 1987;
(e)the terms of mortgages, leases, and management
Facts: contracts subsisting as of June 1, 1987, and
Among the pertinent secondary purposes of Milestone Farms are 1) (f)the latest declared market value of the land as
to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; 2) to determined by the city or provincial assessor.
breed, raise, and sell poultry; and 3) to import cattle, pigs, and other
livestock, and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle, Section 15.Registration of Beneficiaries. — The DAR in coordination

with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized were potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject
in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and properties. Further, on November 23, 1994, the Secretary
farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP. of Agrarian Reform through the Municipal Agrarian
These potential beneficiaries with the assistance of the BARC and Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage placing
the DAR shall provide the following data: the subject properties under CARP. Since the
(a)names and members of their immediate farm identification and selection of CARP beneficiaries are
household; matters involving strictly the administrative
(b)owners or administrators of the lands they work on and implementation of the CARP, it behooves the courts to
the length of tenurial relationship; exercise great caution in substituting its own
(c)location and area of the land they work; determination of the issue, unless there is grave abuse of
(d)crops planted; and discretion committed by the administrative agency. x x x
(e)their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or
wages received. While it bears emphasizing that findings of administrative agencies −
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the such as the DARAB − which have acquired expertise because their
barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other public jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded not only
buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by the respect but even finality by the courts. Care should be taken so that
public at all reasonable hours. administrative actions are not done without due regard to the
jurisdictional boundaries set by the enabling law for each agency.
Fortich v Corona, G.R. No. 131457, Aug. 19, 1999
In the case at bar, the DARAB has overstepped its legal boundaries in
From Atty’s slides: taking cognizance of the controversy between petitioners and
Facts: respondents in deciding who should be declared the farmer-
Intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so intervened in beneficiaries over the land in dispute. The CA thus erred in affirming
case. the decision of the DARAB, which was rendered in excess of
jurisdiction.
Ruling:
There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are Ways in distributing lands to qualified beneficiaries under CARL
beneficiaries, so they have no standing yet to intervene in the case. 1. Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16)
> DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being 2. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec.20)
bonafide beneficiaries 3.Non-land transfer schemes :
> DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB. a. stock distribution option(SDO);
b. production & profit sharing (PPS)- Sec. 13/32;
Concha vs. Rubio, G.R. No. 162446, March 29, 2010 c. leasehold operation(Sec.12)

Facts: What are the two aspects of land transfer schemes?
The controversy involves the determination of who between Voluntary – The landowner will volunteer to convey the land to the
petitioners and respondents are qualified to become beneficiaries government, agree on the price and then execute the deed of
over a portion of land with an aggregate area of 33.5006 hectares, conveyance
more or less. The subject landholding was placed under the
Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Compulsory – If the landowner refuses the notice of acquisition and
Reform Program (CARP) of the government. On June 16, 1993, a notice of coverage, Government will have to expropriate. This time
Notice of Coverage was sent to the landowners. On March 24, 1995, is a different kind of expropriation.
respondents filed a complaint for declaration of their tenancy and
their identification as beneficiaries and for disqualification of the Atty GCC:
petitioners to become beneficiaries over the subject landholding. On Take note: In VOS, there is a cut-off date under RA 9700. (Right now
April 26, 1995, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) approved you cannot avail of this)
the landowners’ application for conversion. On August 9, 1999, the - Without any notice from DAR, the landowner proposes to the

Office of the Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision government.
dismissing the case. - VLT is not anymore an option under the present law (RA 9700) -
VLT is an option by the landowner that after receiving the notice of
Issue: acquisition from DAR, the landowner offers.
Whether or not the DARAB is clothed with jurisdiction to resolve the
issue involving the identification and selection of qualified farmer- Under RA 9700, what will remain is COMPULSORY ACQUISITION.

beneficiaries of a land covered by CARP. Note: That is consistent with the thrust of the government, that by
2014, everything should have been offered compulsorily, without
Ruling: waiting whether the landowner will offer or not.
The conclusion is certain that the DARAB had no jurisdiction to
identify who between the parties should be recognized as the
beneficiaries of the land in dispute, as it was a purely administrative
function of the DAR. The PARAD was, thus, correct when it declared
that it had no jurisdiction to resolve the dispute, to wit:
In the case at bar, the BARC certified that herein farmers

Jurisdiction in identification and selection of beneficiaries Atty GCC:
It is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries. Jurisdiction But it was not clear in the law about how identification is
lies with the Office of the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of determined > this was supplemented by DAR through an Admin
classification of landholdings for coverage (whether the subject Order.
property is a private or government owned land), and identification - talks about “notice to acquire”. In the case of CONFED vs. DAR, SC
of qualified beneficiaries. talks about two notices

Jurisdiction to cancel a leasehold contract 1. Notice of coverage: More or less Preliminary: WHY?
DARAB. (Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board). It exercises - because while it notifies that the property shall be placed under
quasi-judicial powers. With respect to quasi-judicial powers, CARP, the landowner is entitled to retention.
leasehold contract involves rights, obligations and others terms of - notifies the landowner about the public hearing about the results
the contract of field investigation, land evaluation and other pertinent matters
- the landowner will be informed that the field investigation of his
Who executes a leasehold contract? landholding shall be conducted. After that comes the notice of
The agricultural lessor and lessee. acquisition.
Take note: Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished 2. Notice of acquisition:
by mere expiration of the term of period in a leasehold contract nor - the area subject of compulsory acquisition has to be stated. WHY?
by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the land. It is based already on the field investigation
In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal - plus the amount of just compensation offered by DAR
possession of the landholding, purchaser or transferee thereof shall
be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the How is the notice to be done? Personal delivery, registered mail and
agricultural lessor. posting.
Note: in the case of CONFED, Notice shall contain the offer of DAR
Who has jurisdiction to issue, correct or cancel CLOAs? - OFFER: offer of the government to the landowner as to how much
The DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and the government will pay the landowner corresponding to the land to
cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative be acquired.
implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to - Discuss this in relation to par. (e): It is the deposit that is the key to
parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the the immediate possession and issuance of a title
jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice
Certificate of Land Ownership Award by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his
CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer.
awarded to the beneficiary by DAR
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay

the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days
Compulsory Acquisition
after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
It is the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands including
Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other
facilities and improvements necessary for agricultural production, as
muniments of title.
may be appropriate, for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon

payment of just compensation.
Atty GCC:

If landowner accepts -> no problem
Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas
If landowner rejects or fails to reply -> summary admin proceedings
and the root cause of peasant unrest. In order to hasten the
Take NOTE: the purpose of this is compensation. With respect to just
implementation of the program, the DAR has made compulsory
compensation, RTC has jurisdiction.
acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same end,

the law provides for the steps in acquiring private lands through
Reiterate: there are only 2 instances where RTC has jurisdiction
administrative instead of judicial proceedings. This procedure is
insofar as CARP is concerned:
allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice and
1. just compensation
hearing are complied with.
2. criminal offenses

Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land Why is it that the law in par. (d) talks about determination of just
Section. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.- For compensation? It was determined by the SC in CONFED, that this
purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures
determination is only PRELIMINARY. Meaning that the landowner
shall be followed: (as also shown in par. (f)) can still resort to court IF he disagrees with
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the the decision referred in par. (d).
beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the - So they bring the matter to court of proper jurisdiction for the
owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the
FINAL determination of just compensation.
same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay

hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct
contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in summary administrative proceedings to determine the
accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other compensation of the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and
pertinent provisions hereof.
other interested parties to summit evidence as to the just


compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowner protests
of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is valuation, distribution of land will proceed.
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of
within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA.

Atty GCC: Notice in par. (e), par (d) would give you 30 days to Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e):
respond. You have to inform DAR whether you accept or reject it. (1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance
- voluntary or involuntary
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or - there’s only a deed of transfer for voluntary if Land Owner accepts
in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the offer of DAR
deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the (2) titles are cancelled w/o owner’s copy surrendered (in Torren's
DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request System, if there is refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file
the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title petition in court)
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall (3) RD titles are cancelled while owner’s copy is subsisting
thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the
qualified beneficiaries. CONFED vs.DAR , G.R. No. 169514- March 30, 2007 (see case digest
in previous pages)
Atty GCC:
How do we know the amount to be deposited? Should it be based LBP v Heirs of Trinidad Vda De Arieta, GR.No.161834, Aug. 11, 2010
on par. (d) after summary admin proceedings or par. (a) that is
contained in the notice to acquire? -> CONFED CASE Facts:
Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural
In real scenario: transfer of title may happen before immediate land which was covered by RA No. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer
possession. Why? It is possible that there is resistance here on the to Sell (VOS) scheme of the CARP. He offered to the DAR the price of
part of the landowner. P2M per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP.
ex. Even if the title is already in the name of the Republic of the Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as
Philippines but DAR cannot take possession because gibutangan ug just compensation the amount of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 per
guard ang agri land, landowner still actually possesses the land while hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent. LBP
he is fighting for the acquisition in court. deposited for the account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in
cash and in bonds as provisional compensation for the acquisition of
Take note here: in normal dealings (voluntary dealings), if you have a the property.
sale of land, the seller will execute the Deed of Sale and give the
original copy (owner’s duplicate copy) to the buyer, so that the Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the
buyer can go to RD, and be issued a new title in favor of the Regional Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary
purchaser. But here it is different. administrative proceedings under DARAB to fix the just
compensation, where they rendered a decision fixing the
1. Under par. (e), Registry of Deeds can cancel the title of the LO on compensation of the property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per
the basis of the deposit, certification from land bank which will be hectare.
annotated to the title and RD will issue a new title in favor of the
Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial
2. The title is cancelled even without the surrender of the owner’s determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian
copy Court.
3. RD’s copy of the LO’s title is cancelled even if the owner’s copy is Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition
subsisting against DAR before the same Special Agrarian Court and filed a
- Probable in case LO rejects offer or does not reply, he is Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that petitioner
still in possession of the title LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of
- Advise: do not simply rely on the owner’s copy, you get a P10,294,721.
certified true copy from the RD.
4. RD can cancel and issue under CARL even if there is no payment of
Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the
taxes and transfer fees (provided in Sec 66 and 67 below)
deposit should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the

amount of P1,145,806M and not P10,294,721.00 as determined by
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter
the DARAB.
to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just

compensation.
Consequently, a decision was issued ordering petitioner LBP to

deposit for release to the private respondent the DARAB determined
Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer)
just compensation of P10,294,721M Petitioner LBP filed a motion for
- this is not present in ordinary land cases
reconsideration of the said order to deposit.
Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required

for implementation of CARP)
Issue:
Sec. (e) : Once DAR requests and LBP makes deposit of initial
What is the correct amount of provisional compensation which LBP
valuation, Register of Deeds can cancel title of the Land Owner &
is required to deposit?

> Is it the amount stated in par (a) which is supposed to be Heirs of Deleste vs. LBP, et. Al , G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011
contained in the notice of acquisition? Or (see also case digest in previous pages)
> Is it the amount based on par (d) after the conduct of summary
proceedings? The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property under
the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated, as non-
Ruling: compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements
Petitioner maintains it should be its initial valuation of the land of administrative due process of law.
subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while respondent claims it It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the
pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a landowner of the subject property. It should be noted that the deed
summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by of sale executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was registered on
the courts. March 2, 1954, and such registration serves as a constructive notice
to the whole world that the subject property was already owned by
Supreme Court held that par (e) should be related to pars (a), (b) Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale.
and (c), considering that the taking of possession by the State is the
next step after DAR and LBP supplied with the notice requirements. That DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste, and not to the
Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the
In effect, SC is saying that it is the offer of the LBP that will name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the
determine what the correct amount to be deposited is and not the name of Deleste.
amount after the determination of just compensation in a summary
administrative proceeding. Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not
Reason: If the DAR will wait for the summary administrative conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless "good
proceedings, this will hamper land redistribution process. indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his
right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his
LBP v. Santos, G.R. No. 213863 & 214021, January 27, 2016 actual or, at least, constructive possession."

Issue: Petitioners' right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when
Did the act with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the release of the DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject
the initial valuation of Lands 1 and 2 without requiring Santos to property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
submit the documentary requirements?
Just compensation
Ruling: What is meant by just compensation?
The leniency accorded by the RTC cannot be construed as a The full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by
capricious exercise of power as it merely expedited the procedure expropriation. (Assoc. of Small Landowners).
for payment which is inherently fairer under the circumstances The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word
considering that: "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be
(a) Santos has been "deprived of his right to enjoy his properties rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full
as early as 1983, and has not yet received any compensation and ample.”
therefor since then;"
(b) the existence of the certificates of title over Lands 1 and 2 Preliminary determination
which the LBP insists to be submitted had not been sufficiently The determination of just compensation by the DAR during the
established; compulsory acquisition proceedings of Section 16 of RA 6657 is
(c) the LBP had judicially admitted that Santos is the owner of preliminary only. Hence, the court can review. Any party who
Lands 1 and 2 which were identified as covered by tax disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
declarations; and proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
(d) compliance with the required documents may still be directed
before the full payment of the correct just compensation which, On “just compensation”, judicial determination is expressly
up to this time, has not yet been finally determined. prescribed in Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special
Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions
Moreover, as aptly pointed out by the CA, Santos' failure to produce for the determination of just compensation to landowners.
the titles to Lands 1 and 2 was not motivated by any obstinate
refusal to abide by the requirements but due to impediments Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v.
beyond his control. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, 79310, 79744,
79777, July 14, 1989 (see case digest in previous pages)
Perforce, no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion can be
imputed on the CA in sustaining the RTC Orders dated July 9, 2009
and August 24, 2009 which allowed the withdrawal of the initial LBP v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 167809, Nov. 27, 2008
valuation upon Santos'
(a) submission of two (2) valid ID cards, two (2) latest ID pictures, Facts:
and his current CTC, and Respondents are owners of agricultural lands covered under PD 27.
(b) execution of a Deed of Assignment, Warranties and Undertaking Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR, so
in favor of the LBP. they filed complaint with RTC for determination.


Issue: WON RA 6657 or PD 27 is to be used to determine amount of and income
Just Compensation? - The sworn valuation by the owner
- Tax declarations
Ruling: - Assessment made by government assessors
If just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No.
6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, although 70% of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR),
property was acquired under PD No. 27. translated into a basic formula by the DAR

The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just Take note: Subject to the final decision of the proper court. The
compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the
emancipation patents because EP constitutes the conclusive farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the
authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government
name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation financing institution on the said land shall be considered as
patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in additional factors to determine its valuation.
the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the
landowner.
Sps. Lee v. LBP, G.R. No. 170422, Mar. 7, 2008
Petitioner’s argument that respondents should not be paid yet
pending determination by DAR is specious. To wait for the DAR From Atty’s Slides:
valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid,
to violate the elementary rule that payment of just compensation Note: In this case, there was admission that valuation was not based
must be within a reasonable period from the taking of property; on factors under CARL. A representative of the company admitted
that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable.
Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the
amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of Case was remanded.
the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt
payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the LBP Vs. Yatco, G.R. No.172551 , January 15, 2014
property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being
immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a Facts:
decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to Pursuant to the CARP, Wycoco voluntarily offered to sell his land to
cope with his loss. the DAR for P14.9 million. However, the offered price of the DAR is
P2,280,159.82. He rejected the offer. Hence, he filed a case before
Atty GCC: the RTC for the determination of just compensation. The RTC ruled
Principle: If an agricultural land is acquired under PD 27 but just in his favor. The RTC, in arriving at the valuation of the land, took
compensation has not been paid until RA 6657 took effect, just judicial notice of the alleged prevailing market value of agricultural
compensation will be computed on the basis of the present law, lands in the place without apprising the parties of its intention to
NOT under PD 27. take judicial notice thereof.
Reason: It is inequitable that just compensation should be
determined under PD 27 because just compensation is defined as Issue:
the full and ample value of the land to be given to the LO. Was the RTC-SAC’s determination of just compensation for the
Under PD 27, there is only one factor in determining just property in accordance with law?
compensation (average crop harvest), while in RA6657, there are a
lot. Ruling:
No. Although the rules allow the courts to take judicial notice of
Section. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining certain facts, the RTC-SAC’s valuation is erroneous. The RTC-SAC
just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of fully disregarded Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR AO 5-98 and
the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its nature, thus acted outside the contemplation of the law.
actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax Determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial
declarations, the assessment made by government assessors, and function that the Judiciary exercises within the parameters of the
seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of law.
Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR
shall be considered, subject to the final decision of the proper court. In the exercise of the Court’s essentially judicial function of
The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and determining just compensation, the RTC-SACs are not granted
the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the enumerated
the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government factors in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR formula (in AO 5-98) that
financing institution on the said land shall be considered as reflect these factors.
additional factors to determine its valuation. (Sec. 7, RA 9700)
These factors and formula provide the uniform framework or
Factors to be considered in determining just compensation: structure for the computation of the just compensation for a
- The cost of acquisition of the land property subject to agrarian reform. When acting within the
- The value of the standing crop parameters set by the law itself, the RTC-SACs, however, are not
- The current value of like properties, its nature, actual use

strictly bound to apply the DAR formula to its minute detail,
particularly when faced with situations that do not warrant the Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential
formula’s strict application; they may, in the exercise of their property could, at most, refer to the potential use of the property.
discretion, relax the formula’s application to fit the factual situations While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes
before them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the
deviation from the factors and formula that the law and the rules general vicinity of the expropriated property, it should never control
have provided. the determination of just compensation.

LBP v. Livioco, G.R. No. 170685, Sept. 22, 2010 The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion
for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the
Facts: well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated
Respondent Livioco was the owner of 3 sugar land. He offered his property is determined by its character and its price at the time of
sugar land to the DAR for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per taking, not its potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the
square meter. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form he submitted property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor,
to the DAR indicated that his property is adjacent to residential not the ultimate in determining just compensation."
subdivisions and to an international paper mill.
It would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform,
The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. LBP set the which is to free the tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil
price at P3.21 per square meter for 26 hectares. Livioco was then without delivering them to the new oppression of exorbitant land
promptly informed of the valuation. However,Livioco did not act valuations. Note that in lands acquired under RA 6657, it is the
upon the notice given to him by both government agencies. farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the valuations paid to
Subsequently, LBP issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of the former land owners (LBP merely advances the payment). If the
Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827,943.48 as farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as residential
compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares. lands (the valuation for which is substantially higher than the
valuation for agricultural lands), it is not unlikely that such farmers,
It was only two years later that Livioco requested for a reevaluation unable to keep up with payment amortizations, will be forced to give
of the compensation on the ground that its value had already up their landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to sell the
appreciated from the time it was first offered for sale. The request property to other parties. This may just bring the State right back to
was denied by the Regional Director on the ground that there was the starting line where the landless remain landless and the rich
already a perfected sale. acquire more landholdings from desperate farmers.

Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he Atty GCC:
believes was an outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco In this case, LO tried to prove that lot was residential and not
finally filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation agricultural for higher just compensation. There were several
against DAR, LBP, and the CLOA holders. evidences presented by owner; certification from the municipal
planning office, zoning, HLURB, etc.
Issue:
Was the compensation for respondent's properly determined? SC: No clearance from DAR. No allegation or proof that there was a
conversion clearance from agri to residential. That means that the
Ruling: land has to be valued as agricultural land, NOT residential.
For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an
expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at Do you need conversion clearance?
the time of taking. There are three important concepts in this Atty GCC: In my opinion, no more. - You need conversion clearance
definition — the character of the property, its price, and the time of for purposes of real property tax in LGU - Or assurance from DAR
actual taking. that your land is not covered under DAR because the use is not
anymore for agricultural activity - Under sec. 17, no factor of
The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the conversion but actual use of the land
property has changed from agricultural to residential, because there
is no allegation or proof that the property was approved for LBP v. Kho, G.R. No. 214901, June 15, 2016
conversion to other uses by DAR. It is the DAR that is mandated by
law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions so as to Ruling:
prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. It is significant to stress, however, that DAR AO 1, series of 2010
which was issued in line with Section 31 of RA 9700 empowering the
Even reclassification and plans for expropriation by LGUs will not DAR to provide the necessary rules and regulations for its
ipso facto convert an agricultural property to residential, industrial implementation, became effective only subsequent to July 1, 2009.
or commercial. Thus, in the absence of any DAR approval for the
conversion of respondent's property or an actual expropriation by Consequently, it cannot be applied in the determination of just
an LGU, it cannot be said that the character or use of said property compensation for the subject land where the claim folders were
changed from agricultural to residential. Respondent's property undisputedly received by the LBP prior to July 1, 2009, and, as
remains agricultural and should be valued as such. Hence, the CA such, should be valued in accordance with Section 17 of RA
and the trial court had no legal basis for considering the subject 6657 prior to its further amendment by RA 9700 pursuant to the cut-
property's value as residential. off date set under DAR AO 2, series of 2009 (cut-off rule).

terms the reason for any deviation from the prescribed factors and
Notably, DAR AO 1, series of 2010 did not expressly or impliedly the applicable formula.
repeal the cut-off rule set under DAR AO 2, series of 2009, having
made no reference to any cut-off date with respect to land valuation In this case, the Court has gone over the records and found that
for previously acquired lands under PD 27 and EO 228 wherein neither the RTC nor the CA considered the date when the claim
valuation is subject to challenge by landowners. Consequently, the folder was received nor explained their reasons for deviating from
application of DAR AO 1, series of 2010 should be, thus, limited to the DAR formula. Therefore, as it stands, the RTC and the CA should
those where the claim folders were received on or subsequent to have utilized the basic formula prescribed and laid down in pertinent
July 1, 2009. DAR regulations existing prior to the passage of RA 9700, in
determining the just compensation for the subject land.
In this case, the Court has gone over the records and found that the
RTC and the CA neither considered the cut-off rule nor explained its Alfonso v. LBP, G.R. Nos. 181912 & 183347, November 29, 2016
reasons for deviating therefrom. Since the claim folders were
received by the LBP prior to July 1, 2009, the RTC should have Facts:
computed just compensation using pertinent DAR regulations The SAC deviated, without reason or explanation, from Sect. 17 and
applying Section 17 of RA 6657 prior to its amendment by RA the DAR-issued formula when it adopted the Cuervo Report.
9700 instead of adopting the new DAR issuance, absent any cogent
justifications otherwise. Therefore, as it stands, the RTC and the CA On May 13, 2005, the SAC rendered its Decision. Finding the
were duty-bound to utilize the basic formula prescribed and laid valuations of both the LBP and the Provincial Adjudicator to be
down in pertinent DAR regulations existing prior to the passage "unrealistically low," the SAC adopted Commissioner Chua's
of RA 9700, to determine just compensation. valuation as set out in the Cuervo Report. It also held that the
provisions of Section 2, Executive Order No. 228 (EO 228) were mere
Nonetheless, the RTC, acting as a SAC, is reminded that it is not "guiding principles" which cannot substitute the court's judgment as
strictly bound by the different formula created by the DAR if the to what amount [of just compensation] should be awarded and how
situations before it do not warrant their application. To insist on a to arrive at such amount.
rigid application of the formula goes beyond the intent and spirit of
the law, bearing in mind that the valuation of property or the Issue:
determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function Are courts obliged to apply the DAR formula in cases where they are
which is vested with the courts, and not with administrative asked to determine just compensation for property covered by RA
agencies. 6657?

Therefore, the RTC must still be able to reasonably exercise its Ruling:
judicial discretion in the evaluation of the factors for just Yes. For the guidance of the bench, the bar, and the public, we
compensation, which cannot be restricted by a formula dictated by reiterate the rule: Out of regard for the DAR's expertise as the
the DAR when faced with situations that do not warrant its strict concerned implementing agency, courts should henceforth consider
application. However, the RTC must explain and justify in clear terms the factors stated in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, as
the reason for any deviation from the prescribed factors and translated into the applicable DAR formulas in their determination
formula. of just compensation for the properties covered by the said law. If,
in the exercise of their judicial discretion, courts find that a strict
Atty GCC: application of said formulas is not warranted under the specific
This case explains the “Cut-off Rule: circumstances of the case before them, they may deviate or depart
a. if claim folders were received on or after July 1, 2009 -> therefrom, provided that this departure or deviation is supported by
the 2010 DAR A.O. 1 will apply a reasoned explanation grounded on the evidence on record. In
b. if claim folders were received before July 1, 2009 -> the other words, courts of law possess the power to make a final
1998 DAR A.O. No. 5 will apply determination of just compensation.

Heirs of Feliciano, Jr. v. LBP, G.R. No. 215290, January 11, 2017 LBP v. Spouses Chu, G.R. No. 192345, March 29, 2017

Issue: WON the CA's determination of just compensation is correct Facts:
Respondents were the registered owners of two parcels of
Ruling: agricultural land located in San Antonio, Pilar, Sorsogon which were
No. Since the claim folder covering the subject land was received by acquired by the government pursuant to its agrarian reform
the LBP on December 2, 1997, or prior to July 1, 2009, the RTC program.
should have computed just compensation using pertinent DAR
regulations applying Section 17 of RA 6657 prior to its amendment The first parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
by RA 9700 instead of adopting the new DAR issuance. Nos. T-27060 and 27062 and with an area of 14.9493 hectares
(14.9493 has.) was acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD
While the RTC, acting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), is not strictly 27-acquired land) and initially valued by the LBP at P177,657.98.
bound by the different formula created by the DAR since the The second parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-27060 (pt.) was
valuation of property or the determination of just compensation is acquired under Republic Act No. 6657 6 (RA 6657-acquired property)
essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts, and and has an area of 7.7118 hectares (7.7118 has.). LBP valued the
not with administrative agencies, it must explain and justify in clear same at P263,928.57.

Heirs of Lorenzo & Carmen Vidad v LBP, GR 166461, April 30, 2010
Respondents rejected LBP's valuation; hence summary
administrative proceedings were conducted before the Provincial Facts:
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) to determine the just Petitioners are the owners of a land located in Isabela, with an area
compensation. of 589.8661 hectares, which land was voluntarily offered for sale to
the government under Republic Act No. (RA) 6657. Of the entire

Issue: area, the government only acquired 490.3436 hectares. By virtue of
Did the courts below commit error when they approved the EO 405 vesting LBP with primary responsibility to determine the
respondent’s valuation of the land? valuation and compensation for all lands covered by RA 6657, LBP
computed the initial value of the land at P2,961,333.03 for 490.3436
Ruling: hectares, taking into consideration the factors under Department of
Yes. Respondents presented only two comparable sales transactions. Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order (AO) No. 06, series of
This falls short of the requirements of DAR A.O. No. 05-98. 1992, and the applicable provisions of RA 6657. Petitioners rejected
The PARAD erroneously considered the municipal resolution as the the valuation.
third comparable sales transaction. The municipal resolution could
not in any manner be regarded as a comparable sales transaction Petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Department of
precisely because no sale transaction ever took place. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The DARAB dismissed
the petition. Undaunted, petitioners filed a second petition for
At best, the said resolution merely manifested the formal review asking for a re-evaluation of the land. Acting on the petition,
intention of the local government of Pilar to acquire certain portions the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) issued an Order
of the subject properties. directing LBP to re-compute the value of the land.

Equally glaring is the fact that none of the tribunals below took In compliance with the PARAD’s Order, LBP revalued the land
into full consideration the factors laid down in Section 17 of RA at P4,158,947.13 for 402.3835 hectares and P1,467,776.34 for

6657 — a necessary requirement which no court of law is at liberty 43.8540 hectares. LBP used the guidelines in DAR AO No. 5, series of

to disregard if sound judicial discretion is to be exercised at all in 1998 for the revaluation. Petitioners similarly rejected this offer and
determining just compensation. thereafter instituted a case before RARAD for the purpose of
determining the just compensation for their land. The RARAD
Instead, this Court notes that the RTC, not to mention the directed LBP to pay petitioners P32,965,408.46 as just compensation
CA, primarily took account of an extraneous factor — potentials of for 446.2375 hectares.
the land — to justify the award of P200,000.00 per hectare.
LBP filed a petition for determination of just compensation with the
Discounting respondents' evidence on the comparable sales RTC, sitting as a SAC. The SAC rendered a decision, based on LBP’s
transactions, the potentials of the landholding may then be said to evidence alone, fixing the just compensation at P5,626,724.47 for
have become the main factor supporting the valuation thereof. This the 446.2375 hectares of the land. Petitioners filed an appeal
conclusion is even borne out by the Decisions of the PARAD, the questioning the authority of the SAC to give due course to the
RTC, and the CA whose discussions centered thereon. However, this petition of LBP, claiming that the RARAD has concurrent jurisdiction
Court has already reiterated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. with the SAC over just compensation cases involving lands covered
Livioco that, such factor, standing alone, has already been dismissed by RA 6657. Furthermore, petitioners insisted that LBP has no legal
as improper basis for assessing the just compensation in the personality to institute a case for determination of just
expropriation of agricultural lands. compensation against landowners with the SAC.

LBP v. Nable, G.R. No. 176692, June 27, 2012 The CA rendered the assailed decision, dismissing the appeal for lack

of merit, and affirming the valuation of the SAC.

Ruling: The Congress has thereby required that any determination of
just compensation should consider the following factors, namely: (a) Issue:
the cost of the acquisition of the land; (b) the current value of like Whether or not SAC exercises concurrent jurisdiction with DARAB on
properties; (c) the nature, actual use and income of the land; (d) the cases involving determination of just compensation, and since it was
sworn valuation by the owner; (e) the tax declarations; (f) the the DARAB, through the RARAD, which first assumed jurisdiction on
assessment made by government assessors; (g) the social and the issue of just compensation for petitioners’ land, then the SAC is
economic benefits contributed to the property by the farmers and precluded from assuming jurisdiction on the same issue.
farmworkers and by the Government; and (h) the fact of the non-
payment of any taxes or loans secured from any government Ruling:
financing institution on the land. No. The procedure for the determination of just compensation
under RA 6657, as summarized by this Court in Land Bank of the

Although Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 has not explicitly Philippines v. Spouses Banal, commences with LBP determining the
mentioned the farming experience and the thumb method of value of the lands under the land reform program. Using LBP’s
conversion as methods in the determination of just compensation, valuation, the DAR makes an offer to the landowner through a
LBP cannot deny that such methods were directly relevant to the notice sent to the landowner, pursuant to Section 16(a) of RA 6657.
factors listed in Section 17, particularly those on the nature, actual

use and income of the landholding. In case the landowner rejects the offer, the DAR adjudicator
conducts a summary administrative proceeding to determine the

compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and Facts:
other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just The late Angel T. Domingo is the registered owner of a rice land. PD
compensation for the land. A party who disagrees with the decision 27 was subsequently issued and pursuant to which actual tenant
of the DAR adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC designated farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn were
as a Special Agrarian Court for final determination of just deemed as full owners of the land they till. The land transfer
compensation. program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently implemented by
Executive Order No. 228.
Contrary to petitioners’ argument, the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB do
not exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the SAC in just On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
compensation cases. The determination of just compensation is of Guimba, Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment
judicial in nature. of just compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
and DAR.
In fact, RA 6657 does not make DAR’s valuation absolutely binding
as the amount payable by LBP. A reading of Section 18 of RA 6657 Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just
shows that the courts, and not the DAR, make the final compensation for the subject land should be computed using the

determination of just compensation. It is well-settled that the DAR’s parameters set forth under RA 6657. The LBP and DAR disputed
land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and Domingo's valuation and claimed that the determination of just
conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party. The compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D. No. 27
courts will still have the right to review with finality the in relation to E.O. No. 228.
determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial
function. It must be emphasized that the taking of property under Issue:

RA 6657 is an exercise of the State’s power of eminent domain. The Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the
valuation of property or determination of just compensation in computation of just compensation may be applied to private
eminent domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which agricultural lands taken by the government under the auspices of

is vested with the courts and not with administrative agencies. When P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
the parties cannot agree on the amount of just compensation, only
the exercise of judicial power can settle the dispute with binding Ruling:
effect on the winning and losing parties. Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform
process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid
On the other hand, the determination of just compensation in the private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage
RARAD/DARAB requires the voluntary agreement of the parties. of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this
Unless the parties agree, there is no settlement of the dispute process, the just compensation should be determined and the
before the RARAD/DARAB, except if the aggrieved party fails to file a process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the
petition for just compensation on time before the RTC. LBP thus applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect,
correctly filed a petition for determination of just compensation conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.
with the SAC, which has the original and exclusive jurisdiction in just
compensation cases under RA 6657. DAR’s valuation, being It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation
preliminary in nature, could not have attained finality, as it is only based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering
the courts that can resolve the issue on just compensation. the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a
Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance of LBP’s petition for considerable length of time. That just compensation should be
determination of just compensation. determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is
especially imperative considering that just compensation should be
Atty GCC: the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by
There are cases where LBP is the plaintiff of an RTC Case. the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and
In this case, LBP did not agree with the computation of RARAD. ample.
Landbank filed the case in RTC. It was challenged by the petitioners

that LBP has no legal personality to institute the agrarian case.
Heirs of Deleste vs. LBP, et. Al , G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011 (see

case digest in previous pages)
Is it possible that LBP and DAR cannot agree with the evaluation?

Yes. Why? Implementation of the program is with DAR in the
Governing Law
EXECUTIVE aspect.
RA 6657 - Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
There is another aspect of DAR which is quasi-judicial. Probably, LBP
Main governing law of Agrarian Land Reform here in the Philippines.
coordinates with DAR in the implementation aspect but LBP cannot

dictate the quasi-judicial aspect.
Payment of Interest in Just Compensation
These are the parties involved in the determination of just
compensation under Sec. 18: Landowner, DAR, and LBP. Apo Fruits v. CA, G.R. No. 164195, Dec. 4, 2998
LBP is not merely a nominal party but is indispensable, independent
of DAR. Facts:
RTC rendered judgment ordering DAR/LBP to pay interest at the rate
DAR v. Heirs of Domingo, G.R. No. 188670, March 7, 2012 of 12% per annum on the above-fixed amount of fair, reasonable
and just compensation computed from the time the complaint was
filed until the finality of this decision. After this decision becomes

final and executory, the rate of 12% shall be additionally imposed on value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the
the total obligation until payment thereof is satisfied. time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the
court. In fine, between the taking of the property and the actual
Issue: Whether or not the interest was validly imposed. payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a
position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in
Ruling: before the taking occurred.
NO. It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to
the CA, by filing a notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing
March 2003 its petition for certiorari in the CA only because the RTC interest on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the
did not give due course to its appeal. Any intervening delay thereby time petitioner instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the
entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank, however, considering property in September 1969. This allowance of interest on the
that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy amount found to be the value of the property as of the time of the
afforded by law to every losing party, who cannot thus be taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12% per annum
considered to act in bad faith or in an unreasonable manner as to should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and
make such party guilty of unjustified delay. inflation of the value of the currency over time.

The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the LBP v. Gallego, G.R. No. 173226, July 29, 2013
Court of Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the
payment of just compensation. It may disagree with DAR and the Facts:
landowner as to the amount of just compensation to be paid to the Respondents are co-owners of parcels of agricultural land. DAR
latter and may also disagree with them and bring the matter to placed a portion of the property under the coverage of PD27.
court for judicial determination. This makes LBP an indispensable However, the parties failed to agree on the amount of just
party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the compensation which prompted respondents to file a petition before
Agrarian Reform Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such the RTC for the determination of just compensation.
cases that are unfavorable to it. Having only exercised its right to
appeal in this case, LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for The trial court adopted the formula prescribed in PD27 in arriving at
interest. the amount of just compensation. Also, trial court also imposed
"interest in kind" payable from 1972 to 2002 by multiplying by 1.8
Interest on the just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the Average Gross Production of palay of 121.6 cavans per hectare
the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established. Given multiplied by 2.5.
the foregoing, we find that the imposition of interest on the award
of just compensation is not justified and should therefore be Ruling: In the determination of the interest, if it is payable in kind,
deleted. its value shall be appraised at the current price of the products or
goods at the time and place of payment.
LBP v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182431, Nov. 17, 2010
These circumstances — the gross inadequacy of the LBP's valuation
Facts: of the respondents' property and the loss of income suffered by the
The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land respondents — taken together undeniably confirm the
that was placed under the coverage of PD 27. After DAR directed unconscionable delay in the payment of just compensation.
payment, LBP approved the payment of P265,494 inclusive of 6%
increment. Just compensation does not only refer to the full and fair
Consequently, the respondents instituted a civil case for equivalent of the property taken; it also means, equally if not more
determination and payment of just compensation before the than anything, payment in full without delay. Consequently, we
Regional Trial Court. deem it proper to award the respondents 12% interest per annum
from the time of taking until full payment.
LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under
the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 were governed and LBP v Sps. Avanceña, G.R. No. 190520, May 30, 2016
valued in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 228
and that the administrative valuation of lands covered by Facts:
Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 rested Spouses Antonio and Carmen Avancena were registered owners of a
solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm. parcel of agricultural land situated Sanghan, Cabadbaran, Agusan del
Norte covered by TCT RT- 2937 with an area of 205,0074. In 1988,
Ruling: Avencena spouses voluntarily offered to sell their land to the
The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to government under the CARP, which consisted of 160.25 hectares of
be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly the land.
described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the
usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair In 1991, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the
value of the property as between one who receives, and one who subject lot at P1.87 million based DAR AO 17, series of 1989. In
desires to sell, if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the 1994, upon recomputation, the land was rebaluated at P 3.337
government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before million but the spouses rejected the valuation. The LBP deposited
compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the difference in the cash portion between the revalued amount and
the case, the final compensation must include interest on its just the initial valuation. The parties brought the matter of valuation to

the DAR Adjudication Board- Caraga, which affirmed LBP’s second amount of just compensation, the Office of the Provincial Agrarian
valuation. Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) Adjudication Board (DARAB) fixed the value of the subject
Avencena spouses filed with the RTC a complaint for determination lands at P1,292,553.20. Dissatisfied, Alfredo filed a Complaint for
of just compensation. They prayed for a valuation of no less than P the determination of the amount of just compensation.
200,000 per hectare for the subject or to appoint Commissioners to
determine the just compensation. And the spouses be allowed to Issues:
withdraw the valuation amount that LBP had deposited. 1. Is the determination of JC by the RTC valid?
2. Should payment of interest be awarded?
While the complaint was pending, LBP made a reevaluation of the 3. When is the reckoning date for payment of interest?
property using the valuation prescribed by DAR AO 5, series of 1998
yielded the amount of P 9,057,180.32. On March 29, 2000 RTC (SAC) Ruling:
issued its decision directing the LBP and DAR to pay the spouses the 1. No. In determining the amount of just compensation for the
amount of P 20, 475, 775 for the 160 hectares. subject lands, the RTC applied the Income Productivity Approach
which approximated the income for the remaining productive life of
The CA rendered it decision on March 29, 2006 that set aside the the crops therein, without considering the fortuitous events and
RTC decision. CA said that in determining the valuation of the plant diseases, and with the expectation that they would be
subject property, the factors provided under Section 17 of RA 6657 compensated by developments which could be made by the
shall be considered in accord with the formula prescribed in DAR AO property owner.
5, series of 1998. The just compensation due the Spouses Avancena
should bear 12% interest per annum from the time title to the The Court has repeatedly ruled that the constitutional limitation of
property was transferred in the name of the government up to the just compensation is considered to be the sum equivalent of the
time that LBP deposited the amount of its valuation for the subject market value of the property, which is, in turn, defined as the price
land. fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of
legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as
Issue: between one who receives and one who desires to sell it, fixed at
Whether the awarding of interest at the rate of 12% per annum the time of the actual taking by the government.
from the time title to the property was transferred in the name of
the government in 1991 up to time the LBP allegedly deposited the In this accord, therefore, the Court cannot sustain the formula used
valuation in 1996 is in accordance with law? by the RTC which was "based on the principle of anticipation which
implies that the value of a property is dependent on the potential
Ruling: net benefit that may be derived from its ownership." Clearly, this
Yes. LBP claims that it deposited cash and bonds for the initial approach, which is largely characterized by the element of futurity,
valuation of P 1.87 million. It argues that such deposit was the basis is inconsistent with the idea of valuing the expropriated property at
for the DAR to take possession of the property and caused the the time of the taking.
issuance of the title in the name of the government in December
1991. 2. Yes. The just compensation due to the landowners for their
The CA found that the title to the spouses land was canceled and a expropriated property is treated as an effective forbearance on the
new title was issued in the name of RP in December 1991 but there part of the State. The rationale therefor, as enunciated in the case
was no showing that LBP had made payments prior to the taking of of Apo Fruits Corporation v. LBP, is to compensate the landowners
the land. There was delay in the payment of just compensation for the income they would have made had they been properly
which entitles the spouses to the payment of interest from the time compensated for their properties at the time of the taking.
the property was transferred in the name of the government in
December 1991 up to the time LBP deposited the valuation in the In other words, the award of 12% interests is imposed in the nature
account of the Spouses Avancena in July 1996. of damages for the delay in the payment of the full just
compensation award.
LBP. v. Hababag, Sr., G.R. No. 172352, September 16, 2015
In the present case, the LBP had already made the corresponding
Facts: deposit of their offered valuation in the amount of P1,237,850.00 in
Alfredo Hababag, Sr. (Alfredo) was the owner of several parcels of cash and in bonds prior to the DAR's possession of the
agricultural land with an aggregate area of 82.4927 hectares (has.) property. This amount is lower than the just compensation awarded
situated in Barangays Carriedo, Manapao, and Casili, in the and, hence, in view of the above-stated principle, the payment of
Municipality of Gubat, Sorsogon, and covered by Transfer Certificate interests remains in order insofar as the unpaid balance is
of Title No. T-12107. The aforesaid landholdings were voluntarily concerned.
offered for sale (VOS) to the government under Republic Act No.
(RA) 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian 3. In view of the LBP's alternative Motion for Clarification, the Court
Reform Law of 1988," but only 69.3857 has. thereof (subject lands) illumines that the interest shall be pegged at the rate of twelve
were acquired in 1990. percent (12%) per annum (p.a.) on the unpaid balance, reckoned
from the time of taking, or the time when the landowner was
The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the subject deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is
lands at P1,237,850.00, but Alfredo rejected the valuation. After transferred to the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), or
summary administrative proceedings for the determination of the emancipation patents are issued by the government, until June 30,

2013, and thereafter, at six percent (6%) p.a. until full payment. Difference between PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree) and RA
(Land Bank of the Phils. v. Hababag, Sr., G.R. Nos. 172352 & 172387- 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
88 (Resolution), [June 8, 2016])
PD 27 RA 6657
Atty GCC’s slide: Main purpose is to
LBP V, Avancena; LBP V Kho; Heirs of Feliciano; LBP V. Sps Chu provide land for the
Abolish leasehold in
landless through
The Court has allowed the grant of legal interest in expropriation tenanted lands. It
acquiring and
cases where there is delay in the payment since the just made the tiller of
Purpose distribution of lands and
compensation due to the landowners was deemed to be an effective the land the
providing support
forbearance on the part of the State. amortizing owner of
facilities and system for
the land he tills.
the benefit of the
Legal interest on the unpaid balance shall be pegged at the rate of farmers.
12% per annum from the time of taking in 1989 when Emancipation

Patents were issued, until June 30, 2013 only. Covers all public and
private agricultural
Thereafter, or beginning July 1, 2013, until fully paid, the just lands including other
compensation due the landowners shall earn interest at the new Private lands which lands of public domain
legal rate of 6% per annum in line with the amendment introduced Land Covered are devoted to rice suitable for agriculture
by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas-Monetary Board Circular No. 799, and corn ONLY. regardless of tenurial
Series of 2013. arrangement and
commodity produced.

Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for

determination of Just Compensation may be filed? With the passage of
No. To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect RA 6657, it is only a
and delay in processing is to violate the elementary rule that suppletory law. This
Effect in
payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable period Main governing law of
Implementing means, it will be
from the taking of property. Agrarian Land Reform
Land Reform applicable only to
a. DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the here in the Philippines.
Program those matters
pendency of the protest. not covered by RA
b. Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has original and 6657.
exclusive jurisdiction.

Note: not beneficiaries:
Jurisdiction in terms of the amount of Just Compensation:
this is referring to the
a. If less than 5 million -> Jurisdiction is with PARAD
tenants
b. If more than 5 million -> Jurisdiction is with RARAD Number of Makes a distinction:
> The beneficiaries,
hectares that a If irrigated: 3
meaning the ARBs
tenant or farmer If not irrigated:
(agrarian reform
can own 5
beneficiaries) can be
awarded not exceeding
3 hectares
The retention is 5
hectares regardless of
whether the landowner
is tilling the land or not.
Children of the
7 hectares if
Ownership of landowner – not
personally cultivated
the land that exceeding 3 hectares
by the landowner
can be retained each, subject to 2
OR will cultivate
conditions:
> 15 years old and
above
> Personally cultivating
or directly managing

1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration. RA 6657:
factors for consideration in determining just compensation.
2. RA 6657 will be used for lands covered by PD 27 and just
compensation has not been determined at the time of passage of RA
6657, because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect.

Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Midterm Reviewer 2017 Based On Pointers

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Midterm Reviewer 2017 Based On Pointers

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Agrarian

Reform and Other Social Legislation | Atty. Jose Glenn C. Capanas 1

Вам также может понравиться