G.R. No.

122256 October 30, 1996

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ACIL CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS:
Private respondent Acil Corporation owned several hectares of land in Linoan, Montevista,
Davao del Norte, which the government took pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Private respondent's certificates of title were cancelled and new
ones were issued and distributed to farmer-beneficiaries.
It appears, however, that in the Statement of Agricultural Landholdings ("LISTASAKA") which
private respondent had earlier filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), a lower
"Fair Value Acceptable to Landowner" was stated .
Private respondent rejected the government's offer, pointing out that nearby lands planted
to the same crops were valued at the higher price. The matter was brought before the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) who, sustained the initial valuation made by
the LBP.
Private respondent filed a Petition for Just Compensation in the Regional Trial Court of
Tagum, Court. Private respondent prayed that DAR be ordered to pay P24,717.40 per
hectare. However, the RTC dismissed its petition on the ground that private respondent
should have appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB),
pursuant to the latter's Revised Rules of Procedure, before recourse to it (the RTC) could be
had. In addition the RTC found that, in violation of the DARAB's rules of procedure the
petition had been filed more than fifteen (15) days after notice of the decision of the PARAD.
Private respondent moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied Private respondent
therefore filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, contending that a petition
for just compensation under R.A. No. 6657 56-57 falls under the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the RTC. His contention was sustained by the Court of Appeals. Accordingly,
the case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
Issue:
whether in cases involving claims for just compensation under R.A. No. 6657 an appeal from
the decision of the provincial adjudicator to the DARAB must first be made before a
landowner can resort to the RTC.
RULING:
The contention has no merit.

It is true that the DAR has primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform
matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform," except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
However, Special Agrarian Courts, which are Regional Trial Courts, are given original
and exclusive jurisdiction over two categories of cases, to wit: (1) "all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners" and (2) "the prosecution of all
criminal offenses under [R.A. No. 6657]." The DAR is an administrative agency which
cannot be granted jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain (for such are takings
under R.A. No. 6657) and over criminal cases.
Consequently, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of
adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from 57 that
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to
transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the
RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to 57 and therefore would be void. What
adjudicators are empowered to do is only to determine in a preliminary manner the
reasonable compensation to be paid to landowners, leaving to the courts the ultimate power
to decide this question.
Morta v. OccidentalGR No. 12341710 June 1999
FACTS:
Jaime Morta and Purificacion Padilla filed a suit against Jaime Occidental, Atty. Mariano
Baranda, and Daniel Corral, for allegedly gathering pili nuts, anahaw leaves, and coconuts
from their respective land, delivered the produce to Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr., and destroyed
their banana and pineapple plants. The court considered the cases covered by the Rule on
Summary Procedure. Occidental, etal. appealed, contending that the case was cognizable by
the DAR Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). Occidental claimed that he was a tenant of the actual
owner of the land ,Josefina Baraclan, and that Morta and Padilla were notactually the owners
of the land inquestion.The trial court ruled in favor of Morta and Padilla.
Thus, the RTC reversed the lower court and ruled in favor of Occidental, stating that the case
is a tenancy-related problem which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of DARAB. The CA
affirmed the RTC.regarding the ownership of theland are not conclusive to settlethe matter.
ISSUE: W/N the cases are properly cognizable by the DARAB.
RULING:
NO. Since there is a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the land, the issue is clearly
outside DARABs jurisdiction. Whatever findings made by the DARABFor DARAB to have
jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In
order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over anahaw leaves, and coconuts from their
respective land anddestroying their banana and pineapple plants. At any rate, whoever is
declared to be the rightfulowner of the land, the case cannot be considered tenancy-related
for it still fails to comply with the other requirements. Assuming arguendo that Josefina is the
owner, then the case is not between the landowner and tenant. If, however, Morta is the

landowner, Occidental cannot claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship

between him and Morta. Thus, for failure to comply with the requisites, the issue involved
isnot tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB.

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner

vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.
G.R. No. 78742
July 14, 1989

Facts:
The petitioners in this case invoke the right of retention granted by P.D. No. 27 to
owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares as long as they are
cultivating or intend to cultivate the same. Their respective lands do not exceed the
statutory limit but are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such lands.
According to P.D. No. 316, which was promulgated in implementation of P.D. No. 27:
No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn shall be
ejected or removed from his farmholding until such time as the respective rights of
the tenant- farmers and the landowner shall have been determined in accordance
with the rules and regulations implementing P.D. No. 27.
The petitioners claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy
their right of retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform has so far not
issued the implementing rules required under the above-quoted decree. They
therefore ask the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to issue
the said rules.
The public respondent argues that P.D. No. 27 has been amended by LOI 474
removing any right of retention from persons who own other agricultural lands of
more than 7 hectares in aggregate area or lands used for residential, commercial,
industrial or other purposes from which they derive adequate income for their
family. And even assuming that the petitioners do not fall under its terms, the
regulations implementing P.D. No. 27 have already been issued, to wit, the

Memorandum dated July 10, 1975 (Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small

Landowners, with an accompanying Retention Guide Table), Memorandum Circular
No. 11 dated April 21, 1978, (Implementation Guidelines of LOI No. 474),
Memorandum Circular No. 18-81 dated December 29,1981 (Clarificatory Guidelines
on Coverage of P.D. No. 27 and Retention by Small Landowners), and DAR
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1985 (Providing for a Cut-off Date for
Landowners to Apply for Retention and/or to Protest the Coverage of their
Landholdings under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27). For failure to
file the corresponding applications for retention under these measures, the
petitioners are now barred from invoking this right.
The petitioners insist that the above-cited measures are not applicable to them
because they do not own more than seven hectares of agricultural land.
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 landsharing.
Issue:
Whether or not all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. No. 27, as
recognized under E.O. No. 228, are retained by him even under R.A. No. 6657.
Held:
P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as October 21,
1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land
consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title to the land owned by him was
to be actually issued to him unless and until he had become a full-fledged member
of a duly recognized farmers' cooperative." It was understood, however, that full
payment of the just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the
constitutional requirement.
When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:

All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21,
1972 of the land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27.
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of
the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding
payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with
an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright
change of ownership is contemplated either.
This should counter-balance the express provision in Section 6 of the said law that
"the landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall
be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further, that
original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as
long as they continue to cultivate said homestead."
R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such limits now in Section 6 of the law, which in fact
is one of its most controversial provisions.
Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or
retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which
shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as
commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall
retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be
awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1)
that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land
or directly managing the farm; Provided, That landowners whose lands have been
covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally
retained by them thereunder, further, That original homestead grantees or direct
compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of
this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said
homestead.
All rights previously acquired by the tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27 are retained
and recognized. Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights of retention
under P.D. No. 27 shall enjoy the retention rights granted by R.A. No. 6657 under the
conditions therein prescribed. Subject to the above-mentioned rulings all the
petitions are DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.