Agrarian Reform

March 23, 2018 | Author: Fersal Alberca | Category: Leasehold Estate, Lease, Farmworker, Overtime, Employment
Share
Report this link


Comments



Description

1*From PPT *Shaded portions: From Pointers ni Sir *From Audio *From Codal *Included in Syllabus but not in both audio and powerpoint AGRARIAN REFORM I. History and Legal Basis PRE-SPANISH PERIOD  Before the Spaniards came the Filipinos lived in villages or barangays ruled by chiefs or datus.  Everyone had access to the fruits of the soil.  DAR did not elaborate on this one. But what I can surmise is that probably no one was concerned about ownership. Gamay rag tao at that time. I think the keyword there is “access”. Walay limitation ba. SPANISH PERIOD  When the Spaniards came the concept of encomienda (Royal Land Grants) was introduced. - “haciendas” (wealthy chinese families) 1st PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC  First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large estate. - but his regime was short lived. Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented. AMERICAN PERIOD  Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings: 16 has for private individuals and 1,024 has for corporations.  Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) –registration of land titles under the Torrens system. That means, ownership continued to be the concern starting way back from the spanish period.  Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system.  Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships between landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane lands. -limited COMMONWEALTH PERIOD President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the “Social Justice” program.  1935 Constitution- “The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic security of all people should be the concern of the State”  Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy ActNo.4045) -Certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships  Commonwealth Act. No.461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal of tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice. You will note again, the relationship bet. Landlord and tenant has proliferated and the government was just giving restrictions. Meaning, the landlord can’t just unilaterally eject the tenants, there has to be justifiable reasons.  Rural Program Administration, created March 2,1939purchase and lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants. JAPANESE     OCCUPATION peasants and workers organizations grew strength. peasants took up arms Anti- Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon) not much during this time PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC  After Philippine Independence in 1964 , problems of land tenure remained . President Manuel Roxas (1946-1948):  Republic Act No. 34 -- 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating share-tenancy contracts. It used to be 50-50, now it is 70-30.  Republic Act No.55 – more effective safeguard against arbitrary ejectment of tenants. PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC President Elpidio Quirino (1948-1953)  Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23,1950 -Replaced the National Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO)  President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957) Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS  Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954)– (note) -relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy and leasehold system. -tenant has option to elect either share tenancy or leasehold -it also created the Court of Agrarian Relations. Cont. President Ramon Magsaysay(1953-1957)….  Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – Created the Land Tenure Administration(LTA) Take note of this under Magsaysay, 1199, just for our consumption although it has been superseded. Before Magsaysay, the relationship was concentrated on share tenancy but during this time there was another system that came out, and what’s that? LEASEHOLD. If before share tenancy was about sharing 50/50, then 70/30, and now share tenancy is kelangan ikaw land owner imung ipa eject you should follow the reasons to eject. No arbitrary ejectment  those are the concerns during Magsaysay but here comes another concern and that is LEASEHOLD and in fact under the law the tenant has the option, why the option? Because this was changed in the time of Macapagal under R.A. 3844. Under Macapagal there is no more option,  no more share tenancy, we will only adopt leasehold What’s the difference between share tenancy and leasehold? You will note in share tenancy, the concerns are sharing and ejectment. What are in share tenancy that is not in leasehold? If a tenant dies under share tenancy the children of the deceased cannot succeed but under leasehold the descendants automatically become tenants as well. Once a tenant, father or mother dies, a land owner cannot say “since I cannot eject you tenant I will just sell this land”. Under leasehold, the transferee or the purchaser of the land is bound by the relationship. In short, the Land owner has no escape. This was the option before during the time of Macapagal. With this law R.A.3344, share tenancy was abolished and it was only leasehold. Macapagal was even called the father of Agrarian Reform. President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961) Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. President Diosdado Macapagal(1961-1965): Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8,1963– Abolished shared tenancy, institutionalized leasehold. • President Ferdinand Marcos(1965-1986):  Republic Act No.6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971 – Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform Special Account Fund. - Provides automatic conversion of share tenancy to leasehold. • • •    Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26,1972 – Declared the country under land reform program. Presidential Decree No.27,October 21,1972– Restricted land reform scope to tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares. President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)  Section 21 under Article II – “The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”  signed into law Republic Act No. 6657  became effective on June 15,1988 E.O 405, during the time of Aquino, vested in the LBP to determine land valuation. In the acquisition, the landowner can voluntarily give up the land and AGREE on the land valuation to be determined by Land Bank. If the landowner does not agree with the acquisition, the government will have to do the compulsory acquisition. And then, after that, you will have the valuation of the land bank of the Phil. If the land owner does not agree with the valuation, the land owner will usually go to the Civil Court. Who has jurisdiction? Regional trial court acting as Special Agrarian Court President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998):  His administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and more meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.  Republic Act No.7881,1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657 and exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.  Republic Act 8532,1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – additionalPhp50 billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years. You have the additional fund and extending the implementation for another 10 years. Why was there an extension? 2 - - - - Because R.A.6657 was to be implemented for a period of 10 years. Why extended it? Well that would be an admission that the program has not been fully implemented. After this in 1998 it was extended for another 10 years so it went to 2008. What was the latest amendment under CARP? It was CARPER R.A.9700 passed on 2009 So what happened when CARP expired on 2008 and before CARPER was enacted into law? Do you know what the congress did? - Congress merely passed a Resolution, Both houses, they passed a resolution extending the coverage of CARP. Question: Is that Valid?  “daw” (valid nalang…) If the Land of your client between 2008 and 2009 can you question the acquisition, Saying that there was no law supporting to that acquisition? (naa ni sa later part, basta gipa.retroact nila ang law to include the period nga walay law kay nalangay ug approve.) President Joseph E. Estrada(1998-2000)“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP”  launched the Magkabalikat Para sa Kaunlarang Agraryo or MAGKASAKA. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2000-present): Kung manag-iya na sila sa yuta, nganung naa pa may leasehold? Because the constitution or the law provides merely a right, a farmer may not opt to avail of that right. Ingon sila “a di mi motoo ana inyung programa oie, Pabilin lang mi diri arlese unta padayun lang mig tenant” but they will not be governed by share tenancy, wala na… abolished naman to, but they will be governed by leasehold operations. Nganu man ang government is concerned for farmers who are lessee’s even though they don’t want to own parcels of land? Because dili sila ganahan nga naa napuy INEQUALITY. How does the government protect the interest of the farmers? Leasehold contract. And, if you are the farmer in leasehold, you should have that leasehold annotated at the back of the title of the land.  Land Tenure Improvement/Provision of Support Services Why is there a need for improvement? And Why is there a need for support? - Remember, equalization of social and economic forces. That means the Law itself recognizes that the mere giving of this parcels of Land to the farmers is not enough. They need credit assistance (para sa tanom and all) Agri-Agra Law – under the law there is a specific provision that rural banks must have a portfolio for credit assistance to be extended by way of loan to farmers. Sa ato pa RESERVE daan. (wa na gi.apil sa syllabus kay motaas na daw)  - Infrastructure Project/ KALAHI ARZone Agrarian reform Zone, once there is an area composed of ARB’s, Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries, They are a community, butangan sila og skwelahan, butangan sila multi-purpose hall, that part of assistance of the state and they are called AR zone.  Agrarian Justice (2 PHASES) 1. Agrarian Legal Assistance – executive (DAR will provide lawyers to farmers) 2. Adjudication of Cases. *If you are the lawyer of the Land Owner, inyung papahawa.on ang nagpuyo sa yuta sa inyung client. Muadto kag DAR for assistance? You may not be granted. Why? Who will decide, DAR dba? Who will assist? DAR And besides, if you are the lawyer of the Landowner, you will not be tempted to get inside the system. Why? The moment you get inside the system, the element needed so that DAR can adjudicate the case is RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TENANTS. Now, would you admit that there is Landowner and Tenant Relationship? Dili! Kansi kaayo ang landowner ana. Ngano man? If you admit that, there are certain RESTRICTIONS! And ofcourse, that is against the interest of your client land owner. Asa man cla mangadto? Sa civil courts na! Mao nang mufile sila ug forcible entry, unlawful detainer, or accion publiciana.  CARPER Importance of Land Reform and its Constitutionality* battle-cry dramatizing the increasingly urgent demand of dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as their place in the sun. the Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social justice to "insure the well-being and economic security of all the people,” especially the less privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal adding specifically that "the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits." Significantly, there was also the specific injunction to "formulate and implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil." The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these sentiments, it also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere provisions for the uplift of the common people. These include a call in the following words for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program: SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line with the above-stated principles. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by P.D. No. 27, which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners. On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation. Subsequently, the revived Congress of the Philippines took over legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations, including extensive public hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The result, after almost a year of spirited debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino signed on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them supplementary effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his powers under martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella. As for the power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, the same was authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. ARTICLE XII NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the under-privileged. Assoc. of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary, 175 SCRA 343 "Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is more than a slogan. Through the brooding centuries, it has become a Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, 3 the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership. ARTICLE XVIII TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Section 22. At the earliest possible time, the Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program. Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant. Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor. ARTICLE XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments. Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and selfreliance. AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS MEANING OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION Laws that seek to promote the common good, generally by protecting and assisting the weaker members of society. Let’s talk about Social Justice. Why? Because what will follow are the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article XIII, that talks about Social Justice. Just take note of the underlined words “SOCIAL JUSTICE IS THE HUMANIZATION OF THE LAWS”. Personification of the laws. Meaning, the thrust of the law is TO PROTECT PERSONS. And you have Equalization of Social and Economic Forces. Another important phrase: “Measures calculated to ensure economic stability”. Meaning of social justice Social Justice – is neither communism nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of the laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that justice in its National and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the maintenance of proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, and extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all government on time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. The constitutional provisions on agrarian reform (5) Specific provision on agrarian and natural resources reform. Article XIII: Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Article XIII, Sec.4- This was already complied. The mandate that a law should be passed that will undertake an agrarian reform program. How was it manifested? You have RA 6657. The law was passed in 1988, during the time of Aquino. The Constitution itself mandates that the program is founded on the right of FARMERS and REGULAR FARM WORKERS, and OTHER FARM WORKER. Rights if you are a Farmer, Regular Farm Worker? Your right is to own the lands you till. You can either put it in (1)your name, or it can be the (2)name of the cooperative on which you are a member. Okay? Was this complied under CARL? Not necessarily. Why? Because under CARL, you can own an agricultural land EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT A TILLER of the said land. Nobody questioned this in the SC. Nobody said that “hey SC, why should my land be awarded to somebody who is not a tiller of my land when the Constitution says To own the lands they till”. How will the SC solve this question if this is raised in the future? Anyway, that’s not the issue now. How about OTHER FARM WORKERS? Do they have the right to own the lands they till? NO because the constitution just said that “they have the right to receive a just share of the fruits”. Was this complied under CARL? My opinion is it was not. Why? There are different classes of farmers. We have Regular Farmworkers, Seasonal Farmworkers, and the catch-all Other Farmworkers. You are an “Other Farmworker” if you do not fall under the 2 preceding categories. Those classes of farmers: (1)Farmworkers and (2)Other Farmworkers they qualify to own parcels of land under the law. Is the law consistent with the Constitution? I don’t think so. Take note of this, what is the meaning of “Landless”? Does it mean technically that the person does not own any amount of land? That is usually our impression. But under CARL, you are landless as long as you don’t own an agricultural land exceeding 3 hectares. Is that the purpose of an agrarian reform program? I believe the purpose is really for those who are truly landless because that is the very essence of social 4 legislation: Equalization of Forces. If you own a parcel of land, why the need of having another parcel of land? Another issue is this: RETENTION LIMITS. I’ll give you an overview so that at least you will understand when we talk about agrarian reform. Agrarian Reform program is basically taking away parcels of land by the state from those owners of the agricultural lands. If you own 60 hectares, you won’t own anymore 60 hectares. You will only be able to retain a certain number of hectares. Who determines the number? CONGRESS. Under CARL, landowners can retain up to 5 hectares. So, if you own 60 hectares, you will retain 5 hectares. That is agrarian reform; that is equalization of forces. Why? Because you have landowners who own parcels of land and you have tenants who till the land but don’t own any parcels of land. How will they become equal? The government will take away parcels of land and give it to the land owners. But, that does not end there because that TAKING is what you call Expropriation of Eminent Domain. That’s why in Sec. 4, there is a provision there subject to the Payment of Just Compensation. This is not simple because if you own vast hectares of land, you don’t have to give it away and receive a compensation nga ang mu.valuate kay ang government kay normally gagmay. Pero, base rapud na sa imong sayop. Ngano man? Under Sec. 17, one of the factors that will affect the computation of just compensation is the Assessed Value. And ang landowner nga gusto makasave, dili mudeclare sa sakto na assessed value. Ang ideclare sa tax declaration, gamay ra kaayo kay aron gamay rag bayran nga real property tax. Without knowing, ang iyang yuta kuhaon diay to sa gobyerno unya ang iyang yuta, bayran ra base sa botbot niya na assessed value. Sec 4 talks about retention limits. It qualifies retention limits. Reasonable retention limits. That has not been questioned, so right now the limit is fixed at 5 hectares. Children of landowners will also retain, subject to this 2 qualifications: 1. 2. At least 15 yrs. Old (a)Personally Cultivating the land or, (b)Directing managing the land Kasagarang anak, dili jud nay mu.uma. So anhi ni nila pasiguon sa ikaduha. “Directly managing the land”. Naa bana? Wala! Nagpahayahay rana. So what is the implication here? It is prone to corruption and abuse. Ngano man? Pwede raman “daw” sabotsaboton ang MARO. What is MARO? Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. He is the representative of DAR in the Municipal/City Level. It is the MARO who investigates who are the children qualified for retention, and submit a report to the PARO. So that is the framework of this agrarian reform program. Sec. 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers’ organizations to participate in the planning organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. “The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. Take note of Sec. 6, still in the constitution. While the framework is: Acquisition subject to payment of just compensation, the program must respect (1)prior rights, (2)homestead rights, and (3)the rights of indigenous communinities. So if you are a holder of homestead patent, your land is not covered by the agrarian reform program. But, there is a BUT. Here, in sec. 6, there is no qualification. It just mentioned “subject to prior rights, homestead rights”. But you know what happened to the law? The law qualifies it. Qualifies it in a sense that if you are a grantee of a homestead patent, gitagaan kag yuta sa DENR para naa kay ikabalay, but wala ka nagpuyo or actually till sa yuta, the law says that you are not qualified for the exemption. But, section 6 does not qualify. Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities; to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. Sec. 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer - Atty. Capanas - AMaWS Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. RA 3844 BENEFICIARIES  Tenant Farmers  Agricultural wage-earners or farm workers  Settlers including migrant workers  Owner-cultivators of less than family-size farms LANDS COVERED BY THE CODE Tenanted Areas Landed Estates Old Settlements Proposed Settlements COMPOSITION OF THE CODE  An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy systems in agriculture. During the Time of Diosdado Macapagal and it was this law that ABOLISHED SHARE TENANCY and UPHELD LEASE HOLD. Before this was RA 1199 where the tenant is given the choice whether the tenant would love to go to share tenancy or lease hold. If you have read 1199 the meaning or the concept of share tenancy and lease hold are the same. With respect to parties: Parties are the land owner and the tenant although in the case of leasehold the tenant is technically called lessee. There is a contribution of the land owner and that contribution is in the form of a land. The contribution of the tenant or lessee is labor. And the tenant/lessee is supposed to plant, cultivate, harvest and when there is production, divide the share. The same concept  share tenancy and leasehold. But why is it that leasehold is preferred over share tenancy? Why leasehold? - Protects tenurial and economic status - ECONOMIC STATUS It is the upliftment of the life of the tenant. But what about tenurial? It has something to do with tenure. [Im sure in your favorite subject LABOR LAW, you remembered security of tenure] Security of tenure is provided by law not withstanding any contract. So if you have a contract that says you are only there for a period of 10 months for example but under the law you are considered to be regularly employed because you are performing work directly for the company then you are considered a regular not withstanding any contract. The same concept is true with respect to agrarian reform. That means if you are a tenant or a lessee the LO cannot just dispossess, remove or eject you from the land w/o apparent reason there has to be a ground, it should be based on the ground. And the grounds are provided by law. - Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and management - Assures continuity of relations - - In case of death of the tenant or the lessee, the relationship CONTINUES. It continues with the immediate family. That’s why there’s protection of the tenurial status. In case lessor sells or alienates the legal possession, transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of lessor. - - The transferee/the purchaser is subrogated but not subrogated in the positive sense of the word. He has to assume the rights and obligations of the lessor. The transferee cannot say that I am innocent, I don’t know, I am not aware that there was this relationship between tenant and nya nag. Now SC discusses first about BURDEN OF PROOF. civil law concept you file to civil court. the lessee cannot be ejected. lessee labor and when there is production they are supposed to divide the produce. DISPOSSESSION there has to be a court order.unsaon pagka. Kung magsabot sila ug 50-50. Sec. The rental is FIXED Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . If they are agricultural workers under RA 3844. WHY? Its hard ang agrarian and its difficult to the part of the LO. The DARAB is the central office in Manila. when you filed an action against the bank for nullity of mortgage you were aware that there was non-payment of the loan and the bank is to foreclose the property.AMaWS - - - f. Nganu man? Maalkansi ang lessee. e. LO provides the land. Of course it may not fall under forcible entry. 12 on legal redemption  Farm lots foreclosed by the bank due non-payment of a loan. Allegation only is not sufficient Extinguishment of relation vs dispossession a. The jurisdiction for one is different from the other. the highest bidder  Dampal. WHY? One year mana from the time of entry. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator – PARAD. There is no provision under CARL regarding the rights and obligations. SC qualified that non-payment must be willful and deliberate. Where will you file the ejectment case – agri lessee – DAR while civil lessee – in regular courts Lessee has substantial rights. Not agrarian law. the right of the lessee to redeem a property that was foreclosed by the bank. NOTE: According to the SC under sec. Dili ni order referring to civil court on the aspect of Civil law relationship. the mortgagor and the tenant filed a Civil Case against the bank for annulment of mortgage.talks about redemption. the vendee is bound by the leasehold relationship Should it be annotated? No.5 LO because if that is the case that that can be an excuse then futile ang balaod. That means there was no willful and deliberate non-payment of the rentals due. . So when we mention here about court order we are referring to the order coming from the agrarian court and the offense is premised on the grounds under the law. because it has to be WILLFUL and DELIBERATE non-payment. You tolerate ang ila occupation with the understanding nga hoy ug pahawaon gani moh. supposed to be the bank that shall serve notice on all the lessees including Private Respondent Dampal because he is affected by the sale.sunod.AL – 3844 while CL – Civil Code 2. Why is it that leasehold relationship was preferred? a. Dispossession – with court order. this contention fails because of the express requirement under the law that it has to be in WRITING. there is an express provision that the lessee will allow a sublessee. they are entitled to minimum wage law. Bisag mamatay na na cya di ghapon na nimu mapahawa kay naa may nag. you have to consult this law. One of the important provisions of the law is w/ respect to grounds to dispossess. Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS a. among others. CARL.an. it provides for a reckoning point. Forcible entry and unlawful detainer. So you will note among the grounds that has been listed. 37 the burden of proof to show the existence of a cause of rejectment is upon petitioner land owner. so you don’t file it normally at the agrarian court. There is a difference between extinguishment of the relation as against dispossession. Normally from squatters. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that agreed upon Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage Non-payment of rental when due . That means we are talking about all the grounds to dispossess. under 3844. To protect the lessee from possible ejectment or disposition of property. Who shall give the notice? It is the vendee. Therefore you are considered to have a constructive knowledge.” Sec.offer ngadto sa lessee ang yuta. Refers to 2 parties It is referred as agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee Lease – somebody must pay rental Can the lessor eject the tenant? Yes. Going back to the relationship.Contention of PO.rakrakan ang tenant ug pusil. . goes to CA. Take note: “dispossess” here means removal/ejectment from the land. the lack of written notice does not start the running of the prescriptive period. you have to support. the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the tenant. D pwede patas. But PO said you have no right of redemption because it is already beyond the period as provided under sec.tulda lng. Subject of this case is the case of legal redemption not the annulment of mortgage. they are under Bill Of Rights. That’s why this one is still very applicable with respect to leasehold. there is also an ejectment under agrarian reform. Not necessary. Bound ka especially under RA 3844 that means you cannot eject unless your ground falls under any of those grounds and unsa may kasagaran mahitabo sa yuta? Diba naa sa yuta mo. But you have to know under sec. you don’t have to allege . But the law even mentions about the right of pre-emption “if ibaligya gani sa tag-iya ang yuta dunay katungod nga e. Now leasehold tenancy. dili pwede ma. transfer or conveyance of agricultural land. The previous owner. in a parcel of land. Capanas . hawa na. So any decision of the PARAD goes to DARAB and from the DARAB being a quasi-judicial agency under the rules of Court. normally wa man ka diha. 12. So what LO would do is to file it under the civil concept mao na nga nay rule 70. This law still applies. Agricultural lessee vs Civil lessee To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and under Agrarian Law 1. you recognize that there is relationship of LO and Lessee. by law. Tenurial Security under Agrarian Land Reform – relationship can exist even if there is death of the lessee or lessor.scene na jud. So imu buhaton ngadto ka sa unlawful detainer and the allegation normally was that there was TOLERANCE. Leasehold relationship will remain. nya nipa hut. voluntary act (abandonment of land without knowledge of lessor or voluntary surrender by lessee) or an act of God b. it could be failure but if there was negligence on the part of the lessee to pay that may not be taken against the lessee. pagkahuman ni balay na. Sec 12 provides 180 days from notice in writing. Why? Unsa man imu e. sale .kalit nalang ug turok ang mga tawo bisag wa gitanum? Wa mo kabantay ana? Murag mushroom diba? Tan. b. The law provides for that. Grounds to eject . there is no provision on ejectment! So which one will you consult? This law (RA 3844).aw nimu nag. That is the civil law concept. It is the LO who has the burden to prove the ground. I’m sure you’ve heard cases about LO filing cases on ejectment against occupants. Employed a sublessee Normally the grounds are last two grounds. The produce there to be given by the lessee to the lessor/LO is the rental.One of the Important ground is this non-payment of the rental when due. Po is the highest bidder in the auction. So according to the court the lessee executed an affidavit that the LO refused to receive the respective lease rentals and for another year the lessee wrote two notices to the LO informing him of the availability of the lease rentals pero wa kuha.Atty. The transferee of the agriland. ABBREVIATIONS USED: PARAD is the provincial adjudicator. the issue is non-payment of the rentals. -There was no notice served. DARAB said no more right to redeem because it has prescribed. There is an ejectment under civil law. Unless the ground for ejectment is not enumerated in 3844. Extinguishment – no court approval. and the reckoning point is a NOTICE IN WRITING. premise of lessee Sta. c. Jurisdiction is different.ground? and besides if you file it there. 12. Remember TENURIAL STATUS. it is in the context of the Department of agrarian reform. It was foreclosed that is why you are seeking the nullity of the mortgage. Po vs Dampal . And it’s normal for lawyers to file the case under the civil law concept. agrarian ejectment you file ari sa agrarian Court /PARAD. Because Dampal wants to redeem the land from the bank. Agricultural leasehold? (read Sec 4-38 for more info :p) A juridical tie between lessor and lessee - - Abolished shared tenancy. (on grounds for ejectment) SIR: Under the current law. The land owner still has to comply with this. d.uplift sa economic status sa lessee?! Pwede paubsan? Pwede. You will note there are different rulings of the DAR.a sa LO. Not only the lessees but also including DAR. 37 talks about dispossess. Meanwhile the tenant filed a complaint for legal redemption with DAR. Why? If you file ejectment under agrarian law you are bound by whatever rights of the occupants may have on the parcel of land.  SC said. That means di lang failure. The rental shall not exceed 25% of the average normal harvest. Anna vs Carpo. So SC said. shall apply to farm workers insofar as it may be applicable. - (3)Right to minimum wage. Lease rental Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of leasehold after deducting amount used for the seeds and costs of harvesting.e. Capanas . produce. Kung e. or some other just cause of a similar nature.Atty. as amended. — The farm workers shall have the right to self-organization and to form. there is a cycle of 2 agricultural years depending on the crop/crops planted. the money or can be both depending upon the agreement of the parties. farm employer or farm manager as prescribed by Section twenty-four of Commonwealth Act Numbered One hundred and three. it shall be the duty of the farm employer or manager to allow the farm workers. the law provides this order of assumption: 1. basig gbaha. So. or while an agricultural dispute is pending before the Court of Agrarian Relations. equipment or installations in order to avoid a serious loss which the farm employer or manager would otherwise suffer. next eldest descendants in the order of their age.. as amended. Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization? -Fine or imprisonment -Damages suffered -Attorney’s fees -Remuneration for last income That means that there must be a complaint filed before the PARAD to be able to lawfully eject a tenant.Right to Self-Organization. that constitutes agricultural year. organizers. and - (7)Right against suspension or lay-off. forty-one. Bill of Rights for Agricultural Labor SECTION 39. entitled "An Act prescribing the compensation to be received by employees for personal injuries. threshing. or in case of urgent work to be performed on farm machines. SECTION 45.27. — Notwithstanding the provisions of existing laws to the contrary. farm labor organizations and agrarian disputes as defined in this Code. — All other existing laws applicable to non-agricultural workers in private enterprises which are not inconsistent with this Code shall likewise apply to farm workers. Act Numbered Thirty-four hundred and twenty-eight. SECTION 42.)  Marcos decree BENEFICIARIES  DECREE Beneficiaries of the Decree are the bona fide tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-crop or lease tenancy (not farm labor).Right to Compensation for Personal Injuries. plantation or compound at the portion of the same where said farm workers live or stay permanently or temporarily. abandon. mopahawa sila sa yuta. 2. Decree no. the lease rental cannot exceed 25%. Work may be performed beyond eight hours a day in case of actual or impending emergencies caused by serious accidents. plus at least twenty-five per centum additional. farm workers shall not be required to work for more than eight hours daily.an cguro nya wala mo. That the farm employer or manager shall not be held liable for any claim for overtime work which he had not previously authorized. - (2)Right to engage in concerted activities. cdasia SECTION 47.Right to Minimum Wage. Death. or other disaster or calamity. the time during which the farm worker is not working and can leave his working place and can rest completely shall not be counted. buildings or the like. It is not referring to the calendar year. advisers and helpers complete freedom to enter and leave the farm. however. he shall be paid an additional sum of at least twenty-five per centum of his regular compensation.Right Against Suspension or Lay-Off. If it is proved during the said period that a worker has been suspended or dismissed without just cause.Right to Engage in Concerted Activities. It can be the produce. flood. - (5)Right to claim for damages for death or injuries sustained while at work. farm workers in farm enterprises shall be entitled to at least P3. - - NOTE: EQUIVALENT: because it is not necessary that the payment of the lease rental is the produce. join or assist farm workers' organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing: Provided. — The farm workers shall also have the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection. as amended. farm employer or farm manager shall not suspend.whether in land classified as landed estate (i. with an area of 24 hectares or above) or not. That this right shall be exercised in a manner as will not unduly interfere with the normal farm operations. Provided. or Illness. however. No farm employer or manager shall compel a farm worker to work during Sundays and legal holidays: Provided. it is also provided for under the law.hubas ang baha. continue between lessor and members of lessee’s immediate farm household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death: If lessor cannot choose. epidemic. shall apply to farm workers insofar as it may be applicable. forty-two and forty-three shall not apply to farm enterprises comprising not more than twelve hectares SUPPLETORY EFFECT (nothing sa slides or sa records.Rights for Agricultural Labor. Act Numbered Eighteen hundred and seventy-four. but apil sa syllabus. SECTION 44. That this wage may. — To enable the farm workers to enjoy the same rights and opportunities in life as industrial workers. whether classified as landed estate or not The tenant farmer. Reyes GR 140164 (read case nalang) IMO: This law has suppletory effect on CARL based on the grounds to dispossess/eject since wala man dawn na sa CARL (believe at your own risk!!) TENANTS EMANCIPATION (Pres.AMaWS For the purpose of this and the preceding Section. — The landowner. death or illness contracted in the performance of their duties". except if the work rendered was to avoid damages to crops.6 - Whereas if it is an extinguishment. 3. shall be deemed owner (subject . based on their daily wages. So probably in one year. — Notwithstanding the provision of existing laws to the contrary. SECTION 48.50 a day for eight hours' work: Provided. normally it is a voluntary act.Exceptions to Preceding Section. idk asa sa law dapit… enlighten meeee)  wala pud ang Reyes vs. Any agreement or contract between the farm employer or manager and the farm worker contrary to the provisions of this Section shall be null and void. further. SECTION 43. death or illness. lay-off or dismiss any farm worker without just cause from the time a farm workers' organization or group of farm workers has presented to the landowner a petition or complaint regarding any matter likely to cause a strike or lockout and a copy thereof furnished with the Department of Labor. — The preceding Sections of this Chapter. fire. - (6)Right to compensation for personal injuries. SECTION 46. as well as to relations between farm management and farm labor and the functions of the Department of Labor and other agencies. work animals or implements.Right to Eight Hours' Work. BUT. That should the farm worker agree to work on said days.Other Applicable Provisions. - (4)Right to work for not more than eight hours. SECTION 41.Right of Action for Damages. — Notwithstanding the provisions of existing laws to the contrary. WHAT IS THE MEANING HERE OF AGRICULTURAL YEAR? - The planting up to the harvest cycle. the Court may direct the reinstatement and the payment of his wage during the time of his suspension or dismissal. entitled "An Act to extend and regulate the responsibility of employers for personal injuries and death suffered by their employees while at work". or of any sum he should have received had he not been suspended or dismissed. SECTION 40. loading. Hinaot wala pamusila kay aron mahadlok that is an extinguishment or there is an act of God. — Notwithstanding any provision of law or contract to the contrary. typhoon. they shall enjoy the following: - (1)Right to self-organization. without prejudice to any criminal liability of the landowner. hauling and processing. be increased by the Minimum Wage Board as provided for in Republic Act Numbered Six hundred and two. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . labor leaders. except Sections forty. When the work is not continuous. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity. surviving spouse. Can relation be terminated by death?   No. but in all such cases the farm workers shall be entitled to receive compensation for the overtime work performed at the same rate as their regular wages. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in farm workers' organizations under their supervision but may form separate organizations of their own. No. Petitioner avers that respondent neither protested when the former had the subject land surveyed and planted with 40 mango trees. o Children of the landowner – not exceeding 3 hectares each. Upon the promulgation of PD 27. under the law. the following requisites must be proven: (a) a clear and absolute intention to renounce a right or claim or to desert a right or property and (b) an external act by which that intention is expressed or carried into effect. 229. this Court has always ruled that agrarian laws must be interpreted liberally in favor of the grantees in order to give full force and effect to the clear intent of such laws: "to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers". Estolas vs. relinquishment.whether classified as landed estate or not – is primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease tenancy. 2002 Facts: A Certificate of Land Transfer (hereinafter referred to as CLT) was issued in favor of respondent over a 5.R. May 7. Thus. On this score. 229. it will be applicable only to those matters not covered by RA 6657. Main governing law of Agrarian Land Reform here in the Philippines. the beneficiary. Main purpose is to provide land for the landless through acquiring and distribution of lands and providing support facilities and system for the benefit of the farmers. and recommending that the CLT remain in the name of respondent and that the money loan be returned to petitioner. the tenant farmers thereof shall be deemed owners of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated. There must be an actual. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied. P. Mabalot. and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society.D. subject to 2 conditions: 1. These rights were granted by the government to them as the tillers and to no other. to their successors. In the said Order. susceptible of being appropriated by another. And whatever provisions of P. 27. 27.D. G. the case was referred to the DAR regional office DIFFERENCE: Difference between PD 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree) and RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) Purpose Land Covered Effect in Impleme nting Land Reform Program Number of hectares that a tenant or farmer can own Ownershi p of the land that can be retained PD 27 RA 6657 Abolish leasehold in tenanted lands.A. 27 are retained even with the passage of R. 6657 or the CARP Law operates distinctly from P. there was only a verbal mortgage. covered thereunder. therefore. and three (3) hectares if irrigated. thus. Private lands which are devoted to rice and corn ONLY.A. petitioner theorizes that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) may award the land to another qualified farmer-grantee. Personally cultivating or directly managing PD 27 – rice & corn land RA 6657 – all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain). Whether or not there is a valid abandonment made by Respondent Mabalot. E. and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. while. a sale had taken place. the DAR found the act of respondent in surrendering the subject land in favor of petitioner as constituting abandonment thereof.Atty. Covers all public and private agricultural lands including other lands of public domain suitable for agriculture regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced. A CLT was issued in his favor. B. in any way. 27 that are not inconsistent with R. self-reliant and responsible citizens. and because PD 27 does not prohibit the transfer of properties acquired under it. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter. cultivate and enjoy the landholding for themselves. Thus. respondent appealed the case to the DAR Central Office which an order was issued reversing the assailed Order of DAR Regional Director and ordering the petitioner to return the subject land to respondent. specifically states: "Presidential Decree No. Sigre v. as amended. 109568. R.A. This means. and to make them "more independent. With the passage of RA 6657.A." Held: Main Issue: Abandonment The subject property was awarded to respondent by virtue of PD 27. Because the lot has been abandoned by respondent. Lands transferred to tenant-farmers under the Decree will revert to the government and not to the landowners in case where the tenant abandons his tillage or refuses to take advantage of his rights under the laws. it is only a suppletory law. or back to the government by other legal means. 2002 The Court need not belabor the fact that R. Makes a distinction: . if not irrigated and three (3)hectares. P. The law is explicit. It made the tiller of the land the amortizing owner of the land he tills. 6657 did not repeal or supersede. PD 27 specifically provides that when private agricultural land -.A. August 8. CA. to insure their continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. Issues: A. Whether the issuance of an emancipation patent and thereafter a transfer certificate of title in the name of petitioner has validated and legitimized possession and ownership over the disputed property. their emancipation gave them the rights to possess. 15 years old and above 2. Needing money for medical treatment. Capanas .000 square meter lot (hereinafter referred to as subject land). and denied respondent’s prayer for redemption of the subject land.D. G. No Abandonment For abandonment to exist. by hereditary succession. PD 27 specifically provides that title to land acquired pursuant to its mandate or to that of the Land Reform Program of the government shall not be transferable except to the grantee’s heirs by hereditary succession. Note that the Decree does not apply to lands owned by the government or government-owned corporation. Respondent filed a Complaint against the petitioner before the Barangay Lupon in Pangasinan for the purpose of redeeming the subject land.11 Furthermore. Another investigation was conducted on the matter which led to the issuance of an Order issued by DAR Regional Director. the right or claim is not vacated or waived and.If irrigated: 3 . 27 covers rice and corn lands. Non-transferability of Land Awarded Under PD 27 We do not agree. 27. No.7 to certain requirements and conditions) of a portion constituting a family size of five (5) hectares. The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. meaning the ARBs (agrarian reform beneficiaries) can be awarded not exceeding 3 hectares 7 hectares if  the retention is 5 personally hectares regardless of cultivated by the whether the landowner OR landowner is tilling will cultivate the land or not. 131 and Executive Order No. 133706. Respondent’s request for reinvestigation was denied in a Resolution. Can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to another qualified beneficiary? Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . that R. while according to petitioner. C. they could not. Whether the act of Respondent Mabalot in conveying to petitioner the right to possess and cultivate the disputed parcel of land constitutes a valid abandonment thereby rendering the property available for transfer to other bonafide farmers. which provides for the mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. respondent passed on the subject land to the petitioner. if irrigated. According to respondent. CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates separately from RA 6657.R. 6657.D.O. In the . DAR’s District Office found that respondent merely gave the subject land to petitioner as guarantee for the payment of a loan he had incurred from the latter. not merely a projected. Sigre vs. shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands. x x x" It cannot be gainsaid.AMaWS . otherwise. nor attempted to return the money he had borrowed from petitioner in 1976. Petitioner insisted that the subject land had been sold to him by respondent and requested the DAR to cancel the CLT in respondent’s name.If not irrigated: 5 Note: not beneficiaries: this is referring to the tenants (because naa sad baya beneficiaries na children under CARL) o The beneficiaries. When no amicable settlement was reached."12 Neither are we convinced that an award under PD 27 may be transferred to another in case the grantee abandons it. 6657 covers all public and private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No. effect any transfer except back to the government or. *LBP vs. Sec.A. Respondents rejected petitioner’s valuation and insist on claiming that the said land is worth between P150. Issue: Whether or not PD 27 or RA 6557 is the applicable law in determining the value of the land which was taken under PD 27 or before RA 6557 was enacted.O. If gamay ra imo ideclare then gamay ra sad imo just compensation.D. In Paris. enterprise. not agricultural activity. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. that was placed by law. exhausts and generators. So calendar year is favorable to the tenant. Land Bank v.D. If you have an application for exclusion. G. One of the factors considered under just compensation is the tax declaration. 6657 before its completion.  What can you find under the tax declaration?  Assessed value. the application of the process of agrarian reform was still incomplete thus. so it was eventually removed from sec3(B). September 29. baktin na mahimong baboy” hehehe. 6657 in the matter of the payment of just compensation. HEIRS OF CRUZ Abandonment: GUAN vs.8 present case. Petitioner cannot. . COVERAGE. Capanas . pumphouses. take over a farmer-beneficiary’s landholding. 5. (CONST. Rokaya GR 180804: not in records/ppt but according to the syllabus: SAME PRINCIPLE with LBP vs. In Corpuz v. is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. there was no valid transfer in favor of the government. with P. growing of fruit trees. Sec. they are still required to pay the cost of the land before the title is transferred to them and that pending the payment of just compensation. NOTE: the law use CALENDER years. The proper procedure for reallocation must be followed to ensure that there was indeed abandonment.000 hectares Estolas v. But in the case of Luz Farms versus Secretary of DAR (1990). Mabalot : Land may only be transferred either by succession or to government. not agricultural. no such "willful failure" has been demonstrated. 175175. XII. the process should now be completed under R. No. - No Valid Reallocation Furthermore.” 5 years pa after nakarealize ang congress. 228 applying only suppletorily. No. feedmill with grinders. poultry or fish? o Originally.19 the Court held that there was a valid transfer of the land after the farmer-grantee had signed his concurrence to the Samahang Nayon Resolution surrendering his possession of the landholding. It was petitioner himself who requested the DAR to cancel respondent’s CLT and to issue another one in his favor. anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds. the equivalent being real. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz. agricultural activity. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657. respondent has continued to claim dominion over the land. sprayers. you file it with DAR to be excluded from CARP.Atty. hybrid seeds. So the factors are more reasonable and just insofar as the owner and the government is concerned. exclusively and directly (ADE) used for cattle raising. any transfer of the property may only be made in favor of the government. such as: animal housing structures and facilities.935. In the present case.  Industrial. No. No. poultry and swine” per SC) “use of land is incidental and not the principal factor”  RA 7881 (effective May 1995) . the SC struck down that phrase for being unconstitutional.00 to P200. It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD No. and that the subsequent beneficiary is a qualified farmer-tenant as provided by law. Other factor is the zonal value. SEC 3(B) defines agriculture or agricultural activity. poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm products. PEA: No. DAR cannot transfer directly to a qualified beneficiary. Quite the contrary. The law says: This law covers all public/private agricultural lands including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. There are more factors under 6657. Held: The Court laid down in Paris v. you should prove that the land is actually. the Petition is hereby DENIED Can private corporation acquire ownership of alienable lands of public domain? Chavez v. This voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon constituted a surrender or transfer to the government itself.O. Renewable not more than 25yrs. Sps. QUIRINO - The awardee here abandoned the land for 11 years. Governs the exclusion of agri lands used for cattle raising from coverage of CARP.amended Sec. S. The LBP. No. The Cagayan Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) however valued the land at P80. Upon whose declaration? The OWNER’s declaration. – Sec. insecticides. 27 tenant farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till. allegedly on the ground that it was abandoned. poultry or fish”  raising of livestock. Alfeche the applicability of P.Means the cultivation of the soil. Grospe. valued the land in accordance with the guidelines set forth under PD 27 and EO No.AMaWS DEFINITIONS: Agriculture.000 per hectare. extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies.  Sec.3(b) and removed “the raising of livestock. elevated water tanks. The SC said that under this admin order that if the awardee/beneficiary fails to cultivate. planting of crops. and not PD 27 or EO 228.2 (RA 6657)  “…sound rural development and industrialization”  “…to promote industrialization”  Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture (fertilizers. Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion  If you want to change classification of your land from agricultural to residential or commercial or industrial it is governed by another policy not this admin order. The land therefore should be valued under RA 6657 following the guidelines set in DAR AO no. full and ample. Art. substantial. even if respondent did indeed abandon his right to possess and cultivate the subject land.000 following the factors set under RA 6557 (CARL) and of which such value. Heirs of Cruz: -The determination of just compensation should be based on RA 6657 for lands covered under PD 27. No.76 per hectare. No. 21 Unlike in the above-cited case. 3 (b) “Agriculture” or “Agricultural Activity” . 2008 Facts: Case is regarding the valuation to the land of the respondents of which the area was placed by the government under the coverage of the operation land transfer program under PD 27. only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs. No. No. series of 1998 and not under PD 27. 6657. PRESENT LAW (CARPER) RA 6657 CHAPTER 1  Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?Yes. Luz Farms v. 1988 then it shall be excluded but of course you have to wait for the ruling of DAR with respect to application for exclusion. Question: Ngano man puwa mana ang raising of livestock.3 (b) unconstitutional (“raising of livestock. 01. and other technological appurtenances SIR: Mao na akong kasagaran binuang ani “wala kay baboy na itanom. So it was the policy that if the land is ADE for cattle raising as of June 15.  Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets. conveyors. was approve by the lower court (RTC) setting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC). and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or juridical. the Court held therein that with the passage of R. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . till or develop or to use the land for any economic purpose continuously for a period of 2 calendar years that is abandonment. vs. by himself. Although this was not discussed in any of the case: ngano nindot man ang under 6657 and not under PD 27? Just by analysis. 228 in relation to R..D.A. drainage. actual title to the tenanted land remains with the landowner. as just compensation to the respondent. 2004 (RULES & REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED FOR CATTLE RAISING FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARP) “Livestock and poultry do not sprout from the land. Order No. petitioners herein. deepwells. mixers. And not to exceed 1. One section that uses the word agriculture is Section 4. raising of livestock. respondent’s land was not turned over to the government or to any entity authorized by the government to reallocate the farmholdings of tenant-farmers who refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27. - DAR Admin. PD 27 applies only suppletorily.R.A. swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. Sec. irrigation systems. 228 and pegged the value of the land amounting to P106. There the Court explained that while under P. tractors)  WHEREFORE. 27 and E.3) Land Bank of the Phil. waterers and blowers. 27 and E. That means you have to be fast do not wait for DAR to be able to send you a notice of CARP coverage. forest. lands devoted to live stock are not covered so they are saying “well we have parcels of land devoted to livestock so we have to withdraw our VOS” and questioned AO #9 saying under the constitution. Salga issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the aforementioned landholdings which were subsequently placed under Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R. Because DAR lost in the Sutton case when supreme court nullified AO #9. SC nullified AO. the purpose should be for the growth of cattle industry but if the filing of the exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage. 9) On December 13. 9 in the succeeding case: one animal is entitled to 1 hectare of land. from the definition of agricultural activity. DAR issued an admin order #7. 1 cattle. the semantics of the declarations of SNLABC in its application for exemption are corroborated by the other attendant factual circumstances and indicate its treatment of the subject properties as non-livestock. directly and exclusively used for SNLABC's livestock business. SNLABC requested the exemption of the Limot lands on the ground that the corporation needed the additional area for its livestock business. DAR stated that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock poultry or swine shall be excluded. 07. in the Investigation Report cited by no less than SNLABC. voluntary offer to sell meaning he is surrendering to the government the land for purposes of CARP but here comes Luz Farms. Capanas . Only exclusion petitions fully supported shall be accepted." Unfortunately. and congress.due to Luz Farms . *There is a constitutional basis for saying that live stock raising is not included under CARP because it was found in the deliberations of the CON-COM particularly commissioner Tadeo. petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have been actually. It alleged that pursuant to the case of Luz Farms v." Therefore. we will not regulate livestock because that is outside of our authority but what we will do is we will classify lands those devoted to livestock and those not devoted to livestock to their guidelines. 1988 and that the said two (2) lots form an integral part of its grazing land. poultry and swine-raising. Those that will exceed or portions which will not be covered by this will have to be covered under CARP. growing of trees including harvesting). Verily. 1992. 1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly shown that the same were actually. Now what is the implication of Luz farms case and the amendment made by congress per RA 7881? Supreme court and congress are saying that lands devoted to live stock are not to be covered under CARP. directly and exclusively used for livestock raising since in its application.A. 3 (c) “Agricultural land” land devoted to agricultural activity & not classified as mineral. In the 07 February 1994 Letter-Affidavit addressed to the DAR Secretary. (I’m not sure how many months after the filing of the VOS did the supreme court come out with the ruling in Luz Farms case) In Luz Farms supreme court said. As pointed out by the DAR Regional Director. the MARO itself. On August 2. you have to already apply for a petition for exclusion. The application for exemption. poultry and swine. 2008 Policy guidelines: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 1991. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP T-16356. this Letter-Affidavit is a clear indication that the Limot lands were not directly. In the Report dated 06 April 1994. Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. But this one surprises me. Policies: (1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded (exclusion to be granted only upon proof and continuously utilized up to time of application). the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to coconut trees and rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP coverage. What did DAR do after the Luz Farms case? DAR issued AO #9 series 1993. 1995. (and he was asked in Filipino of course) whether the farm workers include those person who are working in livestock. S. executed a letter-affidavit addressed to the respondent-Secretary requesting for the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that they needed the additional area for its livestock business. that is why in this case. especially since these were only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing areas. those not ADE are subject to CARP if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1) there is agricultural activity in the area (i. Remember the Luz farms case was in 1990 and AO #9 is in 1993. directly and exclusively being used — for agricultural purposes.e. 1992 and March 1. a fact that necessarily makes them subject to the CARP. Order No. RA 7881 changed definition of “agricultural activity“ by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial livestock. DAR cannot regulate the raising of livestock because in this particular AO. DAR said in line with the principle of regularity of the performance of official functions all processes of DAR for AO number 9 are valid. 1993. Sutton: (leading case due to nullification of AO no. This time DAR learned its lesson. it is not part of CARP coverage.withdraw VOS) Constitutionality of AO No.9   Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the rights of ARBs due to unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent declaration of areas used for cattle purposes. the Limot lands were actually. What you did. SNLABC casually dismisses the clear import of their Letter-Affidavit as a "poor choice of words. Lopez AgriBusiness Corporation. exclusively and directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988. Anyway nobody questioned it! Sec. found that the livestock were only moved to the Limot lands sporadically and were not permanently designated there.    Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private agricultural lands actually. calf. 9 heads of goats and 18 heads of swine. (2) land is suitable for agriculture and occupied and tilled by farmers. cultivation of soil. The DAR Secretary even described SNLABC's use of the area as a "seasonal extension of the applicant's 'grazing lands' during the summer. the MARO conducted an onsite investigation on the two parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock as enumerated. DAR Secretary said parcels of land are exempted from coverage as the said parcels of land with a total area of 110. SC: DAR you have no power to regulate.Atty. DAR actually has a ratio for that  admin order no. And his answer was that they are NOT included. 11 horses. This has been exempted by the constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform.. Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil (VOS . 1993. the team that conducted the inspection found that the entire Limot lands were devoted to coconuts (41. Republic vs Salvador Lopez Agri-business Facts Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 160. 9. cow. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). in the case of Luz Farms deleted that phrase raising of live stock etc. On December 10. prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). DAR shall deny due course if the application is filed 60 days after date of receipt of notice. all other areas shall be covered. Admin. 9 are valid. residential. And then 1. Davao Oriental. In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official functions. (4) Encourage growth of cattle industry (5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage. These findings of the inspection team were given credence by the DAR Regional Director who denied the application. . So taking a cue from that deliberation the supreme court. Lopez. On February 7. DAR v.7 something hectares that’s good for 21 heads insofar as infrastructure is concerned.5706 hectares) and rubber (8. TCT No. 1994.000 hectares) and recommended the denial of the application for exemption. actually and exclusively used for livestock raising.5455 hectares are used for grazing and habitat of petitioner's 105 heads of cattle. using the AO was trying to regulate live stock farming but you have no power because that is not within your jurisdiction. up to now.   Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family). only 63% has been achieved insofar as implementation of the Law is concerned. (6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents shall be accepted  Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and continuously used shall be excluded. (2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion (3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be excluded. and were even subsequently affirmed by the DAR Secretary and the Court of Appeals. petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO). Why? (Just a possibility daw) It may have happened that DAR may not be able to inspect all lands that are covered under CARP in fact if I’m not mistaken. issued an Order dated March 5. conversely. after inspecting the properties. however of the other two (2) parcels of land was approved. T-12637 and T-12639 from CARP coverage. S. planting of crops. petitioner filed before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an application for the exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 stating that it has been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15. Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform. 1993 (prescribing a maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising). commercial or industrial land. 5 carabaos. despite the fact that AO #9 was nullified. Before DAR should serve that.1161 hectares registered in the name of Salvador N. the one representing the tenant. The DAR Regional Director. bull. petitioner through its President. Luz Farm. an Application for Exemption of the lots covered by TCT No. The said lands are more suitable — and are in fact actually. all processes by DAR per AO No.. originally the land owner filed a VOS. On June 24. directly and exclusively used for agricultural activities. DAR shall deny due course if application is filed 60 days after date of receipt of notice. On March 28. 30 Verily.AMaWS Issue: Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL Held: In contrast. Jr. Salvador N.  Adjacent property is not covered. while owned by petitioner. that the area being applied for exclusion is far below the required or ideal area which is 563 hectares for the total livestock population. TaDSHC Clearly. which included the raising of livestock. poultry. DAR argued: SC the tax declaration characterized the lopez land as agricultural. you will find there the classification of the land. Petitioner's admission that. such as: animal housing structures and facilities. SIR: Upon the report of the MARO there was no livestock farming but in the adjacent property there were 43 heads of cattle. 9). 9. petitioner applied for the exemption/exclusion of its 316. pursuant to the aforementioned ruling of this Court in Luz Farms. in May 1993.10  Tax declaration classified as agricultural land (one way to prove). while 204 were registered from 1992 to 1995. ten (10) hectares are planted to corn and the remaining five (5) hectares are devoted to fish culture. the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Administrative Order No. 1993. The A. they must already be devoted to livestock. In Sutton.678 heads of swine and 788 heads of cocks. deepwells. and other livestock. Thus. Inc. 1960. CASE: There are 2 lands here. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Moreover. You have the Lopez land and the 2nd one is the Limoc Lands. this Court. On January 21. 2. Inc. there is a delineation along the way but only on two aspects meaning (especially on the coverage on the land) it is possible that the trial court will intervene somewhere. in the area adjacent. and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle. stocks. the ten (10) hectares planted to sweet corn and the five (5) hectares devoted to fishpond could be considered supportive to livestock production. this detracted from the claim that they were used for livestock purposes but SC said: there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that land classification in a tax dec is conclusive in filing. inter alia. Baras.it is not conclusive. (T-410434) M-15750. The area is not owned by the land owner of the subject property because the land owner leased the area from another person. Secretary of Agrarian Reform and from that office of the president. not an agricultural. though not directly used for livestock purposes. So DAR is saying: therefore the fact that it is agri. and pinakapermero ana nga table agricultural sa ubos either residential commercial or industrial ug agri imu classification barato imu bayaran nga real property tax but the moment nga mahimo nag siyag commercial(?) or industrial. to purchase or acquire and sell. What about Limot Lands. 20 heads of horses. it goes higher. activity. 5. ruled in Luz Farms v. we find that petitioner's arguments fail to persuade. finding that the 43 cows. You have here the finding of MARO of several heads of cattle. we held: In the case at bar. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A. there is no livestock found.Atty. But you have to note in the implementation aspect it is possible nga from the MARO etc.. However. pigs. is likewise far below the allowable 10% variance. otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)..O. (T-486110) M-9508. sprayers. Jr. 64 While petitioner advances a defense that it leased this ranch because the occupants of the subject property harmed its cattle. the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude. SC: Lopez lands you are devoted to livestock raising therefore not included under CARL. the existence of the cattle prior to the enactment of CARL positively affirmed. (T-486107) M-7313. then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. and to sell and otherwise dispose of said cattle. SIR: In a tax dec. Series of 1993 (DAR A.0000 hectares. swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. which may be needed for this purpose. and/or swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).O.0422-hectare property. setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock. extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies. to acquire lands by purchase or lease. and swine in its coverage.O. No. conveyors. (T-486104) M-7310. Office of the President Facts: Petitioner Milestone Farms. There were structures used for livestock business. DARAB based in manila the central office from DARAB to CA to SC. from the coverage of the CARL. all lands exclusively devoted to livestock. 133 were subsequently bought in 1990. 1990. mixers. poultry. took effect. No. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (T-486102) M-7308. you can base it on another evidence. that the livestock population are 371 heads of cow. elevated water tanks. we find it surprising that not even a single police and/or barangay report was filed by petitioner to amplify its indignation over these alleged illegal acts. RARO (regional). the area which served as infrastructure is 42. (T486108) M-7314. and other livestock as may be authorized by law.9776 hectares of the 316. like the CA. antipollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds. that’s the 1st basic function in so far as implementation. and swine raising from CARP coverage.) No. waterers and blowers. some covered by several certificates. M-8791. and other livestock and their produce when advisable and beneficial to the corporation. exhausts and generators. .0422 hectares previously exempted by Director Dalugdug. So verily the limot lands were ADE used for agricultural plantations which makes them subjects to CARL. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock. (T-486106) M-7312.8422 hectares. equipment. The corporation SNL-ABC argued that there is a misapprehension of facts and requested an exemption on the ground that the corporation needed the additional area for the livestock business. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. So what is the logic there? “Needed the additional area” that will happen in the future which is proof that the land is not yet being actually used for livestock business. 1988. Garilao (Secretary Garilao) issued an Order exempting from CARP only 240. appurtenances.O. which findings stated the lands were used for livestock raising. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. for private agricultural lands to be excluded from CARP. swine and poultry is 258.A. You can also rely on other evidence specially on MARO’s findings which according to our jurisprudence is entitled to respect by the SC. Misael Vera. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. and (3) to import cattle. pigs. were actually pastured outside the subject property. on December 4. The subject property was not devoted to livestock raising. (T-274129) M-15751. CA then SC. we find that the impugned A.AMaWS Thus. (T-332694) M-15755. it leased another ranch for its own livestock is fatal to its cause. Issue: Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL Held: With the procedural issue disposed of. Decision making(quasi-judicial): the MARO has no function but in quasi – judicial from the bottom you have PARAB(provincial adjudicator). and other livestock. pumphouses. petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. on December 27. 7 Acting on the said application. (T-486109) M-7315. (T-486101) M-7307. 1994. That means in the subject property. However. and by-products of said business. That means you may not rely solely on the tax dec. petitioner re-documented its application pursuant to DAR A. SIR: But I’m not saying you cannot use tax dec as a basis but you cannot rely on it solely. on January 10. when the CARL took effect. Republic Act (R. (petitioner) was incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8. and other technological appurtenances. The contention of the land owner: he did not use the subject property for this 43 head of cattle because according to him there were occupants of the said property who harmed the 43 head of cattle. and M-6013. Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI): who are involved in implementation? From the bottom you have the MARO going up you have the PARO(provincial). swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural activity. M-8796. and located in Pinugay.0646 hectares of the property to be covered by CARP. vs. poultry. and sell poultry. prior to June 15. and. feedmill with grinders.. 6657. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets. 1988. He found that the Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle submitted by petitioner showed that only 86 heads of cattle were registered in the name of petitioner's president. Milestone Farms. 1988. the DAR's Land Use Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) of Region IV conducted an ocular inspection on petitioner's property and arrived at the following findings: [T]he actual land utilization for livestock. sitting en banc. (T-486105) M-7311. There are 2 basic functions of DAR in relation to CARP. more or less. Meanwhile. pigs.O. 1. swine and poultryraising. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform 6 that agricultural lands devoted to livestock. Capanas . It is an industrial. That’s why he allegedly transferred the cattle to the area adjacent and leased the adjacent area from another person. what is the finding? The report says the entire limot lands were devoted to coconut and rubber so the question was: where the limot lands ADE devoted? NO! why? Because the entire limot lands were planted with coconuts and rubber. 1988. Secretary Garilao gave more weight to the certificates rather than to the headcount because "the same explicitly provide for the number of cattle owned by petitioner as of June 15. since 2001. pigs. and declaring 75. and swine raising as of June 15. (2) to breed. I’m referring to RTC. what aspects? 1. 9. drainage. products. poultry. that the approximate area not directly used for livestock purposes with an area of 15 hectares. Just compensation 2. criminal offenses It is only on two aspects that the civil court has jurisdiction. accessories. we accord respect to the CA's keen observation that the assailed MARO reports and the Investigating Team's Report do not actually contradict one another. (T-486103) M-7309. 1997. 5 On June 10." The raising of livestock. Rizal. farm workers and overseers interviewed by the MARO. 4 Among its pertinent secondary purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle. or otherwise dispose of the supplies. RARAB(regional). 14 Secretary Garilao opined that. raise. and what is that evidence? Here in the Lopez case you have the findings of the MARO. a new agrarian reform law. San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. residential.Atty. 1999 Facts: This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu. among others. on June 15. No. to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL were outside the coverage of that law. According to private respondent Rufino Mateo. In this case ang gi tagaan administrator of the land. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s landholdings are subject to coverage under the CARL. The agency charged for conversion is the DAR. 3 (c) “Agricultural land” land devoted to agricultural activity & not classified as mineral. CA. December 17. civil procedure. 2 elements: Devoted to agricultural activity Not classified as mineral. Case was remanded to DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's application for conversion Roxas and Company: sir is disappointed in this case… why? in Natalia diba the SC decided whether Natalia Landholdings is excluded or included. citing zoning ordinance). but applied also to real estate converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL. No. commercial or industrial Petitioner is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner with TCTs and Tax Declarations of three haciendas. vs. Allarde. Alangilan the SC decided. However. commercial. forest. respectively. registered in the of the Republic of the Philippines.. (1) certification from DENR. Verily. It was wrongfully sent. general manager. 4 (Rules on exemption) . Sec 4 of CARP covers all private and public lands so you need to present proof that there was classification Natalia Realty v. so it was wrongfully sent. the housing programs of the National housing Authority. In order to implement the intent and purpose of the provisions of the aforecited laws. brought before the respondent RTC a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. There was already a presidential proclamation reserving lands (for squatters) in antipolo. Inc opine that with respect to the conversion of agricultural land covered by R. November 16. 6657 to non-agricultural uses. Thus. corporate secretary. Tenants of the property. Disturbance compensation is money to be paid to occupants of the property. 34624 and No.11 SC: The fact that you are leasing another ranch for raising of your own livestock. NOTE: DOJ Opinion No. which part is industrial.AMaWS Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent SC: . Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite reservations. on April 26. residential. G. 106593. all located in Nasugbu. or industrial. commercial or industrial land. and covered by the TCT No. Roxas & Co. According to the SC that power belongs to DAR not with the SC. Held: As early as April 26. are evidently bereft of any sustainable basis . 843. Lands previously converted by government agencies. Capanas . was reserved by Proclamation No. other than DAR. which part is under commercial. therefore. So what is the implication if there was no devotion to the subject property to live stock raising? The property is not excluded from CARP coverage. the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. outside the coverage of the CARL. 1938 from Philippine Trust Company. inter alia. 1988. Held: Respondent DAR’s failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioner’s landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner’s application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural.R. and is. In 1959. 1988. industrial? Local government units to be approved by HLURB.R. commercial. 1971.  Who classifies the land as mineral forest? DENR The other one. the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R. forest. The power to determine whether Hacienda Palico. he had lived in the disputed lots since his birth in 1928. for the housing program of the NHA. the Tala Estate (included the disputed lots) was resrved. Inc. Batangas. a corporation may authorize persons to receive notices i. economically sound for farm and agricultural development (2) you have a resolution of the sangguniang bayan panlalawigan letter of MPDC man ciguro ni siya. 1992. Kalookan City. Inc and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the government under RA No. Agricultural Land (Section 3 c) Sec. Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural which exempts from the coverage of the CARL lies with the DAR. 6657. 843 for. industrial or residential before June 15. On March 18. the authority of the DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity. APPROVING AUTHORITIES. And the LGU will submit the zoning ordinance to HLURB for approval. G. which.. in view of the undisputed fact that petitioner’s landholdings have been converted to non-agricultural uses by Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20. (Please refer to the attached files together with this reviewer… The important provisions there are only the DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION. They form part of the Tala Estate in Bagong Silang. normally. So it was raised by Justice Santiago. No. for the housing program of the National Housing Authority. So iyang gi uli to DAR to determine whether the application for conversion should be granted. the zoning ordinance is a classification. Dissenting opinion by Ynares Santiago: there are already pieces of evidence submitted in this case. san mateo and montalban as townsite areas. among others. the assailed Orders of the respondent Court declaring the lots under controversy as "agricultural land" and restraining the petitioner from involving the same in its housing project thereon. all lands that are already classified as commercial. Roxas and Company is a corporation and just like remedial law. Batangas owned by petitioner Roxas & Co. namely. were acquired by the Republic on April 2. you did not submit a police or a barangay report to amplify your argument and the supreme court accorded respect to the inspection of MARO that the 43 cows while owned by petitioner were actually pastured outside of the subject property. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . the case is hereby remanded to the respondent DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner’s application for conversion. In 1989. 1971.A. DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioners' landholdings does not ipso facto give the Supreme Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to nonagricultural. But in this case the SC did not. 44. the respondent spouses Mateo. the DAR has issued guidelines through AO No. The NATALIA properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. under Presidential Proclamation No. No. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90. 1999 Facts: Lots 836 and 839. So in our context we have a zoning ordinance. NHA vs. DAR – 1979 (Leading case) Presidential Proclamation No. advising that the municipality had no objection to the conversion of the lands to non agricultural purposes. Na ang yuta dili na feasible.e. 843. Banilad and Caylaway. Mateo filed with the DAR the petition for the award to them of subject disputed lots under CARP. that is fatal to your cause. NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage SC: “ They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation”. Disturbance compensation. to enjoin the NHA from bulldozing further and making constructions on the lots under controversy. Haciendas Palico. President. in-house counsel. Series of 2003. 1971. certification from HLURB (zoning or classification. residential. Public notice. One of the issues here is about notice of coverage. SC also remanded it to DAR for proper acquisition proceedings. copy of title.“all lands already classified as commercial. the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands covered by PD 27. the Tala Estate (including the disputed lots) was reserved under Presidential Proclamation No.312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo. 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance. (Relate this case with Alangilan case below) DAR AO No. Public notice. 6657. Alarde the SC decided. why refer it back when it can be decided on the basis of these pieces of evidence.A. RTC Judge Allarde issued the injunction against NHA. not with the Supreme Court. Even if you have alleged that the occupants of the subject property harmed its cattle. 1520 which declared the Municipality of Nasugbu as a tourist zone. (And probably this is also where corruption…). the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity  SC: As early as April 26. industrial or residential before June 15. sa land mismo mag notify ka na there is an application for exemption and disturbance compensation.   Take note: there is a cut-off date (June 15. after the death of his father who had cultivated a 13 hectare portion of the same lots. 34627. which have been vested prior to June 15. Conversion clearance is a requirement before you can change the classification of your land from agricultural to residential. NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision. 127876. 1988) in passing a zoning ordinance (changing the classification from agricultural). Series of 1990 and the case of Natalia Realty.3307 hectares. EFFECT ON PRE-EXISTING CARP COVERAGE and PROTESTS). 4. he started farming and working on six-hectare portion of said lots. relying on their claim that the subject lots are agricultural land within the coverage of the CARP.1988 no longer need conversion clearance”  Requirements: Sworn application. In and the applicable administrative procedure. The zoning ordinance delineates which part of the city is under residential classification. and the zoning ordinance of the said Municipality re-classifying certain portions of the petitioner’s landholdings as non-agricultural or at the very least entitle the petitioner to apply for conversion as conceded by respondent DAR. The petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR’s failure to observe due process therein. Sta. forest. Pahanocoy. Under DOJ Opinion No. The right of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee was terminated and the property was now in the possession of the Remman Enterprise. or CARL). it is beyond reason that the placing of the said portion under CARP coverage (1. expanding the area of the poblacion to include Barangay Bibincalan. Held: Section 3(c) of the CARL defines agricultural land as that which is "devoted to agricultural activity . 6657 took effect on June 15. Series of 1976 of the City Council of Bacolod and as approved by the Human Settlements Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 13 Rather. Espanola that the portion. b. without acting on the respondents' application for exclusion. commercial or industrial use. . . local government unit. . Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R. 1998. Lucia Realty Corporation and the Estate of Guillermo Villasor. 1988. identified as 'Potential CARP Beneficiaries' per Certification of OIC [Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)] dated November 21. The Certification of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) dated June 9. the landholding was reclassified as a low density zone under Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. the DARAB OIC Executive Director forwarded the complaint to [Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)]. by Atty. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. 44." issued pursuant to Section 49 of CARL. Before any hearing could be conducted thereon.The Remman Enterprise filed an appeal before the CA who reverses the decision of the DARAB because the land in question was already reclassified as residential land as early as 1981 converting it from agricultural land in to non-agricultural land." Prior to this Order.0649 hectares located in Barangay Bibincahan. Sorsogon. 111387.Atty.A. which under R. the DAR Secretary. and praying for the lifting of the notices of coverage. that the Town Plan/Zoning Ordinance of Sorsogon. cancelled their titles and issued certificates of land ownership awards (CLOAs). more or less. residential. which we quote: ". 1994. Series of 1981 before Rep.. The petitioner filed a motion before the DARAB or the Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board who reverses the decision of the PARAD stating that the land in question is an agricultural land and uphold the right of the petitioner as an agricultural lessee to recover the said land . filing on October 5. stating. namely. Bacolod City. Department of Justice Opinion No. Instead. their application for exclusion of their landholdings from CARP coverage. G. to the members of the Baribag Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Development Cooperative (Baribag). which was addressed to then DAR Secretary Florencio Abad. filed with the [Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)] by complainants (some of whom are herein petitioners). 1988. declaring that the . . the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform issued an Order dated September 13. 1988 shall be excluded from CARP coverage.' their rights will be prejudiced by the illegal conversion of the land into a residential subdivision . it provides that lands which has already been classified as mineral. it was a "coordinated effort" of all concerned agencies. like those approved by the HSRC before the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15. DAR vs. series of 1981. 1998. 1994 stated that the subject land is not irrigable or is outside the service area of the irrigation system in the locality. They protested the notices of coverage. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies. The petitioner filed a motion to the Supreme Court. the PARAD denied the action of the petitioner to recover the property against the DMC since the land in question is now a residential land. the respondents submitted the following documents.The certification dated August 27. . Series of 1990.A. 44. .R. are bulldozing and leveling the subject property for the purpose of converting it into a residential subdivision. Nery and the Lorenzo sold the property to the Delta Motor’s Corporation (DMC). not to the respondents' workers on the landholdings. It has been considered as early as that time for residential purposes thus not within the ambit of CAR. 1. 6657. The PNB in 1986 executed a deed of sale of the said land in favor of the Remman Enterprise Inc. it is prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued against the registered owners of a certain parcel of agricultural land consisting of 71 hectares. 1999 issued by HLURB. Brgy. the land in question was mortgage by the DMC to the PNB as a security for its obligation who later foreclose it because of the failure of the DMC to pay its account. in the office of DAR Regional Director Percival Dalugdug (Regional Director Dalugdug) in Legaspi City. June 8. among others. agricultural land was defined under RA. Sorsogon. The CAR dismiss the petition for lack on the part of the petitioner to redeem the property in its acquisition price in the amount of 2.'" Issue: Whether the respondent DAR secretary had the inherent authority or power to exclude or exempt at will from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) the subject agricultural land which was already automatically covered by the CARL (RA 6657) upon its effectivity on June 15.An excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of the Municipality of Sorsogon. the respondents' landholdings in Bibincalan * were classified as residential and industrial. Held: According to the Supreme Court. commercial or industrial land. forest. In October and November 1998. 835-B of Bacolod Cadastre. DAR. In accord thereto. 1994 issued by the said Commission. Act No. T-79622. Bacolod City for appropriate action . . c. Jr. the DAR's clearance is no longer necessary for conversion. . Issue: Whether or not the land was an agricultural land or a residential land. filed an action for the redemption of the said property before the Court of Agrarian Relation. prior to June 15. Later. in his capacity as leaseholder agricultural tenant. 3(c). SERIES OF 1990. Angel Lobaton. it is confined only to agricultural lands. 5153-A. The record was remanded to the PARAD or the Provincial Agrarian Adjudication for the petitioner to exercise there right of redemption but since the case had become moot and academic. Sorsogon. In effect the said application had conformed to the requirements of the law on exemption. 6657 as those land devoted to agricultural activities and not classified as forest. In 1981. Advincula-Velasquez vs. Sorsogon (classifying Barangay Bibincalan. showing that Barangay Bibincalan * was part of the Central Business District. and not classified as mineral.210 pesos but directing the defendant to maintain the petitioner as agricultural lessee to the land in question. known as Lot No. No. minerals. 1990.] is beyond recognition as the program does not apply to those which are already classified as residential lands prior to the effectivity of CARL on June 15. * where the respondents' properties were located. 44 dated March 16. residential and industrial land. .. commercial and industrial areas. forest. it is an [i]nescapable conclusion that the subject property is exempted from CARP coverage considering the fact that the same was classified as residential as evidenced by the Resolution No. "On April 13. In 1978. VILLASOR. Petitioner Velasquez filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court who issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the CAR’s decision pending the out come of the petition. 1994. the stand of Mr. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. IRVING P. Petitioner Velasquez and the defendants appealed the decision of the CAR to the Intermediate Appellate Court who affirmed the decision of the CAR.  SC: Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the Metro Manila Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of Rep. 1994 in 'RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION NO. In support of their claim that their landholdings were already classified as residential and industrial. the Department of Local Governments and Community Development. Petitioners claim that . the respondents received from the DAR notices of coverage of their said landholdings by the Government's Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) pursuant to Republic Act No. Act No. it defines agricultural lands as lands devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral. actual occupants and permanent residents of Barangay Pahanocoy. CA. It is thus settled that with respect to areas classified and identified as zonal areas not for agricultural uses. Capanas . Sps.12 Presidential proclamation reserving the disputed lands for housing programs by the state. signed by Deputized Zoning Administrator Raul Jalmanzar.' portions of which read as follows: 'After a careful study of the facts of the case and the evidences presented by the parties. Inc. Region VI. represented by Irving Villasor. the land in question was reclassified as residential zone under the ordinance issued by the city of Manila. and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential.2004 The petitioners were the agricultural lessees of a Riceland located in Parañaque Metro Manila. Ang usa. et. 6657.Resolution No. 1980 as per Certification dated June 22.. as a residential and commercial area). Meanwhile.et al. covering their landholdings. although Baribag was not impleaded in the respondents' application for exclusion. Rep. Series of 1990. d. recognized the fact that before the date of the law's effectivity on June 15. et al. the Supreme Court issue a decision on the petition for review filed by the petitioner Velasquez affirming the decision of the IAC stating that the case had become moot and academic with regards the claim of the petitioner against the DMC considering that the property had been foreclose by the PNB declaring however that the petitioner may redeem the property from the PNB and its transferee. . Petitioners.319. Sorsogon. namely: 8 a. To this. the Human Settlements Commission and the DAR. al vs Garilao Facts: "In a Complaint dated February 12. Petitioner Velasquez. . was approved by HLURB (then Human Settlements Commission/Human Settlements Regulatory Commission). 5 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon. Sec. . which he planted to trees and developed into mini-forest should be covered by CARP[. who decided to develop it in to a residential subdivision.5 hectare) is devoid of legal and factual basis.The certification dated May 18. Although nakalahi lang puro presidential proclamation. that as prospective CARP beneficiaries of the land in question. . 1988 without affording due process to herein petitioners and without the necessity of Congress having first to amend Section 4 of the said law authorizing such exemption or exclusion from CARP coverage.AMaWS Regulatory Commission (now HLURB) in its Resolution dated September 24. the reclassification or conversion of lands was not exclusively done by the DAR. there was no need for the private respondent to secure any post facto approval thereof from the DAR Jose Junio. . * among others. 81-01. residential. 1988. residential or industrial land.. With the above stated definition. In April 1998. 12 entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Land to Non-Agricultural Uses. The records show that as early as 1981. 1991 . Berenguer Facts: The respondents were the registered owners of several residential and industrial lands with a total area of 58. 'being former laborers. . this Office finds the petition for exemption to be well founded. Office of the Mayor. hence. 1997 issued by the Office of the Zoning Administrator.." The meaning of agricultural lands covered by the CARL was explained further by the DAR in its Administrative Order No. 4 On February 16. 1407 was submitted to the LBP which issued a Memorandum of Valuation and a Certificate of Cash Deposit on May 21. series of 1990. there existed the minimum ratio of one head of cattle to one hectare of land. For me you can still make a classification even if the intended land used is not yet to be. It can project. CA." reclassifying the subject property as commercial/residential. 1407. commercial. was appointed as special administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. Remember even prior to 1988. and. 1954. 5 The deed of sale was notarized on February 17. stating that a parcel of land was considered non-agricultural. forest. consequently. because the phrase reserved for residential is not a land classification category. 1988.AMaWS The reasoning there that the term “reserve” does not change the nature of the land from agri to none agri. So what is the proof of petitioner for asking exclusion and exemption? 1982: you have an ordinance from the sangguniang bayan of batangas that the subject landholding is reserved for residential under zoning which was approved by HSRC. the insufficiency of the number of heads of cattle found during the semestral survey did not automatically mean that the landholdings were not devoted to the raising of livestock. The arrears in the payment of taxes from 1952 had been updated by Deleste and from then on. 698 was still pending before the CFI. reserved for residential in 1982. Deleste. where the respondents' landholdings were situated. therefore. and one head of cattle to 1. the subject property was placed under the said program. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . If. Thus. 1954. No. It is incumbent upon DAR to establish. then there would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance. But the question is: isn’t it a fact that there are (2) elements for agri land: devoted to agri activity and not classified as mineral. 1. 1982 pa. we cannot now hold differently. This finding was not disputed by the DAR. Esperanza and Caridad. 9 Said case went up to this Court in Noel v. But the SC was referring to the nature of the land from agri to non agri. In fact. Actually involving same fact and ruling in so far as classification is concerned but this one gives us a principle that DAR has to establish that the land holdings were agricultural. Alangilan v. Thereafter. if it had been classified as residential. In view of the finding of the CA. In 1991. Juan Nanaman. cattle rustling. the 58 survey in the No. . If we are to abide by the ruling of the court. the DAR relied on DAR Administrative Order (DAO) No. he paid the taxes on the property. holding that the respondents' landholdings were nonagricultural. the term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural.Department of Justice Opinion No. DAR denied it saying the term reserved denotes it is not yet classified. 3 When Gregorio died in 1945. Presidential Decree No. wala pa gigamit we want to use this land as industrial para mo daghan ang mga factory we will project.A. and e. 9 at the time of the survey. We concur with the CA that there could be several reasons to explain why the number of cattle was below the ratio prescribed under DAO No. 698. contrary to petitioner's assertion. the date of effectivity of the law. outside the coverage of the CARL. 1995. as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased spouses. Virgilio had been raised by the couple since he was two years old. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmerbeneficiaries.) So we will pass an ordinance classifying this as industrial even in the absence of actual use. naanay zoning approved by HLURB. 13 In 1975. at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988. agricultural to non agricultural. Sorsogon showed that Barangay Bibincahan was within the Central Business District of the municipality. that heads of cattle were really being raised in the landholdings of the respondents. on February 12. SIR: I don’t agree with the court. series of 1993. It does not denote the property has already been reclassified. Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued on August 1. (PD) 27 was issued. Issue: Whether or not the land is covered under RA 6657 Held: In ruling that the respondents' landholdings were not devoted to cattle raising. 1954. 2. Said spouses were childless. Indubitably. There was no issue. Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property to Dr. Second the law uses the word “classified”. known as the "Zoning Regulation of Iligan City. however. the respondents' landholdings have been part of the poblacion of Sorsogon. 1954 and registered on March 2. Noel. 1313. 1984. beyond the coverage of the CARP. etc. 1999. 1988. particularly on October 21. only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners.Atty. Branch II. Gregorio also had two daughters. Concomitantly. 9. by still another woman. 12 However. which was in contravention of DAO series of 1993. the predecessor of HLURB. 6 On May 15. On April 30. It does not denote that the property has already been reclassified as residential. who died in 1992. Sorsogon. There is no dispute that as early as 1981. Hilaria died. Did that case (Alangilan) overturn the other (Natalia)? No. docketed as Civil Case No. 5. the excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of Sorsogon. was fully warranted. while Civil Case No. (It can say na oi kini na yuta bare pa. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP16. including pestilence. But what is contested by DAR is the use of the word “reserved”. According to the DAR. the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject property. the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land use. 18 The claim folder for Lot No. As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary. It can be classified already.7 hectares (subject property). and. Office of President  SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural. 1963. What Alangilan should have done is to raise that issue in Natalia and other cases (because it is not only in Natalia) that the word reserved was used. in this case. 1986. showed that the limits of the poblacion area of the municipality included Barangay Bibincahan. 1972. where We rendered a Decision 10 on January 11. as petitioner claims. the subject landholding was still agricultural. Capanas .2611 hectares. Iligan City. reclassifying the landholding as residential1. which required that properties should be considered excluded from the coverage of the CARL only if it was established that as of June 15. and was reclassified as residential-1 in 1994. is the court saying that before a zoning ordinance is passed there is already actual use of the land by the people residing in the city or conducting business? Not necessarily. 9. Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject property. 2001. Heirs of Deleste vs Leviste Facts: The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo. the notices and processes relative to the coverage were sent to these heirs. 14 Eventually. only 15 heads of cattle were found within hectares sought to be excluded based on the semestral conducted in Sorsogon by the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics period from 1988 to 1992. Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the regular administrator of the joint estate. Lanao del Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject property. designated as Lot No. Also. because a city or an LGU can have a projection. As a result. or sale of the cattle.000. respectively. and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the subject property. The term reserve simply reflects the intended the land used. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994. 44. but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. 15 The CLTs were registered on July 15. Sorsogon. Subsequently. 7 Gregorio's brother. Resolution No. 2001 and October 1. consisting of 34. 1981 by the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon. filed before the Court of First Instance. This issue answers the first element not the second element.7815 hectares of infrastructure. 2001 and September 12. The CA found. 6657 on June 15. Petitioner Alangilan filed an application for exclusion from CARP. for we are bound by the finding of fact of the CA. was approved on January 8. passed on March 12. each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it. However. Consistent with Hilario and Natalia. affirming the ruling of the CA that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste. the subject property was surveyed. or industrial in the City or Municipality Land Use Plan or Zoning Ordinance approved by HLURB before the effectivity of R. SC said the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural reserved by DAR contrary to petitioner’s assertion that the term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land from agri to non agri. the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste. indeed. 1994: provincial ordinance of the city zoning map and comprehensive zoning reclassifying the landholding as residential land. SC was talking about nature of the land. the landholding had already been earmarked for residential use in 1982. Verily. 11 Notably. 17 The survey of a portion of the land consisting of 20.13 respondents' landholdings were situated in Barangay Bibincalan * within the Poblacion area of the Municipality of Sorsogon. No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land until the appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer-occupants who are determined by the PARAD to be entitled thereto. 1989. filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify private respondents' EPs. Case No. thereby increasing the size of the reservation. apart from being mountainous. Thereafter. 45 this Court held that pursuant to Sec. 1313. The DAR thus granted the application in an Order of the same date and of exactly the same tenor. the Araneta Estate addressed a letter 16 to DAR dated June 27. having an aggregate area of 21. Rizal to absorb "the population overspill in Greater Manila Area. and not classified as mineral.312 hectares and revising its technical description so as to include. among others. 15 Alarmed by the turn of events whereby DAR was having its property. then DAR Undersecretary Jose C. petitioners herein. and 3. A-9999-014-98. 1988 On December 12. 2004. Medina. the DARAB." You have the zoning ordinance (1982) and you have an approval HLURB on 1983. Then came the amendatory issuance. subject to the following conditions: 1. 1988." but again "subject to private rights. which was enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975. 12 Republic Act No." Earlier. Issue: . is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in view of the enactment by the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance. 1407. the subsequent reclassification of the subject property into a residential/commercial land. Respondent asserted that Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) covers only agricultural land 5 which is defined under Section 3 (c) thereof as "land devoted to agricultural activity . 131 instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). involving twenty-seven (27) parcels of land. specifically described in pages 1 and 2 of this Order. (RA) 2264. Series of 1982. It held. which ordinance was approved prior to the effectivity of the CARL. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the DARAB in its Resolution 26 dated July 8. Batangas is hereby GRANTED. Likewise. was then enacted. Inc. DAR issued a "Notice of Acquisition" addressed to Doronilla. that the EPs were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste who should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case No. acquired ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of court litigation. 1977. Rom vs Roxas & co. City Ordinance No. the Application for Exemption Clearance from CARP coverage filed by Roxas & Company. J." Issue: Whether the land is covered under agrarian reform However. It claimed that the CARL does not cover the said property.AMaWS On July 22. T-44664. and held that whether the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT Program is an administrative determination. 1983. 1974. 1991. 4. in DARAB Case No. 12486. commercial or industrial land. in a memorandum of March 10. now deceased. amending the Local Government Code. then President Corazon C. 216746 and offering compensation at a valuation stated in the notice. Series of 1990. Rizal and reserving the segregated area for townsite purposes. premises considered. otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) 13 of 1988. Nasugbu. reversed the ruling of the PARAD in its Decision 25 dated March 15. CA. respectively.The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in their peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until a final determination has been made on the amount of disturbance compensation due and entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the PARAD of Batangas. We agree with petitioners that the subject property. for the purpose.1236 hectares and constituting portions of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title . the lands subject of its application were already re-classified as part of the Residential Cluster Area specified in Zone A VII of the Nasugbu Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. by 20. Amado Araneta. it stated that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city ordinance has been approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). surveyed. 2003.1236 hectares located [in] Barangay Aga.The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject of a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas. On February 28.53 hectares of the land now covered by TCT No. 1975: You have a zoning ordinance approved by the HLURB so the land is outside of CARP. within its coverage. . 123. Aquino issued Proclamation No. Inc. 2. if any there be. LBP vs Estate of Araneta Facts: On June 21. "subject to private rights. It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural lands. the heirs of Deleste.[12] being portions of TCT No. X-471-LN-2002. 21 This was docketed as Reg. The Court recognized the power of a local government unit to classify and convert land from agricultural to non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL and thus upheld the validity of said zoning ordinance. (RA) 6657. ordered the Regional Director of DAR Region IV to proceed with the OLT coverage and final survey of the Doronilla property.. Respondent cited DOJ Opinion No. with an aggregate area of 21. 4. N-70860 in his name. municipal and/or city councils are empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National Planning Commission. Subsequently. 698 at the time the subject property was placed under the coverage of the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a party to the said case. formally protesting the series of land surveys being conducted by the Bureau of Lands on what is now its property. Series of 1990. which zoning ordinance was approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC [now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)]) under HSRC Resolution No. In its Order 11 of November 6. 2002. 1990 and May 28. 6. the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. other lands in the municipalities of San Mateo and Montalban. with a slope of more than 70 degrees and containing commercial quantities of marble deposit." It was also emphasized therein that "[t]he power of the local government to convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is not subject to the approval of the [DAR]. being part of the LS Townsite reservation. Series of 1983. 1988. 01. Further. On July 21. respondent sought the exemption of 27 parcels of land located in Barangay Aga. A little over a week later. in favor of private respondents over their respective portions of Lot No. if any there be. or a portion of it. Proof of payment of disturbance compensation shall be submitted to this Office within ten (10) days from such payment. which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988. Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 3 of Republic Act No. as mandated by DAR Administrative Order No. Nasugbu. no longer need conversion clearance from the DAR. in which it reiterated its request for conversion. the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the DAR Secretary or the latter's authorized representative. Batangas. v. it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. Facts: On September 30. industrial or residential use. 27. 1987. WHEREFORE. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association. series of 1994 in DAR ADM Case No.14 2001. covering 7. Capanas . Proclamation 1637 dated April 18. 1407. forest. 181. 1990. and the violation of petitioners' constitutional right to due process of law." Respondent claimed that prior to the effectivity of the CARL on June 15. Held: Held: Having established through said documents that the 27 parcels of land are within the coverage of the said (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. the DAR declared as well that respondent substantially complied with the requirements of DAR AO No. designated as "Lungsod Silangan Townsite" (LS Townsite). 1997.Atty. 2004. incidental to effecting compulsory land acquisition. reclassified the subject property into a commercial/residential area. ISSUE: Whether the land is covered under CARL. the DAR granted the application in this wise: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283. or on March 15. The Araneta Estate followed its protest letter with two (2) more letters dated June 20. 1313. he had OCT No. citing. carving out a wide expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo. particularly Lot No. . residential. 2002. and took effect on June 15. 44 (1990) which provides that lands already classified by a valid zoning ordinance for commercial. 7924 canceled and secured the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision 22 declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending issues of ownership. organized themselves into Samahang Nayon(s) so that the DAR could start processing their applications under the PD 27 OLT program. the landowner concerned is entitled to. Why important? Because you cannot find if the land is suitable or unsuitable for agricultural purposes in the absence of an ocular inspection.1] thereof provides that: "1. these involve factual controversies. that they are not among those farmer-beneficiaries who executed the waivers or voluntary surrender. entitled "Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Found Unsuitable for Agricultural Purposes. some parts devoted to rice and/or corn production tilled by Doronilla's tenants. the need to conduct ocular inspection to determine initially whether or not the property may be covered under the CARP is one of the steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. wherein it argued that the properties were bought from their previous owners in good faith. On June 8.15 Whether or not CA erred in gave retroactive effect or application to Proclamation Nos. and the DAR is duty bound to issue. Alcaide is about ocular inspection. and. before the MARO sends a Notice of Coverage to the landowner concerned. converted to. which are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. These planters. among other things. 47** AcICHD Thus. entitled "2003 Rules Governing Issuance of Notice of Coverage and Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Under RA 6657.80 as compensation for the said property.. The foregoing undertaking is reiterated in the latest DAR AO No.  “tenancy relationship” Different sections where the words “agrarian dispute” is used: Sec 47. Court of Appeals. the corresponding Notice of Valuation and Acquisition 5 was issued informing petitioner that a 37. he must first conduct a preliminary ocular inspection to determine whether or not the property may be covered under CARP. inter alia. 34. INC. the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage over the subject landholding informing petitioner that the subject properties were being considered for distribution under the government's agrarian reform program. stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture  any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership. exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Without an ocular inspection. 1998. However. are not considered and treated as agricultural lands and therefore.645-hectare Doronilla property. provided concerned government agencies with a list of seventy-nine (79) 30 names he considered bona fide "planters" of his land. Considering the claim of appellant that the subject land is not agricultural because it is unoccupied and uncultivated. v. No. the HLURB 9 certification that the Municipality of Biñan. AGRARIAN DISPUTE [Section 3(d)]  any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold.7353-hectare portion of its property is subject to immediate acquisition and distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries and that the government is offering P7. Respondents 8 on their part countered.vs RUBEN ALCAIDE Facts: Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons. there is a need for the DAR to ascertain whether or not the same may be placed under CARP coverage. 321 SCRA 106 [1999]. 4 Thereafter. 6657. issued an Order 11 in favor of the respondent declaring that the subject properties are agricultural land. These circumstances cast serious doubts on whether the MARO actually conducted an on-site ocular inspection of the subject land. to be agricultural land upon approval of its inclusion in the LS Townsite Reservation pursuant to the said reclassifying presidential issuance. on November 15. the Court cites with approval the following excerpts from the appealed CA decision: The above [Natalia Realty. Inc.. The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated. or a large portion of it.] ruling was reiterated in National Housing Authority vs. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property. Inc. 27 Held: Several basic premises should be made clear at the outset. Laguna does not have any approved plan/zoning ordinance to date. and. that the classification of the land as industrial did not exempt it from the coverage of the CARP considering that it was made only in 1997. In the event that a piece of land sought to be placed from CARP coverage is later found unsuitable for agricultural purposes. a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. Interestingly. to wit: In other words. there is no factual basis for the MARO to declare that the subject land is devoted to or suitable for agricultural purposes." Section 1 [1. is the registered owner of 14 parcels of land. and therefore outside the coverage of CARL. that the subject landholdings were classified as industrial. so it was remanded to DAR for the conduct of ocular inspection. No. Capanas . s. . issue Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition.Atty. who may reasonably be considered tenantfarmers. more so. and no agricultural activity is being undertaken thereon. the Supreme Court nullified the CARP acquisition proceedings because of the DAR's failure to comply with administrative due process of sending Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition of the landowner concerned. Petitioner then filed a Petition 6 before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The Office of the President stressed this in its Decision.D. 2001. the 1. the review of factual matters is not the province of this Court.988. There is no separate report on the record detailing the result of the ocular inspection conducted. in fact. The CARP was not intended to take away property without due process of law (Development Bank of the Philippines vs. under Presidential Proclamation No. GONZALO PUYAT & SONS. CLTs were eventually generated covering 73 hectares. Immediately prior to the promulgation of PD 27 in October 1972. unoccupied. 262 SCRA 245. n April 14. In Roxas & Co. 1971 was reserved. the provisions of RA 6657 apply only to agricultural lands under which category the Doronilla property. and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and substantiation of factual issues. and untenanted up to the present. Until such determination. for the housing program of the [NHA]. however." To restate a basic postulate. Puyat and sons vs. had purposely. it follows that petitioner's landholdings cannot be the proper subject of acquisition and eventual distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. with about 75 CLTs actually distributed to the tenant-beneficiaries. since it is one of the steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . In this regard." (NOC stands for Notice of Coverage) Found on the records of this case is a ready-made form Preliminary Ocular Inspection Report (undated) signed by the concerned MARO. having been effectively classified as residential by force of Proclamation 1637. s. Verily.AMaWS due process.A. following Natalia Realty. "all activities related to the OLT were stopped. 53. whether it is devoted to agricultural purposes. during the period material. So according to the SC it is not clear whether there was an ocular inspection. the check box allotted for the all-important items "Land Condition/Suitability to Agriculture" and "Land Use" was not filled up. Doronilla. thus. of 1997. 5-1). It ceased. non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the [DAR]. . the question of whether or not petitioner's properties could be covered by the CARP has not yet been resolved. land use” was not filled. was indisputably agricultural. that the same remains uncultivated. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It’s about the first element. The High Court declared that since the Tala Estate as early as April 26. Petitioner prayed. 1998. prior to the effectivity of [RA] 6657 . Issue: Whether or not the land is exempted.1Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) — After determining that a landholding is coverable under the CARP. among other things. Braganza. [1996]). no longer falls. and upon accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report. that the subject landholdings were planted with palay. of 2003. Inc. the MARO shall prepare the NOC (CARP Form No. Court of Appeals. the same has been categorized as not being devoted to agricultural activity contemplated by Section 3(c) of R. You have a preliminary ocular inspection report form signed by the MARO but the checkbox for this one “land condition suitability to agriculture. Held: As aptly found by the Office of the President.071. then DAR Secretary Hernani A. However. 1283 & 1637 resulting in the negation of "full land ownership to qualified farmer-beneficiaries covered by P. 01. outside the ambit of said law. the importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated. so it seems. tenancy. Inc. 54 BARC – Barangay agrarian reform committee . upon the issuance of Proclamation 1637." More importantly. Allarde where the Supreme Court held that lands reserved for. 843. that the Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition be lifted and that the properties be declared exempt from the coverage of CARP. This is an error on the reasoning of the court.Atty. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . SC:  Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of complaint. cultivation. BEJASA v. Or another action which is accion publiciana. The court will have to dismiss the case and the aggrieved party will have to appeal. second. you allege in your answer that as one of your defenses that there is tenancy relationship. Check on the ruling of the court. To harass the tenants. the function is to find probable cause? And when there is an allegation in the counter affidavit made by the respondent which may be evidentiary in nature. based on mere allegation. This falls under DARAB  There is Agrarian dispute: 1. Who is entitled to P1. does not automatically make the case agrarian reform. does not only apply to court. or grave abuse of discretion using section 50. This belongs to DARAB. That a case involving agri land. Office of the President. If the case is dismissed. that allegation will not take away the jurisdiction of the court. because if you are the lawyer for the tenant. In this case. which she leased to Malabanan. you would have to rely on the certification by DAR because DAR is supposed to have exclusive jurisdiction.100 proceeds of copra sale. you have a case where a court loses jurisdiction. section 19 was introduced by RA 9700. Since this amount is intertwined with the resolution of agra dispute. CA Private resp is owner of land. what will the judge do? Section 50 does not provide what the judge will do. Based on the facts. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts 2. What will the judge do? Pursuant to section 50. gikiha ang tenants sa landowners ug qualified theft.  tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing. the tenant will make a defense in his answer that there is a tenancy relationship. Management was left entirely to private respondent 4. Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that. expressly or impliedly . DAR will issue a certification and will inform the fiscal and the fiscal may be constrained to dismiss the case. Private respondents were overseers at the time of taking by virtue of Agreement . CA  Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Remember. the respondent filed an action for damages. Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it. it is determined from the allegations of the complaint and the court does not lose jurisdiction by a defence of tenancy relationship. with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Private respondents contend that this P1. Six requisites were not present. but the SC did not discuss the other requirements specially on the consent requirement. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico. from the property. suplico is a lessee and the private respondent was allowed by suplico to till the land. 3. so private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR. You have this principle that jurisdiction is to be determined from allegations of the complaint. the tenant will file a petition for certiorari. If there is an answer filed and there is an allegation of tenancy relationship.16 If you are familiar with katarungang pambarangay. the judge will automatically refer to DAR.here there was agreement which contradicts petitioner’s contention that private respondents are mere overseers. Let me just tell you in advance that agrarian disputes are a question of evidence. Case involving agri land does not automatically make such case agrarian. because the dismissal was based only on one element and not on the 6 requisites. Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the land while Suplico will provide the farm implements and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans from the palay by way of rental. Private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would. or tenant. etc. They were acquitted but required Zerna to return P1. all those silent on what the court will do. Taking a cue from Isidro and other cases. there is no hearing. Where can you find an allegation? In an answer. The question is. SC: SC found no reasons to disturb findings 1. be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas SC: . Capanas . section 50 –A. The landowner cannot say that the case should not be referred because the tenant must first establish that he is a tenant. the fiscal will say that he has no jurisdiction and the parties should go to DAR. the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. But read section 50-A. if there is certification from DAR. Resp. but the court dismissed it because the land is agricultural and concluded that it is agrarian. suplico receiving the sharing. Trial court declared private respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA. Isidro v. That is the process prior to this. If you apply the context of Isidro vs. In actual practice.100 as balance from proceeds of copra sale. and wife were personally plowing. it is to be proven in court. planting. 1st issue. walay remedy ang landowner. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing  Sps. Failure to vacate. the tenancy relationship must be alleged by the lawyer of the tenant so that under section 50-A the fiscal’s office will refer it to DAR. weeding and harvesting. Petitioner allowed respondent to plant coconut. CA case about allegations in a complaint which will establish jurisdiction of a court. most landowners whose agri land is occupied by persons whom they want to be ejected from the land. but if you were the judge. MONSANTO v. CA correctly ruled that DARAB has jurisdiction. In the counter affidavit. If DAR will certify that the action is agrarian in nature. isn’t it that in the fiscal’s office. RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural and so agrarian. 2. In the hearing you present evidence about tenancy relationship. Petitioner is claiming the amount of P1. CA FACTS: Candelaria owned two parcels of land. which states that if there is any allegation from any of the parties. the respondent is supposed to file a counter affidavit when a subpoena is issued. Private resp. etc. court procedure are promulgated by the supreme court. before you can file a case generally you need to secure certificate to file action. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent.100 to Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto did not consent to harvest of coconut. allegation and certification from DAR. In the fiscal’s office. In the case of suplico. RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it acted beyond when it ruled that agri tenancy between parties. But this time. Probably petitioner in this case did not raise as issue the other requirements and the SC relied on the findings of the lower court. the fiscal normally will say that if there is evidence. Of course there are exceptions ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Parties (landowner & tenants) Subject matter is agricultural land Consent of parties Purpose is agricultural production Personal cultivation by tenant Sharing of harvest between parties  All requisites must concur. there is no consent from the owner. the normal remedy is to file for an action for recovery of possession. resp. Suplico threatened to eject priv. There was no contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of land. unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro. the case shall automatically be referred by the judge or the prosecutor to DAR which shall determine and certify within 15 days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists. it was an action for unlawful detainer. 2nd point. Generally under DAR you need to secure a certification from BARC before you can file a case before DAR. Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give any consideration for its use. Another issue is this “subject matter is agri land”. under rule 16 of rules of procedure you will have to ask for a hearing of your affirmative defenses. If the court will not dismiss. what happens now to the principle that jurisdiction is determined on the allegations of a complaint. absence of one does not make one a tenant. Qualified theft kay allegedly they were taking coconuts. SIR: When you read the cases involving agrarian dispute take note that “parties” are related to “consent” because I think they are inseparable. The trial court declared the respondent as agri lessee confirmed by the CA. Actual possession. It may create a clash between law and court procedure. When suplico threatened the respondent to eject. We have a provision of the law where there is an automatic referral. So the SC mentioned that when it comes to jurisdiction over the subject matter. But we have here a scenario that if the judge will rely on the determination of DAR. Years later. and the tenant is aggrieved. Sister of private respondent allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon demand. because of a mere allegation. Being overseers does not foreclose their being tenants. the remedy there is you go to a higher fiscal – DOJ. Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of contractual relationship. that judge is now saying i have no jurisdiction based on an allegation from an answer and based on the confirmation by DAR.100 is their compensation pursuant to tenurial arrangements.AMaWS SUPLICO v. what will determine jurisdiction would be the allegations of the complaint. So if there is an action for unlawful detainer filed by a landowner against a tenant. but under section 50. it also applies to the prosecutor’s office. if tenancy is shown. that is why the owner intervened in the case and alleged absence of relationship. farm worker. not in the complaint. you have a summary action normally an unlawful detainer case. harvest. the court may now lose jurisdiction. that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of coconuts owned by petitioner. This is a new innovation. In the complaint. and land suitable and devoted to . he migrated to the US and returned only in 1998. 4 In the Report and Recommendation dated May 3. "KASUNDUAN SA HATIAN SA LUPA.”. While Bejasa testified. inherited the property." executed on July 10. CA . Petitioners. wherein the parties agreed to deduct from Lot No. Petitioner is claiming tenancy. the evidence of the tenant can be an affidavit because the proceedings before is submission of position paper. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owner’s share. SC: This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so. The issue is whether there is an agrarian dispute.” RA 9700. Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property.000per year. VALENCIA v. There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question. In 1963. DARAB considered petitioner a tenant. From the time petitioner cultivated the land. Meaning there was no tenancy relationship between jugalbot and the landowner.Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and migrated to US and returned only in 1998. DARAB upheld but CA reversed. Anita Flores and Jesus Fajardo executed an agreement. so the title was cancelled. SC : no tenancy  no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants. vs. On January 26. No. Sec. 1988. private respondent was landlord. malabanan is the lessee. he was allowed by Leopoldo delos Reyes to erect a house for his family on the stony part of the land. RTC was competent to try the case. Capanas . but the court will normally say that it is self-serving. aside from self-serving statements. on appeal. The point is. The taking of property violated due process (CA was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. and so there was no tenancy relationship. 1991. Consideration should be harvest sharing.42 cavans per year. 21: “The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent. Is it possible? No because the receipt can be used against the owner. You have to prove through independent evidence – affidavits of neighbours or other tenants. 63 as follows: “The amount needed to implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund. SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to prove the existence of the following elements: (a) the consent of the parties and (b) the sharing of harvests.000. 8532 and other pertinent laws. lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land without Valencia’s written consent. 2000.00)” Normally it is the tenant who will file a case because when the landowner sends a demand letter to the occupant to vacate. After lease. There was no proof of sharing in harvest. The issue: is jugalbot really a tenant and therefore entitled to the emancipation patent? There was no proof of cultivation and per findings of CA. Valencia demanded vacate but refused. as admitted in their complaint a number of them have simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage being primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives There was no difficulty on the part of the supreme court here. There was no proof that malabanan and Bejasa shared the harvest. The net harvests were divided equally between the two until 1975 when the relationship was converted to leasehold tenancy. Bulacan. His daughter and sole heir. private respondents were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia. so he was not here in pinas. Very obvious. tenancy relationship is a question of evidence. Pampanga. Provincial Agrarian Reform Office. Andres was awarded homestead patent due to investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived his rights. Independent evidence. is needed. Can you submit your own affidavit if you are a tenant? Yes. SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. Andres Flores under a civil law lease concept. Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case. ALMUETE v. again no consent. Almuete filed an action for recovery of possession and reconveyance before trial court. priv resp denied cultivation & waiver of rights was executed by some.923 sq m. 284 534 – “self serving statement are inadequate. shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150. There was no evidence to prove consent of parties and sharing of harvest. Candelaria is the owner. 5 “The distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from effectivity hereof. As to the remaining twenty and more other complainants. So how can the court acquire jurisdiction over the complaint? There was no substantial evidence. he allowed petitioner Jesus Fajardo to cultivate said land. yet at one time. the land is agricultural. against petitioners with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). There was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. 299. EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery possession. so the heirs filed and sought the cancellation of the title of jugalbot and wanting recovery of possession. wife and daughter were residents of California. or any other similar evidence. but the owner proves there was no consent. RA 8542: amended Sec. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. No tenancy. it is unfortunate that they have not shown that their cultivation. Cultivation / possession not proven. herein respondent Anita Flores. Unknown to Almuete. How do you prove sharing? There has to be a receipt. SC said only Bejasa’s word was presented to prove this. they filed a complaint for damages alleging surreptitious conversion. Leopoldo delos Reyes died. This one is different. until June 30. same here in Escariz vs Revilleza. ANITA R. Roa was denied due process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party). During the period of his lease. which is the subject of controversy. Normally. she leased the property for five (5)years to Fr. Region III. just to reiterate. Again. there was no possession or entry without knowledge of the owner that was alleged in the complaint. assisted by her husband Bienvenido Flores. if there are occupants in the property claiming to be tenants. No proof was presented except for their self-serving statements. There was no juridical tie. His wife and daughter were residents of California plus the land was residential. On the contrary. rent was provisionally fixed at 27. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land . Valencia is the owner. On June 28. she alleged that. No concrete evidence of cultivation. Per Order 2 from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). not devoted to agriculture. upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No.17 Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute. Bulacan. Bulacan. CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA. CA FACTS: Jugalbot was issued EP. no consent from the owner. 1991.000. which Jesus Fajardo religiously complied with. No substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord. CA FACTS: Valencia is the owner of land.” Sec. waiver of rights constitutes abandonment. By analogy.Atty. PASONG BAYABAS v. which was referred to the DAR. Bulacan. Apparently. denominated as "KASUNDUAN NG PAGHAHATI NG LUPA AT PAGTATALAGA NG DAAN UKOL SA MAGKABILANG PANIG. San Fernando. the occupant or the tenant would normally file an action before DAR. proof must be adhered”. REVILLEZA : “tenancy is not presumed” Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent. CA reversed SC: Tenancy is not presumed. xxx. FLORES Facts: Leopoldo delos Reyes owned a parcel of land located in Barangay Sumandig in Hacienda Buenavista. There was no consent. You attach affidavits. Malolos. claimed they are actual tillers of land. Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they filed application with DAR. there was a conflict of claims in the interpretation of the Kasunduan between Anita Flores and Jesus Fajardo. Roxas & Co. they are cultivating. Candelaria never gave consent to Bejasa. 2351 an area of 10. the Legal Officer advised the parties to ventilate their claims and counterclaims with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Baliuag. such agreement did not prove tenancy . The tenants can be ejected. Flores is the lessee. Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning ordinance. then the occupants cannot claim tenancy relationship. He was granted a title because of his claim that he is a tenant. Moreover. Court of Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . San Ildefonso. possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been by authority of a valid contract of agricultural tenancy. jugalbot was a soldier of the US army. Inc.AMaWS ESCARIZ v. Jugalbot was granted a title – emancipation patent. they allege sharing of the harvest. Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600. he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner. it was flores who allowed the private respondents. CA : “no evidence” Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as approved by DAR. Even assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for P20. Kanus-a gi-issue ang title? It was in 1997. HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. 2014. v. she inherited a parcel of land consisting of stony land. a complaint for ejectment was filed by herein respondent Anita Flores. The title was challenged by the heirs of the landowner. Coverage Section 4: All alienable and disposable public lands. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership) Facts: Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. landowners never gave consent. citing Chico vs. On December 22. as the sole heir of the late Leopoldo delos Reyes. allotting the same to petitioner. NICORP case (found it in the later part… go go) SPOUSES JESUS FAJARDO and EMER FAJARDO. The lessee did not have the authority to sublease because there was a prohibition to sublease. Possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner. Regional Office.000. 2000. 63: “The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. It was malabanan who hired Bejasa. in the absence of receipt. San Ildefonso. no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property. Plus CA findings." 3 This was followed by another agreement. why? In the complaint there was no allegation of tenancy.. The issue was about ownership so it is beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute. All private lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation – Sec. 23 The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed and allegations that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure. As long as the subject matter is the legality of the termination. petitioner's allegations of continued possession and cultivation do not support his cause. allegedly also without Macario's knowledge and consent. Jesus Fajardo requested the former to allow him to work and cultivate that portion of land devoted to agriculture. The land was devoted to mango plantation. Undeniably. therefore. through the DARAB. as discussed above. No. Held: An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements. if the dispute originates from such relationship that is tenancy relationship. The contention that the Kasunduans. If the tenant will question it and say that he was not fully apprised of his right with respect to that and probably was not able to read. Pastor was approached by his friend Macario Susano (Macario) who asked for permission to occupy a portion of Lot 1108 to build a house for his family. respondents denied having instituted any tenant on their property. These cannot suffice because independent and concrete evidence is needed to prove consent of the landowner. Example. the essential requisite of sharing of harvests is lacking. you have a waiver executed by a tenant saying that out of financial grant of the landowner or from person A. If the same existed immediately. the agricultural tenant must prove that he transmitted the landowner's share of the harvest. what happened is this. inter alia. such as clearing. Ronald. or if the dispute originates from such relationship. VICENTE ADRIANO vs. or shortly. and that he has continuously cultivated and openly occupied it.Atty. . and often times arises.552 square meters of Lot 1108-A to spouses Felix Pacheco and Juanita Clamor. expressly or impliedly. to undertake jointly the cultivation of a land belonging to the landowner. before the controversy and the subject-matter thereof is whether or not said relationship has been lawfully terminated. The essential element of consent is sorely missing because there is no proof that the landowners recognized Vicente. The severance of the tenurial arrangement will not render the action beyond the ambit of an agrarian dispute.18 agriculture located in Barangay Sumandig. and Patrick. such as receipts. which allegedly terminated the tenancy relationship between the parties and. Besides. The court said there is agrarian dispute. MERCEDES R. Macario religiously paid 15 cavans of palay per agricultural year to Pastor. (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant. stewardship. The court reiterating that independent evidence include RECEIPTS that must be presented. Again a question of evidence. during the lifetime of Leopoldo delos Reyes. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowner to farmworkers. provides that 'all cases involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the relationship of landlord and tenant . Pastor acceded to Macario's request. he has been performing all phases of farm works. we affirm the findings of the CA that the essential requisites of consent and sharing are lacking. shall be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations. the tenant was given a portion of the land. excluded the stony portion. is untenable. respondent approached petitioners and verbally informed them of her intention to repossess the stony portion. In their Answer. Neither can we agree with the DARAB's theory of implied tenancy because the landowner never acquiesced to Vicente's cultivating the land. It relates to any controversy relating to. sometime in the 1960s. the instant case involves a controversy regarding tenurial arrangements. petitioners' claim that the tenancy relationship has been terminated by the Kasulatan is of no moment. it was partitioned among the respondents. then the landowner will have a problem. 25 All the requisites must concur in order to establish the existence of tenancy relationship. Caloocan City. and that the use and occupation of the stony part of the land was by mere tolerance only. Agrarian: it is the person claiming to be the tenant who has the burden to prove his allegation of tenancy. Samson (Pastor) owned a 1. Issue: Whether or not MTC or the DARAB which has jurisdiction over the case. Macario's wife Mercedes R. and that the land. the husband of Alice. and. or otherwise. or if the dispute springs or originates from the relationship of landlord and tenant. Later on. ESTATE OF PASTOR M. And. Herein respondents. changing.696 square meters. the case is cognizable by the DAR. SUSANO Facts: Pastor M. Respondent-landowner has no obligation to prove exception or defects.A. . It is settled that mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farm worker into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws. This one will disturb landowners. 28 Self-serving statements are not sufficient. Since then. (6) there is sharing of the harvests between the parties. . no evidence was presented to establish the presence of consent other than his self-serving statements. tenants. y man? It was not clear which portion of the land was given that is why there was a conflict of claims in the interpretation. he no longer has a right over the land and he has waived it etc. Moreover. The only evidence submitted to establish the purported sharing of harvests were the allegations of Vicente which. Arsenio Tanco (Arsenio). tenancy. The fruits were then divided equally between them. and the absence of one or more requisites is fatal. it is a tenancy relationship. that Jesus Fajardo was then allowed to erect a house on the stony part of the land. In February 1999. landowners may want to pay money to their tenants and let them work. for implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present. or lessor and lessee. Pastor sold 2.0138-hectare parcel of land known as Lot 1108 of the Tala Estate Subdivision located in Bagumbong. If the dispute originates from such relationship. They stressed that Vicente never worked and has no employeremployee relationship with Geraldine. (2) the subject matter is agricultural land. no written notice was sent by Pastor to Macario prior to the sale to Chan of Lot 1108-C comprising an area of 6. the litigation is (then) cognizable by the Court of Agrarian Relations . SAMSON vs. Likewise. Susano and their son Norberto R. Issue: WHETHER or not VICENTE IS A BONA FIDE tenant. landowner and tenant. over lands devoted to agriculture. pruning. Controversy arose when Alice sent to Vicente a letter 6 dated January 16. He averred that in 1970. Capanas . Insofar as Alice is concerned. Here. There still exists an agrarian dispute because the controversy involves the home lot of petitioners. Seeing the letter of Alice as a threat to his peaceful possession of subject farmland which might impair his security of tenure as a tenant. the following essential requisites must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant. They aver that Macario came to know of the transaction only after Chan visited the property sometime in October 1990 accompanied by an employee from the city government. Vicente filed before the regional office of DARAB in Region III a Complaint for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case. There was an agreement here. must be presented to show that there was sharing of the harvest between the landowner and the tenant. including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating.AMaWS located at the middle of the plantation. and spraying of the mango trees. Not only that. removed the case from the ambit of R.4692 hectares located in Norzagaray. precisely from the previous termination of such relationship. 30 It is essential that. "Indeed. Independent evidence. whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary. According to respondents. Since Pastor was godfather to one of Macario's children. 1199. or possible. but petitioners refused to heed the request. . The same may have arisen. Presently. If you are a landowner and you don’t want the court to pass upon your relationship assuming you recognize that person occupying as a tenant. tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture. there was no evidence presented to show sharing of harvest in the context of a tenancy relationship between Vicente and the respondents. The landowner is saying that the tenant’s house is erected on the owner’s lot while the tenant is saying it is on the land that was given to him. As long as the subject matter of the dispute is the legality of the termination of the relationship. He who alleges has the burden to prove. 1995 informing him that subject landholding is not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the right to continue working on and cultivating the land. or that they hired him. or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. ALICE TANCO Facts: On December 18. whether leasehold. an incident arising from the landlord-tenant relationship. fixing. instituted him as tenant-caretaker of the entire mango plantation. He also alleged that he was allowed to improve and establish his home at the old building left by Ang Tibay Shoes Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .' This jurisdiction does not require the continuance of the relationship of landlord and tenant — at the time of the dispute. San Ildefonso. Susano. Bulacan. it is the employer who has the burden. She asked him to vacate the property as soon as possible. the tenant was given a portion of the land. Labor law: in illegal dismissal cases. Macario and his family occupied 620 square meters of Lot 1108 and devoted the rest of the land to palay cultivation. that." In the case at bar. (4) the purpose is agricultural production. were self-serving and have no evidentiary value. as their legitimate tenant. . respondent Alice Tanco (Alice) purchased a parcel of land consisting of 28. which rent was reduced by Pastor in 1986 to 8 cavans of palay per agricultural year. maintaining. Bulacan. insist that while no agricultural leasehold contract was executed by Pastor and Macario. he is in actual possession of and continues to cultivate the land. although Vicente claims that he is a tenant of respondents' agricultural lot in Norzagaray. Pastor subdivided Lot 1108 into three portions of which he sold portions of it without Macario's knowledge. Held: Tenancy relationship is a juridical tie which arises between a landowner and a tenant once they agree. and other agrarian reform beneficiaries. which was divided equally between the two parties. 1975. 24 For tenancy relationship to exist. (3) there is consent between the parties. 6657. together with the other requisites of tenancy relationship. section 21 of the Republic Act No. It has something to do with that relationship. Bulacan. respondents asserted that Vicente is not a tenant but a mere regular farm worker. smudging. Nasayop ang abogado. Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal cultivation.000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. was a de jure tenant must be established. 5 Represented by Celso Rabang. For implied tenancy to arise it is necessary that all the essential requisites of tenancy must be present. all the elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are present.000 to P6. because selfserving statements are inadequate. while the RARAD. Moreover. PARO and the Register of Deeds of Masbate as additional respondents. Respondent is the landowner. The subject matter of their relationship is agricultural land. To recall. It has been repeatedly held that occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. a receipt or any other credible evidence must be presented. there must be concrete evidence on record adequate to prove the element of sharing. 2282. the DAR Secretary correctly issued the CLOA in their favor. being a legal relationship.) No. The petition was amended to include the MARO. respondents' predecessor-in-interest. 474. SC used her own admission that she received rentals from the petitioner. 1994. 1993. otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code. docketed as DARAB Case No. in turn. Subsequently. petitioner filed a petition for the cancellation of the said CLOA and title before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). she wants to recover the land to farm it on her own so that she can gain more profits. .A. 1975 is explicit: 5. Tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. The DARAB found no tenancy relationship between the parties and stressed that the elements of consent and sharing are not present. the Register of Deeds of Masbate issued the corresponding OCT. respondent's complaint in Barangay Case No. JUAN GALOPE vs. we are thus unable to agree with DARAB's ruling that the affidavits 16 of witnesses that petitioner pays 15 cavans of palay or the equivalent thereof in pesos as rent are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. 1493. that petitioner paid nothing for the use of the land. Section 5 18 of Republic Act (R. Cesar Andres. the subject land is less than seven hectares. petitioner's personal cultivation of the land 21 is conceded by respondent who likewise never denied the fact that they share in the harvest. previously bought the subject parcel of land from Romanito P. Petitioner countered that respondent cannot recover the land yet for he had been farming it for a long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4.0138 hectares is not covered by the OLT program. sharing of harvest. the elements for its existence are explicit in law and cannot be done away with by conjectures. The affidavits executed by three of respondents' neighbors are insufficient to establish a finding of tenancy relationship between Pastor and Macario. 19 They mutually agreed to the cultivation of the land by petitioner and share in the harvest. Private respondents averred that. Substantial evidence necessary to establish the fact of sharing cannot be satisfied by a mere scintilla of evidence. While admitting having sold a lot in favor of Samuel Sutton from whom petitioner purportedly inherited the subject parcel of land. CRESENCIA BUGARIN Facts: Respondent owns a parcel of land. and said that the affidavits of Allingag. assailing the validity of the said issuances on the ground that the subject parcel of land is a private land devoted to cattle raising which she inherited from her deceased father. the same may still be covered by P. being the actual occupants and qualified beneficiaries of the subject lot which formed part of the alienable and disposable portion of the public domain. ejectment and payment of rentals before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).Tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7) hectares or less shall not be covered by Operation Land Transfer. No. further confirms the purpose of their agreement. An agricultural leasehold relation is not determined by the explicit provisions of a written contract alone. 1994. no independent and concrete evidence were adduced by respondents to prove that there was indeed consent and sharing of harvests between Pastor and Macario. no specific evidence was cited to support such conclusion other than their observation that Pastor failed to protest Macario's possession and cultivation over the subject land for more than 30 years. the MARO and PARO. The OLL program placed landowners and tenants of agricultural land devoted to rice and corn into a leasehold relationship as of October 21. SUTTON VS. processes in palay farming.D. they interposed the defense of prescription since the petition for cancellation was filed after the subject title became indefeasible. Such admission belies the claim of respondent's representative. Lesson: you can use affidavits of neighbors for as long as it has the specific details which are: how the agreement was implemented how much was given when and where the payments were made whether they have a witness when the landowner is receiving the share. Issue: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship Held: The matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondent's admission that she receives rentals from petitioner.D. 52 Moreover. 51 we rule that the subject land cannot be subject to the OLT program of P. Held: We find in favor of petitioners. The relation of the land owner and tenant-farmers in these areas shall be leasehold . 14 This fact is evident on the record 15 of said case which is signed by respondent and was even attached as Annex "D" of her DARAB petition.19 Issue: Whether or not there was a tenancy relation between Pastor Samson and Macario Susano and in binding herein petitioner. Petitioner farms the land. respondent complained that she lent the land to petitioner in 1992 without an agreement. that what she receives in return from petitioner is insignificant. 27. No. Principle: affidavits of the tenant or persons claiming to be a tenant are self-serving. The DARAB added that respondent's intention to lend her land to petitioner cannot be taken as implied tenancy for such lending was without consideration. The Adjudicator said substantial evidence prove the tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondent. 9378. the application was granted and they were issued CLOA. To prove sharing of harvests. respondent's admission confirms their statement that rentals are in fact being paid. the mutual will of the parties to that relationship should be primordial. Lastly. 27 for two reasons: first. Thus. a farm land. 99-6. petitioner pays rental consisting of palay or its equivalent in cash. Respondent's motion 20 to supervise harvesting and threshing. and that respondent's own witness. In the case at bar. On the other hand. Rabang claimed that respondent lent the land to petitioner in 1991 and that the latter gave nothing in return as a sign of gratitude or monetary consideration for the use of the land. Consequently. subject to the Comprehensive . Petitioner also claimed to have been denied due process for not receiving any notice of private respondents' application proceedings for CLOA. however. Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the petition and ruled that petitioner is a tenant entitled to security of tenure. on January 31. petitioner is her tenant. that Allingag also stated that petitioner hired him only as farm helper. This is a confirmation that indeed rentals were paid and that this is an agrarian dispute. Samuel Sutton. Upon the recommendation of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO). After the harvest. 99-6 was that the rental or the amount she receives from petitioner is not much. Applying our pronouncement in Levardo v. 1972. the DAR Memorandum on the "Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small Landowners" dated July 10. as required by Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. that Jose Allingag affirmed petitioner's possession and cultivation of the Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Reason: gigamyan sa renta  the rent was insignificant. . while the disputed landholding which had an original aggregate area of only 1. Rolando Alejo and Angelito dela Cruz are self-serving and are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation of nonpayment of rentals. Indeed. recognizes that an agricultural leasehold relation may exist upon an oral agreement. LIM FACTS: On December 7. who. The purpose of their relationship is clearly to bring about agricultural production. hence. They also clarified that the subject parcel of land has been classified as Government Owned Land (GOL) or Kilusang Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK) areas pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. Contrary to what is required by law. One of a kind case!!! (LO was very honest) Landowner filed a complaint at the barangay because she would want the occupant to vacate the property. that Barangay Tanods said that petitioner is the tenant of the land. DARAB and the CA are unanimous in their conclusion that an implied tenancy relationship existed between Pastor Samson and Macario Susano. and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on her own. Yatco. Celso Rabang. Capanas . The DARAB noted petitioner's failure to prove his payment of rentals by appropriate receipts. In Barangay Case No. private respondents applied for the issuance of a CLOA over a parcel of land before the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary. respondent filed a petition for recovery of possession. This case deals with affidavits executed by the neighbors of the occupants. Respondent's act of allowing the petitioner to cultivate her land and receiving rentals therefor indubitably show her consent to an unwritten tenancy agreement. Leasehold relationship is not brought about by the mere congruence of facts but. 3844. respondents failed to show that Pastor owned other agricultural lands in excess of seven hectares or urban land from which he derived adequate income. The Adjudicator noted the certification of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) that petitioner is the registered farmer of the land. On November 23. The case was not settled.AMaWS land. Rabang also claimed that petitioner mortgaged the land to Jose Allingag who allegedly possesses the land. said that petitioner is a farmer of the land. SC considered the affidavits as insufficient because of lack of details. Lim and his wife. in their Answer with Motion to Dismiss. they asserted that the lot sold was different from Lot No. 53 However. albeit under its Operation Land Leasehold (OLL) program. and second.Atty. or consent of the landowner. invoked the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions in issuing the CLOA. 54 But the fact that Macario. which he and his family have been peaceably occupying and cultivating since 1970. the Provincial Adjudicator dismissed Ladano's Complaint. 16 She determined that the two-hectare property. The said respondents informed him that the property belongs to Neri and that he should vacate the same immediately. an implied tenancy is deemed to exist between them. it bears to emphasize that under the new law. Antipolo City. 27. 6657. In the alternative that the judgment is in the respondents' favor. No. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under the said Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers. The DARAB held that Ladano's 30-year occupation and cultivation of the land could not have possibly escaped the landowner's notice. What is of primordial consideration is the existence of an agrarian dispute between the parties. It also ruled that since the issuance of the subject CLOA was made in the exercise of the DAR Secretary's administrative powers and function to implement agrarian reform laws. fixing. 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship. 9700. landholdings for coverage (whether the subject property is a private or government owned land). he prayed that the respondents compensate him for the improvements that he introduced in the property. 39 In seeking a reconsideration 41 of the CA Decision Ladano alleged." 70 But a careful reading of Ladano's Complaint shows that Ladano did not claim to be a leasehold tenant on the land. 25 If he is a tenant. located in Manalite I. farm worker or other agrarian reform beneficiary involving agricultural land.Barangay Sta. Since the landowner must have known about. a punctilious examination reveals that petitioner's allegations are solely hinged on the erroneous grant by the DAR Secretary of CLOA No.A. a leasehold arrangement with Neri. and acquiesced to. His Complaint was properly dismissed for lack of merit. (Section 9) Consequently. tenancy. rendering its decision null and void." 13 As a possessor and builder in good faith. the jurisdiction over the petition for its cancellation lies with the Office of the DAR Secretary. . it is not sufficient that the controversy involves the cancellation of a CLOA already registered with the Land Registration Authority. 14 He prayed for an award of P100. Our Ruling: Petitioner is not a tenant on the land and is not entitled to security of tenure nor to disturbance compensation. Without such an arrangement. 12 Instead of arguing that he has a right to remain on the property as its bona fide tenant. 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee. leasehold." Furthermore. In this case. The CA Ruling: CA denied the petition on jurisdictional grounds and dismissed the case without prejudice to its re-filing. 19 does not apply either because the property was not planted with rice and corn. 17 which only covers agricultural properties beyond five hectares. FACTS: Complaint by petitioner Luciano Ladano (Ladano) before the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator against respondents Felino Neri (Neri). Edwin Soto. the landowner. 38 In fact. He believed then that the property was part of the "public land and [was] open to anybody. 2003. or lessor and lessee. or agrarian relations referred to may be established with the concurrence of the following: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. that he indeed shared a portion of his harvest with the landowner's caretaker. Issues Whether petitioner is an agricultural tenant on the subject property. its jurisdiction is. Cruz. The cases involving the issuance. Ladano alleged that on May 7. has the burden of proving that the occupant of the land is a mere intruder thereon. The Department of Agrarian Reform and its adjudication boards have no jurisdiction over Ladano's Complaint. and 6) the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. while agricultural. there must exist a tenancy [relationship] between the parties. 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land. Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration. rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB. shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the DAR Secretary. NERI Respondents countered that Ladano's Complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit.A. as amended. the supposed owner of the land he is occupying. 27 The landowner. or otherwise. no tenancy relationship can exist between them 32 and Ladano cannot claim rights under the agrarian laws.00 as disturbance compensation. all cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are now within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. petitioner has not alleged any tenurial arrangement between the parties. the controversy between the parties is not agrarian in nature and merely involves the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program which is cognizable by the DAR Secretary. 2004. For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction. 11 He is not entitled to the reliefs he sought because he does not have. tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries. negating the existence of any agrarian dispute and consequently. 24 which took effect on July 1.A. an agrarian dispute relates to "any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements. "For the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the case. the respondents fenced the property and destroyed some of the trees and kawayan planted thereon. correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws. While the DARAB may entertain petitions for cancellation of CLOAs. the tenurial. and identification of qualified beneficiaries. Not too long afterwards. the controversy must relate to an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in whose favor CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. Ladano's actions. Capanas . he is entitled to security of tenure and cannot be removed from the property. changing. Adan Espanola and Ernesto Blanco. maintaining. whether leasehold. As defined in Section 3 (d) of R. landowner and tenant. They assailed the DARAB's finding of a tenancy relationship as having no factual basis. 00122354 to private respondents on the grounds that she is the lawful owner and possessor of the subject lot and that it is exempt from the CARP coverage. tenurial arrangements are in the form of tenancy 19 or leasehold arrangements. Indisputably. Moreover. 6657. the DARAB is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the herein controversy.20 Agrarian Reform Program's immediate coverage (CARP coverage). the respondents forcibly entered the two-hectare land. is not covered by RA No. 4) the purpose of the agricultural relationship is to bring about agricultural production.Atty.AMaWS LADANO VS. Issue: WON there is tenancy relationship? HELD: The petition is without merit. 15 On June 23. however. over lands devoted to agriculture. Ladano himself admitted that he entered and tilled the subject property without the knowledge and consent of the landowner. Rule II of the 1994 DARAB Rules of Procedure clearly provides that "matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of R. 20 However. or paying rentals to. 2009. No. R. Such admission negates the requisites of consent and of an agreement to share harvests. Thus. petitioner was not able to prove that she is the registered owner of the subject parcel of land and that it is exempt from the CARP coverage. respondents failed to discharge such burden. lessee. In this regard. Ladano maintained that he has been its possessor in good faith for more than 30 years. Presidential Decree No. he cannot be removed from the subject property without being compensated for the improvements that he had introduced. including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating. whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary. as amended. The CA concluded that there is no evidence supporting the DARAB's conclusion that a tenancy relationship exists between Ladano and Neri. the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Ladano prayed that he be declared the rightful "occupant/tiller" of the property. for the first time. 21 To be sure. with the right to security of tenure thereon. and other agrarian reform laws and pertinent rules. as he did not even allege having. who denied the existence of a tenancy relationship. No. Contrary to the DARAB's ruling.000. confined only to agrarian disputes. Neither is it covered by other agrarian tenancy laws because Ladano had not presented any evidence of his tenancy relationship with the landowner." Verily. Section 1. Jurisdiction lies with the Office of the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of classification of Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . The DARAB determined that the only issue to be resolved is whether Ladano is a tenant on the subject landholding. Traditionally. other forms such as a joint production agreement to effect the implementation of CARP have been recognized as a valid tenurial arrangement. stewardship. 6657. Ladano himself never claimed sharing his harvests with. 28 In the instant case. 18 Tenurial arrangements pertain to agreements which set out the rights between a landowner and a tenant. as in this case. an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. the CA held that the burden lies on the person who is asserting the existence of a tenancy relationship to prove that all the elements necessary for its existence are present (6 requisites). It held that the DARAB does not have jurisdiction over the instant controversy due to the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship or any agrarian relations between the parties. disposition. 6) Who has the right to choose? LANDOWNER What if in the chosen area. terrain. who still own the homestead 3. of Sec. such as commodity produced. further. Why retention? That is a right of the landowner to hold on to 5 hectares without any condition or qualification. CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec. Meaning: for a child to be awarded by the government with 3 hectares. If he chooses to remain on the retained area:  The tenant loses his right to become a qualified beneficiary  There is now a leasehold relation between the landowner-lessor and the tenant on the retained . any public or private agricultural land.6) “Very important” shall be null and void: Provided. with or without consideration FOURTH ASPECT: Retained area of the landowner (second par. That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted. Dissenting opinion of Ynares Santiago in Roxas and Company: There was a certification from DA certifying that the land is not suitable for agriculture. In the same manner. public and private lands. The issues that he wanted resolved are who between himself and the respondents have a better right to possess the property. livestock. 6 (Take note): 1. Proof needed to show ecotourism suitability: certification from department of agriculture. You can be a qualified beneficiaries of other portions of the land of the landowner or on agricultural lands owned by other persons 2. there are tenants? What would happen to the tenants? Law gives them (tenant) two options: 1. not us.Retention Limits. even if the person is occupying and cultivating. that does not automatically become an agrarian dispute. 6 requisites must be satisfied. That is an absolute right of the landowner  Although later on.  But the landowner. 10) but generally all land. there is a period within which to exercise and if there is a failure to exercise within the period given then there is a possible waiver of that right. Sec. - FIRST ASPECT of section 6 is about homestead. So why should we refer this to DAR when there is already a certificate? HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec. Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the homestead (CA 141. (Underlined provision) SECTION 6. While neither of the parties challenged the jurisdiction of the DARAB. no person may own or retain. subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age. but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.  Meaning: WON the landowner is personally cultivating. Purpose of Homestead: Given to the citizens of the Philippines for cultivation and for residence Maximum number of hectares that can be given to citizens is 12 hectares Homestead is also a title  which you will learn in Land Titles and Deeds *More or less similar with Free Patent but they differ in the requisites *Title given by DENR and normally there is a prohibition of conveyance within a period of 5 years SIR: Mao na ang uban mu. 6. the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm.Atty. lease. original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs 2. Capanas . however. After that fiveyear period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead.  who are qualified .)  expressly recognized in Sec. Chapter II (Coverage) Recap on difference between PD 27 and CARL: PD 27: rice and corn CARL: everything is covered subject to certain exceptions (prawn farming. he HAS to COMPLY with these qualifications Who normally examines the qualifications? MARO  SIR: and with due respect with MAROs. 3. which shall be compact or contiguous. for ex. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention. he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. directly or indirectly. management.ingon nga “we might as well suffer the 5 yr prohibition under free patent or homestead than go through with the judicial process of titling which may take several years” Qualifications under Sec. if aggrieved by the MARO (for ex. fishpond. The right to choose the area to be retained. it is also possible that it is in the appreciation of these qualifications that corruption can come in. shall pertain to the landowner: Provided. as long as they continue to cultivate (most important) HOMESTEAD PATENT A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence. etc. we will later on discover that there is an admin order issued by DAR setting limitations – landowner has to apply with DAR to be able to exercise retention. Upon the effectivity of this Act. and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder. That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. under sec. Even if there is harvest or cultivation. That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. In all cases. who has 20 hectares.citizens of Philippines over 18 years old & not an owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII. any sale. (to cultivate the land and for the land to be developed) Actual cases: LO will allege that lands are suitable for ECOTOURISM so that it will not be suitable for agriculture. That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. the nature of the case he filed is one for forcible entry 72 and for indemnification. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land. Art XIII. at the effectivity of the law will now be able to retain only 5 hectares.AMaWS - What is the meaning of that? A landowner. but there is no consent. You can remain on the retained area. the Court can consider the issue of jurisdiction motu proprio.6. Still a question about evidence. that does not ipso facto make that person a tenant. subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age. infrastructure. all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.21 Petitioner never alleged that he had any agreement with the landowner of the subject property. that is not required by law. Common denominator: devoted to or suitable to agriculture Why is there such an element? These lands are supposed to be acquired by the government to be given to farmer beneficiaries. and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided. the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected. contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . of DAR on appeal. Constitution SECOND ASPECT Retention right of the landowner: xxx but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. In Isidro. but by the regular courts. Section 116) within five years after the grant of the patent. Thereafter. the pronouncement of the SC that even if the land was agri. his widow or heirs. He asserted his rights based on his prior physical possession of the two-hectare property and on his cultivation of the same in good faith. there is no agrarian dispute. (there was an issue on Roxas’ application for exemption) but SC said that this issue has to be determined by DAR. 73neither of which is cognizable by the DARAB. Purpose: they will improve. but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of repurchase by the homesteader.  filed at CENRO where land being applied is located. 1987 Constitution)  designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. 15 hectares will be acquired by the government subject to payment of just compensation.. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area. and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm Take note that the word used by law with respect to the children or child of the landowner is NOT retention but AWARD. THIRD ASPECT Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner. he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. and whether he has a right to be compensated for the improvements he introduced on the property. Indeed Ladano's Complaint did not assert any right that arises from agrarian laws. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided. however.. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner. because it is the MARO who normally handles the application at the lower level) can go the Sec. Clearly. s. The said Act lays down the rights of homestead grantees under Sec. but petitioners/tenants Gabino Alita refuse to vacate. Indisputably. Even under the current primary law on agrarian reform. which provides the retention limit. Alfeche.6) DIFFERENCE between Alita and Paris: Alita: had the desire to personally cultivate  granted Paris: no desire to cultivate  denied RETENTION RIGHTS NCC: conjugal – total is 5. PD 27. In this regard. neither of the conditions for retention is present. however.22 area. 10 on exemptions): There is no law or jurisprudence that says that the classification under tax declaration is the absolute standard..Bukidnon. they shall only have 5 hectares depending of course on the relation. That parcels of land are covered by homestead will not automatically exempt them from operation of land reform. subject to prior rights. et al. the tenants are not supposed to acquire the subject land and the Emancipation Patents precipitately issued to them are null and void for being contrary to law.AMaWS whatsoever in its coverage. Held: Petitioner’s contention is without legal basis. Private respondents/owners Enrique Reyes. Republic Act (RA) No. and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. who are recipients of Emancipation Patents in their names pursuant to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) under PD 27 notwitstanding the fact that neither the tenants nor the Land Bank [has] paid a single centavo for the said land. whether classified as landed estate or not.Disadvantage: Real property taxes . the landowner may retain an area of not more than 7 hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it. nor will she personally cultivate any part thereof. It is premised on the condition that the landowner is cultivating the area sought to be retained or will actually cultivate it upon effectivity of the law.. petitioner has applied for retention of 7 hectares contending that the lands subject of the instant petition are covered by Homestead Patents.D. 170 SCRA 706 Facts: Two parcels of land in Tungawan. Order No. the subject parcels are fully tenanted. 2. A’s land holding will exceed 5 hectares (that is not allowed under the law because the buyer is supposed to execute an affidavit of the transferee saying that the acquisition will not exceed the landholding provided by law). she is entitled to retain the lands to the exclusion of tenants. Ipabilin ang name sa yuta in the name of B to avoid perjury. .tax dec vs. What would A do? A will pay B with the consideration but A will not cause the transfer of B’s name on the land. the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. It is the fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands. which is a superior right over that of tenant-farmers. MARO's findings (land is agri) . SC :  Petitioner’s contention is w/o legal basis. to which the application of PD 27 is suppletory. homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and retain the original homesteads. 2 CASES UNDER HOMESTEAD: Alita vs. 6 thereof. 364 SCRA 110 Facts: Petitioner Florencia Paris is the owner of 10. Sec. CA. under which the EP sought to be canceled here were issued to respondents. 141. CA: (1989)  private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired 2 parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur thru homestead patent  petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27 SC:  PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and transferring to them ownership of land they till. change the classification in tax declaration from agricultural to residential or commercial or industrial. a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution.” Clearly. Thus. The DAR and the CA found that respondents were the ones who had been cultivating their respective portions of the disputed properties. Retention Limits. In the case at bar. “xxxx. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides: “The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship. which requires no qualifying condition for the landowner to be entitled to retain such area. further. . Nowhere does it appear that lots obtained by homestead patents are exempted from its operation. 6657.Before buying the land.. applies to all tenanted private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy. herein are desirous of personally cultivating these lands.A. capital/paraphernal – not more than 5 each but not exceed 10 FC (Aug. and as decided by the Supreme Court in Patricio vs. are not entitled to awards of three (3) hectares each. 2003: capital/paraphernal .Atty. No. As regards to the land. it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No.et al. Limitation applies throughout the Philippines. ALFECHE (2001)  Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of 13 hectares. She admitted that land is fully tenanted by private respondents Alfeche. and wants to buy the 5 hectares of B. whenever applicable in accordance with law. homestead rights of small settlers. That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. That parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not automatically exempt them from the operation of land reform. Provided further.SC upheld MARO’s findings LANDOWNER’s RETENTION RIGHTS Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs? How CLOA is issued to farmer beneficiaries: . SIR: This is what is actually happening but do not do this. Nowhere therein does it appear that the lots obtained by homestead patents are exempt from it operation. The said parcels are fully tenanted by private respondents Dionisio Alfeche. CA. Tenant will not acquire any parcel of land but he continues to be a tenant on the retained area and to be governed by Chapter 3 of the law. PD 27. since they are not actually tilling the parcels or directly managing the farm. such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or CA No.not to exceed 5 provided with judicial separation absolute (presumed) – not to exceed 5 *Even if you have two spouses. relying n the provisions of PD 27 and PD 316 and appurtenant regulations issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Petitioner further alleged that she owns the subject property as original homestead grantee who still owned the same when RA 6657 was approved. Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares which require no qualifying condition (Sec.6146 hectare of land in Paitan. the right to retain an area of 7 hectares is not absolute. Petitioner’s claimed entitlement to retain 7 hectares is also untenable. Under RA 6657. thus she is entitled to retain the area to the exclusion of her tenants. Section 6. However. If A will buy the land and will change the document of B with A’s name. thus. The law makes no exceptions Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . only for "as long as they continue to cultivate" them. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in question. (with respect to retention limit *illegal: A has 5 hectares of agri land. Capanas . “The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor.  Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original homestead grantee. As admitted by petitioner herself. Undoubtedly. reading. Held: We agree with the petitioners in saying that PD 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social legislation.xxx” Both the Philippine constitution and the CARL respect the superiority of the homesteaders right over the right of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform Statute. the homesteaders and their heirs have the right to cultivate their homesteads personally.3. she is clearly not cultivating them.” Additionally. including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture. she has no right to retain any portion of her landholdings. Petitioner contends that since she is entitled to a retention of 7 hectares under PD 27 and/or 5 hectares and 3 hectares each for her children under CARL. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life’s other needs. CA (under Sec. petitioner's lands are subject to land reform. the two is considered to be one! Therefore. therefore. However. PARIS v. in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources. et al. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteader’s rights and CARL also. PD applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands primarily devoted to rice and corn.  However.” ALITA v. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of P. Zamboanga del Norte were acquired by private respondents’ predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the provisions C. states: “In all cases. PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA 141 (Public Land Act)  Phil. Petitioner's heirs. But there will be complications… *legal: . It is the fact of continued cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands from land reform coverage. Neither petitioner nor her heirs are personally cultivating the subject homesteads. 141.1988) per DAR Adm. rights of homestead grantee are provided but with condition: only for “as long as they continue to cultivate them”. petitioner can retain five (5) hectares in accordance with Section 6 of RA 6657. Bayug and Alita vs. That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. Paris vs. 6: Provided.Be careful: Republic vs. or negligence or misuse of the land and support extended to children-awardees. And this was tested in the case of Central Mindanao. mosque sites. and 3. seeds and seedlings research. Why? (a) and (b). How was the law amended? Sec. It is now called CLOA “Certificate of Land Ownership Award”. This time is a different expropriation. How? Joint Resolution which was easier. school sites. Order # 2. shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section xxx.anan kay (hmm…). 10. the need for vast tract of agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious. the landowner cannot use his right of retention to prevent the LGU from exercising its right to expropriate. Sec 5 is about schedule of implementation. or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. CA Issuance of EPs/CLOA’s to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar landowner from retaining the area. 1988. (now Del Monte). school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations. such as roads and bridges. local government facilities. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has no real need for land. 4) SIR: That means if you have an agricultural land. transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to the government. Sec. Exception to Retention Limits. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . . 10. which is a school established to promote agriculture & industry. RA 9700 approved Aug 7 2009 but given retroactive effect. you have the qualifying words ADE. however. seeds and seedlings research  why exempted? For agricultural production church sites and convents. grounds. — The child of a landowner whose landholding is subject of acquisition and distribution under the CARP may be awarded and given preference in the distribution of said lands if he/she meets all of the following criteria: DaCTcA 3. Rights and Obligations.  While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. bridges.AMaWS - Example: agricultural lands all the way to balamban (watershed area). consistent with the approved local comprehensive land use plan. will have to expropriate. Direct management shall refer to the cultivation of the land through personal supervision under the system of labor administration. units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual. it was amended extending it further to June 30. Unauthorized sale of the land. 06-06 SECTION 3. agree on the price and then execute the deed of conveyance  Compulsory – if the landowner refuses the notice of acquisition and notice of coverage. direct and exclusive public purposes. including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for establishing seed and seeding research  The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a university in years to come. June 15. WHY? (go to Central Mindanao Case) experimental farm stations. public parks and barangay plazas or squares So what the landowner can do is choose another area. Gov. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL (a) Lands ADE used for parks. communal burial grounds and cemeteries.” (RA 9700. public markets. 2008 to June 30. cultivation and maintenance of the land including the improvements thereon. So DAR was ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec. penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt) CENTRAL MINDANAO v. fish sanctuaries and breeding watersheds and mangroves (exempt). So legislators should have amended Sec 5!!! RA 8542 amended Sec 63 extending implementation for another 10 years. jurisdiction here lies with DENR reserves. Provided. fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds. wildlife. at least 15 years of age. (RA 9700. So when CARL took effect. it was effected for 10 years. 31. Why? Na. school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations. “That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries”. when CARL expired on 2008. directly & exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus. there is an additional phrase: found to be necessary. REASON: Public purposes such as road. public parks and barangay plazas or squares. mosque sites. if the government has already deposited the amount with LBP. DIRECTOR. 16 on acquisition by the government. CLTs of private respondent were leased w/o according Daez her right of choice. By the nature of CMU.late pag approve sa Congress. Escritor  There is an allowable accommodation for religion under CERTAIN circumstances  this is part of the accommodation Last part is: lands with 18 degrees slope and over  bakilid au (exempted) WHY? Because of possible soil erosion DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. resettlement sites.2 At least fifteen (15) years of age. school sites. DARAB  The subject lands are exempted because they are actually. (Appeal) RA 9700. Exemptions from coverage (Section 10) Sec. (b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense. mosque sites  freedom of religion  SIR: reminded me of Estrada vs. S. In fact.2 Lands awarded to qualified children of landowners may not be sold. You will note. Qualifications of Children-Awardees. and other violations under existing guidelines shall be grounds for the forfeiture of their right as such. you amend correctly!!! May have question on legality!!! What is the good point of these amendments? Congress was consistent of its error! “SEC. (that is how long the farmer pays the government for the just compensation) DAEZ v. 3) Kini kataw. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL (a) Lands ADE used for parks.Provincial. 5 was not the one amended but SEC 63 which is about funding. the landowner will choose an area which the LGU will use for public purposes. he still has to pay the government 30 annual amortizations with interest. 1988 up to the time of the conduct of field investigation of the landholding under CARP. or to the LBP. It shall be interpreted along the lines of farm management (this one is more difficult…) as an actual major activity being performed by the landowner's child from which he/she derives his/her primary source of income.Atty. 4.Sec.3 Actual tillers or one directly managing the farm as of June 15. communal burial grounds and cemeteries. forest reserves. Packing Corp. reforestation. Why is it that we are still implementing CARL till now? Because the law was amended. 31 Joint Resolution: From Dec. Sec. Sec 3 amended Sec 4. watersheds and mangroves (exempt). wildlife. 6-A. school is in best position to resolve & answer the question. resettlement sites. How was it worded? “the amount needed xxx until 2008 (Dec 31)” Worse.  Retention by landowner: 5 hectares  Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided: 1. that exempts it from the coverage during the time of Ramos lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense. - one part used for school and campus site . WHY?  Even without the title (2 copies: owner’s title and the RD’s title). SECTION 4. The government can now issue different titles to farmer beneficiaries. The law says. 2009 9700: approved Aug but they reckoned July 1. the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational institution  As to determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for use of CMU. 2009. 2009 ang effectivity up to June 15. church sites and convents.3 The children-awardees may avail of any support services being provided by the government in agrarian reform areas. 6657: 10 years upto 1998 8542: upto 2008 interpreted up to Dec. the distribution shall be implemented within 10 yrs from effectivity. penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt) Very interesting (daw). public market. EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land covered in later found to be part of landowner’s retained area. local government facilities. and 2. church sites and convents. — The children-awardees shall have the following rights and obligations: 4.1 All children-awardees shall exercise diligence in the use. That is if it is consistent with the comprehensive land use of the LGU.2003  Who may apply for retention  Period to exercise right of retention  Where to file  Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of retention  Operating produces : MARO – PARO – REG. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm DAR Adm. that the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or the LBP within a period of two (2) years from the date of transfer. Sec.1 Filipino citizen. In this case. and 4.6 of RA 6657. city and municipal government. there are different schemes under the reform:  Land transfer schemes: 2 aspects – voluntary and compulsory  Voluntary – the landowner will volunteer to convey the land to the government. Capanas . exempted from CARP because it is for a different purpose private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) You have RA 7881. 2014 (5 yr period) Next time. (b) (c) - - Even if the farmer beneficiary is given the CLOA. seeds and seedlings research. 3.23 - Under Sec. registry of deeds can already cancel the title of the owner and issue a new title in favor of the government. forest reforestation. which is used under letter (b) and which is also used under letter (c) BUT. 6657.A. directly and exclusively used for parks. T-72669 in the name of Leoncia De Leon and Susana De Leon Loppacher (De Leon sisters). Section 10. that the MARO issued a certification 7 that the land had no registered tenant. that respondent could not be regarded as a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired through inheritance. Bacoor. during the hearing at DARAB. No.A. 342 SCRA 189 Facts: Parcels of land in Jala-Jala. restore the land to its original condition and not to convert the same to non-agricultural use. i. those lands beyond the five-hectare retention limit allowed to landowners under the law. that the land is no longer classified as agricultural and could not thus be covered by the CARP. that on August 12. LEONIDA DE LEON Facts: On August 26. petition to question the constitutionality of some portion of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is moot and academic with the passage of RA 7881. except those already developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act. Finally. Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered by mere ocular inspection. that any act of disposition of the land to any other person be declared null and void because as a tenant. Article 10 of RA 6657 expressly states that “Lands actually. forest reserves. No. Private respondent corporation filed with the DAR office an application for exemption of the land from agrarian reform but the same was denied. 7881 to R. Atlas Fertilizer v. (but who will admit that??) Atlas Fertilizer Corp. respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Region IV-Province of Cavite.6 lists the other documents. 6[d]. it was found that the land use map submitted by private respondent was an appropriate document consistent with the existing land use. who were likewise impleaded as parties-defendants in the suit. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL. praying that petitioners Salvador R. aside from tax declaration. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic Act No. That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without opposition. there is no substantial evidence to support the appellate court's conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on the subject property. Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. does not mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold relation with respondent. which provide clean potable water to the Canlubang community. petitioners entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice planted on the land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy equipment. No. wildlife. He alleged that respondent is a septuagenarian who is no longer physically capable of tilling the land. DTIaCS Moreover. In view of the foregoing. 6657 by expressly exempting/excluding private lands actually. Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created a commission to conduct ocular inspection and survey the land. but impliedly it was referring to it. Rosa Realty Dev’t Corp. that petitioners ignored respondent's requests to show proof of their alleged ownership. The classification made by the Land Regulatory Board outweighed the classification stated in the tax declaration. Held: In the instant case. Held: RA 6657 (CARL) covers all private and agricultural land. as the latter was interested in entering into a joint venture with another residential developer. Rizal was covered and has a tax declaration classifying the said land as agricultural. REPUBLIC v. part is leased to Del Monte Phil. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above. According to the petitioner. 13 of the Constitution limits agrarian reform only to agricultural lands. praying for the exemption of the said parcels of land for the compulsory acquisition under CARP. she allegedly had a right of pre-emption or redemption over the land. CA Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. The CARL has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of CARL. SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax declaration is conclusive. 6657 SC: Section 2 of Republic Act No. The DAR administrative order no. there was proof showing that the disputed parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes. Chapter II of RA 6657. reforestation. 13. Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). No. 7881 Sanchez v. that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy 8 was executed by the De Leon sisters when they sold the property to him. 2004. Art.e. SC gave credence to commission’s report.Atty. The affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or details of the alleged harvest sharing. Republic vs. watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act. 6657. Agricultural lands are “land devoted for agricultural activity and not classified as minerals. forest.A. R. vs. residential commercial or industrial” No law or jurisprudence holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. provides: "Section 10. which were distributed to farmers- . that sometime in 2004. It cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest sharing. who were her sisters-in-law. registered under TCT No. 65 applies only to lands which were covered by the CARP. Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over the land. and thet 90% light industries Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds. the Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from CARL. that must be submitted when applying for exception from CARP. Cavite.AMaWS are now located in the area. There was no illegal conversion of the land because Sec. Held: The Court ruled that provisions of RA 7881 expressly states that fishpond and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. 2004. that respondent tried to negotiate with petitioner Lim for the sale of the land to her. Sta. 274 SCRA 30 Facts: Petitioners are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. QUESTION: who will determine/decide when and what lands are found to be necessary? SC: it is the school and the only exception is if it is manifest that CMU has no real need for the land. Marin Issue: Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government by virtue of the amendments introduced by R. Lim and/or NICORP Management and Development Corporation (NICORP) be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land located in Barangay Mambog III. Per certification issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Bacoor. Based on their report. Secretary of DAR. Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing. petitioners circulated rumors that they have purchased the property from the De Leon sisters. Rosa Realty Development Corporation was the registered owner of two parcels of land at Cabuyao. based on the report submitted by the commission. A. Thus. They question Sections 3[b]. SC: R. the parcels of land are watersheds. The CA reversed the DAR orders declaring those portions of the land of the petitioner which are mountainous and residential to be exempt from the CARP. Later. the question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of R. Exemptions and Exclusions. CA. The affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a portion of the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her sisters-in-law. DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied for exemption. it is to be exempted from coverage. It was not shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy relationship with respondent who was their sister-in-law. Issue: Whether or not the land is exempted." Hence. 11. Laguna. tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of classification of land. if it was found to be necessary for future expansion. Held: The disputed land is classified as PARK and subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcel of land in question forms a vital part of a watershed. Sec. – “xxx. challenged RA 6657 which coverage lands devoted to the aquaculture industry. the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate Sections 65 33 and 73 34 (c) of R. Central Mindanao is an agricultural school SC: did not use the phrase “found to be necessary”.. Thus. it merely stated that the affiants have known respondent to be the cultivator of the land since time immemorial. Packing Co.and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over. 17 and 32 of RA 6657 as unconstitutional because they extend the agrarian reform to aquaculture lands even as Sec. the land is classified as residential pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Cavite.A. 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 tenancy relationship. It was confirmed that the lands are not wholly agricultural as they consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope.A.. petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over. 4. DAR then appealed to SC contending and claiming that the subject properties have already been classified as agricultural based on the tax declaration and therefore is covered by CARL. Lim claimed that respondent and her family surreptitiously entered the subject land and planted a few crops to pass themselves off as cultivators thereof. Because even if that portion of land was not used.24 - - another part not used. Capanas . vs. particularly fishponds and prawn farms. No. which shows that respondent has sufficient resources and cannot be a beneficiary under the CARP. CA. No. 367 SCRA 175 Facts: Petitioner Sta. NICORP MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. The DAR then issued a Notice of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition pursuant to Section 7.  Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. that the incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist Order 5 but to no avail. Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land since time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of the owners. it failed to alleviate the conditions of the farmer beneficiaries. w/ intent to avoid CARP. SIR: I think Del Monte falls under this classification. the land reform of the Philippines is very different: 1. I’m not sure. They are subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution after 10 years from effectivity. 9. 7-2008 Policy Guidelines: 1. Sutton. The A. ang yuta ma.growership agreement of workers .R. swine and poultryraising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity. in the decision of Hacienda Luisita. 9 to limit the area of livestock farm that may be retained by a landowner pursuant to its mandate to place all public and private agricultural lands under the coverage of agrarian reform. orchards. fruit farms. For commercial farms. SUTTON : Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. Adm. That’s why some authors are saying. growing of fruit trees. The rulemaking power of an administrative agency may not be used to abridge the authority given to it by Congress or by the Constitution. Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS.O #9 (1993) which provide that only portions of land used for raising of livestock. and other farm activities and practices. swine/poultry raising do not fall under “agriculture” & “agricultural activity” DAR Adm. Non-land transfer schemes –stock distribution option(SDO).direct payment Please note: in any of these methods. 162070.O. administrative rules and regulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution. the SDO was perfectly managed. poultry & swine shall be excluded. 2005 DAR issued A. in case of any of the conditions under items 2. swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. October 19. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the administrative agency beyond the scope intended. Neither was it shown that the sale was made to circumvent the application of R. i. Compulsory acquisition (Sec. (Sec. because of the use of the word kasama. directly and exclusively used for livestock raising are subject to CARP coverage if one or more of the following conditions apply: 2. S of 1998 – allows commercial farms certain options. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A. Any act to change or convert . if the area chosen by the landowner is tenanted. No.e cultivation of the soil. dili lang i-distribute. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership.shall be invalid. No. using that doctrine. The word kasama would be taken in varying context. landholdings or any portions thereof not actually. production & profit sharing (PPS). LUZ FARMS  Sec.A. the PARO shall immediately proceed with the issuance of NOTICE of COVERAGE on the subject landholding or portions thereof 8. Another is the: Stock distribution option: referring to hacienda Luisita For how many years. poultry & swine raising” in definition of “commercial farms” is invalid. 2. Conversely. Even if the program is null and void.12) In the case of Hacienda Luisita. any act of the landowner to change or convert his agricultural land for livestock raising shall not affect the coverage of his landholdings under CARP. Exclusion shall be granted only upon proof of AED prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized for such purpose up to application. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. And there are alternative methods available to commercial farms other than distribution of lands.lease – back . ako ang mu. However the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude.16) 2. In this letter. why 5? 2.1 if there is agricultural activity in the area. There is a least rental  Needs approval of DAR Growership arrangements: magsabot sila daan na ug mag. including the harvesting of such products.  To be approved by DAR  According to DAR. the investor furnishing the capital and technology. It was not also clear the word kasama referred to the tenant. DAR A. Any diversification or change in the agricultural use of the landholdings. 6657 or aimed at dispossessing tenants of the land that they till The evidence that was mentioned by the SC was a letter.AMaWS Petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. Order #7 (2008) (Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising)  Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 & continuously devoted shall be excluded. directly or exclusively used for livestock purposes other than agricultural like cattle raising as of june 15. the SC used the Operative Fact Doctrine.palit sa inyohang products  To be approved by DAR Direct payment scheme: if they can agree na ang property will have to be transferred to the farmer beneficiary and the farmer beneficiaries will be paying the landowner for the land. there is no proof that the revocation by the PARC of the program of Hacienda . it is only distribution.O. Other asian countries only have 3 hectare retention limit. or shift from crop production to livestock raising shall be subject to the existing guidelines on land use conversion. DAR vs. subject to approval of DAR & workers: (aside from voluntary & compulsory coverage) CLOAs are issued . basin ug mawagtang and kanindot sa yuta na dili unta i-subdivide or idistribute. series of 1993. vegetable and cut-flower farms and cacao. leasehold operation(Sec. not necessarily in relation to agricultural leasehold agreement.  Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided that the agricultural activity in land is suitable for agriculture presently tilled by farmers Chapter III (IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR RELATION) WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED FARMERS? 1. 13/32.O. and the tenant chooses to remain on the land. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS Commercial farms – private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds. Order No. not an agricultural. SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock . 1988 and continuously and exclusively utilized or devoted for such purpose up until the time of inventory shall be excluded from CARP coverage.20) 3. it was a good method until when the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council headed by GMA revoked the SDO on the ground that among others. et al. Why do have an SDO as an option?  There is no evidence to prove that this is an accommodation in favor of Hacienda Luisita during the time of Aquino. joint venture: kinsa ang mag.raising. but the former landowner can participate in this method. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec. all lands exclusively devoted to livestock. it requires that CLOA be issued collectively or under co-ownership under the direct payment scheme *NOTE: Former landowner shall be given priority with respect to these methods.O. 6.Sec. planting of crops. Lands under VOS before CARP. That is a choice personal to the tenant SDO: different scheme.joint venture? Ang farmer beneficiary and former landowner  Beneficiaries will contribute the use of the land.2 are evident. In the instant case. DAR issued A. coffee and rubber plantations. while the SC revoked the Stock Distribution Program. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock. Citing Luz Farms case private agricultural land or portions thereof actually. exclusively &directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded. swine and poultry..2 the land is suitable for agriculture and it is presently occupied and tilled by farmer/s. PARC is the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council headed by the President of the Philippines. Adm. Contracts are reviewed by DAR Support Services to be submitted to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) and to be endorsed to PARC. it was found that there was no tenancy relationship. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural land used for cattle raising from CARP. CJ Corona dissented saying Sec 31 is void because with respect to agrarian reform. it was not shown that the subject land was covered by the CARP. Issue: The constitutionality of DAR A. Please note: these are not the only methods under CARP. there are no other ways.” The raising of livestock. inter alia. The fundamental rule in administrative law is that.harvest na gani. activity. Leasehold Operation: (We can understand because) Under sec. Private agricultural lands or portions therof actually. whether done by a natural or juridical person and regardless of the final use or destination of such agricultural products 2. Capanas . It is an industrial. to be valid.adto gihapon sa farmer beneficiaries. At the same time. DAR v. G. we find that the impugned A. Intact ang yuta. After CARP & Luz Farms case. DAR partially exempted portion but ordered acquisition the rest. Held: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . And which revocation was upheld by the SC. No. II which includes “private agricultural land devoted to commercial livestock.O #9.Atty.  Note: there has to be approval from DAR Lease-back: an owner of the land will now rent his own land from the farmer beneficiary  Lease may not exceed 10 years.1 and 2. For instance. 5. in the Phil.O. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative agencies and the scope of their regulations In the case at bar. the lands are being distributed to farmer beneficiaries consistent with the ruling of the Court. Right now. there is a suspension of 10 years sa pagimplement. CJ Corona was the only one who gave a dissenting opinion because remember.25 beneficiaries.joint venture in name of cooperative . we have the consult the farmers whether they would want to remain as stockholders or they would want the land distributed. Agricultural production can be better if they are not distributed or are intact as a whole. Only the grazing area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be considered for exclusion Why is there special treatment to commercial farms? Because of possible effect to company and distribution of lands to farmer beneficiaries. Enunciated in the case of Fortich vs. looking at the title itself that there is a leasehold relationship involving that parcel of land. the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank). the initial consideration shall be based on the average normal harvest of the preceding year/s when the land was actually cultivated. the petitioners claim that the Office of the President was prompted to issue the said resolution "after a very well-managed hunger strike led by fake farmer-beneficiary Linda Ligmon succeeded in pressuring and/or politically blackmailing the Office of the President to come up with this purely political decision to appease the 'farmers. In 1984. X576.4. leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration of term. alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding. Sr. 1.6. 6657. purchaser/transferee shall be subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect whether farmerbeneficiary OR leaseholds in retained area. one of the petitioners. Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision dated March 29. The parties are the landholder and the tenant. the Office of the President resolved the strikers' protest by issuing the so-called "Win/Win" Resolution penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. now Del Monte Philippines. alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the land." 5 On November 7. DAR is mandated to determine and fix the lease rentals. R. 18. Under RA 9700. No.. 1. 1999 1. 10. In October. and their authorized representatives "to desist from pursuing any activity or activities" concerning the subject land "until further orders. registered with the registry of deeds and the law itself provides this should be free from payment of all fees and services. No. there is a cut-off date under RA 9700. Sumilao. August 19. The following are essential elements of agricultural tenancy: 1. G. obligations and others terms of the contract -The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of average normal harvest during 3 agri years -AO 02-06 states.3.26 Luisita headed by GMA was also as a defense? (dili maklaro seri) against Aquino Take note: VOS. so that any prospective buyer may be cautioned by simply Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . If we talk about leasehold. purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor as provided for under Sec. All share-crop tenants were automatically converted into agricultural lessees as of june 15. GOVERNING POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES Pursuant to Section 12 of R. registration will determine if you have a standing to intervene in a case. . 14371 3 of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon. If the land has been cultivated for less than 3 years. Corona. vs. With respect to quasi-judicial powers. Bukidnon. during the existence of the lease. The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. Corona: Fortich. land.Farmer has a right to elect whether to become a farmer beneficiary or a leaseholder in the retention are of the landholder. Section 7 thereof provides: . the perfect scenario is: there has to be a document showing the agreement on leasehold between the landowner and the lessee-tenant. Management and Development Corporation (NQSRMDC). the landowner proposes to the government. 2.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within the retained areas and areas not yet acquired.R.DARAB exercises quasi-judicial powers. Sec. the land was leased as a pineapple plantation to the Philippine Packing Corporation.1. Capanas . under AO 02-06. that by 2014.38 million. xxx 4. through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in DARAB Case No. There is consent freely given either orally or in writing. (Right now you cannot avail of this) Without any notice from DAR. 3844. There is consideration given to the lessor either in a form of share of the harvest or payment of fixed amount in money or produce to or both. The lease expired in April. Sec. 1988 whether or not a leasehold agreement has been executed 4. Leasehold contract involves rights. by sale. the tenant can have it annotated. Inc. IV. title & documents required for implementation of CARP  Pursuant to DAR’s mandate to protect the rights & improve tenurial & economic status of farmers in tenanted lands. as amended. In February. Order No. as amended. purchaser-transferee shall be subrogated to rights obligations of tenancy. 02-06. without waiting whether the landowner will offer or not. DAR issued AO 02-06(REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES GOVERNING LEASEHOLD IMPLEMENTATION IN TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS): -Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6 requisites) -Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at term nor by sale. among others.A. If you have a document. CHAPTER IV – REGISTRATION  Sec. In case the agricultural lessor sells. Agricultural leasehold shall be based on a tenancy relationship. 131457. Why DARAB? . The consideration for the lease shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest (ANH) during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding the date the lease was established. everything should have been offered compulsorily. 1997. In case of alienation.5. The object of the relationship is an agricultural 1. 1991. express or implied.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents. for a period of ten (10) years under the Crop Producer and Grower's Agreement duly annotated in the certificate of title. 3844. the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee. it sought and was granted by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). et al.' by reviving and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996 which has been declared final and executory in an Order of 23 June 1997. what will remain is COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare property under compulsory acquisition and assessed the land value at P2. the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Sumilao. RA 6657 mandates Dar to determine the fix rentals within retained areas and areas not yet acquired for agrarian reform . There is personal cultivation. the conversion of share tenancy into leasehold is mandated by law. point of registration: protect the right of the lessee-tenant. 1996 can still be substantially modified by the "Win-Win" Resolution. 1992. Under Sec 12. et al. on agricultural leasehold.A. 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 acquisition from DAR. 2-06 RA 6389 automatically converted share tenancy throughout the country into agricultural leasehold relationship 1. DAR Adm. Bukidnon. The purpose of the relationship is agricultural production. (DMPI). Insofar as beneficiaries are concerned.specific provision on the consideration to be given to the lessor which can either be in a form of share of harvest or payment of money -DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract. owned by the Norberto Quisumbing.A. abolition of share tenancy now covers all agricultural landholdings without exceptions 2.2. 1994. The property is covered by a Transfer Certificate of Title No. But even without the document. the following policies and principles are hereby issued: 1. Purpose is to establish databank & identify actual famer-beneficiaries. Corona In seeking the nullification of the "Win-Win" Resolution. 1. and there is a determination by DAR on the lease rentals. Sec. Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term of period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale. We rule in the negative. and in order to fully implement the provisions of R. a multinational corporation. 3. Note: That is consistent with the thrust of the government.AMaWS This case involves a 144-hectare land located at San Vicente. a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction which ordered the DAR Region X Director. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/ DAR. And this is shown in Admin Order No. 4 NQSRMDC resisted the DAR's action. in case of alienation. Leaseholders security of tenure shall be respected and guaranteed. the landowner offers.Atty. the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of Bukidnon. SC talks about two notices 1. was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations. just compensation 2.who determines who is qualified? DAR specifically MARO . Even if the title is already in the name of the Republic of the Philippines but DAR cannot take possession because gibutangan ug guard ang agri land.question: who among them should be considered qualified to become beneficiaries over a portion of land? . Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands including facilities and improvements necessary for agricultural production. Fortich vs. criminal offenses then why is it that the law in par. CHAPTER V – LAND ACQUISITION     Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas and the root cause of peasant unrest. 1996 Decision which had already become final and executory. It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable. except as otherwise provided for by special laws. and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. the words added under section 16. 16. upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary. the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title. the finding of the MARO is to be accorded respect unless there is a showing of abuse of authority. Fight among tenants . Notice in par. Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained. the seller will execute the Deed of Sale and give the original SECTION 6. most of whom invoke the ground of lack of notice or non-observance of due process in attacking the proceedings. . The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.So they bring the matter to court of proper jurisdiction for the FINAL determination of just compensation. (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner.talks about “notice to acquire”: In the case of CONFED vs. The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation. by personal delivery or registered mail. Along the various phases of the CARP proceedings. and other pertinent provisions hereof. the law provides for the steps in acquiring private lands through administrative instead of judicial proceedings. thereby allowing the Decision of March 29. the matter is deemed submitted for decision. the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by requiring the landowner. the following procedures shall be followed: (a) After having identified the land. 6657. 2. 16. unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period. that this determination is only PRELIMINARY. This procedure is allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice and hearing are complied with.OFFER: offer of the government to the landowner as to how much the government will pay the landowner corresponding to the land to be acquired. as may be appropriate. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17. the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29. the landowners and the beneficiaries. if you have a sale of land.notifies the landowner about the public hearing about the results of field investigation. (e). Why? It is possible that there is resistance here on the part of the landowner. Reiterate: there are only 2 instances where RTC has jurisdiction insofar as CARP is concerned: 1. Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March 29. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall. (d) after summary admin proceedings or par. If landowner accepts  no problem If landowner rejects or fails to reply  summary admin proceedings Take NOTE: the purpose of this is compensation. the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.Discuss this in relation to par.  DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being bonafide beneficiaries  DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB." In real scenario: transfer of title may happen before immediate possession.the landowner will be informed that the field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted. par (d) would give you 30 days to respond. 1996 final and executory.Atty. the landowner. 1996.The title of Section 16 of Republic Act No. the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case. (c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR. is hereby further amended to read as follows: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . the LBP and other interested parties to summit evidence as to the just compensation for the land. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in "exceptionally meritorious cases. 16 doesn’t only talk about acquisition. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. But it was not clear in the law about how identification is determined  this was filled up by DAR through an Admin Order. as amended. SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries. Take note here: in normal dealings (voluntary dealings). the Department of Agrarian Reform has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. the landowner is entitled to retention. as no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto. How do we know the amount to be deposited? Should it be based on par. (e): It is the deposit that is the key to the immediate possession and issuance of a title (b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail. 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29. Having lost its jurisdiction.AMaWS . WHY? It is based already on the field investigation . more so modify its Decision. (Emphasis ours). which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply. so they have no standing yet to intervene in the case. it also involves distribution of lands. his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. (f)) can still resort to court IF he disagrees with the decision referred in par. he was talking about the parties who were not considered qualified." as provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18. In order to hasten the implementation of the program.although SC said in this case that it is the Sec. With respect to just compensation. 1996 to lapse into finality. Why were they not qualified? According to the MARO they: -refused to sign the form -already given disturbance compensation -Respondents: we returned the money to the landowners -But MARO found that they used the money in building their houses in the lot given to them -executed the document “sinumpaang salaysay” that they already abandoned the landholding in question -As a matter of principle. still the said motion should not have been entertained considering that the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed. within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. landowner still actually possesses the land while he is fighting for the acquisition in court. Capanas .the area subject of compulsory acquisition has to be stated. Notice of coverage: More or less Preliminary: WHY? . Why was this added? Because Sec.plus the amount of just compensation offered by DAR How is the notice to be done? Personal delivery. Section 7 of Administrative Order No. DAR. become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties. You have to inform DAR whether you accept or reject it.when he was talking about respondents. of DAR through the authorized offices . Rubio: Not a dispute between LO and tenant. After the expiration of the above period. the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof. save in exceptionally meritorious cases.For purposes of acquisition of private lands. “AND DISTRIBUTION” LAND ACQUISITION SEC. To the same end. Notice of acquisition: . Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. (d) talks about determination of just compensation? It was determined by the SC in CONFED. RTC has jurisdiction. 7. .27 Sec. ex. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so intervened in case. Thus. When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23. land evaluation and other pertinent matters . Just to show us the amendment by RA 9700. . 18. After that comes the notice of acquisition.What was the finding of MARO? . registered mail and posting Note in the case of CONFED: Notice shall contain the offer of DAR . . 18 and Section 4.because while it notifies that the property shall be placed under CARP. Concha vs. (d). the process stalls because of Land Owner (LO) resistance. Meaning that the landowner (as also shown in par. (a) that is contained in the notice to acquire?  CONFED CASE "SEC..Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands. the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land. the Land Bank argues that these matters are better threshed out in a trial court. which set the operating procedure in the identification of such lands. titles & documents required for implementation of CARP) Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land  Take note of Sec. the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter. Under the said law. After identification. 4. preclude judicial determination of just compensation Contrary to the petitioners' submission that the compulsory acquisition procedure adopted by the DAR is without legal basis. 2. HELD: DAR's compulsory acquisition procedure is based on Section 16 of RA 6657. It does not..16(d) & (e): (1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance (2) titles are cancelled w/o owner’s copy surrendered (in Torren's System. Invitations to the said conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries. the landowners and the beneficiaries.OPERATING PROCEDURE A.The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer. if the creditor or obligee refuses to accept the tender of payment. the DAR issued on July 26. and tax declaration number. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition. The procedure is as follows: "II. without having to go to court. Within thirty days from submission. (e) and (f) of Section 16 5 of Republic Act No. the landowner. it is the duty of the debtor or obligor to make consignation of the thing or amount due. the land they till. The landowner shall also be asked to indicate his retention area. SC did not say “automatically”.463 square meters to be used for military and aviation purposes.AMaWS determination. Considering that the Court is not a trier of facts. some of the grounds relied upon by the petitioners allege matters that require factual Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Sec. Further.Update the master list of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area of responsibility. 2. While their petition is denominated as one for prohibition and mandamus.Atty. must be strictly complied with. he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title.000 and upon payment thereof as deposit. Inc. CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA. including the administrative orders issued by the DAR in relation thereto. are anchored on the proposition that these provisions are unconstitutional. To fill in this gap. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms: a)CARP CA Form 1 — MARO Investigation Report b)CARP CA Form 2 — Summary Investigation Report of Findings and Evaluation c)CARP CA Form 3 — Applicant's Information Sheet d)CARP CA Form 4 — Beneficiaries Undertaking e)CARP CA Form 5 — Transmittal Report to the PARO The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the abovementioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct. the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. which in the case of RA 6657 is the acquisition of private lands for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries. Under the Civil Code. Registry of Deeds can cancel the title of the LO on the basis of the deposit. Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment. to immediately take possession of the property and to direct the Register of Deeds to cancel the certificate of title of the landowner without notice to and consent of the latter. the landholding. The petitioners contend that. which will be discussed shortly. and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. by personal delivery or registered mail. In other words. the Government of the Philippine Islands. if there is refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file petition in court (3) RD titles are cancelled while owner’s copy is subsisting Sec. the CFI authorized that the Government be placed in possession thereof.100. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer) Sec. their arguments. Series of 1989. The petitioners rely on the case of Visayas Refining Company v. It allegedly compels him to file a case. Paragraph (f) is characterized by the petitioners as meaningless and useless to the landowner. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views. . instructed the Attorney-General to initiate condemnation proceedings for the purpose of expropriating a tract of land containing an area of 1.Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land acquisition. allegedly requires factual determination. otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. which owned a portion of the property intended to be expropriated. the BARC representative(s). landholding area. Paragraph (e) is assailed by the petitioners as it authorizes the DAR. The procedure for compulsory acquisition is that prescribed under Section 16 of RA 6657. TCDcSE In Roxas & Co. it is actually based on Section 16 of RA 6657. CONFED vs. However. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF. (RA) 6657. the allegation that the DAR is subjecting the sugar lands to the coverage of RA 6657 without first ascertaining whether there are regular farmworkers therein and whether they are interested to own. through the Governor-General. But here it is different. The title is cancelled even without the surrender of the owner’s copy RD’s copy of the LO’s title is cancelled even if the owner’s copy is subsisting  Probable in case LO rejects offer or does not reply. 67 (Free Registration of patents. or. the law is silent on how the identification process must be made. The CFI provisionally fixed the total value of the subject property at P600.Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. TCT/OCT number. v. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation. 3. there are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural lands: compulsory and voluntary. you get a certified true copy from the RD. in contrast. the landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. NFSP. Under par. the AttorneyGeneral filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance (CFI) and among the defendants impleaded was Visayan Refining Co. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer. They allege the following grounds in support of their petition: It is the principal contention of the petitioners that. in this manner: In the compulsory acquisition of private lands. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. and in the process incur costs therefor. The Respondents' Counter-Arguments The Land Bank urges the Court to dismiss the petition since the constitutionality of RA 6657 had already been categorically upheld by the Court in Association of Small Landowners. 12. In Association of small land owners. So even if landowners protests valuation. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination of just compensation. distribution of land will proceed. IEHTaA 3. objection. in the meantime. (e).28 copy (owner’s duplicate copy) to the buyer. UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that their members own or administer private agricultural lands devoted to sugarcane. the LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice. by allegedly merely causing the deposit with the Land Bank of the compensation. expropriation proceedings. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly since time immemorial. agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. in the exercise by the State of the power of eminent domain. DAR Facts: Petitioners CONFED. he has already been deprived of possession of his property and his certificate of title cancelled. The master list shall include such information as required under the attached CARP Master List Form which shall include the name of the landowner. in any way. If the landowner accepts. in the same manner. Camus and Paredes 7 decided by the Court in 1919. as prescribed in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property. with the assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC). directly or collectively. shall: EDATSI 1. In compliance therewith. 1989 Administrative Order No. by mere deposit of the compensation that it has summarily fixed under paragraph (e). his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. In the said case. Under Section 16 of the CARL. he is still in possession of the title  Advise: do not simply rely on the owner’s copy. 15 The petitioners theorize that. so that the buyer can go to RD. For example. and be issued a new title in favor of the purchaser. DAR can request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Capanas . under the Civil Code. SC said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past conversation. RD can cancel and issue under CARL even if there is no payment of taxes and transfer fees (provided in Sec 66 and 67 below) (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. there is no effective payment without valid tender of payment and consignation in court. the DAR cannot be allowed to take possession of the property of a landowner. Court of Appeals. 1. the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the landowner. certification from land bank which will be annotated to the title and RD will issue a new title in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. 41 the Court painstakingly outlined the procedure for compulsory acquisition. the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs (d). The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. for the final determination of just compensation when. The landowner. Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land situated in Sampao. public respondent rendered the assailed resolution ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for release to the private respondent the DARAB determined just compensation of P10.Atty. 2002. 12. No.The PARO shall: 1. 1995". Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied on September 4. which is the subject of this petition. ISSUE: The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the landowner if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. it says MAY appoint. for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative.Prepare. 782002. the matter is deemed submitted for decision. while the SC has mentioned about date of taking.In all cases. JUST COMPENSATION 1.AMaWS . docketed as DAR Case No.00 as determined by the DARAB. petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order to deposit. whether under the compulsory acquisition or VOS scheme. TCASIH 3. Private respondent offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the price of P2. No. Private respondent filed a Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of P10. there is no more need to prove public use because this has been settled in the Constitution when it called for Agrarian Reform. and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR. 2002. public respondent rendered the assailed resolution dated February 17. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.12.Upon determination of the valuation.999 hectares the amount of P1. the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report. Tagum City. in case of rejection or non-response. Series of 1989. 2002. Series of 1989.294. No. .294. the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner.O No.06 and not P10. Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A. the DARAB rendered a decision fixing the compensation of the property at P10. city assessor.06 or P76.294. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just compensation for said 14. Public use 2. LV-XI-0330-DN-2002 to fix the just compensation. 2. 118712. HELD: Section 16 of R. No. 17) 2. The offer was rejected by private respondent.294. the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).999 hectares of which was covered by RA No. No. upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. in accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. This ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds 500. Payment of just compensation SC: In this case. LBP vs Trinidad Facts: We find the foregoing as a strained interpretation of a simple and clear enough provision on the procedure governing acquisition of lands under CARP.  Actual scenario: actual taking may precede issuance or vice versa 3. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 2002. respectively. In accordance with Section 16 of RA No. or upon deposit of payment in the designated bank. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation. Petitioner LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for reconsideration which still remains unacted upon by public respondent.Upon the landowner's receipt of payment.. review.who normally opposes commissioners? BIR.O. denying petitioner LBP's motion for reconsideration.000 per estate.9.Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs. through the PARO. Once the property is transferred. Private respondent. to the Central Office.57 per hectare. The Notice shall include. shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries. the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition. to which petitioner LBP filed its answer and moved for the dismissal of the petition for being filed out of time. the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition.sec. the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. 79-2002. but it has been interpreted at the time of the issuance of the title which may different. 1.387. 2003.00 or P686.00. it would make no sense to mention anything about the provisional Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Last issue is the application of Rule 67: . for contempt for failure to comply with the order to deposit. Pedro L. Indeed. the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land.00 per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP. 6657. Cabanal and Atty. evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the case folder. Law is silent Administrative Order No. Kapalong.O.O. Capanas .Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). among others. October 6. the DAR. forward the case folder. CONFED        vs.000.145. under rule 67. However. within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. Is the landowner entitled to claim interest? Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the deposit should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount of P1.Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value. What are the factors which the court must rely upon to be able to determine just compensation? (Sec.A. Et Al. When shall we reckon the payment of the determination of just compensation? Time of ACTUAL taking  But it is different in this case. the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular inspection and verification of the property. Branch 2. filed a similar petition against DAR before the same Special Agrarian Court docketed as DAR Case No. T-49200. Davao del Norte with an approximate area of 37.000. 6. the area subject of compulsory acquisition. amended in 1990 by DAR A.R. So there is only one limitation remaining: just compensation. Series of 1988. G.145. When the case is filed in the RTC: in the law itself. C. 14. Series of 1989 Valid implementation . Series of 1993 Expropriation in Consti Law: two limitations: 1. Isagani Cembrano. private respondent filed a motion to cite Romeo Fernando Y.721.29 4. two notices DAR A. Petitioner maintains it should be its initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by the courts. the landowners and the beneficiaries. DAR Compulsory Acquisition Notice of Acquisition First step: identification of the land. Regional Trial Court. 13. Thereafter. Serve the Notice to the landowner personally or through registered mail within three days from its approval. specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD). B.721. On December 13. through the Regional Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative proceedings under DARAB Case No. the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. in case of acceptance. in case of rejection or non-reply. petitioner LBP deposited for the account of private respondent P1.721. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the review and final valuation.319. 4.1010 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No." AEDCHc On December 12. Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court.DAR Central Office. together with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations. Court of Appeals. court SHALL appoint Commissioners for the determination of just compensation.145. provincial assessor (they are more or less knowledgeable on the aspect of just compensation) (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner.36 per hectare. shall: ECTHIA On June 26.806.00 in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in "Land Bank of the Philippines vs.806. on the other hand. The valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms. After the expiration of the above period.721. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. Yap. manager of petitioner LBP's Agrarian Operations Office in Region XI and its handling lawyer. 2002. EAIcCS 4.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional compensation for the acquisition of the property. compute the valuation of the land in accordance with A.Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO. After the filing of private respondent's comment to the motion for reconsideration and petitioner LBP's explanation and memorandum to the motion for reconsideration.Immediately upon receipt of a case folder. 2. On December 17. 3. 58 and rule 67 talks about appointment of commissioners.1. 6657 reads: (d)In case of rejection or failure to reply.806. Series of 1990. in her capacity as assignee of the owner of the property. Indeed. However. however. Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions of RA 6657. 6657).there is a difference there in actual practice LBP: says that it is our offer under par. the PARAD issued its Decision dated March 21.or is it the amount based on par." "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents. Series of 1992 6 and DAR Administrative Order No. and as espoused in Land Bank of the Philippines v. the conduct of a summary administrative proceeding for a preliminary determination by the DARAB through the PARAD or RARAD. Lubrica. and (c) considering that the taking of possession by the state is the next step after DAR.027. that is. WHY? Because the trust account is under the control of the trustee. (e) should be related to subpar (a). DCN-04050022-2002.1407 hectare property at P166. the DAR maintained that the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657.30. the Petition for Summary Determination of Just Compensation filed before the PARAD was premature. Thereafter. 1972. Lucia.Atty. 16 of RA 6657 does not authorize the release of the PARAD's determination of just compensation for the land which has not yet become final and executory. was subjected to the operation of Presidential Decree No." "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate that before taking possession of the property. filed a Petition for Summary Determination of Just Compensation with the PARAD. Clearly. Court of Appeals. (d) on the determination of the correct amount to be deposited. 1390. 3. and San Nicolas in Sablayan. it is the initial valuation made by the DAR and LBP that is contained in the letter-offer to the landowner under Sec. in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR. 16 of RA 6657 that it is the initial valuation made by the DAR and the LBP that must be released to the landowner in order for DAR to take possession of the property. with the farmer-beneficiaries declared as owners of the property. Land Bank v. the compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA 6657. the CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank.30 deposit in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) — the landowner is sent a notice of valuation to which he should reply within a specified time. the dispositive portion of which reads: ECSHID WHEREFORE. Private respondents questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order No.AMaWS What is the proper amount to be deposited under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 2. 16 (e) when it speaks of "the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. (a) which is P1M only. under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT). Land Bank v. It is clear from Sec. CA  Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR permitting the opening of trust account by LBP. on the other hand. (a) which is supposed to be contained in the notice of acquisition? .634. could not award an amount of PhP71. in lieu of depositing in cash or in LBP bonds. 7 and sought to compel the DAR to expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the just compensation of their properties. considering that the documents necessary for it to undertake a preliminary valuation of the property were still with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).Directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to immediately pay the aforestated amount to the Petitioner. landowner is entitled to 5% payment in cash. thus paving the way for the eventual redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries: payment of the compensation (if the landowner already accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP) or deposit of the provisional compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond to the offer of the DAR/LBP). Reiterated in the case of Pagayatan. 16 (e) of RA 6657. Republic Act No.0286-hectare Suntay Estate. The beneficiary-landowner cannot properly use or control the funds when the funds is supposed to be given due for land owner.00 per hectare or a total of P71. Otherwise stated. 5 Such application of the CARP to the 300-hectare land was later the subject of a case before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). the owner of the land remained unpaid for the property.Fixing the preliminary just compensation for 431. if you make VOS.  There was no basis for issuance of order.682. docketed as Case No. The PARAD.R. which ruled that the subject land should have been the subject of OLT instead of CARP. The Court agrees with the LBP. consisting of irrigated/unirrigated rice and corn lands covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. therefore. T-31(1326) located in the Barangays of Gen. additional than that provided by law. di pa jud nimo bayaran ang just compensation niya? The same with the case of Honeycomb. 6. appealing the PARAD Decision. (b).027. states the precondition for the State's taking of possession of the landowner's property and the cancellation of the landowner's title. said valuation of which must be deposited and released to the landowner prior to taking possession of the property. LBP vs Pagayatan Facts: On October 21. In the Petition. and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked. and to allow them to withdraw the same. SC:  Sec. Certificates of Landownership Award were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in possession of the land. 27. Federico Suntay." Moreover. private respondents filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. 2004 with the RTC docketed as Agrarian Case No. The landowner admitted before the PARAD that said case was pending with this Court and docketed as G. Series of 1990 was issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank. Bonds  to give the government time to appropriate in the future when the bonds will mature VOS (Voluntary offer to sell): under the law.30. the 3. 2846. Capanas . 108920 was pending with this Court in relation to the 300-hectare land subject of the instant case. The LBP argued further that the PARAD could only make an award of up to PhP5 million only.150. gikuha ra sa gobyerno. The LBP then filed a Petition dated March 4. 10 Petitioner DAR. a 300-hectare portion of the land was subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) instead of the OLT.  not sanctioned by law SIR: ila baya ng yuta. in accordance with the Decision of the DARAB Central in DARAB Case No. not the valuation of the PARAD. In effect the SC is saying: it is the offer of the LBP that will determine that that is the correct amount to be deposited not the amount after the determination of just compensation in a summary administrative proceeding reasoning: if the DAR will wait for the summary admin proceedings this will hamper land redistribution process Note that: par (a) precedes over par. maintained that Administrative Order No. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in “cash” or in “LBP bonds”. the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds. Sub-paragraph (d) provides for the consequence of the landowner's rejection of the initial valuation of his land. The LBP also contended that it could not satisfy the demand for payment of Lubrica. and LBP supplied with the notice requirements. (d) after the conduct of summary proceedings? . Thus. the LBP argued that because G. Conspicuously. No. Meanwhile. it is only after the DAR has made its final determination of the initial valuation of the land that the landowner may resort to the judicial determination of the just compensation for the land. 16 (a). -is it the amount stated in par. ISSUE: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 9. Thus. during which the LBP. 6657? Is it the PARAD/DARAB determined valuation or the preliminary valuation as determined by the DAR/LBP? HELD: The LBP posits that under Sec. Emilio Aguinaldo. Occidental Mindoro. Sta. Respondent: it is the amount after the summary admin proceeding to be undertaken by PARAD. RARAD and DARAB which is P10M. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. No. Court of Appeals. SC: subpar. 11 Moreover. Compensation in cash or in LBP bonds (Section 16) Payment of cash and bonds otherwise the government will go bankrupt if all in cash. 18 it is the purchase price offered by the DAR in its notice of acquisition of the land that must be deposited in an accessible bank in the name of the landowner before taking possession of the land.R. 9. there is no mention of the PARAD in the foregoing Sec. CA Facts Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL. landowner and other interested parties are required to submit evidence to aid the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD in the valuation of the subject land.  Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form like a trust account.Directing the DAR to immediately comply with all applicable requirements so that the subject property may be formally distributed and turned over to the farmer beneficiaries thereof. 108920. 2003. entitled Federico Suntay v.634. Sec. therefore. HELD: . Question was on the correct amount of provisional compensation which LBP was required to deposit. and in subparagraph (c) — when the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. Josefina S. ISSUE: Whether the opening of trust accounts for payment of just compensation is valid. Sub-paragraph (e). judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9 Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked. the NOC will be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. as amended by DAR AO No. Commencement by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) — After determination by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of the agricultural landholdings coverable under CARP in his area of jurisdiction. A "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped on the mailing envelope will serve as proof that the NOC was not received by the LO. 5. 4. 4. Complete name/s of the LO/all LOs and last known address. 5). By Whom the NOC is served 3. 1. 4. qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed.2. the MARO where the subject landholding is located or any DLR personnel officially authorized by the PARO shall cause the service of the NOC to the LO in accordance with these rules. Service by Registered Mail — if personal or substituted service is not practicable.3. Upon receipt of a copy of the NOC and upon instruction by the PARO (CARP-LA Form No. if warranted. 9. shall validate the petition and shall issue the NOC. . The number of the Original or Transfer Certificate of Title (OCT or TCT) or latest Tax Declaration (TD) covering the subject landholding. . 5.5. service may be made by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order.7. 3. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit. If it were the intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit. that should have been made express.Atty.4. . service by registered mail will be made to the last known address of the LO. We said: CSDcTH It is very explicit .3.AMaWS 3. CA. Commencement by a party — Any person may commence the proceedings herein by filing a petition for coverage before the Department of Land Reform (DLR) Central Office (DLRCO). 5. petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. or when the LO ordinarily resides within the Philippines but is temporarily out of the country. we have not failed to notice that the LBP in this case made use of trust accounts to pay Honeycomb Farms. insane or otherwise incompetent.31 The contention is untenable. service may be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order. In the event that the result of the validation/evaluation by the DLRMO/DLRPO is such that an NOC is not warranted.) It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds. 5. The DLRPO.1. 9." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form.Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). if available. . service may be effected upon all the LOs by serving upon any one of them. Service upon minors or incompetents — When the LO is a minor. municipality/city. The publication need not state the entire contents of the NOC but only the following essential particulars: 5. upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act.4. Region V. or if the LO refuses to receive and sign the NOC for whatever reason. Service upon co-owners — In case of co-ownership." xxx xxx xxx In the present suit. 5.1. providing for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in bonds contemplated in Section 16 (e) of RA 6657.4. managing partner.4. general manager. 7) to the concerned LO. Masbate. or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. The registered mail envelope shall be marked "DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY" and "RETURN TO SENDER" if addressee has: MOVED OUT. Proof of Service 6. In Land Bank of the Phil. series of 1991. Legaspi City.3. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows: "SECTION 16. [from Section 16(e)] that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds. province). there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit. If the LO's residence is outside the Philippines or unknown. the NOC shall be served upon each and every co-owner. the MARO of the place where the subject landholding is located shall submit a report of such fact or failure to notify the LO through the regular mode of service to the PARO. through the MARO. upon due notice. HELD: As a final point. Such service shall not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has. series of 1989.4. by tendering the same to him/her. office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. REFUSED TO ACCEPT OR INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. in case of rejection or no response from the landowner.4. Service upon domestic private juridical entity — When the LO is a corporation.2. nominate child/ren as preferred beneficiaries or submit evidence for determining just compensation. with a warning that failure to do so within the period shall mean waiver of the right/privilege to: apply for exemption/exclusion or choose the retention area.5. the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to enact rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. the DLRPO shall forward its findings or that of the DLRMO to the DLRRO for evaluation and issuance of an Order. Address or location of the subject landholding (barangay. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein. through the MARO. General rule — The NOC shall be addressed to and received by the LO. 29. When Honeycomb Farms rejected this valuation for being too low. DLR Regional Office (DLRRO). .2. or if none. 4. service may be made on the president. Personal Service — This is made by handing a copy of the NOC to the LO in person. or at least. v." In the same vein. A declaration that the Republic of the Philippines shall cover the subject landholding under CARP. DLR Provincial Office (DLRPO) or DLR Municipal Office (DLRMO) of the region/province or municipality where the subject landholding is located. Substituted Service — If personal service of the NOC cannot be served directly to the LO within a reasonable time. Written admission of the LO served.2. treating the petition as an Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) case. as the agency vested with the responsibility of determining the land valuation and compensation for parcels of land acquired pursuant to the CARL. In sum. partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality. 2. Posting of the NOC The MARO shall post copies of the NOC for at least seven (7) days in the bulletin boards or any conspicuous places in the municipality/city and the barangay where the property is located and thereafter issue the corresponding Certification of Posting Compliance (CARP-LA Form No. There is no basis in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as compensation for his property because.1 Personal or substituted service — The proof of service of the NOC shall consist of: 6. for a summary determination of the market value of the properties. as heretofore discussed.1. Service by publication — If any of the preceding three (3) modes of service fails. UNKNOWN ADDRESS. Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking down Administrative Circular No. In the case of a minor. . 4. unless one is specifically authorized to receive for the other co-owners. the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Series of 1990. Commencement 1. 17. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds. 5. Modes of Service: 5. or the like. the NOC (CARP-LA Form No. 29 this Court struck down as void DAR Administrative Circular No. 3. the Voluntary Offer to Sell was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board. in-house counsel or administrator. Service upon entity without juridical personality — When the LOs who are persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known. or 5. service shall be made upon him personally and to his legal guardian if he has one. service may also be made on his father and/or mother. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . treasurer.4. been severed before the proceeding was brought. upon his guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the DLR. that should have been made express. 4.1. fixed the value of these parcels of land. A reasonable period of thirty (30) days from publication date within which the LO must file a response to the NOC.2. or upon the person in charge of the Office or place of business maintained in such name. or. (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or. The DLR office which received the petition for coverage shall transmit or forward the same to the PARO of the province where the subject landholding is located.1. qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. 5.2. In sum. 8)." LBP vs Honeycomb Facts: Honeycomb Farms Corporation (Honeycomb Farms) was the registered owner of two parcels of agricultural land in Cataingan. Compulsory acquisition and notice requirements (Section 16) DLR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.1.2. Capanas . service may be made by leaving copies of the NOC at the LO's: 5. 9 for being null and void. Service of the NOC 4. Extraterritorial service — When the LO does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term "deposit. 6." (Emphasis supplied. AHEDaI 4." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. — . . 04-05 PROCEDURES 1.4. .2.1. or at least. corporate secretary. 29-A and 54 because these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law.1. he shall submit the list of these agricultural landholdings to the PARO who shall prepare and send. and shall request the latter to cause the publication of the NOC in a newspaper of general circulation. Service upon LO whose identity or whereabouts is unknown — In any proceeding where the LO is designated as an unknown owner. 5. 6 and using the guidelines set forth in DAR Administrative Order (AO) No.6. judicial determination is expressly prescribed in Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition.“ in Association of Small Landowners declared that the requirement of public use had already been settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for agrarian reform”. court can review.  Assoc. in case of rejection or non-response. In Naval v. the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land. among others. It should be noted that the deed of sale executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was registered on March 2. stating the following: the date. this Court held: Applying the law. the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . in my opinion. and 2) an affidavit of publication by the publisher or authorized official together with a copy of the newspaper where the NOC appeared. Fortich. Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that: “Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment. is an obiter dictum because there was already a judgment that became final and executor and this was challenged before the SC. CA. 10). 989) Situation: Violation proceedings on the procedure of compulsory acquisition Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued. no reason for DAR to feign ignorance of the transfer of ownership over the subject property. is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the name .  Sec. However. the DAR. RA 9700 The title was amended: "SEC. the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. place and manner of service. Capanas .  Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value.2 Proof of service by registered mail — If service is made by registered mail. On “just compensation”.3 Proof of service by publication — If the service has been made by publication. 16. corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. through the PARO. It bears stressing that the determination of just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only. or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner.Atty. Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms. 8. shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender or in lieu thereof the unclaimed letter marked "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped by then post office concerned or together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment. the law is silent on how the identification process must be made. the area subject of compulsory acquisition. are embodied therein as well as in the Constitution. if any. Fule that the registration of an instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently deal with the same property. -the violation does not give the court the power to nullify CLOA already issued Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of law. the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation. intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation. However. that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste. the chief limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Moreover. and not to the Nanamans. and (2) payment of just compensation. Voluntary appearance — The LO's voluntary appearance in the proceedings shall be equivalent to service of NOC. said order illegally amended the judgment rendered which directs payment of compensation to be made "in the manner provided in RA 6657”. from all levels of our society. proof may be made by the affidavit of the DLR personnel effecting the mail and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. as non-compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements of administrative due process of law. to be made in cash and bonds. With respect to "public use. in case of acceptance. Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap (AO #12. service may be proved by the following: 1) the unclaimed or returned/unopened envelope referred to in paragraph 5. including Rule 67 thereof. hence."  Confed v.   7. It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration is "to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered into. Notice of Acquisition:  The Notice shall include.1. RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long in excess of max retention limits. which have been served with the process and name of the person who received the same. the MARO sends to the LO an invitation letter for the conduct of field investigation (CARP-LA Form No. being the landowner of the subject property. 6. namely: (1) public use. upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act. the landowners and the beneficiaries. the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition. their right to due process of law was violated. or upon deposit of payment in the designated bank. 1954.  Notice of Field Investigation Upon proof of service of the issuance of NOC. subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. Once the property is transferred. SC: Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation “in the manner provided by RA 6657” is not illegally amended but is merely clarified by an order issued during execution proc that such amount shall be paid in cash and bonds. the papers.AMaWS Heirs of Deleste vs LBP HELD: On the violation of petitioners' right to due process of law We agree with petitioners. provides for the appointment of commissioners by the Special Agrarian Courts.2. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries” Sec.” Section 6. They have already reached a win-win resolution and because of that.  Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation. are enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court. does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands. however. DAR  Under Section 16 of the CARL.   Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation. from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner. in resolving petitions for the determination of just compensation. DAR should be given chance to validate (correct) proceedings. LBP : Facts: RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Official Return of the MARO or affidavit of the DLR personnel serving. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated. and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.  Section 58 of RA 6657. we held in Bautista v.32 6. the land valuation and other pertinent matters. there was just one or two sentences that talked about cancelling the illegal CLOA. in case of rejection or non-reply. According to petitioner. SIR’s opinion: ROXAS should be controlling because the issue and the ruling are in point. is not completely disregarded in the implementation of RA 6657 since the Special Agrarian Courts.4 hereof. s.     6. “motu proprio or instance of party”  Rule 67: “shall” Santos v. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation). of Small Landowners: Upheld validity of Sec. But this conclusion was pursuant to that final judgment." 64 There was.  Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be present. like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. RA 6657 The title of the section states: “Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste. It is a matter of terminology because payment in cash and in bond are the SAME in the manner provided by law. therefore. and such registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole world that the subject property was already owned by Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale. which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners.  Identification process in Sec. calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams and deliverance Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657. Section 16 (f) clearly provides: “(f)Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation” Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court?  Rules of Court. Notice of Coverage:  Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention right. 58: “may”. 16. namely: (a) P109. assessed value at the time of the taking. Secretary JUST COMPENSATION. But the husband had a son name Virgilio by another woman but was raised by the couple. 17. 17 because of the amendment: 1. the value of the standing crop. The amount of P6." Assoc. Dumlao Facts:  Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27. 27. indeed. current value of like properties . Gregorio died." Petitioners' right to due process of law was. irrigated). Additional factors under Sec. declaration was cancelled and tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste. Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership. 6657. -Spouses Gregorio and Hilaria. DEFINED. and classification of land 6. 16. sale was registered and tax declaration was already in the name of Deleste. Petitioner’s argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending determination by DAR is specious. Farming experience 2. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. CA.” Sec. subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner.Under Tax Law: basis either selling price or zonal evaluation whichever is higher 2. . 6657. 5. To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is to violate the elementary rule that payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable period from the taking of property. Formula upheld by SC as valid . Capanas .912.  It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be given to the owner cannot be assumed and must be determined with certainty. which is based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s". relevant and applicable. and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).  (b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment and increase agricultural production. childless.e.00 would have been a valid exercise of this judicial function. Value of the standing crop 2.Atty. of Small Landowners).1) Where: LV = Land Value CNI = Capitalized Net Income CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . of small landowners vs Hon. Under PD 27: only ONE factor in determining just compensation: average crop harvest Under the Present law: FACTORS (Section 17) 1.6) + (CS x 0. the current value of like properties. 1 CHAPTER VI –COMPENSATION Just Compensation:  “full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by expropriation” (Assoc. it should be computed in accordance with said law. Note: 1. SC: it was incumbent upon DAR to notify Deleste. constructive possession. Additional 70% of the zonal valuation of the BIR Other additional factors under the Nable Case: 1. ample. Lee. compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss PRINCIPLE: If an agri land is acquired under PD 27 but just compensation has not been paid until RA 6657 took effect. translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be considered. do you need to go to RARAD or DARAB before you can file a case with RTC? NO Sec. SAC refers to RTC Determination of DAR is only preliminary Sec 16 (f): the final determination of just compensation is vested on the Special Agrarian Courts Sps. cost of acquisition .AMaWS The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. is grossly erroneous.value described in comparable sales 3. sworn valuation by owner. their issuance dates are not shown.  the determination made by the trial court. There was also another case where SC sanctioned the cancellation of the title for violating Sec. RA 9700: "SEC. for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or. violated when the DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program. Take into account the nature of land (i. 27 and EO No. However. Sale was notarized. market value. 11. although property was acquired under PD No. Citing Cosculluela v. market value. Esperanza and Caridad by still another woman. as amended by AO No. cancellation of TCTs and OCTs are clearly warranted. the assessment made by government assessors. like:  (a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas. Without prompt payment.e. registered.50 per hectare.  (d) average harvests per hectare. DAR failed to notify them. 2. subject to the final decision of the proper court. -DAR notified the heirs of Gregorio meaning that Deleste was not notified.000. Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. Determination of Just Compensation. Thumb method EFFECT if just compensation is not based on the factors: NOT VALID Even if the findings are based on the factors but not based on any evidence in relation to the factors: evaluation is without basis You have decision from PARAD. However. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation. actual use & income & nature. so they filed complaint with RTC for determination. assessment made by Government assessors. They received a notice of Land . 4. . Series of 1992. had it followed the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No. along highway) and the volume and value of its produce.00 per hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde. its nature.00 per square meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays in Villaverde. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration. 6657.assessed value. 228. Land Bank of the Philippines. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real.. RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.3) + (MV x 0. substantial. NOT under PD 27. he was the landowner. As such. Hilaria and Virgilio sold the land to Jose Deleste. 6. — In determining just compensation. the sworn valuation by the owner. SC:  if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. does not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from respondents. 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 the land within a reasonable time from its taking. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been determined at the time of passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect. actual use and income.case of Dumlao: factors were reduced into a formula by DAR. — Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. 57: Special Jurisdiction.. at least.       The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding. unless modified by this Act. LBP v.000. 7. which relied solely on the formula prescribed by PD No. location (i. full. and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. the cost of acquisition of the land. Failure to notify owners violating section 16. just compensation will be computed on the basis of the present law.petitioner’s right to due process was indeed violated. the trial court should determine the date of issuance of these emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date of taking and proceed to compute the just compensation due to respondents. vs. Facts: Petitioner were notified that their land holdings is covered by Gov't Action Scheme pursuant to CARP. they are nonetheless "good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.  CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109.There can be no valid transfer of title should the CLT’s are void. tax declaration. Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR.33 of Deleste. and (b) P60. the tax declarations. Series of 1994: Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim: LV = (CNI x 0. This is likewise erroneous because it does not adhere to the formula provided by RA No. REASON: It is inequitable that just compensation should be determined under PD 27 because just compensation is defined as the full and ample value of the land to be given to the LO. .  (c) available comparable sales in the area.  Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through AO No. Gregorio also had two daughters. the appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the commissioner as basis for determining just compensation. an assumed net income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator.9) + (MV x 0. 27/E. 307 for 3. series of 1994. Petitioners sought reconsideration but was denied. AO No. Chico. “It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD No. No.D.03 after computing the 6% annual interest increment 5 due on the property per DAR Administrative Order No. and the tenant-beneficiaries. without prejudice to the outcome of the case it had filed hereunder to fix just compensation.D.9) + (MV x 0.00 per hec. Issue: Whether the SAC erred in the valuation the land HELD: In the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. In the absence thereof.1) Where: LV = Land Value CNI = Capitalized Net Income CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present. 6657 by providing a basic formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. the instant petition.000.D.A.3) + (MV x 0. Lee v. In arriving at the just compensation. It disregarded respondents' claim that the valuation should be based on the current market value of the landholding since no evidence was adduced in support of the claim and also did not accept petitioner's valuation as it was based on P. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA: LV = (CNI x 0. 1997 before the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City.34 valuation from DAR which offers P315.  In this case.) No. This formula has to be considered by the SAC in tandem with all the factors referred to in Section 17 of the law. which amount respondent withdrew in 1997. 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. (Note that in this case.Atty. No. LBP v.750. in their absence. 27/E. 6657 was passed before the full payment of just . Hence.O. 228 and P. substantial. Petition for review by LBP to CA and found that the SAC made a wholesale adoption of the valuation of the appraisal company and did not consider the other factors set forth in R. P. (b) Sec.12 = Capitalization rate” The Court finds that the factors required by the law and enforced by the DAR Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted wholeheartedly the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report. The administrative order provides: A. DAR Adjudication Board affirmed the compensation and valuation and declared that LBP fully complied with the criteria set forth by CARP.00 per hectare. petitioned for valuation and determination of just compensation before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator which fixed it to P80. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock.  Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash? No. there was admission that valuation was not based on factors under CARL: a representative of the company admitted that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable). against the Land Bank (petitioner). Petitioner pegged the value of the acquired landholding at P106. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz.657. No. CO = Cost of Operations Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or verified. the formula shall be: LV = MV x 2 In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of claimfolder.978.and not PD 27 or EO 228. 5 precisely filled in the details of Section 17. RTC acting as Special Agrarian Court (SAC).A. the formula shall be: LV = (CS x 0. sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC).12 AGP= Average Gross Production corresponding to the latest available 12 months gross production immediately preceding the date of FI (field investigation) SP= Selling Price (the average of the latest available 12 months selling prices prior to the date of receipt of the CF (claim folder) by LBP for processing. 27/E. petitioner and the DAR claimed that the property was acquired by the government under its OLT program and their valuation thereof constituted just compensation. No. and applicable. SP may be secured within the province or region. DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry studies to establish the applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP. No. respondent filed a complaint 6 on July 18. such prices to be secured from the Department of Agriculture (DA) and other appropriate regulatory bodies or. 228 should be applied in fixing just compensation since respondents' landholding was acquired under P. SP data shall be gathered for the barangay or municipality where the property is located. No. relevant. Natividad. Heirs of Cruz If valuation is not based on any evidence. 27. for "Determination and Fixing of Just Compensation for the Acquisition of Land and Payment of Rentals". R. 228 vis a vis R.000.CO .00 as just compensation and ordered LBP to pay. No. Br.A. If possible. the formula shall be: LV = (CNI x 0. 27 the Court declared in no uncertain terms that R. Hence. 6657. 6657 was applied to cases involving lands placed under the coverage of P. and CS and MV are applicable.637. having been made pursuant to the guidelines set by E. That just compensation should be determined in accordancewithRA6657.6) + (CS x 0. from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. No. which valued the compensation therefor in the total amount of P250.O. 6657 in determining just compensation. No. 27. CA rendered the assailed decision partly granting petitioner's appeal but affirmed the SAC decision fixing just compensation at P80.00 per hectare fixed by the PARAD should be accorded weight and probative value and that the SAC is guided by the various factors enumerated in Section 17of R.  Case remanded. No. Jocson and sons Facts: The property was placed under the coverage of the government's Operation Land Transfer 2 (OLT) pursuant to Presidential Decree (P. 13. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has orig and exclusive jurisdiction.D.O. citing appraisal report decided P7.AMaWS LBP vs.A. Petitioner filed a petition for determination of Just Compensation before RTC. 228. This was a clear departure from the Court's earlier stance in Gabatin v. 27 3 and awarded to the tenant-beneficiaries by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). 27 and Executive Order (E. Sps. it is not valid . Capanas . No. 6657 is the relevant law for determining just compensation after noting several decided cases where the Court found it more equitable to determine just compensation based on the value of the property at the time of payment. No. 228. 27 and E. decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence.563. In their respective Answers. A.” The Court remanded the determination of just compensation to RTC acting as SAC.O.D. on 21 October 1972. No.D.195 hec. When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable.  Content and Manner (Section 18)  Sec.O.O.  Parties involved (Section 18)  A1.D. No. 27 in cognizance to a settled rule that just compensation is the value of the property at the time of the taking. Landholdings planted to coconut which are productive at the time of FI shall continue to use the assumed NIR of 70 %. 6657 even though the appraisal company admitted that it did not consider as applicable the CARP valuation of the property. full and ample. No.000. 6657. Respondents Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer .1) A2. Finding the DAR's offer of compensation for the property to be grossly inadequate. 27. The Court repremands the case to the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court for the determination of just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of Republic Act No. When in the interim R.D. the SAC adopted a higher valuation (P93.D. 228 where payment of just compensation had not been completed. it is w/o basis.D.) No. 7 the DAR. When the CNI factor is not present. Held: The Court citing Land Bank of the Philippines v.00/hectare) which the DAR had applied to a similar landholding belonging to one Pablo Estacion adjacent to respondent's. vs. Land Bank of the Phils. so case was remanded. --Where: CNI= (AGPxSP) . so determination be remanded. 228. this petition. No. in which just compensation was determined at the time of the taking of the property. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable.935. 4 The valuation was later increased to P903.80 following the formula prescribed in P. 27 and E. Reconsideration was denied. LBP  If valuation is based not on the factors. No. Facts: Landholding of the respondents was placed under the coverage of the land transfer program of P. because “revolutionary kind”. 0. No.A.76 based on the guidelines set forth under P.O.A.1) A3. Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for determination of JC may be filed?  No: (a) because DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the pendency of protest. No. the equivalent being real. tax credits or LBP bonds. Land Bank of the Philippines where it declared that the reckoning period for the determination of just compensation is the time when the land was taken applying P. 46.D. arguing that the formula set forth in P. No. Motion for Reconsideration was denied so the Petitioner petition for the determination of just compensation before the RTC acting as SAC held that the value of P80. No. Held: The Court took note: “These factors have already been incorporated in a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R. at most. provided the proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise. and the CLOA holders." 15 It appears however that Livioco did not act upon the notice given to him by both government agencies. 11 as amended by Administrative Order No.189. Pampanga. There were several evidences presented by owner. You need conversion clearance for purposes of real property tax in LGU Or assurance from DAR that your land is not covered under DAR because the use is not anymore for agricultural activity Under sec.O. it should never control the determination of just compensation (which appears to be what the lower courts have erroneously done). series of 1998. up to the amount of their face value for any of the following: (i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government.00. 7 Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for acquisition under the CARP at P30. No allegation or proof that there was a conversion clearance from agri to residential. it cannot be said that the character or use of said property changed from agricultural to residential. certification from the municipal planning office. will be forced to give up their landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to sell the property to other parties. HLURB. Respondent's property remains agricultural and should be valued as such. It maintains that it is not the State's policy to purchase residential land. the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. it is the farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the valuations paid to the former land owners (LBP merely advances the payment). the provisions of R.35 compensation. The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes at the option of the landowner: (1) Cash payment. Mabalacat.Twenty-five percent (25%) cash. 18. 3.48 as compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares.Atty. Since the property was acquired under the CARP. unable to keep up with payment amortizations. which shall have the following features: (a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. (iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused persons.00 per square meter. courts have no option but to apply it. the CA and the trial court had no legal basis for considering the subject property's value as residential. which is to free the tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil without delivering them to the new oppression of exorbitant land valuations. It would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform. LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of Livioco's property as a residential land. the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time. The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. (c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below . is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an outrageously low valuation of his property.The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and LBP or as may be finally determined by the court as just compensation for the land. LO tried to prove that lot was residential not agricultural for higher just compensation. Note that in lands acquired under RA 6657. LBP issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827. The voluntaryoffer-to-sell (VOS) form 8 he submitted to the DAR indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an international paper mill. zoning. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. preferably in a small and medium-scale industry. It was only two years later 17 that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it was first offered for sale.943. his successors-in-interest or his assigns. further.AMaWS the valuation for agricultural lands). for reasons explained above. series of 1989. 68 There are three important concepts in this definition — the character of the property. 78 If the farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as residential lands (the valuation for which is substantially higher than Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 18 The request was denied by Regional Director Antonio Nuesa on the ground that there was already a perfected sale. substantial. because unless an administrative order is declared invalid. That should the landowner choose to forego the cash portion. refer to the potential use of the property. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. That means that the land has to be valued as agricultural land. It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. (iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution. (ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or controlled corporations or shares or stock owned by the government in private corporations. no more. (2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations. he shall be paid correspondingly in LBP bonds. The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property has changed from agricultural to residential. the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation. not its potential uses. 17. Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property (which the lower courts found to be preponderant) could. insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned . . Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz. No. This may just bring the State right back to the starting line where the landless remain landless and the rich acquire more landholdings from desperate farmers. LBP vs Livioco Facts: Respondent Enrique Livioco (Livioco) was the owner of 30. In this Petition before us. 5. 17. If at all. While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A. 1991. industrial or commercial. as in the case at bar. Thus. it had to be valued as an agricultural land. 24 Land Bank of the Philippines v. (b) For lands above twenty-four hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares Thirty percent (30%) cash. Livioco finally filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation against DAR. Lim. etc." 77 The proper approach should have been to value respondent's property as an agricultural land. (v) Payment for various taxes and fees to the government: Provided. Valuation and Payment (Section 18) FORMS OF PAYMENT SEC. (4) LBP bonds. Valuing the property as a residential land (as the lower courts have done) is not the correct approach. (3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability. Ten percent (10%) of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance until the tenth (10th) year: Provided. the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time. for a total of P9. Even reclassification 74 and plans for expropriation 75 by local government units (LGUs) will not ipso facto convert an agricultural property to residential. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657. the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time.Thirty-five percent (35%) cash. 25 and Land Bank of the Philippines v. full and ample. No. 12 the LBP set the price at P3. (b) Transferability and negotiability. That the PARC shall determine the percentages mentioned above. including assets under the Assets Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by government financial institution in the same province or region where the lands for which the bonds were paid are situated. 6657 on just compensation control. in the same province or region as the land for which the bonds are paid. its price.6329 hectares of sugarland 6 located in Dapdap.870.A. . the equivalent being real. Barrido. That the use of these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the outstanding balance of the financial instrument: Provided. series of 1991. SC: No clearance from DAR. no factor of conversion but actual use of the land LBP vs Honeycomb HELD: We reiterated the mandatory application of the formula in the applicable DAR administrative regulations in Land Bank of the Philippines v.21 per square meter or a total of P827. LBP. Sometime between 1987 and 1988. the potential use of the property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor. Issue Was the compensation accordance with law? for respondent's property determined in HELD: For purposes of just compensation. physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set by the PARC. Hence. It is the DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions 73 so as to prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. Livioco was then promptly informed of the valuation 14 and that the cash portion of the claim proceeds have been "kept in trust pending [his] submission of the [ownership documentary] requirements. without violating the agrarian law. because there is no allegation or proof that the property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR. and not PD 27 or EO 228. in the absence of any DAR approval for the conversion of respondent's property or an actual expropriation by an LGU. it is not unlikely that such farmers. whether in full or in part. which value may be adjusted in light of the improvements in the Municipality of Mabalacat.943. we were explicit in stating that: While the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. Capanas . The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. The courts cannot ignore. NOT residential. not the ultimate in determining just compensation. DISCUSSION: Do you need conversion clearance? SIR: IMO. Following Section 17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 26 In Barrido. Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner. LBP preferred shares. On September 20. or for performance bonds.48 for 26 hectares. under the following terms and conditions: (a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares. and the time of actual taking. 2 cases (Po and Sta. Ana cases) . The land transfer program under P. 27 2 (P.. Probably. There is another aspect of DAR which is quasi-judicial. which are likewise available to the landowner at his option. LBP bonds.Nable not included . What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.O. who will assume cultivation.D. The law does not mention the participation of farmer-beneficiary. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process.Atty. 10 (c) exceptions and exemptions.D. Nueva Ecija. The cost will be tremendous. Same Principle with Dumlao Case: Based on RA 6657 not PD 27: Basis: Equity Content and manner of compensation Sec. (gives the Gov time) Assoc. LBP Petitioner are owners of land.  Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area which the govt would otherwise acquire. No. The immediate effect in other situations in the same. The LBP and DAR disputed Domingo's valuation and claimed that the determination of just compensation should be governed by the provisions of P. and (viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow. 27 on page 37… apil sa exam) Room 405 . agrarian dispute. 18. conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Landbank filed the case in RTC. 228. payment of the just compensation is not always required to be made fully in money. and LBP. first valuation was rejected but upon re-computation and order of RRAD. Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos. Is it possible that LBP and DAR cannot agree with the evaluation? YES WHY? Implementation of the program is with DAR in the EXECUTIVE aspect. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27 (Carper) transferability.e. esp. 20 – LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for direct transfer to qualified beneficiaries but subject to guidelines (i. 228. No.D. LBP filed an opposition for determination of JC with the RTC Petitioner submit that LBP has no legal personality SEC 18. the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. 18) Heirs of Lorenzo vs. In case of extraordinary inflation. pending final determination of what is just compensation for their land it is a an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not allow withdraw it is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16 (e) and final compensation under Section 18 for the purposes of exercising the landowners’ right to appropriate the same. Sec. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657. and other things of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation. will go bankrupt if we rely on the ordinary expropriation which is all in cash) Cash usually only 25-30% LBP bonds usually spreads/matures in 10 years. Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR. Guimba. grounds to dispossess lessee. 27 in relation to E. 44 (2) – provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC the adoption of direct payment scheme. No. LO can withdraw… LBP vs Darab the valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the landowners. 27) was issued. In case the amount has already been deposited. how many years is the prohibited period? 4 exceptions? . DAR. agricultural land (read all the cases)  concentrate here . 6657 in the computation of just compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken by the government under the auspices of P. trade schools and other institutions.3420-hectare rice land situated at Macapabellag. (vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government hospitals. We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn were deemed as full owners of the land they till. Central Mindanao Case . 20 and 21) How is VLT made? Sec. even if the landowner questions the accuracy or the validity of the amount deposited and will thereafter file with the RTC for determination of just compensation. 6657 4 (R. Indeed. landowner and LBP. the LO can withdraw the amount deposited. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.  Voluntary land transfer (Secs. the PARC shall take appropriate measures to protect the economy. NT-97157. SC. LBP is not merely a nominal party but is indispensable. of small landowners vs Hon. Therefore. 2000. terms and conditions shall not be less favorable to transferee). There are cases where LBP is the plaintiff of an RTC Case.36 (vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government universities. 228. clearly states there should be a consensus among LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedings under RA 6657 and thus has the legal personality to question the determination. not trust accounts (trust accounts not expressly stated in Sec. Sec. the equivalent being real. and not PD 27 or EO 228. full and ample. other properties or assets. No. the revaluation was accepted by owners LBP filed MR but denied. Los appealed to DARAB. or LBP bonds Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash? No. the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. So.O. Capanas . Presidential Decree No.  CLOA’s should bear proper annotations.Except no. 1995 was issued:  Beneficiaries are determined by DAR. a revaluated amount was made but Los still found it low. END OF MIDTERM (But take note of SEC. with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect.Not including payment of interest (3 cases) . Alfeche. After re-computation upon order of PARAD. are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock.  Sec. SC invalidated LBP’s practice of opening trust accounts in favor of the landowner. substantial. DAR vs Heirs of Domingo Facts: The late Angel T. No..Sec.AMaWS HELD: Under the factual circumstances of this case. So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing proper compensation.A. No. CA: The parties are DAR. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a 70. FACTS: LBP did not agree with the computation of RARAD. ISSUE: Whether the method set forth under R. Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just compensation for the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under Republic Act No.  Part of his right to just compensation It should be deposited in the name of the landowner. xxx xxx xxx It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time.D. On April 26. On October 21. s. LBP coordinates with DAR in the implementation aspect but LBP cannot dictate the quasi-judicial aspect SC: these are the parties involving just compensation under Sec. 3 LBP vs. Pending resolution of their appeal Los interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation seeking the release to tem of the amount representing the difference between the initial value. because “revolutionary kind” and also practicality (Gov. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock.agricultural activity. 6657).: Landowner.  Voluntary offer (Section 19)  Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash payment if LO voluntarily offers land for sale. tax credits. The other modes. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Parties Involved (Section 18) Land Bank v. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 27 in relation to E. RA 6657 is the applicable law. Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba.ra 3844: focus on in case of death of lessee. Challenged by the petitioners that LBP has no legal personality to institute the agrarian case. tax credits. AO #2. No.sec.A. all notices for VLT be submitted to DAR within 1st year of implementation of CARP. 21 – direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under terms mutually agreed and which shall be binding upon registration and approval by DAR.the need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the amount deposited in their behalf. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . No. Nable . the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. 27 was subsequently implemented by Executive Order No. colleges. 1972. independent of DAR. Both parties disagreed with the trial court's valuation. or CARL). Wycoco that interest on the just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established. LBP vs Soriano Facts: Domingo and Mamerto Soriano (respondents) are the registered owners of several parcels of rice land situated in Oas. 55-2000. the petitioners filed complaints for determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagum City. etc… SC: no clearance from DAR. 27 in 1972. vs CA Facts: On October 12. Any intervening delay thereby entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank. . DAR (2 chief limitations) . 6 homestead (note the important qualifications) (cases: Alita and Paris vs. equivalent to.238. . Summonses were served on May 23.000. Moreover. APO: GR: When it comes to just compensation.sec. This makes LBP an indispensable party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the Agrarian Reform Program. considering that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy afforded by law to every losing party. while the subject lands were acquired under Presidential Decree No.478. 16).6 and P262 million. but afterwards. while the remaining 0. The RTC rendered its decision: DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and/or LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES. until the value is fully paid. 2000. for AFC. the factors enumerated therein had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. with a right to appeal decisions in such cases that are unfavorable to it. the subject lands were taken under PD 27 and were covered by Operation Land Transfer. As stated in Land Bank of the Philippines v. The RTC conducted a pre-trial. however. docketed as Agrarian Cases No. Kumassie Plantation: 18 HAcaCS The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation to KPCI.Ways of distribution of lands to qualified beneficiaries (Chapter 3): voluntary offer (sec. It is likewise true that AFC and HPI already collected P149. and appointed persons it considered competent. 18.14.30 incremental interest).409. RTC as special agrarian court .8704 hectares of the total area of 20. respondents claim that the date LBP approves the payment of the land transfer claim and deposits the proceeds in the name of the landowner is not tantamount to actual payment because on said date.86 (AFC) and P45.900. 6657.00 as just compensation. they filed separate complaints for determination of just compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). It also upheld the award of compounded interest. qualified and disinterested as commissioners to determine the proper valuation of the properties.481. Additional from Francis Apo: Rate of interest is 12%. thru its Land Valuation Office.751. Land Bank fixed the just compensation at P165. . there is no interest to be imposed.37 . ISSUE: Whether or not the interest was validly imposed. on February 14.preliminary determination of just compensation by DAR vs. to open deposit accounts in the names of the petitioners. by filing a notice of appeal. who cannot thus be considered to act in bad faith or in an unreasonable manner as to make such party guilty of unjustified delay.94 plus 12% interest per annum.47/hectare. P-082. The award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to ensure prompt payment. plus increment of 6% per annum computed annually beginning October 21.94 as of this date. Out of the 18.238. As a matter of fact.Sec. on 23 November 2000. the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the court on 23 November 2000 or long after the passage of Republic Act No.landbank of the phil: whether it has legal personality to file a case before RTC involving just compensation? . P86. Clearly.sec. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.65 as land value plus P348. Land is valued as Agricultural land.definition of agricultural land (Alangilan case) .549. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case. and later transferred in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title No. When DARAB did not act on their complaints for determination of just compensation after more than three years. 1998. The appellate court. The dispositive portion reads: ACCORDINGLY. 1995. 16: (heirs of deleste): correct amount to be deposited by landbank . Capanas . HELD: In the instant case.88. ordering LBP to pay the respondents P894. non-land transfer schemes (SDO.5254 hectares were subject of the coverage. 27 4 and Republic Act No.76 (HPI).95 7 (P133. AFC and HPI voluntarily offered to sell the lands subject of this case pursuant to Republic Act No. for HPI. 1997. representing just compensation for the subject properties. Alfeche) . the just compensation of the 18.751. respondents. there is no unreasonable delay in the payment of just compensation which should warrant the award of 12% interest per annum in AFC and HPI's favor.500.6% per annum (July 2013) But per jurisprudence. Given the foregoing. however. that is. respectively. 8 Not satisfied with the valuation.Livioco: Landowner tried to prove that land is residential. Leasehold operation.925. Land Bank is ordered to pay the landowners Domingo Soriano and Mamerto Soriano said amount/land value in accordance with law. prompting them to file their respective appeals with the Court of Appeals. 2209 How do you appreciate delay? Depending on the FACTS Soriano: rate of interest is 6% Based on admin order issued by DAR: that the rates of interest to be imposed on lands acquired under PD 27 is 6% Not the issue in the case but is the reckoning point (from where 6% should be imposed) LBP: reckoned from the date of taking (advantageous to government) SC: NO! should be reckoned from the payment of just compensation.association of small landowners: revolutionary kind of expro: justification of the SC . 16: procedure on compulsory acquisition (heirs of Trinidad: correct payment of deposit) .612. otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. until the value is fully paid or a total of P894. Only 18. 2000 to Land Bank and DAR.Dumlao case: just compensation PD  RA 6657: computed on the basis of the present law . instituted a Complaint 9 for judicial determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City. 16: notice of acquisition (who is to be notified): heirs of Trinidad case Payment in interest in just compensation Apo Fruits corp.484.584.94. thus: In the case at bar. It may disagree with DAR and the landowner as to the amount of just compensation to be paid to the latter and may also disagree with them and bring the matter to court for judicial determination.12) .706.9163 hectares of land 3 owned by the respondents. 5 The LBP 6 pegged the value of 18. Albay. T-95690 that was placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. and computed at Two and One-Half (2 1/2) percent of the determined and fixed amount as the fair. Branch 2. The valuation was rejected. compulsory (Sec.sec. making the aforecited Administrative Order applicable.20). 6657 in 1988. Both petitioners withdrew the amounts in cash from the accounts. to pay jointly and severally the Commissioners' fees herein taxed as part of the costs pursuant to Section 12. and P164. 12% per annum . Respondents alleged that they are entitled to an amount of not less than P4. upon the advice of DAR. Note: RA 6657 – 12% PD 27 – 6% LBP vs Rivera Facts: The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land embraced by Original Certificate of Title No.2329 hectare of rain fed riceland is P8.6 requisites of agrarian dispute (know different principles of the case) . 2000 and August 18. 54-2000 and No.94.  in relation to damages (2209) as in forbearance of money Already amended from 12%. and that Land Bank filed in March 2003 its petition for certiorari in the CA only because the RTC did not give due course to its appeal. EX: in case of delay on the basis of Art. and of the 0.type: 60 (mcq) -40 It is explicit from LBP v. 1972.0491 hectares of land at P482. LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for interest. we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just compensation is not justified and should therefore be deleted. 6657 should be the principal basis of the computation for just compensation. which respectively filed their answers on July 26.Confed vs. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) referred their voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) applications to Land Bank for initial valuation.2820 hectares were placed under the Operations Land Transfer and the CARP pursuant to Presidential Decree No.AMaWS It must be emphasized that "pertinent amounts were deposited in favor of AFC and HPI within fourteen months after the filing by the latter of the Complaint for determination of just compensation before the RTC".79. There were several evidences. and to credit in said accounts the sums of P26. affirmed the judgment of the trial court.sec. Section 17 of Republic Act No. 10 sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC).178. beginning August 17. . Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . Therefore. however. acting as a special agrarian court (SAC). the release of the amount is conditioned on certain requirements. 27. prompting Land Bank.0491 hectares of irrigated riceland is P133. reasonable and just compensation of plaintiffs' land and standing crops plus interest equivalent to the interest of the 91Day Treasury Bills from date of taking until full payment. 6657.2329 hectare was computed at P8. HELD: It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA.363.584. the SAC rendered a judgment.Atty. . 11 On 21 February 2005. Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. – Section 24 of R. being an effective forbearance.494. the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of PCPCI (DAR vs. Polo Coconut Plantation Co. The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property. 168787. that the supporting documents were not yet received by LBP. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1)…  Thus. (c) seasonal farmworkers. and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. 27 7 were governed and valued in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. and conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. In the event they cannot agree on the price of the land. (2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents.. If there is no CLOA yet (for any reason). Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate  When certificate issued. the respondents instituted Civil Case No. upon registration with and approval by the DAR. in its 1979 decision. In several instances. legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred. 14. the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued pending the fulfillment of certain legal and administrative requirements. however. which shall be binding upon them. due to the landowner’s retention rights or to the number of tenants. Polo: these beneficiaries are not tenants of our land thus not qualified. The LBP shall extend financing to the beneficiaries for purposes of acquiring the land. 20.No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. G.Atty. Distribution Limit. (b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being awarded through the EP or CLOA. Said approval shall be considered given. The court decreed: (5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness. pending the fulfillment of the said requirements.38 After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment. at 12% per annum should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time.99 pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. Award Ceiling Limit (Section 23) Voluntary Offer for Sale (Section 19) SEC. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES (1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay. there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them. Only compulsory acquisition Voluntary Transfer (Section 20 and 21) SEC. 2. (e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands.88 but inclusive of 6% increment of P191.876. On 1 December 1994. and (g) others directly working on the land. 27 and Executive Order No. 23) Beneficiaries to be awarded with the land of Polo Coconut were questioned by Polo Coconut. In. if such offers have been made and are fully known to both parties. beneficiary will be issued CARP Beneficiary Certificate. LBP filed its answer. Voluntary Land Transfer. which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in the Act. series of 1994. that the administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. and that the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. Negotiations between the landowners and qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall instead be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act. This allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property as of the time of the taking computed. 76742. there is no more voluntary offer. Cont.20. No.Landowners other than banks and other financial institutions who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment. at the option of the beneficiaries. disposed of.. (Sec. Series of 1987 and other statutes and administrative issuances. the final compensation must include interest on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage of Presidential Decree No. broadly 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 value of the property as between one who receives. 2: Landless resident does not necessarily mean that a person does not own a land. Previous law: there is no provision that (a) and (b) should be prioritized Amendment: they are prioritized of that same landholding up to a maximum of 3 hectares each. Presupposing that the beneficiary has registered with the department. AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES  Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award. 13. 6657 provides that the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him.AMaWS SEC. One can be considered landless for purposes of CARP if that person does not own more than 3 hectares of land. (c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR. LBP approved the payment of P265. they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under the Act. No. aptitude. NOTE: Under CARPER. exclusive of the advance payments made in the form of lease rental amounting to P75. the DAR shall first issue a CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to ..) that title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation to their respective landowners. . 27 and Executive Order No. Court of Appeals. 24) Same principle of indefeasibility and imprescriptibility after one year from registration  due to the amendment (RA 9700) If there is certification of deposit. Beneficiaries are required to pay LBP in 30 annual amortizations with 6% interest per annum. 228 8 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary Land Transfer.Landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines: (a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first year of the implementation of the CARP. unless notice of disapproval is received by the farmerbeneficiary within 30 days from the date of registration. (Sec. . Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. SEC. the identified beneficiaries may already be in possession of the land but still have no EP or CLOA therefor. it is the ministerial duty of the RD. In fine. Examples of these are: (a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines. (3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. 94-03 for determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court. Thus. et al. (4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. September 3. Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the landowners.R.R.A. SC: it is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries. (b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries. was correct in imposing interest on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September 1969. 23. (6) If. For this reason. Chapter VII Distribution of lands to landless residents (will not be included in the Midterms) Defined under Sec. The Bulacan trial court. Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA). which shall contain the restrictions. or in the absence Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . 21. landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants. 2008). or workers on the land. or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries under the Program. that the funds that LBP would use to pay compensation were public funds to be disbursed only in accordance with existing laws and regulations. between the taking of the property and the actual payment.. if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case. Thus. lessees. In Republic v. which award shall be completed within 180 days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. . if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. and one who desires to sell. the procedure for compulsory acquisition as provided in Section 16 shall apply.July 1989. 228 was already settled. Capanas .27 who have culpably sold. thereof. Secretary of Agrarian Reform” (G.Direct payment in cash or in kind may be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties. Inc. 19. (d) other farmworkers. (b) regular farmworkers. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm. 19 we affirmed the award of 12% interest on just compensation due to the landowner. (f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries. v.415. actually devoted to agricultural activities. Carmona. there was no amicable settlement. in turn. Land titles: one year repurchase from registration. the books of the . filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Trece Martires City. and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three(3) annual amortization. petitioner Reynaldo L. Upon certification by the DAR. the PARAD dismissed the case without prejudice on the ground that the case was filed prematurely. Loyola refused. or to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. (2) The LBP shall have a lien (i. Loyola allegedly executed two more Sinumpaang Salaysay 10 dated 1 December 1992 and 3 December 1992. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) shall. However. as they may agree upon. to Loyola's name. the farmers are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits and are also assured of at least a representatives at the Board of Directors. (c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% of the annual gross production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiary’s fault.Corporate landowners may voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified beneficiaries. and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws. 998 was issued in favor of Loyola. Lebrudo re-filed the same action. (2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS). Cavite. as evidenced by certifications from the PNP and the barangay.e. . shall cultivate the land himself. 31. Subject is the validity of the waiver SC: Waiver is void. It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold.) TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS (Sec. Thereafter. It violated the law. A beneficiary whose land has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under the Act. 27. transferred or conveyed for a period of 10 years. Lebrudo filed an action against Loyola.Transferability of Awarded Lands.AMaWS The main issue is whether Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot covered by RA 6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of rights embodied in the two Sinumpaang Salaysay. with respect to their equity or participation. The law provides for four exceptions and Lebrudo does not fall under any of the exceptions. Loyola explained that the lot was her only property and it was already being occupied by her children and their families. Lebrudo's assertion must fail. PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES (1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to the following rules: (a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC. and pineapple. After Lebrudo redeemed the lot for P250. 21 we held that the waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws. In Maylem v. On 11 March 1996. There entities are companies mostly involved in the commercial production of rubber. the CBC issued shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP. committing herself to remove her house constructed on the corresponding one-half portion to be allotted to Lebrudo. the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed. despite steps taken to amicably settle the issue. transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession. as a condition for such transfer or conveyance. to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who. under such terms and conditions consistent with this Act. here. 6657 4 (RA 6657) or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. LEBRUDO: There was a violation of the prohibited period (sold within the prohibitory period). The deferment period was up to 1998. or to the government. 27) (1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold. Ellano. prior right) by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary. during the prohibitory 10-year period. In a Decision 7 dated 18 December 1995. Lebrudo vs Loyola Facts: Respondent Remedios Loyola (Loyola) owns a parcel of land located in Barangay Milagrosa. On 27 June 1995. That the following condition are complied with: (a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to dividends and other financial benefits. in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian reform laws. equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of this Act: Provided. Cristina Hugo.lands within the land owners’ retained areas or lands not yet due for distribution are placed under leasehold to ensure farmers’ security over the land they till and pre-empt their displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land. To reiterate her commitment. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The law expressly prohibits any sale. be given the due notice thereof by the BARC. Thus. There was a waiver. Loyola denied promising one-half portion of the lot as payment for the transfer. an action 6 for the cancellation of the TCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola and the issuance of another for the one-half portion of the lot in Lebrudo's favor. (b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the value of the annual gross production as established by the DAR. aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the identified beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof. Loyola promised to give Lebrudo the one-half portion of the lot. The same principle shall be applied to associations. or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. which was mortgaged by Loyola's mother. states: SEC. (2) to the government. petitioner Julian S. except as allowed by law. and (4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). or to the LBP. Cavite. This lot is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership 5 (CLOA) No. – This scheme provides corporate landowners of newly-established commercial plantations enough time to recover their investment before such agricultural lands are covered by CARP. In her Answer. HELD: A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR. Carmona. .This scheme is an interim measure while the lands owned or operated by agricultural entities await coverage under the CARP. it is two years (2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary. under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES (1) Leasehold Operations (LO). signed by the owner. 8 Lebrudo alleged that he was approached by Loyola sometime in 1989 to redeem the lot. TCT/CLOA No. Capanas . Chapter VIII (Corporate Farms) SEC. awarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under Republic Act No. however. these corporations shall implement a production and profitsharing scheme in their farms.Atty. management or executive committee to protect the rights and interest of shareholders. (Sec. any sale. or to the government.00 and a cavan of palay. Thereafter. with prior approval of the DAR.39 provide the would-be beneficiaries. Cavite. and the Department of Agrarian Reform to mediate. Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock. Lebrudo insists that he is entitled to one-half portion of the lot awarded to Loyola under the CARP as payment for shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from Loyola's mother. In no case shall the compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are distributed be reduced. banana. waiving and transferring her rights over the one-half portion of the lot in favor of Lebrudo.. However. In exchange. titling and registration of the lot. (3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). Pending final land transfer. as amended by RA 9700. Moreover. 20210 issued in favor of Loyola on 27 December 1990 and duly registered on 14 March 1991 under Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT)/CLOA No. Lebrudo (Lebrudo). — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this ACT may not be sold. an intermediate document to evidence that they have been identified and have qualified as agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP. Lebrudo sought the assistance of the Sangguniang Barangay of Milagrosa. In short. or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. Lebrudo. ISSUE: Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . bears in relation to the company's total assets. Lebrudo used the two Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola alloting to him the one-half portion of the lot as basis for his claim. Loyola again sought Lebrudo's help in obtaining title to the lot in her name by shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from her mother. Cristina Hugo. In the present case. transfer or conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land reform rights within 10 years from the grant by the DAR. Lebrudo asked Loyola to comply with her promise. Cavite. 26. Section 27 of RA 6657. 3) to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). 20 which provides for the transferability of awarded lands. to Trinidad Barreto. Clearly. the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Carmona. The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has not been given much priority. The LBP shall advice the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession. now deceased and represented by his son. Cristina Hugo. the waiver and transfer of rights to the lot as embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola is void for falling under the 10-year prohibitory period specified in RA 6657. Loyola then allegedly executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay 9 dated 28 December 1989. subject to confirmation by the DAR. transfer or conveyance of land reform rights is void.Under this arrangement. The law enumerate four exceptions: (1) through hereditary succession. Loyola maintained that Lebrudo was the one who approached her and offered to redeem the lot and the release of the CLOA. Corporate Landowners. the children of the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. corporations owning agricultural lands may give their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land. 998. as there has been greater pressure for them to deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets. However. the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal obligation to make the repayment affordable. PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously approved. IF PARC WAS GIVEN POWER TO APPROVE SDP. because the very same agency tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved SDP would be without authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance with it.[14][94] We have explained that “every statute is understood. as HLI argued. On the postulate that the subject jurisdiction is conferred by law. the President as chair.[17][97] (Emphasis supplied. INCLUDING ALL SUCH COLLATERAL AND SUBSIDIARY CONSEQUENCES AS MAY BE FAIRLY AND LOGICALLY INFERRED FROM ITS TERMS.[13][93] To HLI. that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP. But under SDO.000.000 SHARES FOR OTHER STOCKHOLDERS. ART. DAR is implementing distribution of lands to 6000 farmer beneficiaries Dissenting of CORONA: Provision on SDO is Unconstitutional. however. IN ADDITION TO THE 500 HAS SOLD TO LIPCO. by his own authority as such. X111 OF THE CONSTITUTION. if one exists. even if not expressly granted.40 corporation or association shall be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries. it is only for their violation that the FDA may revoke the said license. IN 1988 TADECO CREATED HACIENDA LUISITA INC (HLI) AND TADECO BOUGHT SHARES OF HLI IN EXCHANGE OF THE HACIENDA LAND. There was a program approved by PARC headed by the President of the Philippines. FARMERS AND HLI ENTERED INTO STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION AGREEMENT (SDOA) WHICH PROVIDES THAT FARMERS AGREE BECAUSE SUCH SDO WILL IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND THEY WILL GET GREATER BENEFITS. The DAR Secretary. (c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same rights and features as all other shares. privileges or jurisdiction which it grants. TO CONTAIN ALL SUCH PROVISIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE ITS OBJECT AND PURPOSE. BY IMPLICATION. IT WAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SDP. By the same token. IN 2003 FARMER GROUPS FILED CASE AT DAR FOR EITHER RENEGOTIATION OF SDOA OR ITS REVOCATION ON GROUND THAT THEIR LIVES DID NOT IMPROVE AND THEY DID NOT GET FAIR SHARES IN THE SALE OF LANDS TO LIPCO AND FOR SCTEX USE. the land or stock transfer envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution approved by the PARC within the same period.[19][99] Hacienda Luisita CASE: (binalik na discussion from Chapter 3) Hacienda Luisita Inc (HLI) was not the original corporation owning the Hacienda Luisita Estate. only PARC can effect such revocation.”[21] [95]FURTHER. It may be. HLI WENT TO THE SC AND ASKED FOR TRO TO STOP IMPLEMENTATION OF PARK ORDER. SC: annulment or revocation of the program is valid Confronted with the issue: Previously it was legal but now it was revoked. IS THIS ARGUMENT CORRECT? NO. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ISSUE: HLI ARGUES THAT PARC IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REVOKE THE STOCK DISTRIBUTION PLAN (SDP).AMaWS “every statutory grant of power.000 SHARES WERE FOR FARMERS AND 250. Capanas . Under Sec. the program/agreement was cancelled by PARC headed by Arroyo. IN 1957 TABACALERA SOLD THE LAND TO TADECO OWNED BY THE COJUANCOS.000. it is only for the violation of such conditions that the mayor may revoke the said permit. or to make effective rights. to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose. as the acceptance and/or approval of the SDP sought to be taken back or undone is the act of PARC whose official composition includes. As public respondents aptly observe. but not to recall its previous approval of the SDP after it has been implemented by the parties. IN 2005 PARC REVOKED THE SDO AND ORDERED THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF THE HACIENDA FOR DISTRIBUTION TO FARMERS. THE LAW GIVES PARC THE POWER TO APPROVDE SDP. one of the requirements is that there has to be a corporation  they will have to make a new corporation consisting of the old corporation plus the farmer tenants as stockholders. GSIS FINANCED THE PURCHASE ON CONDITION THAT THE LAND WILL ULTIMATELY BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD TO THE TENANTS. HELD We disagree. the agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of this Act.443 HAS. 31 of RA 6657. HLI did not present any proof that they complied. no less.00.51 HAS WAS EXPROPRIATED FOR USE OF SCTEX. for neither RA 6657 nor EO 229 expressly vests PARC with such authority. Time of Arroyo. While. as urged.”[15][95] Further. What shall we do now? Used Operative fact doctrine: let tenants choose. including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. IN 2006 SC ISSUED TRO. HLI vs PRAC BASIC Facts: THE HACIENDA COMPRISED 6. from which it is derived in the first place. . (2) THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY BY A PROPER PARTY OR ONE WITH LOCUS STANDI. Ramos and Estrada. the power to revoke it. there was a complaint that the standard of living has not improved and there were violations of the program. it is the court which has jurisdiction and authority to order the revocation or rescission of the PARC-approved SDP. IN 1980 GOVT FILED AT RTC MANILA CASE AGAINST TADECO FOR IT TO SURRENDER THE HACIENDA TO MAR (NOW DAR) SO THE LAND WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO FARMERS. IN 1988 CA DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUBJECT TO REVIVAL IF TADECO FAILS TO GET APPROVAL OF FARMERS OF STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO) AND IF OPTED BY FARMERS TADECO FAILS TO IMPLEMENT SDO.000. BUT THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT IT CAN DISAPPROVE THE SDP. RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE ISSUE RESPONDENT FARM ARGUES THAT SEC 31 OF RA 6657 WHICH ALLOWS STOCK DISTRIBUTION INSTEAD OF LAND DISTRIBUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT CONTRAVENES SECTION 4. Plebescite: to remain as stockholders of HLI or distribute lands Chose for distribution of lands Right now. IS HLI’S ARGUMENT CORRECT? NO. CONVERSION WS APPROVED. of the corporation or association. 6657 ONLY AFTER 14 YEARS SINCE THE SDP WAS DRAWN AND IMPLEMENTED. contrary to petitioner HLI’s posture. IT IS TOO LATE. However.[32][108] THE FARMERS QUESTIONED THE CONSITUTIONALITY OF R.000. TADECO APPEALED TO CA. it is always distribution of lands. LIPCO CONVEYED SOME LANDS TO RCBC AS PAYMENT FOR LOANS. By extension. HLI maintains that PARC is without authority to revoke an SDP. No improvement of lives and a violation on the giving of homelots (yuta para sa balay). DAR APPROVED SDOA.[20][94] EVERY STATUTE IS UNDERSTOOD. EO 229 empowers PARC to approve the plan for stock distribution in appropriate cases. it may be stated that the conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the approval of the plan. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE: (1) THERE IS AN ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY. MANILA RTC RULED AGAINST TADECO. the DAR Secretary as vice-chair. 150.Atty. the power to revoke is limited by the authority to grant the license. is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary implication. IN 1995 HLI APPLIED TO CONVERT 500 HAS TO INDUSTRIAL USE. HENCE THE CASE. Thus. to deny PARC such revocatory power would reduce it into a toothless agency of CARP. “EVERY STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER. POWERS. Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . DAR CREATED TASK FORCE WHICH RECOMMENDED TO PARC (PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUCIL) THAT THE PREVIOUS ORDER APPROVING THE SDO BE REVOKED.000. IT HAS THE POWER TO REVOKE IT BY THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION. having granted the permit upon his ascertainment that the conditions thereof as applied x x x have been complied with.[18][98] With the view We take of the case. PRIVILEGES OR JURISDICTION WHICH IT GRANTS. ALSO. OTHERWISE PARC WOULD BE A TOOTHLESS AGENCY. Such power or authority. and (d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void ab initio UNLESS said transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered beneficiary within the same corporation. cannot plausibly do so. Investigated and allegations found to be true. or in a management or executive committee.[16][96] Gordon v.000 WITH PAR VALUE OF P400. If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act. OR TO MAKE EFFECTIVE RIGHTS. 80. the beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the board of directors. THEN IT TRANSFERRED THE 500 HAS TO CENTENNARY HOLDINGS INC WHICH TRANSFERRED IT TO LUISTA INDUSTRIAL PARK CORP OR LIPCO. Veridiano II is instructive: The power to approve a license includes by implication. the empowerment only includes the power to disapprove. as implemented by DAO 10. powers. RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL INCIDENTAL POWER. and at least eleven (11) other department heads. right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power. AND (3) THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE CASE. right or privilege.A. When we speak of agrarian reform.) Following the doctrine of necessary implication. (b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association. For a period of time it was valid especially from Aquino. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx WHAT IS THIS DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION? WHAT IS IMPLIED IN A STATUTE IS AS MUCH A PART OF IT AS THAT WHICH IS EXPRESSED. THE TOTAL SHARES WERE 400. a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. the authority to approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW ARE NOT ALL COMPLIED WITH. if the FDA grants a license upon its finding that the applicant drug store has complied with the requirements of the general laws and the implementing administrative rules and regulations. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUE REGARDING THE SDP WAS NOT THE LIST MOTA. by implication. [35][108] Not all the foregoing requirements are satisfied in the case at bar. it does so only when the following essential requirements are first met.[39][112] (Italics in the original. Thus. although properly presented. The instant challenge on the constitutionality of Sec. such as the application of the statute or the general law. This requirement is based on the rule that every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. has yet to explain its failure to challenge the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 which is quite too late in the day. and not one that is doubtful. XIII of the Constitution. therefore.” The constitutionality of a law. HLI added. The petitioner must be able to show that the case cannot be legally resolved unless the constitutional question raised is determined. as represented by the Solicitor General. composed of a small minority of 27 farmers. The lis mota aspect is not present.. raised the constitutionality of Agrarian Reform Outline Reviewer . but not. 89-12-2 dated November 21. Capanas .AMaWS Sec. HLI insists that agrarian reform is not only about transfer of land ownership to farmers and other qualified beneficiaries. is the alleged non-compliance by HLI with the conditions of the SDP to support a plea for its revocation. Executive Secretary explains why: Lis Mota — the fourth requirement to satisfy before this Court will undertake judicial review — means that the Court will not pass upon a question of unconstitutionality. FARM. did not question the constitutionality of the provision. remiss in belatedly questioning the constitutionality of Sec. 2003 or 14 years after approval of the SDP via PARC Resolution No. this modality of distribution is an anomaly to be annulled for being inconsistent with the basic concept of agrarian reform ingrained in Sec. 31 of RA 6657. 31 of RA 6657 permits stock transfer in lieu of outright agricultural land transfer. XIII of the Constitution.[36] [109] FARM is. as couched and implemented. cannot. the AMBALA petition did NOT question the constitutionality of Sec.[38][111] Garcia v. there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. to wit: (1) there is an actual case or controversy. To be sure.Atty. it took FARM some eighteen (18) years from November 21. 31 of RA 6657. 4. acts of the executive or legislative departments. Art. And before the Court. or argumentative. whenever plausible. Even the public respondents. 31 upon which the benefits were derived. While there is indeed an actual case or controversy. but rather it is the alleged application of the said provision in the SDP that is flawed. but concentrated on the purported flaws and gaps in the subsequent implementation of the SDP. speculative. The second requirement that the constitutional question should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity is clearly wanting. such recourse is favored. For FARM. intervenor FARM.[34][107] Reacting. 3l of RA 6657. It has been emphasized in a number of cases that the question of constitutionality will not be passed upon by the Court unless it is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case at the first opportunity. as here. if the case can be disposed of on some other ground. to FARM. the lis mota is whether or not PARC acted in grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the recall of the SDP for such non-compliance and the fact that the SDP. .[37][110] If some other grounds exist by which judgment can be made without touching the constitutionality of a law. It draws attention in this regard to Sec. The Court cannot now be goaded into resolving a constitutional issue that FARM failed to assail after the lapse of a long period of time and the occurrence of numerous events and activities which resulted from the application of an alleged unconstitutional legal provision. an issue assailing the constitutionality of a statute or governmental act. 3(a) of RA 6657 on the concept and scope of the term “agrarian reform. there is stock certificate ownership of the farmers or farmworkers instead of them owning the land. On the other hand. since as early as November 21. it is not the said section per se that is invalid. in fine. to resort to stock distribution. Art. the constitutional issue tendered not being critical to the resolution of the case. but direct point. The last but the most important requisite that the constitutional issue must be the very lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. proceeding from the basic positions originally taken by AMBALA (to which the FARM members previously belonged) and the Supervisory Group. to justify its nullification. and (3) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. 31 of RA 6657. whose 27 members formerly belonged to AMBALA. and pass upon the constitutionality of. insofar as it affords the corporation. Furthermore. offends certain constitutional and statutory provisions. (2) that the constitutional question is raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standi. 31 of RA 6657. to stress. 1989 that said plan and approving resolution were sought to be revoked.[33][106] To a more specific. When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review over. 1989 before it challenged the constitutionality of Sec. be attacked collaterally. It was only on December 4. looking deeply into the underlying petitions of AMBALA.41 FARM asks for the invalidation of Sec. 31 only on May 3. FARM argues that Sec. l989 when PARC approved the SDP of Hacienda Luisita or at least within a reasonable time thereafter and why its members received benefits from the SDP without so much of a protest. Moreover. an arrangement which. impairs the fundamental right of farmers and farmworkers under Sec. but by petitioner AMBALA. et al. 31 of RA 6657 and necessarily its counterpart provision in EO 229 must fail as explained below. as a mode of CARP compliance. 4. any of these key issues may be resolved without plunging into the constitutionality of Sec. by FARM or any of its members. The FARM members slept on their rights and even accepted benefits from the SDP with nary a complaint on the alleged unconstitutionality of Sec.) The lis mota in this case. The unyielding rule has been to avoid. as envisaged in the Constitution. 2007 when it filed its Supplemental Comment with the Court.
Copyright © 2024 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.