NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017
WEEK 8 PARC, in every case ensuring that support services are available or have
MECHANISMS FOR PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (Secs. 41, 42, 43, 49)
SECTION 41. The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. The
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall be composed of the
President of the Philippines as Chairman, the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform as Vice-Chairman and the following as members; Secretaries of
the Departments of Agriculture; Environment and Natural Resources;
Budget and Management; Local Government: Public Works and
Highways; Trade and Industry; Finance; Labor and Employment;
Director-General of the National Economic and Development Authority;
President, Land Bank of the Philippines; Administrator, National
Irrigation Administration; and three (3) representatives of affected
landowners to represent Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; six (6)
representatives of agrarian reform beneficiaries, two (2) each from
Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, provided that one of them shall be from the
cultural communities.
SECTION 42. Executive Committee. There shall be an Executive
Committee (EXCOM) of the PARC composed of the Secretary of the DAR
as Chairman, and such other members as the President may designate,
taking into account Article XIII, Section 5 of the Constitution. Unless
otherwise directed by PARC, the EXCOM may meet and decide on any and
all matters in between meetings of the PARC: Provided, however, That its
decisions must be reported to the PARC immediately and not later than
the next meeting.
SECTION 43. Secretariat. A PARC Secretariat is hereby established to
provide general support and coordinative services such as inter-agency
linkages; program and project appraisal and evaluation and general
operations monitoring for the PARC. The Secretariat shall be headed by
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who shall be assisted by an
Undersecretary and supported by a staff whose composition shall be
determined by the PARC Executive Committee and whose compensation
shall be chargeable against the Agrarian Reform Fund. All officers and
employees of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform.
SECTION 49. Rules and Regulations. The PARC and the DAR shall have
the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or
procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said rules
shall take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (Sec. 44-
45)
SECTION 44. Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM). A Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM) is hereby created in each province, composed of a Chairman,
who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the
EXCOM, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer as Executive Officer, and
one representative each from the Departments of Agriculture, and of
Environment and Natural Resources and from the LBP, one
representative each from existing farmers' organizations, agricultural
cooperatives and non-governmental organizations in the province; two
representatives from landowners, at least one of whom shall be a
producer representing the principal crop of the province, and two
representatives from farmer and farmworker-beneficiaries, at least one
of whom shall be a farmer or farmworker representing the principal crop
of the province, as members: Provided, That in areas where there are
cultural communities, the latter shall likewise have one representative.
The PARCCOM shall coordinate and monitor the implementation of the
CARP in the province. It shall provide information on the provisions of the
CARP, guidelines issued by the PARC and on the progress of the CARP in
the province.
SECTION 45. Province-by-Province Implementation. The PARC shall
provide the guidelines for a province-by-province implementation of the
CARP. The ten-year program of distribution of public and private lands in
each province shall be adjusted from year by the province's PARCCOM in
accordance with the level of operations previously established by the
been programmed before actual distribution is effected.
The Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (Secs. 46-48)
SECTION 46. Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC). Unless
otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of Executive Order No. 229
regarding the organization of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC) shall be in effect.
SECTION 47. Functions of the BARC. In addition to those provided in
Executive Order No. 229, the BARC shall have the following functions: (a)
Mediate and conciliate between parties involved in an agrarian dispute
including matters related to tenurial and financial arrangements; acd (b)
Assist in the identification of qualified beneficiaries and landowners
within the barangay; (c) Attest to the accuracy of the initial parcellary
mapping of the beneficiary's tillage; (d) Assist qualified beneficiaries in
obtaining credit from lending institutions; (e) Assist in the initial
determination of the value of the land; (f) Assist the DAR representatives
in the preparation of periodic reports on the CARP implementation for
submission to the DAR; (g) Coordinate the delivery of support services to
beneficiaries; and (h) Perform such other functions as may be assigned by
the DAR. (2) The BARC shall endeavor to mediate, conciliate and settle
agrarian disputes lodged before it within thirty (30) days from its taking
cognizance thereof. If after the lapse of the thirty day period, it is unable
to settle the dispute, it shall issue a certificate of its proceedings and shall
furnish a copy thereof upon the parties within seven (7) days after the
expiration of the thirty-day period.
SECTION 48. Legal Assistance. The BARC or any member thereof may,
whenever necessary in the exercise of any of its functions hereunder,
seek the legal assistance of the DAR and the provincial, city, or municipal
government.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (Executive Order 129-A, dated
July 26, 1987)
The DAR Adjudication Board (Sec. 13, EO 129-A)
SECTION 13. Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. There is hereby
created an Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the Office of the
Secretary. The Board shall be composed of the Secretary as Chairman,
two (2) Undersecretaries as may be designated by the Secretary, the
Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, and three (3) others to be appointed
by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary as members.
A Secretariat shall be constituted to support the Board. The Board shall
assume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of
agrarian reform cases under Executive Order No. 229 and this Executive
Order. These powers and functions may be delegated to the regional
offices of the Department in accordance with rules and regulations to be
promulgated by the Board
Financing the Program
Sec. 63 of RA 6657, in relation to Secs. 21 and 22 of EO 229
RA 8532. (1998) Augmenting the Agrarian Reform Fund with an Additional
Fifty Billion Peso Budget
SECTION 63. Funding Source. The initial amount needed to implement
this Act for the period of ten (10) years upon approval hereof shall be
funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21
of Executive Order No. 229. Additional amounts are hereby authorized to
be appropriated as and when needed to augment the Agrarian Reform
Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act. Sources of
funding or appropriations shall include the following: a) Proceeds of the
sales of the Assets Privatization Trust; b) All receipts from assets
recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the
Presidential Commission on Good Government; c) Proceeds of the
disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries; d)
Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official
foreign grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used
for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures,
and other support services required by this Act; cdt (e) Other government
funds not otherwise appropriated. All funds appropriated to implement
the provisions of this Act shall be considered continuing appropriations
during the period of its implementation.
J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |1

RA 9700, Sec. 21 amending Sec. 63 of RA 6657
SEC. 63. Funding Source. The amount needed to further implement the
CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of
funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be
funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the
amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00).
"Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and
when needed to augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully
implement the provisions of this Act during the five (5)-year extension
period. "Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
(a) Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and Management Office
(PMO);
(b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth
recovered through the PCGG excluding the amount appropriated for
compensation to victims of human rights violations under the applicable
law; ITCcAD
(c) Proceeds of the disposition and development of the properties of the
Government in foreign countries, for the specific purposes of financing
production credits, infrastructure and other support services required by
this Act;
(d) All income and collections of whatever form and nature arising from
the agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and
other CARP implementing agencies;
(e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of
official foreign aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to
be used for the specific purposes of financing productions, credits,
infrastructures, and other support services required by this Act;
(f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Five billion pesos
(P5,000,000,000.00) from the General Appropriations Act;
(g) Gratuitous financial assistance from legitimate sources; and
(h) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated.
All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be
considered continuing appropriations during the period of its
implementation: Provided, That if the need arises, specific amounts for
bond redemptions, interest payments and other existing obligations
arising from the implementation of the program shall be included in the
annual General Appropriations Act: Provided, further, That all just
compensation payments to landowners, including execution of judgments
therefor, shall only be sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund: Provided,
however, That just compensation payments that cannot be covered
within the approved annual budget of the program shall be chargeable
against the debt service program of the national government, or any
unprogrammed item in the General Appropriations Act: Provided, finally,
That after the completion of the land acquisition and distribution
component of the CARP, the yearly appropriation shall be allocated fully
to support services, agrarian justice delivery and operational
requirements of the DAR and the other CARP implementing agencies.
WEEK 9
AGRARIAN JUSTICE OR T HE RESOLUTION O F AGRARIAN DISPUTES
DAR- primary jurisdiction
Quasi Judicial Powers of the DAR (Agrarian Justice) the mechanisms to
determine the status of the land, entitlements of beneficiaries, and other
agrarian matters and disputes which may require mediation, conciliation,
determination or adjudication. This topic includes actions by the DAR, the
DAR Adjudication Board and the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court.
Secs. 50-53 of RA 6657 as amended
SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby
vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture
(DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but
shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a
most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain
the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the
merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of
procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination
for every action or proceeding before it. It shall have the power to
summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission
NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017
of reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers
to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum, and
enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall
likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the
same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules
of Court. Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent
themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any
proceedings before the DAR: Provided, however, That when there are two
or more representatives for any individual or group, the representatives
should choose only one among themselves to represent such party or
group before any DAR proceedings. Notwithstanding an appeal to the
Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately executory.
SECTION 51. Finality of Determination. Any case or controversy before
it shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for
resolution. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Any
order, ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
SECTION 52. Frivolous Appeals. To discourage frivolous or dilatory
appeals from the decisions or orders on the local or provincial levels, the
DAR may impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to fines
or censures upon erring parties.
SECTION 53. Certification of the BARC. The DAR shall not take
cognizance of any agrarian dispute or controversy unless a certification
from the BARC that the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation
and conciliation without any success of settlement is presented: Provided,
however, That if no certification is issued by the BARC within thirty (30)
days after a matter or issue is submitted to it for mediation or conciliation
the case or dispute may be brought before the PARC.
Distinction between Cases in the Administrative Implementation of
the Program (ALI) and Cases for Adjudication : DAR Adm. Order No.
3, s. 2003 (2003 Rules on Agrarian Law Implementation [ALI] Cases)
SECTION 2. ALI cases. These Rules shall govern all cases arising
from or involving:
2.1. Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under
the agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of Certificate of Land
Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs), including
protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of such coverage;
2.2. Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or
disqualification of potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries;
2.3. Subdivision surveys of land under Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform (CARP);
2.4. Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, Certificates of
Land Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases
outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the
issuance, recall, or cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or
Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with
the Register of Deeds;
2.5. Exercise of the right of retention by landowner;
2.6. Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10 of RA
6657;
2.7. Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ)
Opinion No. 44 (1990);
2.8. Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for
livestock, swine, and poultry raising;
2.9. Cases of exemption/exclusion of fishpond and prawn farms from
the coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881;
2.10. Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for land subject of Voluntary
Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for
agricultural purposes;
J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |2

2.11. Application for conversion of agricultural land to residential,
commercial, industrial, or other non agricultural uses and purposes
including protests or oppositions thereto;
2.12. Determination of the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries to
homelots;
2.13. Disposition of excess area of the tenant's/farmer-beneficiary's
landholdings;
2.14. Increase in area of tillage of a tenant/farmer-beneficiary;
2.15. Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its
predecessors; and
2.16. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred
to it by the Secretary of the DAR.
SECTION 3. DARAB cases. These Rules shall not apply to cases
falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and its Regional or
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARAD or PARAD) which
include:
3.1. The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical,
engaged in the management, cultivation, and use of all agricultural lands
covered by RA 6657 and other related agrarian laws;
3.2. The preliminary administrative determination of reasonable and
just compensation of lands acquired under PD 27 and the CARP;
3.3. The annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale
or their amendments involving lands under the administration and
disposition of the DAR or Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP);
3.4. Those cases involving the ejectment and dispossession of tenants
and/or leaseholders;
3.5. Those cases involving the sale, alienation, pre-emption, and
redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARL or other
agrarian laws;
3.6. Those involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary
and subsequent issuances of CLOAs and EPs which are registered with
the Land Registration Authority;
3.7. Those cases involving the review of leasehold rentals;
3.8. Those cases involving the collection of amortizations on payments
for lands awarded under PD 27 (as amended), RA 3844 (as amended),
and RA 6657 (as amended) and other related laws, decrees, orders,
instructions, rules, and regulations, as well as payment for residential,
commercial, and industrial lots within the settlement and resettlement
areas under the administration and disposition of the DAR;
3.9. Those cases involving the annulment or rescission of lease
contracts and deeds of sale, and the cancellation or amendment of titles
pertaining to agricultural lands under the administration and disposition
of the DAR and LBP; as well as EPs issued under PD 266, Homestead
Patents, Free Patents, and miscellaneous sales patents to settlers in
settlement and re-settlement areas under the administration and
disposition of the DAR; ScHAIT
3.10. Those cases involving boundary disputes over lands under the
administration and disposition of the DAR and the LBP, which are
transferred, distributed, and/or sold to tenant-beneficiaries and are
covered by deeds of sale, patents, and certificates of title;
3.11. Those cases involving the determination of title to agricultural
lands where this issue is raised in an agrarian dispute by any of the
parties or a third person in connection with the possession thereof for the
purpose of preserving the tenure of the agricultural lessee or actual
tenant-farmer or farmer-beneficiaries and effecting the ouster of the
interloper or intruder in one and the same proceeding;
NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017
3.12. Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of
PD 946 except those cases falling under the proper courts or other quasi-
judicial bodies; and
3.13. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred
to it by the Secretary of the DAR.
2009 Rules of Procedure of the DARAB.
RUFINA VDA DE TANGUB VS. COURT OF APPEALS, UDK 9864,
DECEMBER 3, 1990 (191 SCRA 885)
FACTS:
1. Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now deceased, filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte "an agrarian case for damages by
reason of the(ir) unlawful dispossession . . .was tenants from the
landholding" owned by the Spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil.
2. Several persons were also impleaded as defendants, including the
Philippine National Bank, it being alleged by the plaintiff spouses that
said bank, holder of a mortgage on the land involved;
3. Sometime later, of portions of the land to the other persons named as
its co-defendants (all employees of the National Steel Corporation), and it
being prayed that mortgage and the transactions thereafter made in
relation thereto be annulled and voided;
4. The complaint was dismissed, by virtue of Executive Order No. 229
"providing the mechanisms for the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program approved on July 24, 1987" Executive No.
129-A approved on July 26, 1987, as well as the Rules of the Adjudication
Board of the Department of Agrarian Reform, jurisdiction of the Regional
Trial Court over agrarian cases had been transferred to the Department of
Agrarian Reform;
5.The Tangub Spouses filed a petition for Certiorari with this Court,
docketed as UDK-8867, assigned to the Second Division;
6. this Court referred the same to the Court of Appeals, that tribunal
having concurrent jurisdiction to act thereon;
7. The CA dismissed the complaint finding that the jurisdictional question
had been correctly resolved by the Trial Court;
8. The petitioner Rufina Vda. de Tangub, now widowed, is once again
before this Court, contending that the Trial Court's "order of dismissal re
patently illegal and unconstitutional" because they deprive "a poor tenant
access to courts and directly violate R.A. 6657, PD 946, and Batas Bilang
129.";
ISSUE: WON The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, acting as a
special agrarian court, in the light of Executive Orders Numbered 129-A
and 229 and Republic Act No. 665.
HELD: The petition is without merit.
Evidently quite as extensive as that theretofore vested in the Regional
Trial Court by Presidential Decree No. 946, which extended to the rights
and obligations of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land,
and other matters affecting tenant-farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers,
owner-cultivators, farms' cooperatives or organizations under laws,
Presidential Decrees, Orders, instructions, Rules and Regulations in
relation to the agrarian reform program. 6 Clearly, the latter must be
deemed to have been eliminated by its being subsumed in the broad
jurisdiction conferred on the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The intention evidently was to transfer original jurisdiction to the
Department of Agrarian Reform, a proposition stressed by the rules
formulated and promulgated by the Department for the implementation
of the executive orders just quoted. 7 The rules included the creation of
the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board designed to exercise the
adjudicatory functions of the Department, and the allocation to it;
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of
jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the
J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |3

other hand, confers "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts,"
which are Regional Trial Courts designated by the Supreme Court at
least one (1) branch within each province to act as such.
The Regional Trial Court of Iligan City was therefore correct in dismissing
Agrarian Case No. 1094. It being a case concerning the rights of the
plaintiffs as tenants on agricultural land, not involving the "special
jurisdiction" of said Trial Court acting as a Special Agrarian Court, it
clearly came within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department
of Agrarian Reform, or more particularly, the Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board, established precisely to wield the adjudicatory
powers of the Department
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the petition is DISMISSED, and the
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 16725 dated October
23, 1989, AFFIRMED.
STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS JUAN
AMANTE ET.AL. (G.R. NO. 112526, MARCH 16, 2005)
Authority of the DAR Secretary to nullify titles under the CARP (Sec.
24 of RA 6657 as amended by Sec. 9 of RA 9700)
Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows: "SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. The
rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence from their
receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land
ownership award and their actual physical possession of the awarded
land. Such award shall be completed in not more than one hundred eighty
(180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the
certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any
agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after
one (1) year from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds,
subject to the conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the
property registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation
patents or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought
under the operation of the torrens system, are conferred with the same
indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system, as
provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by Republic
Act No. 6732. "It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to
register the title of the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines,
after the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the
necessary deposit in the name of the landowner constituting full payment
in cash or in bond with due notice to the landowner and the registration
of the certificate of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and
to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto. "Identified and qualified
agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended, shall have usufructuary rights over the awarded land
as soon as the DAR takes possession of such land, and such right shall not
be diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation patent or
the certificate of land ownership award. CTSHDI "All cases involving the
cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land
ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the DAR."
Reference: DAR Adm. Order No. 6. Series 2011 [ September 21, 2011] The
2011 Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Cancellation of
Registered Emancipation Patents (EPs), Certificates of Landownership
Award (CLOAs), and Other Titles Issued Under any Agrarian Reform
Program
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner, vs.
ROBERTO J. CUENCA et. al, respondents. [G.R. No. 154112.
September 23, 2004.]
FACTS
Private respondent Cuenca is the registered owner of a parcel of land
situated in La Carlota City and devoted principally to the planting of sugar
cane. The MARO of La Carlota City issued and sent a NOTICE OF
COVERAGE to private respondent Cuenca placing the landholding under
the compulsory coverage of R.A. 6657. The NOTICE OF COVERAGE also
stated that the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) will determine the
value of the subject land pursuant to Executive Order No. 405. Private
NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017
respondent Cuenca filed with the RTC for Annulment of Notice of
Coverage and Declaration of Unconstitutionality of E.O. No. 405. Cuenca
alleged that the implementation of CARP in his landholding is no longer
with authority of law considering that, if at all, the implementation should
have commenced and should have been completed between June 1988 to
June 1992; that Executive Order No. 405 amends, modifies and/or repeals
CARL and, therefore, it is unconstitutional considering that then
President Corazon Aquino no longer had law-making powers; that the
NOTICE OF COVERAGE is a gross violation of PD 399.
Private respondent Cuenca prayed that the Notice of Coverage be
declared null and void ab initio. The respondent Judge denied MARO Noe
Fortunados motion to dismiss and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and
desist from implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from
proceeding with the determination of the value of the subject land. The
DAR thereafter filed before the CA a petition for certiorari assailing the
writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge on the ground
of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Stressing that the issue was not simply the improper issuance of the
Notice of Coverage, but was mainly the constitutionality of Executive
Order No. 405, the CA ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) had
jurisdiction over the case. Consonant with that authority, the court a quo
also had the power to issue writs and processes to enforce or protect the
rights of the parties.
ISSUE
Whether the complaint filed by the private respondent is an agrarian
reform and within the jurisdiction of the DAR, not with the trial court
RULING
Yes. A careful perusal of respondents Complaint shows that the principal
averments and reliefs prayed for refer -- not to the pure question of law
spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 -- but to the
annulment of the DARs Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the main thrust of the
allegations is the propriety of the Notice of Coverage, as may be gleaned
from the following averments. The main subject matter raised by private
respondent before the trial court was not the issue of compensation. Note
that no amount had yet been determined nor proposed by the DAR.
Hence, there was no occasion to invoke the courts function of
determining just compensation. To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of
Coverage constitutes the first necessary step towards the acquisition of
private land under the CARP. Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice
relates to the implementation of the CARP, which is under the quasi-
judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from
its authority by the simple expediency of appending an allegedly
constitutional or legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.
Determination of an Agrarian Dispute for cases filed in courts and
prosecutors office [Sec. 19, RA 9700]
READ: DAR Administrative Order No. 3, series 2011(July 19, 2011):
Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Sec. 19 of RA 9700
(Jurisdiction on and Referral of Cases that are Agrarian in Nature)
DOJ Department Circular No. 40, dated June 7, 2010 [Guidelines on
the Investigation and Referral of Cases to the DAR pursuant to Sec.
19 of RA 9700].
Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows: "SEC. 50-A. Exclusive
Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. No court or prosecutor's office shall
take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP
except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or
tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the
prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen
(15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided,
That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have
judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the
prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial
court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be
to the Court of Appeals. "In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial
bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or
J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |4

identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing
and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights
and/or interests under the CARP. "The fact of non-registration of such
associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government
agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal
standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial
bodies."
OCA Circular No. 62-2010 dated April 28, 2010 on the
Implementation of Secs. 7 and 50- A of RA 6657, as amended.
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows: "SEC. 7. Priorities. The DAR, in
coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall
plan and program the final acquisition and distribution of all remaining
unacquired and undistributed agricultural lands from the effectivity of
this Act until June 30, 2014. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as
follows:
"Phase One: During the five (5)-year extension period hereafter all
remaining lands above fifty (50) hectares shall be covered for purposes of
agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act. All private agricultural
lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings in excess of fifty (50)
hectares which have already been subjected to a notice of coverage issued
on or before December 10, 2008; rice and corn lands under Presidential
Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily
offered by the owners for agrarian reform: Provided, That with respect to
voluntary land transfer, only those submitted by June 30, 2009 shall be
allowed: Provided, further, That after June 30, 2009, the modes of
acquisition shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory
acquisition: Provided, furthermore, That all previously acquired lands
wherein valuation is subject to challenge by landowners shall be
completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended: Provided, finally, as mandated by the Constitution,
Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and Republic Act No. 3844, as
amended, only farmers (tenants or lessees) and regular farmworkers
actually tilling the lands, as certified under oath by the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Council (BARC) and attested under oath by the landowners, are
the qualified beneficiaries. The intended beneficiary shall state under
oath before the judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing
to work on the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation of
paying the amortization for the compensation of the land and the land
taxes thereon; all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions;
all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG); and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed
immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to
be completed by June 30, 2012;
"Phase Two: (a) Lands twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares
shall likewise be covered for purposes of agrarian reform upon the
effectivity of this Act. All alienable and disposable public agricultural
lands; all arable public agricultural lands under agro-forest, pasture and
agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops in accordance
with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands
which are to be opened for new development and resettlement; and all
private agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings:
above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares which have
already been subjected to a notice of coverage issued on or before
December 10, 2008, to implement principally the rights of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till, which shall be distributed immediately upon the effectivity
of this Act, with the implementation to be completed by June 30, 2012;
and "(b) All remaining private agricultural lands of landowners with
aggregate landholdings in excess of twenty-four (24) hectares, regardless
as to whether these have been subjected to notices of coverage or not,
with the implementation to begin on July 1, 2012 and to be completed by
June 30, 2013;
"Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with large
landholdings and proceeding to medium and small landholdings under
the following schedule: "(a) Lands of landowners with aggregate
landholdings above ten (10) hectares up to twenty-four (24) hectares,
insofar as the excess hectarage above ten (10) hectares is concerned, to
NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017
begin on July 1, 2012 and to be completed by June 30, 2013; and "(b)
Lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings from the retention
limit up to ten (10) hectares, to begin on July 1, 2013 and to be completed
by June 30, 2014; to implement principally the right of farmers and
regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till.
"The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands
covered by this program shall be made in accordance with the above
order of priority, which shall be provided in the implementing rules to be
prepared by the PARC, taking into consideration the following: the
landholdings wherein the farmers are organized and understand the
meaning and obligations of farmland ownership; the distribution of lands
to the tillers at the earliest practicable time; the enhancement of
agricultural productivity; and the availability of funds and resources to
implement and support the program: Provided, That the PARC shall
design and conduct seminars, symposia, information campaigns, and
other similar programs for farmers who are not organized or not covered
by any landholdings. Completion by these farmers of the aforementioned
seminars, symposia, and other similar programs shall be encouraged in
the implementation of this Act particularly the provisions of this Section.
"Land acquisition and distribution shall be completed by June 30, 2014 on
a province-by-province basis.
In any case, the PARC or the PARC Executive Committee (PARC EXCOM),
upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces as priority land
reform areas, in which case the acquisition and distribution of private
agricultural lands therein under advanced phases may be implemented
ahead of the above schedules on the condition that prior phases in these
provinces have been completed: Provided, That notwithstanding the
above schedules, phase three (b) shall not be implemented in a particular
province until at least ninety percent (90%) of the provincial balance of
that particular province as of January 1, 2009 under Phase One, Phase
Two (a), Phase Two (b), and Phase Three (a), excluding lands under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), have been successfully completed.
"The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities
and distribution scheme, including the determination of who are qualified
beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller may be a beneficiary of the
land he/she does not own but is actually cultivating to the extent of the
difference between the area of the land he/she owns and the award
ceiling of three (3) hectares: Provided, further, That collective ownership
by the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject to Section 25 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended: Provided, furthermore, That rural women shall be
given the opportunity to participate in the development planning and
implementation of this Act: Provided, finally, That in no case should the
agrarian reform beneficiaries' sex, economic, religious, social, cultural and
political attributes adversely affect the distribution of lands."
Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows: "SEC. 50-A. Exclusive
Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. No court or prosecutor's office shall
take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP
except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or
tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the
prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen
(15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided,
That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have
judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the
prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial
court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be
to the Court of Appeals. "In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial
bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or
identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing
and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights
and/or interests under the CARP. "The fact of non-registration of such
associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government
agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal
standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial
bodies."
J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |5

Sec 57, The role of the Special Agrarian Courts in land valuation and
penal provisions
SECTION 57. Special Jurisdiction. The Special Agrarian Courts shall
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution
of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all
proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this
Act. The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under
their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the
case for decision.
Phil. Veterans Bank vs. CA et. al, (GR No. 132767, Jan. 18, 2000)
Facts:
Petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank owned four parcels of land in Tagum,
Davaowhich were taken by the Department of Agrarian Reform for
distribution to landless farmers pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). Dissatisfied with the valuation of the Land
Bank of the Philippines and the DARAB, petitioner filed a petition for
determination of the just compensation for its property with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao on January 26, 1994. The RTC
dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day
reglamentary period for filing appeals from the orders of the DARAB. The
Decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this Petition for
Review.
Issue:
Whether or not the Special Agrarian Courts are considered appellate
courts in the determination of just compensation
Held:
No. To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly Section 50
thereof, Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure provides:
"Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just
Compensation. The decision of the adjudicator on land valuation and
preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be
appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial
Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one
motion for reconsideration."
As we held in Republic vs. Court of Appeals, this Rule is an
acknowledgement by the DARAB that the power to decide just
compensation cases for the taking of lands under R.A. No. 6657 is vested
in the Courts. It is error to think that, because of Rule XIII, Sec. 11, the
original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide petitions
for determination of just compensation has thereby been transformed
into an appellate jurisdiction. It only means that, in accordance with
settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in
the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a preliminary
manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, but such
determination is subject to challenge in the courts.
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and
exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the
judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative
determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of
the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts
cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the
legality of administrative action.
Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court was filed beyond
the 15-day period provided in Rule XIII, 11 of the Rules of Procedure of
the DARAB, the trial court correctly dismissed the case and the Court of
Appeals correctly affirmed the order of dismissal.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ, respondent. [G.R. No. 169008. August 14,
2007.]
Facts:
After compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agrarian Reform, on
November 16, 1993, of respondent Martinez's 62.5369-hectare land in
Barangay Agpudlos, San Andres, Romblon, pursuant to Republic Act No.
NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017
6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL),
petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines offered P1,955,485.60 as just
compensation, for which respondent rejected. Thus, the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, through its Provincial Agrarian
Reform Adjudicator conducted summary administrative proceedings for
the preliminary determination of just compensation in accordance with
Section 16 (d) of the CARL.
On September 4, 2002, PARAD Virgilio M. Sorita, rendered judgment
ordering the LBP to pay landowner-protestant RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ
for her property covered with the total amount of TWELVE MILLION ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY TWO
and 50/100 Pesos (Php12,179,492.50).
A petition for the fixing of just compensation was then filed by LBP's
counsel before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) of the Regional Trial
Court of Odiongan, Romblon.
Meanwhile, respondent, still asserting the finality of PARAD Sorita's
decision, filed before the Office of the PARAD a motion for the issuance of
a writ of execution, which was eventually granted on November 11, 2003.
The PARAD denied LBP's motion for reconsideration and ordered the
issuance of a writ of execution on February 23, 2004.
LBP, on March 12, 2004, moved to quash the said February 23, 2004
PARAD resolution. On April 6, 2004, even as the motion to quash was yet
unresolved, LBP instituted a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA,
on September 28, 2004 dismissed the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the PARAD, gravely abused its discretion when it issued a
writ of execution despite the pendency of LBP's petition for fixing of just
compensation with the SAC?
Held:
In this case, petitioner moved to quash the PARAD resolutions and at the
same time petitioned for their annulment via certiorari under Rule 65. In
both proceedings, the parties are identical and the reliefs prayed for are
the same. In the two actions, petitioner also has a singular stance: the
PARAD resolutions should not be executed in view of the pendency of the
petition for fixing of just compensation with the SAC. Thus a situation is
created where the two fora could come up with conflicting decisions. This
is precisely the evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum-
shopping.
We find petitioner not entitled to the grant of a writ of certiorari by the
appellate court because the Office of the PARAD did not gravely abuse its
discretion when it undertook to execute the September 4, 2002 decision.
Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.
In Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals and in Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, we explained the
consequence of the said rule to the effect that the adjudicator's decision
on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period.
Considering therefore that, in this case, LBP's petition with the SAC for
the fixing of just compensation was filed 26 days after its receipt of the
PARAD's decision, or eleven days beyond the reglementary period, the
latter had already attained finality. The PARAD could very well issue the
writ of execution.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HEIRS OF ELEUTERIO CRUZ
G.R. No. 175175, September 29, 2008
Facts:
Respondents are registered owners of an unirrigated riceland situated in
Cagayan, which was placed by the government under the coverage of the
operation land transfer under PD 27. LBP pegged the value of the land but
was rejected the valuation.
Because of such rejection, SAC held that the value of the land different
from that of the valuation made by the LBP, following the valuation made
by the PARAD. On petition, the CA ruled that the area covered by the
agrarian reform program was duly established before PARAD, however,
CA affirmed the land valuation made by the SAC. Hence, this instant
petition.
J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |6

Issue:
Whether the SAC has the jurisdiction to determine the valuation of the
land.
Ruling:
Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 states:
SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the
owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government
assessors, shall be considered. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farm workers and by government to
the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from
any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered
as additional factors to determine its valuation.
A perusal of the PARADs Decision dated 23 November 1999, which
mandated payment of just compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 per
hectare, reveals that the PARAD did not adhere to the formula prescribed
in any of the aforementioned regulations issued by the DAR or was at
least silent on the applicability of the aforementioned DAR regulations to
the question of just compensation. The PARAD decision also did not refer
to any evidence in support of its finding.
The SAC, meanwhile, referred to DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992, as
amended, as the controlling guideline in fixing just compensation.
Pertinently, to obtain the land value, the formula under said regulation
requires that the values for the Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales
and Market Value based on the tax declaration must be shown. Moreover,
said formula has been superseded by DAR A.O. No. 05, series of 1998,
which also requires values for Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales
and Market Value, the same parameters laid down in the prior regulation.
Stating that no evidence was presented by respondents on the
aforementioned parameters, the SAC ruled that it was constrained to
adopt the finding of the PARAD, which fixed the value of the land at
P80,000.00 per hectare. On appeal, the CA adopted the same finding. The
general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, especially when
affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on the Court. However, the
rule admits of exceptions, as when the factual findings are grounded
entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures or when the findings are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.
A perusal of the PARAD decision, which was adopted by both the SAC and
the CA, shows that its valuation of P80,000.00 per hectare is sorely
lacking in any evidentiary or legal basis. While the Court wants to fix just
compensation due to respondents if only to write finis to the controversy,
the evidence on record is not sufficient for the Court to do so in
accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.
Decision of CA was reversed and set aside, the case was remanded to RTC
to determine the just compensation.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONILA P. CELADA G.R. No.
164876. January 23, 2006
FACTS:
Leonila P. Celada owns hectares of agricultural land which was identified
by the DAR as suitable for compulsory acquisition under the CARP. The
matter was then indorsed to LBP for field investigation and land
valuation. LBP valued the land at P2.1105517 per square meter for an
aggregate value of P299,569.61.
The DAR offered the same amount to respondent as just compensation,
but it was rejected. Nonetheless LBP deposited the same in cash and
bonds in the name of Celada. Pursuant to Section 16(d) of RA 6657 or
CARP, the matter was referred to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)
for summary administrative hearing on determination of just
compensation. While the DARAB case was pending, Celada filed a petition
for judicial determination of just compensation against LBP, the DAR and
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) alleging that the current
market value of her land is at least P150,000.00 in RTC acting as Special
Agrarian Court.
In its Answer, LBP raised non-exhaustion of administrative remedies as
well as forum-shopping and respondent must first await the outcome of
NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017
the DARAB case before taking any judicial recourse. That its valuation
was arrived at by applying the formula prescribed by law whereas
respondents was based only on the "current value of like properties".
The DAR and the MARO filed an Answer averring that the determination
of just compensation rests exclusively with the LBP. Thus, they are not
liable to respondent and are merely nominal parties in the case. PARAD
affirmed the valuation made by LBP. LBP elevated the matter to the CA
which, however, dismissed the appeal. Upon denial of its MR. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
WON RTC (SAC) has jurisdiction over the petition for determination of
just compensation while administrative proceedings are on-going.
HELD:
We do not agree with petitioners submission that the SAC erred in
assuming jurisdiction over respondents petition for determination of just
compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings
before the DARAB.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeal , the landowner filed an
action for determination of just compensation without waiting for the
completion of the DARABs re-evaluation of the land. The Court
nonetheless held therein that the SAC acquired jurisdiction over the
action for the following reason: It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC,
sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has original and exclusive jurisdiction
over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners. This original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC would be
undermined if the DAR would vest in administrative officials original
jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court
for the review of administrative decision. Thus, although the new rules
speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting
as Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 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 Sec. 57 and therefore would be void. Thus, direct resort to the
SAC by private respondent is valid. It would be well to emphasize that the
taking of property under RA No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of
eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination
of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a
judicial function which is vested with the courts and not with
administrative agencies. Consequently, the SAC properly took cognizance
of respondents petition for determination of just compensation.
In the same vein, there is no merit to petitioners contention that
respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies when she directly
filed the petition for determination of just compensation with the SAC
even before the DARAB case could be resolved. The issue is now moot
considering that the valuation made by petitioner had long been affirmed
by the DARAB in its order dated April 12, 2000.
As held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco , the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable when the issue is
rendered moot and academic, as in the instant case.
Land Bank vs. CA and Jose Pascual (GR No. 128557, Dec. 29, 1999)
Modes of Appeal/Review from the DARAB
FACTS:
An action for mandamus was filed by Jose Pascual after the refusal of
Land Bank of the Philippines to pay private respondent pursuant to the
final decision rendered by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD). LBP was ordered to pay Php 1.9M plus interest as just
compensation to Jose Pascual. The computation was based on the
increased value of the Government Support Price, which was Php 300 per
cavan of palay and Php 250 per cavan of corn. The petitioner refused to
pay the respondent alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals and that it acted beyond its authority. It also asserted that the
writ of mandamus could not be issued, as there are other remedies
available in the ordinary course of law.
ISSUE:
Is the Land Bank of the Philippines bound to pay the Php 1.9M plus 6%
interest per annum as just compensation to Jose Pascual?
J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |7
 NOTES IN AGRARIAN REFORM LAW August 21, 2017

LAW:
EO 228 provides that the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by PD
27 shall be based on the average gross production determined by the
Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with Department
Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and related issuance of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. The average gross production shall be
multiplied by 2.5, the product shall be multiplied by Php 35, the
government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October
21, 1972, or Php 31, the government support price for one cavan of 50
kilos of corn on October 21, 1972, and the amount arrived at shall be the
value of the rice and corn land, as the case may be, for the purpose of
determining its cost to the farmer and compensation to the landowner.

RULING:
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in granting the
compensation of Php 1.9M but it deleted the 6% interest per annum, as it
is no longer applicable. Administrative Order No. 13, which provides
compensation to landowners for unearned interests is no longer
applicable since the PARAD already increased the GSP from Php 35 to Php
300 per cavan of palay and from Php 31 to Php 250 per cavan of corn.

Rule 43 of the Rules of Court

This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the
Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or
resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise
of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service
Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration
Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of
Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification
Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications
Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No.
6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation
Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission,
Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments,
Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators
authorized by law.

Sec. 54 of CARL, in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

SECTION 54. Certiorari. Any decision, order, award or ruling of the
DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the
application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act
and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court
of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise provided in this Act within
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of a copy thereof. The findings of fact of
the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence.

J R C M L A W A R C H I V E S |8