SocLeg 1st Exam

AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ---------------- ATTY. SIGRID G.
MIER
Association Of Small Landowners In The Phillipphines V s Honorable Secretary Of Agrarian

Reform Gr 78742 July 14, 1989
History
The consolidated case he re te ll of the e le mental force s of life and de ath, of me n and women who
need the sustaining strength of the precious e arth to stay alive .
“Land for the Landle ss” is a slogan that underscore s the acute imbalance in the distribution of this
pre cious re source among our pe ople . I t has be came a battle-cry dramatizing the incre asingly urgent
de mand of the disposse sse d among us for a plot of e arth as the ir place in the sun
1935 Constitution re cognize s this nee d, and mandate d the policy of social justice to “Insure the
we ll-be ing and e conomic se curity of all the pe ople ” e spe cially the le ss privile ged.
I n 1973, the ne w Constitution affirmed this goal adding that the “The State shall re gulate the
acquisition, owne rship, use , enjoyment and disposition of private property and e quitably diffuse
prope rty ownership and profits” with the injunction “to formulate and imple me nt an agrarian re form
program aime d at e mancipating the te nant form the bondage of the soil”
The 19787 Constitution adopte d Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights provisions for the
uplift of the common pe ople .
Se c 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian re form program founde d on the right of
farmers and re gular farmworkers, who are landle ss, to own dire ctly or colle ctive ly the lands the y
till or, in the case of other farmworke rs, to re ce ive a just share of the fruits there of. To this e nd,
the State shall e ncourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subje ct to
such prioritie s and re asonable re te ntion limits as the Congre ss may pre scribe , taking into account
e cological, de ve lopmental, or equity conside rations and subje ct to the payme nt of just
compensation. I n de termining re tention limits, the State shall re spe ct the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide ince ntive s for voluntary land-sharing.
I n August 8, 1963 - R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Re form Code , had
alre ady bee n e nacted by the Congre ss of the Philippine s in line with the above -state d principle s
Octobe r 21, 1972 - supe rse de d P.D. No. 27 to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private
lands for distribution among tenant-farme rs and to spe cify maximum re te ntion limits for
landowners.
July 17, 1987 - Pre side nt Corazon C. Aquino issue d E.O. No. 228, de claring full land ownership in
favor of the be ne ficiarie s of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands
cove re d by the de cree as we ll as the manne r of the ir payme nt
July 22, 1987 - Pre side ntial Proclamation No. 131, instituting a comprehe nsive agrarian re form
program (CARP) E.O. No. 229, providing the me chanics for its imple me ntation.
June 10, 1988 - e nactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehe nsive Agrarian
Re form Law of 1988
This law, while considerably changing the e arlier mentione d enactme nts, ne ve rthe le ss give s them
supple tory e ffe ct insofar as the y are not inconsistent with its provisions.
From The Joint Efforts of Ada, Czarina, Dale, Gyrl, Hector, Jal, Kael, Leonido Lexee, Manuel, Nicole
Ad Majorem de Gloriam 1
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ---------------- ATTY. SIGRID G. MIER
Association Of Small Landowners In The Phillipphines V s Honorable Secretary Of Agrarian

Reform Gr 78742 July 14, 1989
Constitutionality of Agrarian Reform Law
Facts:
The petitione rs in this case invoke the right of re te ntion granted by PD 27 to owners of rice and
corn lands not e xcee ding se ve n he ctares as long as the y are cultivating or inte nd to cultivate the
same .
The ir re spe ctive lands do not e xcee d the statutory limit but are occupied by te nants who are
actually cultivating such lands.
According to PD 316, which was promulgate d in imple me ntation of PD No. 27
- No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily de vote d to rice and corn shall be e je cted
or re move d from his farm holding until such time as the re spe ctive rights of the tenat-
farmers and the landowner shall have bee n de te rmine d in accordance with the rule s and
re gulations imple menting PD 27
The pe titioners claim the y cannot e je ct the ir tenants and so are unable to e njoy the ir right of
re tention be cause DAR has so far not issued the imple menting rule s re quire d unde r PD 27
DAR argue s the n that PD 27 has bee n ame nde d by LOI 474 re moving any right of retention form
persons who own other agricultural lands of more than 7 he ctare s in aggre gate area or lands used
for re side ntial, comme rcial, industrial or other purpose s from which the y de rive ade quate income
for the ir family. Also, re gulations impleme nting PD 27 have alre ady bee n issued date d july 10, 1975
(I nterim guide line s on re te ntion by small landowners) Me morandum Circular No. 11 date d April 21,
1978, (I mple me ntation Guide line s of LOI No. 474), Me morandum Circular No. 18-81 date d
De ce mbe r 29,1981 (Clarificatory Guideline s on Coverage of P.D. No. 27 and Re te ntion by Small
Landowne rs), and DAR Administrative Orde r No. 1, serie s of 1985 (Providing for a Cut-off Date for
Landowne rs to Apply for Re tention and/or to Prote st the Coverage of the ir Landholdings under
Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27). For failure to file the corre sponding applications
for re te ntion unde r the se me asure s, the pe titioners are now barre d from invoking this right.
The pe titione rs insist that the above -cite d me asure s are not applicable to them be cause the y do
not own more than se ven he ctare s of agricultural land. More over, assuming argue ndo that the rule s
we re inte nded to cover the m also, the said me asure s are ne ve rthe le ss not in force be cause the y
have not bee n published as re quire d by law
Ruling:
I n conne ction with the se re taine d rights, it doe s not appe ar in G.R. No. 78742 that the appe al file d
by the pe titione rs with the Office of the Pre sident has alre ady be en re solve d. Although we have said
that the doctrine of e xhaustion of administrative re medie s nee d not pre clude imme diate re sort to
judicial action, there are factual issue s that have ye t to be e xamined on the administrative le ve l,
e spe cially the claim that the pe titioners are not cove re d by LOI 474 be cause the y do not own other
agricultural lands than the subje cts of the ir pe tition.
The court cannot re solve this issue s. I n any e ve nt, assuming that the pe titioner s have not yet
e xe rcise d the ir re te ntion rights, if any, under PD 27, the courts holds that they are entitled to the
new re te ntion rights provide d for by RA 6657.
Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR/ G.R. No. 86889 / December 4, 1990
Facts:
On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was approve d by the Pre side nt of the Philippine s, which include s,
among others, the raising of live stock, poultry and swine in its coverage .
Pe titioner Luz Farms, a corporation e ngage d in the live stock and poultry busine ss, ave rs that it
would be adve rse ly affe cte d by the e nforce ment of se ctions 3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of the
said law. Hence , it prayed that the said law be de clare d unconstitutional. The me ntione d se ctions
of the law provide s, among othe rs, the product-sharing plan, including those engaged in live stock
and poultry busine ss. Luz Farms argued that live stock or poultry raising is not similar with crop
or tree farming as land is not the primary re source in this unde rtaking and re pre sents no more
than 5% of the total inve stme nts of comme rcial live stock and poultry raise rs. He nce , it argue d that
it should not be included in the cove rage of RA 6657 which covers “agricultural lands”.
Issue:
Whe the r or not certain provisions of R A 6657 is unconstitutional for including in its de finition of
“Agriculture” the live stock and poultry industry.
Held:
Ye s. The transcripts of the de liberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the me aning
of the word "agricultural," cle arly show that it was ne ve r the intention of the frame rs of the
Constitution to include live stock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-
mandate d agrarian re form program of the Gove rnme nt. The Committee conte mplate d that
agricultural lands are limite d to arable and suitable agricultural lands and the refore , do not include
comme rcial, industrial and re side ntial lands
The re is merit in Luz Farms' argument that the re quire ment in Se ctions 13 and 32 of R.A. 6657
dire cting "corporate farms" which include live stock and poultry raisers to e xe cute and imple me nt
"production-sharing plans" (pe nding final re distribution of the ir landholdings) whereby the y are
calle d upon to distribute from three pe rce nt (3% ) of the ir gross sale s and te n percent (10% ) of the ir
net profits to the ir worke rs as additional compe nsation is unre asonable for be ing confiscatory, and
the re fore violative of due proce ss.
National Housing Authority v Allarde/ GR 106593 / November 16, 1999
Facts:
Private re spondent Rufino Mate o had live d in the dispute d lots since his birth in 1928. In 1959, he
starte d farming and working on a six-he ctare portion of said lots, afte r the de ath of his fathe r who
had cultivate d a thirtee n-he ctare portion of the same lots. On Septe mbe r 1, 1983, the National
Housing Authority notified the re spondent spouse s of the sche duled de ve lopme nt of the Tala Estate
including the lots in que stion, warning the m that it would not be re sponsible for any damage which
may be caused to the crops plante d on the said lots. I n 1989, private re spondent Rufino Mate o file d
with the De partme nt of Agrarian Re form a pe tition for the award to the m of subje ct disputed lots
under the Comprehe nsive Agrarian Re form Program (CARP). I n January 1992, pe titioner cause d the
bulldozing of the rice fie lds of private respondents, damaging the dike s and irrigations the re on, in
the proce ss. On March 18, 1992, the respondent spouse s, re lying on the ir claim that subje ct lots
are agricultural land within the coverage of the CARP, brought be fore the re sponde nt Re gional Trial
Court a complaint for damage s with praye r for a writ of pre liminary injunction, to e njoin the
pe titioner from bulldozing further and making constructions on the lots under controve rsy.
Pe titioner conte nded that the said lots which we re pre viously re served by Proclamation No. 843 for
housing and re settle ment purpose s are not cove red by the CARP as the y are not agricultural lands
within the de finition and conte mplation of Se ction 3 (c) of R. A. No. 6657. The RTC issue d the writ.
Issue:
Whe the r or not the Compre ssive Agrarian Re form Law (CARL) covers gove rnme nt lands re serve d
for spe cific public purpose s prior to the e ffe ctivity of said law.
Held:
No. Lands re se rve d for, or conve rte d to, non -agricultural use s by government age ncie s other than
the Department of Agrarian Re form, prior to the e ffe ctivity of Re public Act No. 6657 are not
considere d and tre ate d as agricultural lands and the re fore , outside the ambit of said law, on the
basis of the following disquisition:
“x x x Se ction 4 of R.A. 6657 provide s that the CARL shall 'cove r, re gardle ss of te nurial arrange ment
and commodity produce d, all public and private agricultural lands.' As to what constitute s
'agricultural land,' it is re fe rred to as 'lands de vote d to agricultural activity as de fined in this Act
and not classifie d as mineral, fore st, reside ntial, comme rcial or industrial land. The de libe rations
of the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. 'Agricultural lands' are only those lands
which are 'arable and suitable agricultural lands' and 'do not include comme rcial, industrial and
re sidential lands.”
Thus, since as early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate was re se rve d, inter alia unde r Pre side ntial
Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the National Housing Authority, the same has
been cate gorize d as not be ing de vote d to the agricultural activity conte mplate d by Se ction 3 (c) of
R.A. No. 6657, and is, the re fore , outside the cove rage of the CARL.
Isidro v Court of Appeals
Facts:
Private re spondent Natividad Gutierrez is the owne r of the subje ct parce l of land. I n 1985, Anice ta
Garcia, sister of private re sponde nt and also the ove rsee r of the latter, allowed pe titione r Re migio
I sidro to occupy the swampy portion of the land. The occupancy of a portion of said land was
subje ct to the condition that pe titioner would vacate the land upon de mand. Pe titioner occupied
the land without paying any re ntal and converte d the same into a fishpond. I n 1990, private
re spondent through the overseer de mande d from pe titioner the re turn of the land, but the latter
re fused to vacate and re turn posse ssion of said land, claiming that he had spent e ffort and inve ste d
capital in conve rting the same into a fishpond. A complaint for unlawful detainer was file d by
private re spondent against pe titioner before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Gapan, Nue va Ecija.
The trial court dismisse d the case because it rule d that it is an agrarian dispute , he nce not
cognizable by civil courts. Private re spondent appe aled to the RTC which affirme d in toto the
de cision of MTC. On appe al to the CA, the de cision of the trial court was re verse d.
Issue:
Whethe r or not the case is an agrarian dispute and hence not cognizable by civil courts
Held:
No. A case involving an agricultural land doe s not automatically make such case an agrarian
dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the land is agricultural doe s
not ipso facto make the posse ssor an agricultural le ssee of tenant. The law provide s for conditions
or requisite s be fore he can qualify as one and the land be ing agricultural is only one of the m. The
law state s that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy re lating to a te nurial arrange ment over
lands de vote d to agriculture . And as pre viously me ntione d, such arrange me nt may be le asehold,
tenancy or ste wardship. Te nancy is not a pure ly factual re lationship depe ndent on what the alle ged
tenant doe s upon the land. I t is also a le gal re lationship. The inte nt of the partie s, the
understanding when the farmer is installe d, and the ir writte n agree ments, provide d the se are
complie d with and are not contrary to law, are e ve n more important.
BUMAGAT V s. ARRIBAY GR No. 194818 June 9, 2014
Facts:
The following are the re gistered owne rs of about e ight he ctare s of agricultural land, located
in Bubog, Sto. Tomas, I sabe la Province :
1. Charle s Bumagat (Bumagat) 14,585 square me te rs covere d by Transfe r Ce rtificate of Title No.
(TC T) 014557; [4 ]
2. Julian Bacudio (Bacudio) 14,797 square me te rs covere d by TCT 014556; [ 5 ]
3. Rosario Padre 14,974 square me te rs cove re d by TCT 014554 [ 6 ] in the name of Dionicio Padre ; [ 7 ]
4. Spouse s Roge lio and Zosima Padre 6,578 square meters cove re d by TCT 014561 [ 8 ] in the name
of I rene o Padre ; [9 ]
5. Spouse s Roge lio and Zosima Padre 6,832 square me ters cove re d by TCT 014560 in the name of
the ir pre de ce ssor -in-inte re st Fe lix Pacis; [ 1 0 ]
6. Fe lipe Domincil 14,667 square me ters covere d by TCT 014558; [ 1 1 ] and
7. Fe lipe Domincil 7,319 square me te rs. [ 1 2 ]
The y filed a complaint for forcible entry against Arribay be fore the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC) alle ging that with the aid of arme d goons and through the use of intimidation and thre ats
of physical harm, the latter ente re d the forme r’s parce ls of land and ousted them from the ir lawful
posse ssion. Arribay sought for the dismissal of the complaint, claiming that the subje ct prope rtie s
are agricultural lands – which rende rs the dispute an agrarian matte r and subje ct to the e xclusive
jurisdiction of De partme nt of Agrarian Re form Adjudication Board(DARAB). The Municipal Agrarian
Re form Office (MARO) de nie d the motion for failure to show the e xistence of a tenancy or agrarian
re lationship be twee n the partie s. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MC TC) found that no te nancy
or other agrarian re lationship e xisted be twee n the partie s. The Re gional Trial Court (RTC)affirme d.
The Court of Appe als (CA) re versed the RTC and agree d that the dispute fe ll under the jurisdiction
of the DARAB.
Issue:
WON the dispute within the jurisdiction of DARAB.
Ruling:
No. The CA faile d to re alize , howe ve r, is the fact that as be twee n pe titioners and the re sponde nt,
the re is no tenurial arrange me nt, not eve n an implie d one . As corre ctly argued by petitione rs, a
case involving agricultural land doe s not imme diate ly qualify it as an agrarian dispute . The mere
fact that the land is agricultural doe s not ips o f acto make the posse ssor an agricultural le ssee or
tenant. The re are conditions or re quisite s be fore he can qualify as an agricultural le ssee or te nant,
and the subje ct be ing agricultural land constitute s just one condition. [4 1 ] For the DARAB to acquire
jurisdiction ove r the case , the re must exist a tenancy re lation be twee n the partie s. "[I ]n orde r for
a tenancy agree me nt to take hold over a dispute , it is e ssential to e stablish all its indispe nsable
e le ments, to wit: 1) that the partie s are the landowne r and the tenant or agricultural le sse e ; 2)
that the subje ct matter of the re lationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent betwe en
the partie s to the re lationship; 4) that the purpose of the re lationship is to bring about agricultural
production; 5) that the re is pe rsonal cultivation on the part of the te nant or agricultural le ssee ;
and 6) that the harve st is shared be tween the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
le ssee ." [4 2 ] In the pre sent case , it is quite e vident that not all of the se conditions are pre se nt. For
one , the re is no tenant, as both partie s claim ownership over the prope rty. For the DARAB to
acquire jurisdiction ove r the case , there must e xist a te nancy re lation be twee n the partie s. “I n
orde r for a tenancy agree me nt to take hold over a dispute , it is e sse ntial to e stablish all its
indispensable e le me nts, to wit: 1) that the partie s are the land owne r and the tenant of agricultural
le ssee ; 2) that the subje ct matte r of the re lationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is conse nt
be tween the partie s to the re lationship;4) that the purpose of the re lationship is to bring about
agricultural production; 5)that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
le ssee ; and6) that the harve st is share d betwee n the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
le ssee . In the pre se nt case , it is quite evide nt that not all of the se conditions a re pre sent. For one ,
the re is no te nant, as both partie s claim ownership ove r the prope rty.
G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989
GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS JULIAN, SR., PEDRO RICALDE, V ICENTE
RICALDE and ROLANDO SALAMAR, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE M. REYES, PAZ M. REYES and FE M.
REYES, re spondents.
Facts:
Private s re spondents acquire d 2 parce ls of land through a home ste ad pate nt under CA 141The y
want to pe rsonally cultivate the se lands, but pe titione rs re fuse to vacate the land re lying on PD 27
and PD 316 and re gulations issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Re form (MAR) now the De partme nt
of Agrarian Re form (DAR)
June 1981, Re spondents file d a complaint against the Ministe r of Agrarian Re form and the Re gional
Dire ctor of the MAR for the de claration of PD 27 and all othe r de cree s
RTC dismis se d the complaint
Issue:
Won land obtainte d through home ste ad patent are cove re d by the agrarian re form unde r pd 27
Ruling:
Constitut ional Law ; Agrarian Reform; CARL; Homesteads; Both the Philippine Constitution
and the CARL respect the superiority of the homesteaders’ rights over the rights of the
tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute.—In this re gard, the Philippine Constitution
like wise re spe cts the supe riority of the home ste aders’ rights over the rights of the tenants
guarantee d by the Agrarian Re form statute . I n point is Se ction 6 of Article XI II of the 1987
Philippine Constitution which provide s: Se ction 6. The State shall apply the principle s of agrarian
re form or ste wardship, whene ver applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization
of othe r natural re source s, including lands of public domain unde r le ase or conce ssion suitable to
agriculture , subje ct to prior rights, home ste ad rights of small se ttle rs, and the rights of indige nous
communitie s to the ir ance stral lands.” Additionally, it is worthy of note that the ne wly promulgated
Compre hensive Agrarian Re form Law of 1988 or Re public Act No. 6657 like wise contains a proviso
supporting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covere d by home ste ad patents like those of the
prope rty in que stion, re ading, “Se ction 6. Retention Limits. x x x “x x x Provide d furthe r, That
original home ste ad grantee s or the ir dire ct compulsory he irs who still own the original home ste ad
at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same are as as long as the y continue to
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs. Honorable Secretary of Agrarian

Reform
Facts:
The se are consolidate d case s which involve common le gal, including se rious challenge s to the
constitutionality of the se veral me asure s such as P.D. No. 27, E.O. No. 228, Pre sidential
Proclamation No. 131, E.O. No. 229, and R.A. No. 6657.
G.R. No. 79777:
The pe titioners are Nicolas Manaay and his wife who own a 9-he ctare rice land worke d by four
tenants and Augustin Hermano, Jr. who owns a 5-he ctare rice land worke d by four te nants. The y
que stion the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 & 229, and R.A. No. 6657 since the ir
tenants were de clare d full owners of the me ntioned lands.
G.R. No. 79777
The petitione rs are que stioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos . 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of
se paration of powers, due proce ss, e qual prote ction and the constitutional limitation that no private
prope rty shall be take n for public use without just compe nsation. G.R. No. 79310
G.R. No. 79744
The pe titione r argue s that E.O. Nos. 2 28 and 229 are violative of the constitutional provision that
no private prope rty shall be take n without due proce ss or just compensation.
G.R. No. 78742
Pe titioners claim the y cannot e je ct the ir tenants and so are unable to enjoy the ir right of re te ntion
be cause the De partment of Agrarian Reform has so far not issue d the imple menting rule s re quired
under the above-quoted de cree .
Issues:
Whethe r or not Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be invalidate d be cause the y do not provide
for re tention limits re quired by Article 13, Se ction 4 of the Constitution. Whethe r this statute is
an e xercise of police powe r or the power of e minent domain
Ruling:
NO. R.A. No. 6657 doe s provide for such limits now in Se ction 6 of the law. There are traditional
distinctions be tween the police power and the powe r of e mine nt domain that logically pre clude the
application of both powers at the same time on the same subje ct. Prope rty conde mne d under the
police power is noxious or inte nded for a noxious purpose , such as a building on the verge of
collapse , which should be de molishe d for the public safe ty, or obscene mate rials, which should be
de stroyed in the intere st of public morals. The confiscation of such prope rty is not compe nsable ,
unlike the taking of property under the power of e xpropriation, which re quire s the payme nt of just
compensation to the owne r. The case s be fore us pre sent no knotty complication insofar as the
que stion of compensable taking is conce rne d. To the e xtent that the me asure s under challe nge
me re ly pre scribe re te ntion limits for landowners, there is an e xercise of the police powe r for the
re gulation of private prope rty in accordance with the Constitution. But where , to carry out such
re gulation, it be come s ne ce ssary to deprive such owners of whate ve r lands the y may own in e xce ss
of the maximum are a allowe d, there is de finite ly a taking under the powe r of e mine nt domain for
which payme nt of just compe nsation is imperative . The taking conte mplate d is not a me re limitation
of the use of the land. What is re quired is the surre nder of the title to and the physical posse ssion
of the said e xce ss and all be ne ficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-bene ficiary.
This is de finite ly an e xe rcise not of the police powe r but of the powe r of e minent domain .
Department Of Agrarian Reform V s. Carriedo, G.R. No.. 176549
Janu ary 20, 2016
Facts:
The land originally forme d part of the agricultural land cove re d by Transfer Ce rtificate of Title (TCT)
No. 17680, 5 which in turn, formed part of the total of 73.3157 he ctare s of agricultural land owned
by Roman De Je sus (Roman).
On May 23, 1972, pe titione r Pablo Me ndoza be came the te nant of the land by virtue of a Contrato
King Pamamuis an 7 e xe cute d be twee n him and Roman. Pursuant to the Contrato, Me ndoza has be en
paying twenty-five (25) piculs of sugar e very crop ye ar as le ase re ntal to R oman. I t was later
change d to Two Thousand Pe sos (P2, 000.00) pe r crop ye ar, the land be ing no longe r de vote d to
sugarcane .
I n 1979, Roman die d leaving the land to his surviving Albe rta, and the ir two sons Mario and
Antonio. In 1984, Antonio e xe cute d a Dee d of Extrajudicial Succe ssion with Waive r of Right which
made Alberta and Mario co-owne rs in e qual proportion of the agricultural land le ft by Roman. Mario
sold approximate ly 70.4788 he ctare s to re spondent Rome o C. Carrie do.
The are a sold to Carriedo include d the land tenante d by Me ndoza. He alle ged that the sale took
place without his knowle dge and consent.
I n 1990, Carrie do sold all of the se landholdings to the Pe ople s’ Live lihood Foundation, Inc. (PLFI )
repre se nted by its pre side nt, Be rnabe Buscayn o. All the lands, e xcept that cove re d by TCT No.
17680, were subje cted to Voluntary Land Transfe r/Dire ct Payment Sche me and were awarded to
agrarian re form bene ficiarie s in 1997.
PARAD rule d that Me ndoza had knowledge of the sale , hence , he could not deny the fact nor assail
the validity of the conve yance . Mendoza violate d Se ction 2 of Pre sidential Decree (PD) No. 816, 1 7
Se ction 50 of RA No. 1199 1 8 and Se ction 36 of RA No. 3844, 1 9 and thus, the PARAD de clare d the
le asehold contract terminate d, and orde re d Mendoza to vacate the pre mise s.
Me ndoza claim that Paragraph 4, Se ction 6 of RA No. 6657 prohibits any sale, disposition, le ase ,
manage ment contract or transfe r of posse ssion of private lands upon e ffe ctivity of the law. Thus,
Re gional Dire ctor Re nato He rrera corre ctly observed that Carrie do’s act of disposing his
agricultural property would be tantamount to his e xe rcise of re te ntion unde r the law. By violating
the law, Carrie do could no longer retain what was le ft of his prope rty. Carrie do waive d his righ t to
re tain for failure or ne gle ct for an unreasonable le ngth of time to do that which he may have done
e arlie r by e xe rcising due diligence , warranting a pre sumption that he abandoned his right or
de cline d to asse rt it. Me ndoza claims that Carriedo has not file d an Application for Re te ntion over
the subje ct land over a conside rable passage of time since the same was acquired for distribution
to qualifie d farmer be ne ficiarie s.
The DARAB rule d that ownership of the land be longs to Carrie do. That the dee d of sale was
unre giste red did not affe ct Carrie do’s title to the land. By virtue of his owne rship, Carrie do was
subrogated to the rights and obligation of the former landowne r, Roman.
Issue:
The sole issue for our consideration is whe ther Carrie do has the right to re tain the land.
Ruling:
We rule in the affirmative . Carrie do did not waive his right of re te ntion ove r the land.
The 1987 Constitution expre ssly re cognize s landowner re te ntion rights unde r Article XIII , Se ction
4 that 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.
RA No. 6657 imple me nts this dire ctive , thus:
Se ction 6. Retention Limits . —but in no case shall retention by the landowner ex ceed five (5)
hectares.
The right to choose the are a to be re tained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pe rtain to
the landowner: Provided, howe ver, That in case the are a se le cted for re te ntion by the landowne r is
tenanted, the te nant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a
beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land w ith similar or comparable features. In
case the tenant choose s to re main in the re taine d are a, he shall be conside red a le ase holder and
shall lose his right to be a be ne ficiary unde r this Act. In case the te nant chooses to be a be ne ficiary
in anothe r agricultural land, he lose s his right as a le ase holder to the land retaine d by the
landowner. The tenant must e xe rcise this option within a pe riod of one (1) ye ar from the time the
landowner manife sts his choice of the are a for re tention. I n all case s, the se curity of te nure of the
farmers or farmworke rs on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be re spe cte d.
The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subje ct to qualification by

the le gislature . It serve s to mitigate the e ffe cts of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the
rights of the landowne r and the tenant and by imple menting the doctrine that social justice was
not me ant to pe rpe trate an injustice against the landowne r. A re tained are a, as its name de note s,
is land which is not supposed to anymore le ave the landowner's dominion, thus sparing the
gove rnment from the inconve nie nce of taking land only to re turn it to the landowne r afte rwards,
which would be a pointle ss proce ss. For as long as the are a to be re taine d is co mpact or contiguous
and doe s not e xcee d the retention ce iling of five (5) he ctare s, a landowne r's choice of the area to
be retaine d must pre vail.
Thus, disposition of agricultural land is not an act constituting waive r of the right of re tention.
Daanan v. CA
Facts:
AMA are the te nants of the 4.4630 he ctare s land owned by Private Re spondents. The private
re spondents file d for re te ntion of the said land. The te nants,on the other hand, opposed and
claime d that it is alre ady cove re d by the CARP
Issue:
whe ther or not private re spondents can re tain the land.
Ruling.
Ye s,the private re sponde nts has the right to choose to retain the land. The subje ct land is be low 5
he ctare s. He nce ,it is not cove re d by the CARP,e ven though all the re quisite s for cove rage is pre sent.
Daez vs CA, G.R 133507, February 17, 2000
Facts:
Eudosia Dae z was the owne r of a 4.1685-he ctare Rice land in Barangay Lawa, Meycauayan, Bulacan
which was be ing cultivate d by re spondents Macario Soriente , Roge lio Macatulad, Apolonio Me diana
and Manue l Umali unde r a syste m of share-te nancy. The said land was subje cte d to the Operation
Land Transfe r Program unde r Pre side ntial De cre e No. 27 as ame nded by Le tte r of I nstruction Armed
with an affidavit, alle gedly signed unde r dure ss by the re spondents, stating that the y are not share
tenants but hire d labore rs, Eudosia Dae z applied for the e xe mption of said Ric e land from cove rage
of P.D. No. 27 due to non-te nancy as we ll as for the cance llation of the CLTs issue d to private
re spondents. The application of the pe titioner was de nie d.
Exe mption of the 4.1685 Rice land from cove rage by P.D. No. 27 having been finally de nie d he r,
Eudosia Daez ne xt file d an application for re te ntion of the same Rice land, this time unde r R.A. No.
6657. The DAR Re gional Dire ctor allowe d Daez to re tain the subje ct land but the DAR Se cre tary
re ve rse d that de cision. She appe aled to the Office of the Pre sident which rule d in her favor.
Re sponde nts appe ale d to the CA which re ve rse d the de cision of the Office of the Pre sident.
Issue:
Whethe r or not the denial of applicatio n for e xe mption under PD 27 would bar an application for
re tention unde r RA 6657.
Ruling:
No. The re quisite s for the grant of an application for e xe mption from cove rage of OLT and those for
the grant of an application for the e xercise of a landowner’s right of re tention are diffe rent. Hence ,
it is incorre ct to posit that an application for exe mption and an application for re tention are one
and the same thing. Be ing distinct reme die s, finality of judgme nt in one doe s not pre clude the
subse quent institution of the other. The re was, thus, no procedural impe diment to the application
file d by Eudosia Dae z for the re tention of the subje ct 4.1865-he ctare Rice land, eve n after he r appe al
for e xe mption of the same land was denie d in a de cision that be came final and e xe cutory.
The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subje ct to qualification by

the le gislature . It serve s to mitigate the e ffe cts of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the
rights of the landowner and the tenant by imple menting the doctrine that social justice was not
me ant to pe rpe trate an injustice against the landowne r. A re taine d are a as its name denote s, is
land which is not supposed to anymore le ave the landowne r's dominion, thus, sparing the
gove rnment from the inconve nie nce of taking land only to re turn it to the landowne r afte rwards,
which would be a pointle ss proce ss.
The issuance of EPs and CLOAs to be ne ficiarie s doe s not absolute ly bar the landowner from
re taining the are a cove re d there by. Under Administrative Order No. 2, Serie s of 1994, an EP or
CLOA may be cance lle d if the land cove re d is later found to be part of the landowner's re taine d
area.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Rep. By The DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,

Petitioner , V s. HON. COURT OF APPEALS And GREEN CITY ESTATE & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
Facts:
The five (5) parce ls of land in issue with a combine d are a of 112.0577 he ctare s situate d at Barangay
Punta, Municipality of Jala-Jala, Province of Rizal we re acquire d by private re spondent through
purchase on May 26, 1994 from Marce la Borja vda. de Torre s. The tax de clarations classifie d the
prope rtie s as agricultural. On June 16, 1994, pe titione r DAR issue d a Notice of Coverage of the
subje ct parce ls of land unde r compulsory acquisition pursuant to Se ction 7, Chapte r II of R.A. No.
6657 or the Compre hensive Land Re form Law of 1988 (CARL). Private re sponde nt file d with the
DAR Re gional Office an application for exe mption of the land from agrarian re form pursuant to DAR
Administrative Order No. 6, se rie s of 1994 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, serie s of 1990. The DAR
Re gional Dire ctor re commende d a denial of the said pe tition on the ground that private re spondent
"faile d to substantiate the ir (sic) alle gation that the prope rtie s are indee d in the Municipality's
re sidential and fore st conse rvation zone and that portions of the prope rtie s are not irrigate d nor
irrigable".
Private re spondent filed an Amende d Pe tition for Exe mption/Exclusion from CARP cove rage , this
time alle ging that the property is within the re sidential and fore st conse rvation zone s and offering
a portion of about 15 he ctare s of land (irrigate d rice land) to se ll to farme r be neficiarie s or to DAR.
On October 19, 1995, the DAR Se cre tary issue d an Order denying the application for e xe mption.
Private re spondent move d for re consideration but the same was like wise de nied. Appe al was made
to the Court of Appeals. The latte r in turn create d a commission to conduct ocular inspe ction and
surve y. DAR like wise constitute d its own te am to conduct an inspe ction and the re after obje cte d to
the re port file d by the commission.
On De ce mbe r 9, 1998, the Court of Appe als issued its De cision re versing the Assaile d DAR Orde rs
and de claring the mountainous and re side ntial portions of the pe titione r's land to be e xe mpt from
the Comprehensive Agrarian Re form Program (CARP). He nce , this pe tition for re vie w.
Issue:
Whe the r or not the landholdings subject of this controve rsy are e xe mpt from CARL coverage ?
Ruling:
The re is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax
de clarations is conclusive and final nor wou ld proscribe any further inquiry. Furthe rmore , the tax
de clarations are cle arly not the sole basis of the classification of the land. I n fact, DAR
Administrative Orde r No. 6, Se rie s of 1994 lists othe r documents, aside from tax de clarations, that
must be submitte d when applying for e xe mption from CARP. In Halili vs. Co urt of Appe als, we
sustaine d the trial court whe n it rule d that the classification made by the Land Re gulatory Board
of the land in que stion outwe ighed the classification state d in the tax de claration. The classification
of the Board in said case was more re ce nt than that of the tax de claration and was base d on the
pre sent condition of the prope rty and the community the re at.
The commissioner's re port on the actual condition of the prope rtie s confirms the fact that the
prope rtie s are not wholly agricultural. I n e ssence , the report of the commission showed that the
land of private re spondent consists of a mountainous area with an average 28 de gree slope
containing 66.5 he ctare s; a le ve l, unirrigated are a of 34 he ctare s of which 5 to 6 he ctare s are
plante d to palay; and a re side ntial are a of 8 he ctare s. The finding that 66.5 he ctare s of the
112.0577 he ctare s of land of private re sponde nt have an ave rage slope of 28 de gree s provide s
another coge nt re ason to e xe mpt the se portions of the propertie s from the CARL. Se ction 10 of the
CARL is cle ar on this point when it provide s that "all lands with e ightee n pe rce nt (18% ) slope and
ove r, e xce pt those alre ady de ve lope d shall be e xe mpt from the coverage of this Act." Pe titione r DAR
and the Office of the Solicitor -General (OSG) conte st the finding of the Court of Appe als that the
subje ct parce ls of land have a mountainous slope on the ground that this conclusion was alle gedly
arrive d at in a manner not in accord with e stablishe d surve ying proce dure s. The y also be wail the
consideration given by the Court of Appe als to the "slope" issue since this matter was alle gedly
ne ver raise d be fore the DAR and the Court of Appe als. Pe titioner DAR and the OSG thus claim that
lache s had alre ady se t in.
As pointed out e arlie r, the crux of the controve rsy is whe ther the subje ct parce ls of land in issue
are e xe mpt from the coverage of the CARL. The de termination of the classification and physical
condition of the lands is the re fore mate rial in the disposition of this case , for which purpose the
Court of Appeals constituted the commission to inspe ct and surve y said prope rtie s. Pe titione r DAR
did not obje ct to the cre ation of a te am of commissione rs when it ve ry we ll kne w that the surve y
and ocular inspe ction would e ve ntually involve the de te rmination of the slope of the
subje ct parce ls of land. I t is the prote station of pe titione r that come s at a be late d hour. The team
of commissione rs appointed by re spondent court was composed of persons who we re mutually
acce ptable to the partie s. Thus, in the absence of any irre gularity in the survey and inspe ction of
the subje ct propertie s, and none is allege d, the re port of the commissione rs dese rve s full faith and
cre dit and we find no re ve rsible e rror in the re liance by the appe llate court upon said re port.
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA
G.R. No. 112526.
October 12, 2001
Facts:
Pe titioner Sta Rosa Reality Corporation was the re giste re d owne r of two parce l of land with a total
of are a of 254-6 he catre s. According to pe titioner, the parce ls of land are wate rsheds, which provide
cle an potable water to the Canlubang community. Pe titioner alle ge d that the re sponde nts usurped
its rights ove r the prope rty, there by de stroying e cosyste m. Sometime in De ce mber 1985,
re spondents filed a civil case with the Re gional Trial Court see king an e ase ment of a right of way
to and from Barangay Casile . By way of counterclaim, howe ver, pe titioner sought the e je ctme nt of
private re spondents. Afte r the filing of the e je ctme nt case s , re sponde nts pe titioned the De partme nt
of Agrarian Re form for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. The
landholding of SRRDC was place d unde r compulsory acquisition. Pe titione r obje cte d to the
compu lsory acquisition of the property contending that the are a was not appropriate for
agricultural purpose s. The area was rugge d in te rrain with slope s of 18% and above and that the
occupants of the land we re squatters, who were not e ntitle d to any land as bene ficiarie s. The
DARAB rule d against the pe titioner On appe al the CA affirmed the de cision of DARAB.
Issue:
Whethe r or not the prope rty in que stion is cove red by CARP de spite the fact that the entire prope rty
formed part of a watershe d prior to the e nactment of RA No. 6657
Ruling:
Watershe d is one of those e nume rated by carp to be e xe mpt from its cove rage. We cannot ignore
the fact that the disputed parce ls of land form a vital part of an are a that need to be prote cte d for
watershe d purpose s. The prote ction of watershe ds ensure an ade quate supply of water for future
ge nerations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage prope rty but cause loss of live s.
Prote ction of watershe ds is an intergene rational re sponsibility that nee ds to be answere d now.
Anothe r factor that nee ds to be me ntioned is the fact that during the DARAB he aring, pe titioner
pre sente d proof that the Casile prope rty has slope s of 18% and over, which e xempted the land from
the cove rage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Se ction 10, provide s:
Se ction 10. Exe mptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, dire ctly and e xclusive ly used and found
to be ne ce ssary for parks, wildlife , fore st re se rve s, re fore stration, fish sanctuarie s and bree ding
grounds, wate rshe ds and mangrove s, national de fe nse , school site s and campuse s including
e xperimental farm stations ope rated by public or private schools for e ducational purpose s, see ds
and se edlings re se arch and pilot production ce nters, church site s and convents appurtene nt
the re to, communal burial grounds and ce mete r ie s, pe nal colonie s and penal farms actually worked
by the inmate s, government and private re se arch and quarantine centers, and all lands
with e ighte en percent (18% ) slope and ove r, e xce pt those alre ady de ve loped shall be e xe mpt from
cove rage of this Act.
Central Mindanao University VS DARAB GR No. 100091 October 22, 1992
Facts:
Ce ntral Mindanao Unive rsity (CMU) is an agricultural institution owne d and run by the state in
Musuan, Bukidnon Province with the total land compromise s 3,080 he ctare s.
I n 1984, CMU adopte d a live lihood program called “kilusang Sariling Sikap Program” in which the
faculty and staff will be provide d by CMU trainings and assistance to cultivate 4 to 5 he ctare s of
land with a se rvice fee and land use participants fee . It was also e xpre ssly stipulated that no
landlord-te nant re lationship e xisted be twee n CMU and the faculty / e mployee s.
This program was conce ived as a multi-disciplinary applie d re se arch e xte nsion and productivity
program to utilize d available land and same time give the faculty and staff opportunitie s within the
confine s of CMU re se rvation to augment salarie s and an additional income .
I n 1986, Due to losse s incurre d the proje ct was discontinue d but the n launch a se lf-he lp proje ct
which is also a proje ct to augme nt the income of the faculty and staff to de ve lop the unutilized
land re source s, again, the re was no te nant-landlord re lationship e xist in the agree me nt
I n 1988, some contracts were not renewe d serve d with notice s to vacate . The non-renewal of the
contracts, discontinuance of the rice , corn, and sugar cane proje cts, loss of jobs, and alle ge
harassme nt cause the filing of the complaint.
Howe ve r, DARAB found the Bukidnon Free Farme rs Agrcilutural Labore rs Organization (BUFFALO)
not bene ficiarie s unde r CARP since there is no landlord-tenant re lationship as stipulate d in the ir
agree ment and CMU did not re ce ive any share form the harve st.
But then, DARAB, orde red the se gre gation of the 400 he ctare s of CMU and inclusion there of In the
CARP for distribution to qualifie d be ne ficiare s.
The de cision is affirme d by the Court of Appe als, based on the fact that the subje ct land was “not
dire ctly, actually, and exclusive ly use d for school site s, be cause the same was le ase d to Philippine
Packing Corporation (De l Monte )
I SSUE:
Did the re sponde nt CA committe d serious errors and grave abuse of discre tion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in affirming the de cision of DARAB in inclusion of the subje ct land for distribution
to qualifie d bene ficiare s
Ruling:
Ye s, I t is in the opinion of the court that the 400 he ctare s subje ct of this case is not covere d by
CARP be cause
- I t is e xe mpt from cove rage unde r se ction 10 of RA 6657 be cause the lands are actually, dire ctly
and e xclusive ly use d and found to be ne ce ssary for school site and campus, including
e xperimental farm stations for educational purpose s, and for e stablishing see d and see dling
re se arch and pilot production cente rs
I t was e stablished that the agree me nt with Philippine Packing Corporation was part of the re se arch
program and we re dire ctly conne cted to the purpose and obje ctive s of the CMU as an educational
institution.
I n which CMU, adopte d a blue print for the e xclusive use and utilization of said are as to carry out
its own re se arch and agricultural e xpe rime nts as the ne ed of CMU arise s
Rox as & Co. v. CA / G.R. 127876 / December 17, 1999
Facts:
Pe titioner Roxas & Co. is a dome stic c orporation and is the re gistere d owne r of three haciendas:
Hacie ndas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all locate d in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas.
Pre sident Aquino signe d on July 22, 1987, Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Compre hensive
Agrarian Re form Program and Exe cutive Orde r No. 229 providing the me chanisms ne ce ssary to
initially imple me nt the program.
On July 27, 1987, the Congre ss of the Philippine s formally conve ne d and took ove r le gislative power
from the Pre sident. This Congre ss passe d Re public Act No. 6657, the Comprehe nsive Agrarian
Re form Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signe d by the Pre sident on June 10, 1988 and took e ffe ct
on June 15, 1988.
Be fore the law’s e ffe ctivity, on May 6, 1988, the pe titione r filed with re sponde nt DAR a voluntary
offe r to se ll Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Hacie ndas Palico and
Banilad were late r place d under compulsor y acquisition by re spondent DAR in accordance with the
CARL.
Hacie nda Palico and Hacie nda Banilad were asse sse d by Municipal Agrarian Officer (MARO),
subje cted to acquisition and distribution according to CARL. The pe titione r applie d with DAR for
conversion of said hacie ndas from agricultural to non-agricultural land, howeve r, the application
was de nie d. The original TCTs we re replace d with CLOA (Ce rtificate of Land Ownership Award,
re giste red with DAR) and compensate d with appropriate value thru LBP Trust Accounts.
Hacie nda Caylaway on the other hands, was voluntarily offere d to the governme nt.
On August 24, 1993, pe titione r institute d Case No. N-0017-96-46 (BA) with re spondent DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the cance llation of the CLOAs issue d by re sponde nt DAR
in the name of se ve ral pe rsons. Petitioner alle ge d that the Municipality of Nasugbu, whe re the
haciendas are locate d, had bee n de clared a tourist zone , that the land is not suitable for
agricultural production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had re classifie d the land to
non-agricultural.
I n a Re solution date d October 14, 1993, re spondent DARAB he ld that the case involve d the
pre judicial que stion of whe ther the property was subje ct to agrarian re form, he nce , this que stion
should be submitte d to the Office of the Se cretary of Agrarian Re form for de te rmination.
Pe titioners que stioned the e xpropriation of its prope rtie s unde r the CARL and the denial of due
proce ss in the acquisition of its landholdings.
Issue:
Whethe r the acquisition proce edings ove r the three haciendas were valid and in accordance with
law; and
Ruling:
No. The acquisition proceedings was against pe titione r’s right to due proce ss.
First, there was an improper service of the Notice of Acquisition. Notice s to corporations should be
se rve d through the ir pre sident, manage r, se cre tary, cashie r, agent, or any of its dire ctors or
partners. Jaime Piminte l, to whom the notice was se rve d, was ne ithe r of those .
Se cond, the re was no notice of cove rage, me aning, the parce ls of land we re not properly ide ntifie d
be fore the y were take n by the DAR. Unde r the law, the land owne r has the right to choose 5 he ctare s
of land he wishe s to retain. Upon re ceiving the Notice of Acquisition, the pe titioner had no ide a
which portions of its e state we re subje ct to compulsory acquisition.
Third, The CLOAs we re issue d to farmer bene ficiarie s without just compensation. The law provide s
that the de posit must be made only in cash or LBP bonds. DAR’s opening of a trust account in
pe titioner’s name doe s not constitute payment. Eve n if late r, DAR substituted the trust account
with cash and LBP bonds, such doe s not cure the lack of notice , which still amounts to a violation
of the petitione r’s right to due proce ss.
Land Bank vs. Dumlao
Facts
The Dumlaos we re co-owne rs of a 32 he ctare rice lands in Nue va Vizcaya which was place d unde r
OLT by virtue of PD27 (note that actual date of taking was not state d.) The DAR made a pre liminary
valuation on 16 he ctare s (2 lots) and payments we re made to the DUMLAOs by Landbank. The
DUMLAOs filed acomplaint be fore the RTC to de te rmine just compensation, and re que ste d
the appointme nt of 3 commissione rs to make the de te rmination. The DAR moved to dismiss claiming
that the RTC doe s not have jurisdiction. The RTC e ve ntually re cognize d the case and ordered
payment at 6,912.50 pe r he ctare for one lot & to follow the amount provide d for in the Land
Valuation Summary and Farmers Unde rtaking for the other lot. The DUMLAOs was claiming marke t
value of 109,000 per he ctare . The DUMLAOs appe ale d to the CA which rule d in the ir favor, which
note d that the time of taking was not ce rtain. The CA he ld that afte r the passage of RA No. 6657,
the formula re lative to valuation unde r PD No. 27 no longer applie s. Under PD 27 and EO No. 228,
the formula for computing the Land Value
(LV) or Price Pe r He ctare (PPH) of rice and corn lands is: 2.5 x AGP x GSP = LV
or PPH.Under the CARL, it is provide :
Se c. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. – In de te rmining just compe nsation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the curre nt value of the like propertie s, its nature , actual use and income ,
the sworn valuation by the owne r, the tax de clarations, and the asse ssme nt made by gove rnme nt
asse ssors shall be conside red. The social and e conomic be ne fits contribute d by the farme rs and
the farmworke rs and by the Gove rnment to the prope rty as we ll as the non-payment of taxe s or
loans se cure d from any gove rnme nt financing institution on the said land shall be conside red as
additional factors to de te rmine its valuation. ISSUE Which law should be followe d to determine
just compensation
Ruling:
(1) The just compe nsation due to re sponde nts should be determine d unde r
the provisions of RA No. 6657. The Court has repe ate dly he ld that if just compensation was not
se ttle d prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law,
although the prope rty was acquire d unde r PD No. 27. The latte r law, be ing the late st law in agrarian
re form, should control, as he ld in Land Bank of the Philippine s v. He irs of Ange l T. Domingo.
Se ction 75 of RA 6657 cle arly state s that the provisions of PD 27 and EO 228 shall only have a
supple tory e ffe ct. Se ction 7 of the Act also provide s Se c. 7. Prioritie s. – The DAR, in coordination
with the PARC shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands
through a period of te n (10) ye ars from the e ffe ctivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and
distributed as follows: Phase One : Rice and Corn lands unde r P.D. 27; all idle or abandone d lands;
all private lands voluntarily offere d by the owne rs for agrarian re form; x x x and all other lands
owne d by the gove rnme nt de vote d to or suitable for agriculture , which shall be acquire d and
distributed imme diate ly upon the e ffe ctivity of this Act, with the imple mentation to be comple ted
within a period of not more than four (4) ye ars. This de monstrate s that RA 6657 include s PD 27
lands among the prope rtie s which the DAR shall acquire and distribute to the landle ss. DAR’s
failure to de te rmine the just compensation for a conside rable length of time make s it ine quitable
to follow the guide line s provide d by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228. He nce , RA No. 6657 should apply.
NOTE HOWEVER that the CA’s act of se tting just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00
would have bee n a valid e xercise of this judicial function, had it followe d the mandatory formula
pre scribe d by RA No. 6657. Howe ve r, the appe llate court me re ly chose the lowe r of two (2) value s
spe cifie d by the commissioner as basis for determining just compensation, name ly: (a) P109,000.00
per he ctare as the marke t value of first class unirrigate d rice . land in the Municipality of Villave rde ;
and (b)P60.00 pe r square me te r as the zonal value of the land in othe r barangays in Villave rde .
This is like wise errone ous be cause it doe s not adhere to the formula provide d by RA No. 6657 unde r
Se ction 17, as imple me nted through DAR Admin Order No. 6 (1992) - LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3)
+ (MV x 0.1), whe re : LV = Land Value CNI = CapitalizedNe t Income CS = ComparableSale s MV =
Marke t Value pe r Tax De claration
(2) The “taking” of the propertie s for the purpose of computing just compe nsation should be
re ckone d from the date of issuance of e mancipationpatents. The nature of the land at that time
de termine s the ju st compensationto be paid. (3) The DUMLAOs are entitle d to payment of just
compensation on the ir e ntire landholdings cove re d by Ope ration Land Transfer, e xce pt for the five
he ctare s of re tention are a e ach of the m are e ntitle d to (RIGHT OF RETEN TI ON). The de termination
of just compensation is judicial in nature . The DAR land valuation is only pre liminary and is not,
by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowne r or any othe r inte re ste d party. I n the
e xe rcise of its functions, the courts still have the final say on what the amount of just compensation
will be . A re ading of Se ction 18 of RA No. 6657 shows that it is the courts, not the DAR, which
make the final de te rmination of just compensation. Also, to wait for the DAR valuation de spite its
unreasonab le ne gle ct and de lay in proce ssing the four prope rtie s’ claim fold e rs is to violate the
e le mentar y rule that payment of just compensation must be within a re asonable period from the
taking of property. While the DAR is ve ste d with primary jurisdiction to de te rmine in a pre liminary
manne r the amount of just compensation, the circumstance s of this case militate against the
application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Cabral V s. Heirs Of Adolfo Gr No. 191615 August 2, 2017
Facts:
Victoria Cabral claims that she is the re gistere d owne r of se veral parce ls of land situate d, at
Barangay Purok, Me ycauayan, Bulacan. On October 21, 1972, the Ministry of Agrarian Re form
subje cted the said land under the coverage of the Ope ration Land Transfe r (OLT) program of the
gove rnment unde r Pre side ntial De cree (P.D.) No. I n July 1973, pe titione r sought to conve rt her
landholdings, which include not only the subje ct prope rty but also he r lands in Marilao and
Me ycauayan, to non-agricultural purpose s. DAR District Office r Fernando Orte ga, state d that per
the reports of the Agrarian Re form Te am, the subje ct prope rty was not included in the OLT program
under P.D. No. 27, nor has any portion the re of bee n transferre d to a tenant. Thus, District Officer
Orte ga re comme nded the conversion of the same into re side ntial, commercial, industrial, or other
purpose s. Emancipation Pate nts (EPs) we re issued to Gre goria Adolfo, Gre gorio Lazaro, Florencio
Adolfo, and Elias Policarpio pursuant to the OLT program covering the subject prope rty. Cabral
file d a petition be fore the Barangay Agrarian Re form Council (BARC) for the cance llation of the EPs
issue d in favor of Flore ncio Adolfo, Gre gorio Lazaro, Gre goria Adolfo, and Elias Policarpio. On
January 19, 1990, pe titioner file d anothe r petition for cance llation of the said EPs and TCTs be fore
the DAR. The said pe tition was, howe ver, forwarded to the DAR Re gional Dire ctor, who dismisse d
the case . Me anwhile , in 1994, pe titioner filed an OLT Le tte r Prote st be fore the DAR Re gional
Dire ctor, que stioning the cove rage of he r landholdings under P.D. No. 27, on the ground that the
same had alre ady been classifie d as e ither re side ntial, comme rcial, or industrial. the DAR Re gional
Dire ctor denied the said OLT prote st, finding that de spite the re classification of the subje ct parce ls
of land, the same will not be a bar in placing the said lands under the OLT program, considering
that pe titioner's landholdings e xcee de d 24 he ctare s.
Issue:
WON the CA e rr in re ve rsing the PARAD and DARAB's orde r of cance lling the Eps TCTs .
Ruling:
Ye s. In e xpropriation procee dings, as in judicial procee dings, notice is part of the constitutional
right to due proce ss of law. I t informs the landowner of the State ’s intention to acquire private land
upon payme nt of just compensation and give s him the opportunity to pre sent e vidence that his
landholding is not covere d or is otherwise e xcuse d from the agrarian law.
I n this case , the re spondents and the DAR failed to adduce e vide nce to prove actual notice to the
pe titioner and payment of just compensation for the taking of the latte r’s property. DAR
Administrative Orde r No. 02-94[32] provide s that a re gistere d EP or Ce rtificate of Land Owne rship
Award (CLOA) may be cance lle d on the following grounds, to wit:
Grounds for the cance llation of re giste re d EPs or CLOAs may include but not limite d to the
following:
1. Misuse or diversion of financial and support service s e xtended to the ARB (Agrarian Re form
Be ne ficiarie s); (Se ction 37 of R.A. No. 6657)
2. Misuse of the land; (Se ction 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
3. Material misre pre sentation of the ARB's basic qualifications as provide d under Se ction 22 of
R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and othe r agrarian laws;
4. I lle gal conversion by the ARB; (Cf. Se ction 73, Paragraphs C and E of R.A. No. 6657)
5. Sale , transfer, le ase or othe r forms of conve yance by a bene ficiary of the right to use or any
othe r usufructuary right over the land acquired by virtue of be ing a bene ficiary, in order to
circumvent the provisions of Se ction 73 of R.A. No . 6657, P.D. No. 27, and othe r agrarian laws.
Howe ve r, if the land has bee n acquire d unde r P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, owne rship may be
transfe rre d afte r full payment of amortization by the be ne ficiary; (Se c. 6 of E.O . No. 228)
6. De fault in the obligation to pay an aggre gate of thre e (3) conse cutive amortizations in case of
voluntary land transfer/dire ct payme nt sche me , e xce pt in case s of fortuitous e ve nts and force
maje ure ;
7. Failure of the ARBs to pay for at le ast thre e (3) annual amortizations to the LBP, e xcept in case s
of fortuitous e ve nts and force maje ure ; (Se ction 26 of R.A. No. 6657)
8. Ne gle ct or abandonme nt of the awarde d land continuously for a pe riod of two (2) calendar ye ars
as de termine d by the Se cre tary or his authorize d re pre se ntative ; (Se ction 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
9. The land is found to be e xe mpt/exclude d from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP cove rage or to
be part of the landowne rs' re taine d area as de termine d by the Se cre tary or his authorize d
repre se ntative ; and
10. Othe r grounds that will circumvent laws re late d to the imple me ntation of agrarian re form
program.
I n this case , pe titioner maintains that the subje ct property is e xclude d from the cove rage of P.D.
No. 27 as it has alre ady bee n classifie d as re side ntial land, invoking the Ce rtifications dated
Febru ary 24, 1983 and August 28, 1989 issue d by the zoning administrator. Pe titioner also ave rs
that as e arly as Octobe r 1, 1973, the DAR alre ady made a de claration that he r landholdings are
not included unde r the OLT program, and thus made a re commendation for the conve rsion of the
same to re sidential, comme rcial, industrial, or other purpose s.[34] In fine , petitioner argue s that
the re was ne ve r any showing that the lands subje ct of the controversy we re primarily de vote d to
rice and com as to be cove re d by P.D. No. 27. Also, pe titione r argue s that the subje ct EPs were
issue d without compliance with the re quire me nts for its issuance under P.D. No. 27, such as the
prior issuance of corre sponding Certificate s of Land Transfer (CLTs). Furthe r, pe titione r alle ge s
that her constitutional right to due proce ss was violated as the issuance of the subje ct EPs was
done without any notice or consultation with her and without the payment of just compensation.
Like wise , the re is no showing that pe titioner was notified of the place me nt of he r landholdings
under the OLT program and, more importantly, the re was no proof that pe titioner was paid just
compensation there for.
Land acquisition by virtue of P.D. No. 27 and Re public Act (R.A.) No. 6657[65] partake s of the
nature of e xpropriation. In fact, jurisprudence state s that it is an e xtraordinary me thod of
e xpropriating private property.[66] As such, the law on the matte r must be strictly construe d.
Faithful compliance with le gal provisions, e spe cially those which re late to procedu re for acquisition
of e xpropriate d lands should there fore be obse rve d. I n e xpropriation proce edings, as in judicial
proce edings, notice is part of the constitutional right to due proce ss of law. I t informs the
landowner of the State 's intention to acquire private land upon payment of just compe nsation and
give s him the opportunity to pre se nt evide nce that his landholding is not cove re d or is otherwise
e xcuse d from the agrarian law.[67]
I n this case , the re spondents and the DAR failed to adduce e vide nce to prove actual notice to the
pe titioner and payme nt of just compe nsation for the taking of the latter's property.
Land Bank of the Philippines V Heirs of Marcos
Facts:
De ce ase d Antonio Marcos Sr. (Antonio) was owne r of 2 parce ls of Agricultural Land.
(1 =14.9274 He ctare s and 2 = 9.4653 He ctare s)
On April 1995 , Pursuant to RA 6657, Ramiro Marcos (Ramiro) Authorized Re p of the He irs of
Antonio, offered to se ll the landholdings to the Re public through the DAR
July 1996, LandBankPhil (LBP) value d the lands
1 @ 195,603.70 and
2 @ 79,096.26
On August 1997 , Ramiro filed with the DAR, stating that the re sponde nts we re acce pting the LBP's
valuation of the lands. DAR Re gional Dire ctor se nt a me mo to the LBP re que sting the preparation
for transferring the dee ds and payme nt of the purchase price to re spondents.
While the payments of the purchase price was pe nding, DAR brought the matter of valuation to the
De partment of Agrarian Re form Adjudication Board(DARAB) on June 2000, Re que sting that the y
de termine the Just Compe nsation for the Land
Afte r proceedings, the Provincial Adjudicator value d the lands
1 @ P446,786.03 and
2 @ P283,302.10
The LBP disagreed with the Provincial Adjudicator and file d with the RTC to de termine Just
Compensation
RTC de cide d in favor of the Re spondents and orde ring LBP to pay the re sponde nts the above
me ntione d amounts
CA re affirme d the RTC de cision
I ssue :
Won ca or sac disre gard the valuation of factors unde r se c 17 of 6657 which are translated into a
basic formula in fixing the just compensation for subje ct prope rtie s
Ruling:
Agrarian Reform; Just Compensation; The just compensation due to an owner should be the
“fair and full price of the taken property,” w hether for land taken pursuant to the State’s
agrarian reform program or for property taken for purposes other than agrarian reform.—In
Land Bank of the Philippine s v. Hone ycomb Farms Corporation, , this Court e sse ntially pointe d out
that the “just compe nsation” guarantee d to a landowner under Se ction 4, Article XIII of the
Constitu tion is pre cise ly the same as the “just compe nsation” e mbodied in Section 9, Article III of
the Constitution. The just compe nsation due to an owne r should be the “fair and full price of the
taken property,” whe ther for land taken pursuant to the State’s agrarian re form program or for
prope rty take n for purpose s othe r than agrarian re form. I t was furthe r stre ssed in Hone ycomb that
just compe nsation paid for lands taken pursuant to the State ’s agrarian re form program re fers to
the “full and fair equivale nt of the property taken from its owne r by the e xpropriator x x x [the
me asure of which] is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. The word ‘just’ is used to intensify
the me aning of the word ‘compe nsation’ to conve y the ide a that the e quivalent to be rende red for
the prope rty to be taken shall be re al, substantial, full and ample .” Same ; Same ; Re gional Trial
Courts; Spe cial Agrarian Courts; The de te rmination of just compensation is fundamentally a
function of the courts. Se ction 57 of Re public Act (RA) No. 6657 e xplicitly vests in the Re gional
Trial Court-Spe cial Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC) the original and e xclusive jurisdiction to de te rmine
just compensation for lands taken pursuant to the State ’s agrarian re form program.—The
de termination of just compe nsation is fundamentally a function of the courts. Se ction 57 of R.A.
No. 6657 e xplicitly ve sts in the RTC-SAC the original and e xclusive jurisdiction to de termine just
compensation for lands taken pursuant to the State ’s agrarian re form program. Howe ve r, this
Court, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Ente rprise , 713 SCRA 370 (2014),
underscore d that, in the e xercise of the e ssentially judicial function of de te rmining just
compensation, the RTC-SAC is not grante d unlimite d discre tion. The factors under Se ction 17 of
R.A. No. 6657 were alre ady translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule -making
power under Se ction 49 of R.A. No. 6657. The said factors and the DAR formula provide the uniform
frame work or structure by which just compensation for property subje ct to agrarian re form should
be de te rmined. Hence , aside from considering the factors provide d by law, the courts should apply
the formula outline d in DAR AO No. 5, Se rie s of 1998, in the computation of just compe nsation.
Same; Same; The fix ing of just compensation that is based on the landowner’s prayer falls
w ithin the ex ercise of the Regional Trial Court-Special Agrarian Court’s (RTC-SAC’s)
discretion and, therefore, should be upheld as a valid exercise of its jurisdiction .—The fixing
of just compensation that is base d on the landowner’s praye r falls within the exe rcise of the RTC-
SAC’s discre tion and, there fore , should be uphe ld as a valid exercise of its jurisdiction. Similarly,
the fixing of just compe nsation base d on the de cision of the Provincial Adjudicator in this case is
within the conte xt of this judicial prerogative . Howe ve r, a re ading of the de cisions of the PARAD
would re ve al that he did not apply or consider the formula in DAR AO No. 5, Serie s of 1998. He
based his de cision with the rule on admissibility of e vide nce of bona fide sale s transaction of ne arby
place s in de te rmining the marke t value of like propertie s and applie d the valuation of LBP with the
prope rty of Norma Marcos Cle me nte and Hacie nda de Are s afte r ruling that the prope rtie s of
re spondents are comparable with the said prope rtie s. His de cisions did not me ntion the
consideration of the formula laid down by the DAR in the valuation of the propertie s of re sponde nts.
Same; Same; W hen acting w ithin the parameters set by the law itself, the Regional Trial Court-
Special Agrarian Courts (RTC-SACs) are not strictly bound to apply the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) formula to its minute detail, particularly w hen faced with situations that do
not w arrant the formula’s strict application; they may, in the ex ercise of their discretion,
relax the formula’s application to fit the factual situations before them.—When acting within
the parame te rs se t by the law itse lf, the RTC-SACs are not strictly bound to apply the DAR formula
to its minute detail, particularly when face d with situations that do not warrant the formula’s strict
application; the y may, in the e xercise of the ir discre tion, re lax the formula’s application to fit the
factual situations be fore the m. The y must, howe ve r, cle arly e xplain the re ason for any de viation
from the factors and formula that the law and the rule s have provide d.
Hacienda Luisita Incorporated V s Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
Facts:
Hacie nda Luisita (HLI ) invoke s that to insist that the taking is when the SDP was approve d by the
PARC on Nove mber 21, 1989 and that the same be considere d as the re ckoning pe riod to de te rmine
the just compensation is de privation of landowner’s property without due proce ss of law. In
its Motion f or Clarif ication and P artial R econs ideration , HLI disagree s with the fore going ruling and
contends that the taking should be re ckone d from finality of the De cision of this Court, or at the
ve ry le ast, the re ckoning period may be tacke d to January 2, 2006, the date whe n the Notice of
Cove rage was issued by the DAR pursuant to PARC Re solution No. 2006-34-01 re calling/re voking
the approval of the SDP.
Issue:
When is the Re ckoning point of Valuation?
Ruling:
The re ckoning point is the issuance of the e mancipation of patent or certificate of land ownership
award and not the placing of the agricultural lands unde r the CARP cove rage . Unde r RA 6657 and
DAO 1, the awarde d lands may only be transferred or conve ye d afte r 10 ye ars from the issuance
and re gistration of the e macipation pate nt. Conside ring that the Eps or CLOAS have not ye t bee n
issue d to qualifie d FWBs in the instant case , the 10 ye ar prohibitive pe riod has not e ven starte d
Same; Just Compensation; The Land Bank of the Philippines’ (LBP’s) valuation of lands
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is considered only as an
initial determination, which is not conclusive, as it is the Regional Trial Court-Special
Agrarian Court (RTC-SAC) that could make the final determination of just compensation,
taking into consideration the factors provided in Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 and the
applicable Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) regulations.—The LBP’s valuation of lands
cove re d by the CARP is conside red only as an initial de te rmination, which is not conclusive , as it
is the RTC-SAC that could make the final de te rmination of just compe nsation, taking into
consideration the factors provide d in R.A. No. 6657 and the applicable DAR re gulations. The LBP’s
valuation has to be substantiated during an appropriate he aring be fore it could be conside re d
sufficie nt in accordance with Se ction 17 of R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR re gulations. Since it is the
RTC-SAC that could make the final de te rmination of just compe nsation, the suppose d acce ptance
of the LBP’s valuation cannot be conside re d as consummate d contract. R.A. No. 6657 provide d that
the landowne r, his administrator or re pre sentative shall inform the DAR of his acce ptance or
re je ction of the offer within thirty (30) days from the date of re ce ipt of writte n notice by personal
de livery or re giste red mail. I t also furthe r provide d that the DAR shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the compe nsation for the land in case of re je ction or failure
to reply.
Association Of Small Land Owners In The Philippines V s. Secretary Of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989
Facts:
Consolidated case s involving common le gal que stions including se rious challe nge s to the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 also known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Re form Law of 1988"
I n G.R. No. 79777, the pe titione rs are que stioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O No s. 228 and 229 on the
grounds inte r alia of separation of powe rs, due proce ss, e qual prote ction and the constitutional
limitation that no private prope rty shall be taken for public use without just compensation.
I n G.R. No. 79310, the pe titione rs in this case claim that the power to provide for a Comprehe nsive
Agrarian Re form Program as de creed by the Constitution be longs to the Congre ss and not to the
Pre sident, the also alle ge that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No. 229 should be annulle d for
violation of the constitutional provisions on just compe nsation, due proce ss and e qual prote ction.
The y contende d that the taking must be simultane ous with payment of just compensation which
such paymen t is not conte mplated in Se ction 5 of the E.O No. 229.
I n G.R. No. 79744, the pe titioner argue s that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 we re invalidly issue d by the
Pre sident and that the said e xe cutive orde rs violate the constitutional provision that no private
prope rty shall be taken without due proce ss or just compensation which was denie d to the
pe titioners.
I n G.R. No 78742 the pe titioners claim that the y cannot e je ct the ir tenants and so are unable to
e njoy the ir right of re tention be cause the Department of Agrarian Re form has so far not issued the
imple menting rule s of the de cree . The y the re fore ask the Honorable Court for a writ of mandamus
to compe l the re spondents to issue the said rule s.
Issue: Whe the r agrarian re form is an exe rcise of police power or e mine nt domain
Ruling:
The re are traditional distinctions be twee n the police power and the powe r of eminent domain that
logically pre clude the application of both powe rs at the same time on the same subje ct. Prope rty
conde mne d unde r the police power is noxious or intende d for a noxious purpose, such as a building
on the ve rge of collapse , which should be de molishe d for the public safe ty, or obsce ne materials,
which should be de stroye d in the intere st of public morals. The confiscation of such property is
not compe nsable , unlike the taking of prope rty unde r the powe r of e xpropriation, which re quire s
the payme nt of just compensation to the owner.
The case s be fore us pre sent no knotty complication insofar as the que stion of compensable taking
is conce rne d. To the e xte nt that the measure s under challe nge me re ly pre scribe re tention limits for
landowners, there is an e xe rcise of the police powe r for the re gulation of private prope rty in
accordance with the Constitution. But whe re , to carry out such re gulation, it be come s ne ce ssary
to de prive such owne rs of whate ve r lands the y may own in e xce ss of the maximum are a allowe d,
the re is de finite ly a taking under the power of e mine nt domain for which payme nt of just
compensation is impe rative . The taking conte mplated is not a me re limitation of the use of the
land. What is re quire d is the surre nder of the title to and the physical posse ssion of the said e xce ss
and all be ne ficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-bene ficiary. This is de finite ly
an e xercise not of the police powe r but of the powe r of e mine nt domain.
Landbank of the Philipinnes V Avancena (No Case submitted )
Assoc. of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform
G.R 78742, July 14, 1989
Facts:
The association of the Small Landowne rs of the Philippine s invoke s the right of re tention granted
by PD 27 to owne rs of rice and corn lands not e xcee ding 7 he ctare s as long as the y are
cultivating on intend to cultivate the same . The ir re spe cte d lands do not e xceed the statutory
limits but are occupie d by tenants who re actually cultivating such lands.
Be cause PD No. 316 provide s that no tenant-farme r in agricultural land primarily de voted to rice
and corn shall be e je cte d or re moved from his farm holding until such time as the re spe ctive
rights of the te nant-farme rs and the land owners shall have bee n de termine d, the y pe titione d the
court for a writ of mandamus to compe l the DAR Se cretary to issue the I RR, as the y could not
e je ct the ir te nants and so are unable to e njoy the ir right of re tention.
Issues:
Whethe r or not the assaile d statute s are valid e xercise s of police power.
Whethe r or not the content and manne r of just compe nsation provided for the CARP violate s the
Constitution.
Whethe r or not the CARP and EO 228 contravene a we ll-acce pte d principle of eminent domain by
dive sting the land owne r of his prope rty e ven be fore actual payme nt to him in full of just
compensation .
Ruling:
Ye s. The subje ct and purpose of agrarian re form have been laid down by the Constitution itse lf,
which satisfie s the first re quire me nt of the lawful subje ct. Howe ve r, obje ction is raise d to the
manne r fixing the just compe nsation, which it is claime d is judicial prerogatives. Howe ve r, there
is no arbitrarine ss in the provision as the determination of just compe nsation by DAR is only
pre liminary unle ss acce pted by all partie s conce rne d. Otherwise , the courts will still have the
right to re vie w with finality the said dete rmination.
No. Although the traditional medium for payme nt of just compensation is mone y and no othe r,
what is be ing de alt with he re is not the traditional e xe rcise of the powe r and eminent domain.
This is a re volutionary kind of e xpropriation, which involve s not me re millions of pe sos. The
initially inte nded amount of P50B may not be e nough, and is in fact not e ven fully available at
the time . The invalidation of the said section re sulte d in the nullification of the e ntire program.
No. EO 228 cate gorically stated that all qualifie d farmer-bene ficiarie s we re deeme d full owners of
the land the y acquired unde r PP 27, afte r proof of full payme nt of just compensation. The CARP
Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of posse ssion and ownership of the land to the
gove rnment on the re ce ipt by the landowne r of the corre sponding payment or the deposit of DAR
of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an acce ssible bank. Until the n, title also re mains
with the landowner.
Roberto Padua, Petitioner, V s. The Hon. Court Of Appeals, Atty. Delfin B. Samson,
Department Of Agrarian Reform, And Mr. Teofilo Inocencio, Respondents.
Facts:
Private re sponde nts Pepito De la Cruz, et al. we re te nants of Lots which was donate d said to the
municipality on the condition that the se be use d as school site s. The proje ct did not mate rialize
and, De la Cruz, e t al. aske d that the propertie s be re turned to the m. Howe ve r, the y found out
that Mayor Cruz had distribute d the Lots who were each issue d a Ce rtificate of Land Transfe r).
Upon Pe tition for Cance llation of CLT file d by De la Cruz, e t al., DAR Se cre tary issue d an Orde r
cance lling the CLT issue d to Labagnoy and Cruz. The latte r file d a Pe tition for Re lie f from
Judgment for lack of due proce ss but the same was denied which was subse que ntly appe ale d to
the Office of the Pre sident (OP) which was dismisse d. Howe ver, during the pende ncy of the appe al
be fore the OP, Cruz e xe cute d an Affidavit of Waive r over his inte re st in Lot No. 90 on the basis of
which DAR Re gional Office III issue d an Orde r cance lling the CLT of Cruz and de claring Lot No.
90 ope n for disposition. Then DAR Se cre tary Santiago issue d an Order awarding Lot No. 90 to
here in pe titioner Padua who had bee n occupying said prope rty and paying the amortization
the re on to the LBP. Aggrie ved, De la Cruz, e t al., file d with the DAR Se cre tary a Le tter-Pe tition for
Cance llation (Le tter-Pe tition) of the DAR Re gional Office III Orders. DAR Se cretary Garilao
grante d the Le tte r-Pe tition in an Garilao Orde r cance lling the Order of Award issued in favor of
Roberto Padua and dire cting the Re gional Dire ctor to cause the re storation of posse ssion of said
lot in favor of the De la Cruz, e t al. All payme nts made by Robe rto Padua on account of said lot as
rentals for the use the re of are forfe ited in favor of the government. Accordingly, DAR Re gional
Dire ctor Acosta issue d a Me morandum dire cting he re in public re spondent PARO I nocencio to
imple ment the Garilao Orde r. I n turn, PARO I noce ncio instructe d Municipal Agrarian Re form
Office r Lino Mabborang (MARO Mabborang) to issue the ne ce ssary documents to award Lot No. 90
to De la Cruz, e t al. Upon be ing informed by MARO Mabborang of the imple mentation of the
Garilao Order, Padua filed with the CA a Pe tition for Annulme nt of a Final and Exe cutory Order of
the Se cre tary of Agrarian Re form with Prayer for Te mporary Re straining Orde r and/or Pre liminary
I njunction. The CA issue d the he re in assaile d De cision, dismissing the Pe tition for Annulment for
be ing the wrong mode of que stioning the Garilao Orde r. The CA also affirme d the Garilao Orde r,
holding that then DAR Se cre tary Garilao had authority to re solve the Le tte r -Petition as it involve d
an agrarian dispute . The CA also re je cte d the conte ntion of Padua that he was not accorde d due
proce ss in vie w of e vidence on re cord that he was notifie d of the procee dings on the Le tter-
Pe tition but he chose not to participate there in. Padua filed a Motion for Re consideration was
subse quently de nie d by CA. He nce , the pre sent Pe tition.
Issue:
Whe the r the DAR has no jurisdiction in He aring the land dispute on the said case ?
Ruling:
No, The statutory me chanism for the acquisition of land through agrarian re form re quire s full
payment of amortization be fore a farmer-be ne ficiary may be issue d a CLOA or EP, which, in turn,
can be come the basis for issuance in his name of an original or a transfe r ce rtificate of title . As
Padua himse lf admitted that he is still paying amortization on Lot to LBP, his status in re lation
to said property re main s that of a mere potential farme r-be ne ficiary whose e ligibilitie s DAR may
e ither confirm or re je ct. I n fact, under DAR Administrative Orde r, DAR has authority to issue ,
re call, or cance l a CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA issue d to potential farme r-be ne ficiarie s but not ye t
re giste red with the Re gister of Dee ds.
Department of Agrarian Reform V Carriedo (No Case Submiited)
Estate of the late Encarnacion vda. de Panlilio, represented by George Lizares vs. Gonzalo
Dizon, et al.
G.R. No. 148777 (October 18, 2007)

Facts:
Encarnacion vda. de Panlilio is the owne r of a vast tract of land with an aggregate are a of 115.41
he ctare s locate d in Masamat, Me xico, Pampanga. Some time in 1973, Pursuant to Ope ration Land
Transfe r under P.D. 27, a Ce rtificate of Land Transfe r (CLTs) cove ring said landholding, including
the portion plante d with sugarcane , were issue d to the tenants of said land. On January 12,1977,
landowner Panlilio e xe cuted an Affidavit interposing no obje ction in placing portion dedicated to
palay crop under P.D. 27 and that it is he r de sire that her entire property which is re ferre d as
Hacie nda Masamat be place d unde r said law. On Fe bruary 28,1994, a complaint for the annulme nt
of cove rage of said landholding under P.D. 27 was file d by Pe titioner Je sus Lizare s, Panlilio's
Administrator of Hacie nda Masamat. The same was dismisse d by the PARAD and on Appeal, the
DARAB affirme d said dismissal. The Court of Appe als, affirme d the de cision of the DARAB in its
ame nde d de cision dated Nove mbe r 29, 2000. Like wise , an issue on the validity of the transfer by
the tenant-farmers to third pe rson of the awarde d land was raise d in the Court of Appe als.
Whethe r or not the ownership of the lot may now be transferred to pe rsons othe r than the he irs of
the be ne ficiary or the Government
Issue:
Whethe r or not the ownership of the lot may now be transferred to pe rsons othe r than the he irs of
the be ne ficiary or the Government
Ruling:
The prohibition in PD 27, state s that Title to land acquire d pursuant to this De cree or the Land
Re form Program of the Gove rnme nt shall not be transferable e xce pt by he reditary succe ssion or to
the Gove rnment" PD 27 is cle ar that afte r full payme nt and title to the land is acquire d, the land
shall not be transferred e xce pt to the he irs of the be ne ficiary or the Governme nt The prohibition
ste ms from the policy of the Governme nt to de ve lop ge nerations of farme rs to attain its avowe d goal
to have an ade quate and sustaine d agricultural production Se c. 6 of EO 228 provide s, thus:
"Owne rship of lands acquire d by farme r-be ne ficiary may be transfe rred afte r full payment of
amortizations" The CA construed said provision to me an that the farme r-be ne ficiary can se ll the
land e ve n to a non-qualifie d pe rson This is incorre ct. I mplie d re pe als are not favored Se c. 6 of E.O.
No. 228 principally de als with payment of amortization and not on who qualify as le gal transfe ree s
of lands acquire d unde r PD 27 The lands acquire d unde r said law can only be transfe rred to the
he irs of the be ne ficiary or to the Government for e ventual transfe r to qualified be ne ficiarie s by the
DAR Thus, transfe rs of lands acquire d under PD 27 to non -qualifie d persons are ille gal and null
and void A contrary ruling would make the farme r an "easy pre y to those who would like to te mpt
[him/he r] with cash in e xchange for inchoate title over the same ," and PD 27 could be e asily
circumvente d and the title shall e ventually be acquired by non-tille rs of the soil The prohibition
e ve n e xtends to the surre nder of the land to the former landowne r. The sale s or transfe rs are void
ab initio, be ing contrary to law and public policy unde r Art. 5 of the Civil Code I n this re gard, DAR
is duty-bound to take appropriate me asure s to annul the ille gal transfers and re cove r the land
unlawfully conve ye d to non-qualifie d persons for disposition to qualifie d be ne ficiarie s.
Cabral vs.CA, DAR RD, et. Al

G.R. no. 101974, July 12, 2001
A petition for ce rtiorari assailing the de cision of the CA with an urge nt subse que nt prayer
for issuance of te mporary re straining orde r (TRO)due to conve yance of prope rty in issue by private
re sponden t to a third party.
Facts: Sometime in July 1973, V ictoria Cabral sought in frustration DAR’s re classification of
prope rty into re side ntial, comme rcial or industrial purpose s. Howe ver, in April 25, 1988,
Emancipation Pate nts and Transfer Ce rtificate s of Title (EP and TCT) we re issue d in favor of private-
re spondents (Florencio Adolfo, Gre gorio Lazaro, Gre goria Adolfo and Elias Polic arpio).
Thus, pe titioner sought for cance llation of the Emancipation Patent and TCT be fore the Barangay
Agrarian Reform Council on 16 January 1990 citing four re asons.
On 19January 1990, pe titione r also petitioned DAR for cance llation of the EP and TCT but DAR
denied the same on trial and on motion for re consideration, and by CA on ce rtiorari and motion for
re conside ration. Thus, this pe tition for ce rtiorari.
A TRO was granted on subse que nt motion of pe titione r due to conve yance of private -re spondent to
a third party that has commence d conversion of the prope rty on issue for commercial and industrial
use .
Issues:
(1). Whe the r it is the DAR Re gional Office (RO) or DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD that has jurisdiction ove r agrarian re form issue s.
(2). Whe the r pe titioner was denied due proce ss be ing not given the opportunity to be he ard on
appe al.
Ruling:
(1). DARAB has jurisdiction, and not DAR Re gional Office . The function of DAR Re gional Office is
the imple mentation (pure ly e xe cutive ) of agrarian re form laws whe re as that of
DARAB/RARAD/PARAD is for adjudication (judicial in nature ) of agrarian re form case s. The se were
the laws at the time .
Although the CA cite d that DARAB can de le gate its powe rs and functions (judicial) to the re gional
office , adjudication has bee nde le gate d to the Re gional Office , the same is howe ve r subje ct to the
rule s promulgate d by DARAB. The same rule s have been re vise d, so that the same has now be en
de le gate d to RARAD and PARAD which are dee me d part of the Re gional Office whe re it is locate d.
This comingling of powers (e xe cutive and judicial) must not be confuse d, for duplication of
functions would se e m:
1)impractical;
2) confusion as to what e ach age ncy serve s;
3) divide s age ncy’s re source s.
The intention of law is to avoid such confusion, and thus, the the ory that DAR Re gional Office has
jurisdiction is without merit.
(2). The Court did not re solve the issue on denial of due proce ss by DAR
[since DAR has no jurisdiction in the first place ].
The pe tition is grante d, CA Re solution is re ve rse d and se t aside . TRO made pe rmanent.
Rufina Vda. De Tangub, Petitioner , Vs. Court Of Appeals, Presiding Judge Of The [Car] Rtc,
Branch 4, Iligan City, And Spouses Domingo And Eugenia Martil, Respondents. [Udk No.
9864 : December 3, 1990.]
Facts:
Rufina Tangub and her husband, Andres, now de ce ase d, file d with the Re gional Trial Court of Lanao
de l Norte in March, 1988, "an agrarian case for damage s by re ason of the (ir) unlawful disposse ssion
. . .was te nants from the landholding" owne d by the Spouse s Domingo and Euge nia Martil. Se veral
persons were also imple ade d as de fendan ts, including the Philippine National Bank, it be ing alle ged
by the plaintiff spouse s that said bank, holde r of a mortgage on the land involve d, had caused
fore closure the re of, re sulting in the acquisition of the property by the bank as the highe st bidde r
at the fore closure sale , and in the sale by the latte r, some time later, of portions of the land to the
othe r pe rsons name d as its co-de fe ndants (all e mployee s of the National Stee l Corporation), and it
be ing praye d that mortgage and the transactions thereafter made in re lation the re to be annulle d
and voide d.
I n an Order rendered on August 24, 1988, re sponde nt Judge Fe lipe G. Javier, Jr. dismisse d the
complaint. He opined that by virtue of Exe cutive Orde r No. 229 "providing the me chanisms for the
imple men tation of the Compre he nsive Agrarian Re form Program approve d on July 24, 1987" —
Exe cutive No. 129-A approved on July 26, 1987, as we ll as the Rule s of the Adjudication Board of
the Department of Agrarian Re form, jurisdiction of the Re gional Trial Court ove r agrarian case s
had bee n transferre d to the De partme nt of Agrarian Re form.cralaw
Arguments of Petitioner:
The pe titioner Rufina Vda. de Tangub conte nds that the Trial Court's "order of dismissal of August
26, 1988, and the de cision of the Honorable Court of Appe als affirming it, are patently ille gal and
unconstitutional" be cause the y de prive "a poor tenant acce ss to courts and dire ctly violate R.A.
6657, PD 946, and Batas Bilang 129.
Issue:
W/N the Re gional Trial Court, acting as a spe cial agrarian court, in the light of Exe cutive Orde rs
Numbe re d 129-A has jurisdiction in this case
Ruling.
No, RTC has no jurisdiction.
The Re gional Trial Court of I ligan City was corre ct in dismissing Agrarian Case No. 1094. I t be ing
a case conce rning the rights of the plaintiffs as te nants on agricultural land, not involving the
"spe cial jurisdiction" of said Trial Court acting as a Spe cial Agrarian Court, it cle arly came within
the e xclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Re form, or more particularly, the
Agrarian Re form Adjudication Board, e stablished pre cise ly to wie ld the adjudicatory powe rs of the
De partment, supra.
DAR JURISDICTION RTC JURISDICTION

Se ction 1 of Exe cutive Order No. 229 se ts out Se ction 56 of RA 6657, on the othe r hand,
the scope of the Comprehe nsive Agrarian confers "spe cial jurisdiction" on "Spe cial
Re form Program (CARP). Agrarian Courts," which are Re gional Trial
I t state s that the program — Courts de signated by the Supre me Court —
". . . shall cove r, re gardle ss of te nurial at le ast one (1) branch within e ach province
arrange ment and commodity produce, all — to act as such. The se Re gional Trial Courts
public and private agricultural land as qua Spe cial Agrarian Courts have , according
provide d in Proclamation No. 131 date d July to Se ction 57 of the same law, original and
22, 1987, including whe ne ve r applicable in e xclusive jurisdiction ove r:
accordance with law, othe r lands of the 1) "all pe titions for the de te rmination of just
public domain suitable to agriculture ." compensation to land-owne rs," and
2) "the prose cution of all criminal offe nse s

under . . [the ] Act."
Rule s of Court provide s:

Se ction 4 of Exe cutive Order No. 129-A made (1) appe als from de cisions of the Spe cial
the De partment of Agrarian Re form Agrarian Courts "may be take n by filing a
"re sponsible for imple menting the pe tition for re vie w with the Court of Appe als
Compre hensive Agrarian Re form Program, within fifteen (15) days from re ce ipt or notice
and, for such purpose ," authorize d it, among of the de cision, . ." 10 and
othe rs, to — (2) appe als from any "de cision, order, award
"(g) Provide free le gal service s to agrarian or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute
re form bene ficiarie s and re solve agrarian or on any matte r pe rtaining to the
conflicts and land tenure proble ms; . . (and) application, imple me ntation, enforceme nt,
x x x or inte rpre tation of this Act and othe r
(j) Approve or disapprove the conversion, pertine nt laws on agrarian re form may be
re structuring or re adju stment of agricultural brought to the Court of Appe als
lands into non -agricultural use s: . ." by Certiorari11 e xce pt as otherwise provide d
And Se ction 5 of the same Exe cutive Orde r . . . within fifte e n (15) days from re ce ipt of a
No. 129-A spe cified the powe rs and functions copy the re of," the "findings of fact of the DAR
of the De partme nt of Agrarian Reform, [be ing] final and conclusive if based on
including the following::- nad substantial e vide nce ." 12
"(b) I mple me nt all agrarian laws, and for this
purpose , punish for conte mpt and issue
subpoena, subpoena duce s te cum, writ of
e xe cution of its de cision, and othe r le gal
proce sse s to ensure succe ssful and
e xpe ditious program imple me ntation; the
de cisions of the Department may in prope r
case s, be appe ale d to the Re gional Trial
Courts but shall be immediate ly e xe cutory
notwithstanding such appe al;
x x x
(h) Provide free le gal service to agrarian
re form bene ficiarie s and re solve agrarian
conflicts and land tenure re late d problems as
may be provide d for by laws;
(i) Have e xclusive authority to approve or
disapprove conversion of agricultural lands
for re side ntial, comme rcial, industrial, and
othe r land use s as may be provide d . . ."
The jurisdiction thus conferred on the
De partment of Agrarian Re form, i.e .:
(a) adjudication of all matte rs involving
imple mentation of agrarian re form;
(b) re solution of agrarian conflicts and land
tenure re late d proble ms; and
(c) approval or disapproval of the conversion,
re structuring or re adjustment of agricultural
lands into re side ntial, commercial,
industrial, and othe r non-agricultural use s,
The inte ntion e vide ntly was to transfe r original jurisdiction to the Department of Agrarian Re form,
a proposition stre sse d by the rule s formulate d and promulgate d by the De partme nt for the
imple mentation of the e xe cutive orde rs just quoted. The rule s include d the cre ation of the Agrarian
Re form Adjudication Board de signe d to e xe rcise the adjudicatory functions of the De partme nt, and
the allocation to it of —
". . . original and e xclusive jurisdiction ove r the subje ct matte r ve sted upon it law, and all case s,
dispute s, controversie s and matte rs or incidents involving the imple me ntation of the
Compre hensive Agrarian Re form Program unde r Exe cutive Order No. 229, Exe cutive Order No. 129-
A, Re public Act No. 3844, as amende d by Re public Act No. 6289, Pre sidential De cree No. 27 and
othe r agrarian laws and the ir imple menting rule s and re gulations."
The Act make s re fe rence s to and e xplicitly re cognize s the e ffe ctivity and applicability of Pre side ntial
De cree No. 229. More particularly, the Act e choe s the provisions of Se ction 17 of Pre sidential
De cree No. 229, supra, inve sting the De partment of Agrarian Re form with original jurisdiction,
ge nerally, over all case s involving agrarian laws, although, as shall shortly be pointed out, it
re store s to the Re gional Trial Court, limite d jurisdiction ove r two groups of case s. Se ction 50 reads
as follows:
"SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powe rs of the DAR. — The DAR is he re by ve ste d with primary jurisdiction
to de te rmine and adjudicate agrarian reform matte rs and shall have e xclusive original jurisdiction
ove r all matters involving the imple mentation of agrarian re form, e xce pt those falling under the
e xclusive jurisdiction of the De partment of Agriculture [DA] and the Departme nt of Environme nt
and Natural Re source s [DENR].
I t shall not be bound by te chnical rules of proce dure and e vide nce but shall proce ed to hear and
de cide all case s, dispute s or controve rsie s in a most e xpe ditious manner, e mploying all re asonable
me ans to asce rtain the facts of e ve ry case in accordance with justice and e quity and the merits of
the case . Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of proce dure to achie ve a just, e xpe ditious
and ine xpensive de termination of e ve ry action or procee ding be fore it.
I t shall have the power to summon witnesse s, administe r oaths, take te stimony, re quire submission
of reports, compe l the production of books and docume nts and answers to inte rrogatorie s and issue
subpoena and subpoena duce s te cum and to e nforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly
deputize d officers. I t shall like wise have the powe r to punish dire ct and indirect conte mpts in the
same manne r and subje ct to the same penaltie s as provide d in the Rule s of Court.
Alangilan Realty & Development Corporation vs Office of the President

GR 180471, March 26 2010
Facts:
Pe titioner (Alangilan Re alty & De v. Corp.) is the owner/de ve lope r of a 17.4892 He c. Land in Brgy.
Alangilan and Patay in Batangas City (Alangilan landholding). On Aug. 7, 1996, it file d an
Application and/or Petition f or Exclus ion/Exemption f rom Comprehens ive Agrarian Ref orm Program
(CARP) Coverage with Municipal Agrarian Re form Office (MARO) of the Dept. of Agrarian Re form
(DAR). I t alle ge s that the subje ct landholding was res erved f or res idential under Zoning Ordinance
(1982 Ordinance ) thus it is not subje ct to CARP.
Issue:
Whethe r the landholdings are unde r the jurisdiction of CARP.
Ruling:
Ye s. The subje ct landholding, classifie d by the Batangas City Zoning Ordinance of 1982 as
Agricultural / Res erved f or Res iden tial, was not re classifie d from agricultural to non-agricultural
land thus it is still under the jurisdiction for CARP / CARL. The term res erved f or res idential simply
re fle ct the inte nded use of land that it may be use d for future re sidential purpose s and was not
re classifie d as res idential as the phrase res erved f or res idential is not a land classification cate gory.
Ocular inspe ction of MARO, PARO (Provincial Agrarian Re form Office ) and RARO (Re gional Agrarian
Re form Office ) showe d that the land was still in use for agricultural purpose s and was planted with
mangoe s and coconuts at the time of the filing of application for e xe mption. Pe titioner faile d to
show that the land was alre ady in re side ntial use e ve n be fore June 15, 1988 (effe ctivity of CARL).
Not having conve rted or re classifie d as re sidential be fore June 15, 1988, the land is still class ifie d
as Agricultural and subse quent re classification as res idential -1 in 1994 cannot place the property
outside the ambit of CARP as the re was no showing that the DAR Se cre tary approve d such
re classification.
Romanita Concha, Benita Cosico, Domingo Garcia, Romeo De Castro, Pedro Concha,
Constantino Concha, Rolando Navarro, Rosalinda De Torres, Candida De Torres, Rodelo
Cosico, Teodolfo Capuno, Antonio De Torres, Max ima Concha, Gabriel Concha, Irineo
Concha, And Braulio De Torres V s.
Paulino Rubio, Sofia Rubio, Ambrocia Barleta, Segundo Crisostomo, Milagros Gayapa, Lasaro
Concha, And Lorenso Navarro, Gr No. 162446 , March 29, 2010
Facts:
A subje ct landholding was placed unde r the Compulsory Acquisition Sche me of the CARP of the
gove rnment. A Notice of Cove rage was se nt to the landowne rs. MARO of Tiaong, Quezon, name d the
Pe titioners bene ficiarie s. Re spondents file d a complaint for de claration of the ir tenancy and the ir
ide ntification as be ne ficiarie s and for disqualification of the pe titione rs to be come bene ficiarie s
ove r the subje ct landholding. The y alle ged that the y are the te nants there of and have not
re linquishe d the ir rights ove r the same , as the y re turned the mone tary awards give n by the
landowners. MARO pursue d the coverage . The petitione rs here in we re identifie d as qualifie d farmer -
bene ficiarie s whe re CLOA we re issue d in the ir favor. Re sponde nts, on the othe r hand, we re paid
of the ir disturbance compensation. The y now, howe ver, que stion the validity and le gality of the
institution of the pe titioners as bene ficiarie s over the subje ct landholding. Respondents toge the r
with the landowners file d another case for annulment of CLOAs and praye r for Pre liminary
I njunction and Re straining Orde r. The Office of the PARAD rendered a De cision dismiss ing the case
in favor of the petitione rs. The PARAD rule d that re sponde nts had waive d the ir rights as tenants
and as farmer -bene ficiarie s of the De partment of Agrarian Re form (DAR) program, I n addition, the
PARAD rule d that it had no authority to rule on the se le ction of farme r-bene ficiarie s, as the same
was a pure ly administrative matte r under the jurisdiction of the DAR. Re sponde nts file d a Notice
of Appe al of the PARAD De cision. DARAB se tting aside the PARAD De cision, orde re d the Re gister
of De eds for the Province of Que zon to cance l the Certificate s of Land Owne rship Award issued to
pe titioners, and the MARO and PARO to ge ne rate and issue new Certificate s of Land Owne rship
Award in favor of the Re sponde nts. Aggrie ve d, petitione rs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
DARAB De cision which the it de nie d. Pe titioners the n appe ale d to the CA who ruling in favor of
pe titioners but subse quently re versed its de cision in favor of the re spondents. He nce , here in
pe tition, with pe titioners raising a sole assignme nt of error, to wit:
Issue:
Whethe r DARAB is has jurisdiction to re solve the issue involving the identification and se le ction of
qualifie d farmer -bene ficiarie s of a land cove re d by the CARP.
Ruling:
No, that the DARAB is not clothed with the power or authority to re solve the issue involving the
ide ntification and se le ction of qualified farmer -bene ficiarie s since the same is an Agrarian Law
I mple me ntation case , thus, an administrative function falling within the jurisdiction of the DAR
Se cre tary. The Court was cate gorically rule d that the identification and se le ction of CARP
bene ficiarie s are matters involving strictly the administrative imple me ntation of the CARP, a matter
e xclusive ly cognizable by the Se cre tary of the De partme nt of Agrarian Re form, and be yond the
jurisdiction of the DARAB. That the administrative function of the DAR is manife st in
Administrative Order No. 06-00, which provide s for the Rule s of Procedure for Agrarian Law
I mple me ntation Case s. Unde r said Rules of Procedure , the DAR Se cre tary has exclusive jurisdiction
ove r identification, qualification or disqualification of pote ntial farmer-bene ficiarie s. Base d on the
fore going, the conclusion is ce rtain that the DARAB had no jurisdiction to identify who be tween
the partie s should be re cognize d as the be ne ficiarie s of the land in dispute , as it was a pure ly
administrative function of the DAR.
Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula. Inc vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 103953. March 25, 1999
Facts:
Macario Aro was the former owner of two parce ls of agricultural land locate d Manlinta,Dasmariñas
Cavite whe re in the me mbe rs of SMKI are the tenants on the said land. On 1980,Aro sold the parce ls
of land to Arrow He ad of Gold Club Inc. Founde d by Ricardo Silve rio who envisioned to e stablish a
car asse mbly plant. In the proce ss, the me mbers of SKMI tenants we re e victe d. Howe ve r the
e stablishment of car asse mbly plant in the place ne ver materialize d. Late r on, the parce ls of land
we re le ase d to spouse s Rube n and Gloria Rodrigue z for a term of se ve n ye ars from July 8, 1983 to
July 8 , 1990 and where the n de ve lope d into a sugarcane plantation, whe re Ducusin e t. al. are the
farm workers.
On July 1984, the same prope rty was acquire d by PNB at a sheriff auction sale . On 1986, me mbers
of SKMI sought assistance be fore the Ministry of Agrarian Re form now De partment of Agrarian
Re form now (DAR) for the ir re instate ment as farm workers but it was de nie d. The ownership of the
subje ct land was later transferre d to the Asse t Privatization (APT) which conveye d the same to the
Re public of the Philippine s, repre se nted by the DAR. On March 1991, the DAR issue d Ce rtificate
of Land Ownership (CLOA’s) Nos 1116 and 117 for the said parce ls of land in favour of the me mbers
of SKMI . Whe n the y le arne d such favour, Ducusin e t al file d a pe tition for Certiorari be fore the CA
assailing the issuance of CLOA in favour of SKMI . The CA grante d the pe tition and ordering the
DAR to conduct a he aring and inve stigation with due notice to SKMI to dete rmine the rightful
bene ficiarie s of the sub9e ctparce ls of land. Dissatisfie d the re with, me mbe r of SKMI file d this
pe tition.
Issue:
1. Whethe r or not the re was observance of due proce ss by the DAR prior to the issuance of
CLOAS no 1116 and No 1117 in favor of SKMI .
2. Whethe r there was a nee d for Ducusin et al to e xhaust administrative re medie s be fore filing
pe tition for certiorari with the CA.
Ruling:
1. No. Se ction 40(4) in re lation to Se ction 22 of RA 6657 providing for the orde r of prioriy of
the qualifie d bene ficiarie s of CARP, state s that the re is a nee d of furthe r he arings to
de termine the bene ficiarie s of subje ct parce ls of land and in such he arings deprive d partie s
should participate . The y must be informe d of the he aring through a notice . In this case ,
re cords shows that the lette r which was suppose d to be a notice to Ducusin e t al re garding
the inclusion of subje ct prope rtie s in the CARO was ine fe ctive . The lette r of PARO office r to
Rodriguez indicate s no re ce ipt of the same Rodriguez nor was it signe d by the office r. I f it
was sent, it was se nt too late ,the same be ing date d June 1991 whe n the said parce ls of
land was awarde d to SKMI . Also the letter was addre sse d to Rodriguez who no longe r in
posse ssion of the said prope rtie s as his le ase ende d on July 1990.
2. No. the DARAB Re vised Rule s of Proce dure , it can be gleane d that de cisions of the DAR
Se cre tary cannot be que stioned be fore DARAB. I t is cle ar that the issuance of subje ct CLOAs
constitute d a de cision of the Se cretary who issue d and signed the same . The proprie ty of
the re course by private re sponde nts to the re sponde nt court on a pe tition for certiorari, to
assail the issuance by the DAR of the CLOAs in que stion, is be yond cavil. Under Se ction 54
of RA 6657, de cisions and awards of the DAR may be brought to the Court of Appe als
by certiorari. Re spondent court found that he re in private re spondents we re de nie d the
opportunity to ventilate the ir stance be fore the DAR. But according to the pe titioner, during
the inve stigation and confe rence s conducted on the que stion of inclusion of subje ct
prope rtie s in the Comprehe nsive Agrarian Re form Program of the gove rnment, Mr. Rube n
Rodriguez was notified of the same , as e vide nce d by Anne xe s E, F ] 1 , F-1, and F-2.
Landbank of the Philippines vs. V illegas Gr. No. 180384
Facts:
Land Bank file d case s for de termination of just compe nsation of agricultural lands against Ville gas
and the he irs of Noe l be fore RTC of Dumague te City Branch 32, the Spe cial Agrarian Court for the
province of Ne gros Oriental. The lands of the re sponde nts happene d to be outside the re gular
te rritorial jurisdiction of RTC Branch 32 Dumague te City. The RTC Branch 32 dismisse d both case s
holding that it has no jurisdiction and that it is RTC Branch 64 of Guihulngan City that has
jurisdiction over the prope rty of Ville gas since it is whe re it could be found and that the prope rty
of the he irs of Noe l is under the jurisdiction of RTC Branch 63 of Bayawan City. Land Bank file d a
pe tition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whethe r or not RTC Branch 32 of Dumague te City, the Spe cial Agrarian Court of the province of
Ne gros Oriental, has jurisdiction ove r agricultural lands outside its re gular jurisdiction but within
the province whe re the y are de signate d.
Ruling:
Ye s. The court’s jurisdiction ove r the nature and subje ct matte r of an action is confe rred by law.
I n this case , the law that confers jurisdiction on Spe cial Agrarian Courts in eve ry province is RA
6657 or the Compre hensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. RA 6657 state s that a branch of an RTC
de signated as Spe cial Agrarian Court for a province has the original and e xclusive jurisdiction over
all pe titions for the de te rmination of just compe nsation in that province . The re fore , RTC Branch
32 be ing de signated as the Spe cial Agrarian Court for the province of Ne gros Orie ntal has
jurisdiction ove r all case s for de te rmination of just compe nsation involving agricultural lands
within that province , re gardle ss of whe ther or not those prope rtie s are outside its re gular te rritorial
jurisdiction.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , Petitioner, V s. ARLENE DE LEON And BERNARDO DE

LEON, Respondents. [G.R. No. 143275. September 10, 2002]
Facts:
- this is a pe tition for re vie w of the re solution of the CA date d Feb 15, 2000.
- Arle ne de Le on and Be rnardo de Le on are the re giste re d owne rs of a parce l of land situate d at
San Agustin, Conce pcion, Tarlac with a total area of 50.1171 he ctare s.
- The subje ct prop. was voluntarily offe re d for sale to the gove rnme nt pursuant to RA 6657 at
P50,000.00 pe r he ctare .
- The De partme nt of Agrarian Re form (DAR) made a counter offe r of P17,656.20 per he ctare , or a
total amount of P884,877.54, but the same was re je cte d. Anothe r offe r was made by DAR incre asing
the amount to P1,565,369.35.
- De Le ons failed to re spond and make a ne w offer to DAR so the DARAB took cognizance of the
case pursuant to Se c. 16 (d) of RA 6657.
- DARAB the n issue d an Orde r dire cting LandBank to re compute the value of the subje ct property
in accordance with DAR Administrative Orde r No. 6, Serie s of 1992.
- LandBank's asse ssme nt:
Land Use Are a Acquire d Value/he ctare Total/Land Value
Sugarland 32.4187 P61,758.85 P2,002,141.63

Rice land 16.6984 P28,449.80 P 475,066.14
I dle land 1.0000 P14,523.78 P 14,523.78
or an aggre gate amount of P2,491,731.65

-but De Le on's again re je cte d the asse ssme nt.
- In RTC of Tarlac, w/c was the de signate d Spe cial Agrarian Court in the are a, the De Le ons ask to
fix the compensation for the subje ct property.
- The RTC re ndere d a judge ment on De ce mbe r 19, 1997 fixing the compensation of the subje ct
prope rty as follows:
a. P1,260,000.00 for the 16.69 he ctare s of rice land;
b. P2,957,250.00 for the 30.4160 he ctare s of sugarland.
- On Mar 17, 1998, the DAR file d in CA the pe tition for re vie w while LandBank file d be fore the CA
a notice of ordinary appe al.
- LandBank's appe al was dismisse d for lack of me rit. Since the mode of appe al was e rrone ous.
Issue:
I S SECTI ON 60 OF RA 6657 PROVI DES TH E PROP ER MOD E FOR TH E R EVI EW OF THE D ECI SIONS
OF THE SPECI AL AGRARIAN COURTS DESPI TE SEC TI ON 61 OF RA 6657 WHI CH EXPR ESSLY
MANDATES THAT THE RUL ES OF COURT SHALL GOVERN TH E R EVI EW OF THE DECI SI ONS OF
TH E SPECI AL AGRARIAN COURTS BY THE COURT OF APPEALS?
Ruling:
-The case at bar re quire s an inte rpre tation of Se ctions 60 and 61 of RA 6657. The said provisions
provide that:
Se ction 60. Appeals, - An appeal may be take n from the de cision of the Spe cial Agrarian Courts by
filing a pe tition for re vie w with the Court of Appe als within fifte en (15) days from re ce ipt of notice
of the de cision; otherwise , the de cision shall be come final.
Se ction 61.- Proce dure in Re vie w. Re vie w by the Court of appe als or the Supre me Court, as the
case may be , shall be governe d by the Rule s of Court. The Court of Appe als, howe ve r, may re quire
the partie s to file simultane ous me moranda within a pe riod of fifte e n (15) days from notice , afte r
which the case is dee me d submitte d for de cision.
-We deny the pe tition.
A petition for re vie w, not an ordinary appe al, is the proper proce dure in e ffe cting an appe al from
de cisions of the Re gional Trial Courts acting as Spe cial Agrarian Courts in case s involving the
de termination of just compensation to the landowners conce rned. Se ction 60 of RA 6657 cle arly
and cate gorically state s that the said mode of appe al should be adopted. The re is no room for a
contrary inte rpre tation. Whe re the law is cle ar and cate gorical, the re is no room for construction,
but only application.
-Moreover, the same Se ction 5 (5), Article VIII , of the 1987 Philippine Constitution quote d by the
pe titioner state s that (r)ule s of proce dure of spe cial courts and quasi-judicial bodie s shall re main
e ffe ctive unle ss disapprove d by the Supre me Court. Se ction 60 is obviously a spe cial procedure .
Contrary to the pe titione rs conte ntion, it cannot be othe rwise me re ly be cause it was formulate d by
the le gislature and not by any spe cial body. As long as the said se ction provide s for a particular
proce ss for the gove rnance of the spe cial court conce rne d, the provision is accurate ly classifie d as
a spe cial proce dure . Subje ct to constitutional limitations, the statutory e nactme nt of a spe cial
proce dure cannot be said to encroach on the powe r of this Court to formulate rule s of procedure
for the re ason that we have not ye t provide d for a particular proce ss spe cifically gove rning agrarian
courts. I n fact, this Court e xercise s its constitutional powe r to promulgate spe cial rule s of
proce dure by adopting Se ctions 60 and 61 of RA 6657 de claring a pe tition for re vie w as the prope r
mode of appeal to the Court of Appe als.
The re ason why it is pe rmissible to adopt a pe tition for re vie w when appealing case s de cided by the
Spe cial Agrarian Courts in e minent domain case s is the nee d for absolute dispatch in the
de termination of just compe nsation. Just compensation me ans not only paying the corre ct amount
but also paying for the land within a re asonable time from its acquisition. Without prompt payme nt,
compensation cannot be conside red just for the property owne r is made to suffe r the conse quence s
of be ing imme diate ly deprive d of his land while be ing made to wait for a decade or more be fore
actually re ce iving the amount ne ce ssary to cope with his loss.[15] Such obje ctive is more in kee ping
with the nature of a petition for re vie w.
Unlike an ordinary appe al, a pe tition for re vie w dispense s with the filing of a notice of appe al or
comple tion of re cords as re quisite s be fore any ple ading is submitted. A pe tition for re view hastens
the award of fair re compense to deprived landowners for the gove rnment-acquire d prope rty, an end
not fore se eable in an ordinary appe al. This is e xe mplifie d by the case at bar in which the pe tition
for re vie w be fore the Spe cial Third (3rd) Division (CA-G.R. SP No. 47005) was dispose d of way ahe ad
of the ordinary appe al file d be fore the Fourth (4th) Division (CA-G.R. CV No. 60365) in the Court
of Appe als.
I nasmuch as the notice of appe al file d by pe titioner LBP did not stop the running of the
re gle me ntary pe riod to file a pe tition for re vie w, the time to appe al the de cision of the Spe cial
Agrarian Court has lapsed, re nde ring the said de cision final and e xe cutory.
Cabaral V s Heirs Of Adolfo

GR No. 191615, August 2, 2017
Facts:
Pe titioners claims that she is the re giste re d owne r of se veral parce ls of land in Bulacan.
On Oct. 21, 1972, The ministry of Agrarian Re form subje cte d the lands unde r the coverage of the
Operation Land Transfe r program of the Gove rnme nt under PD 27
July 1973, Pe titioner sought to convert he r landholdings, which include not only the subje ct
prope rty but also he r lands in Marilao and Me ycauayan to the Non- Agricultural purpose s.
Howe ve r, Dar state d that the subje ct lands we re not part of the OLT program under PD 27.
April 25, 1988, Emancipation Pate nts we re issue d to Gre goria Adolfo and company purusuant to
the OLT Program cove ring the subje ct prope rty.
JAN 16, 1990, Pe titioner file d with the Brgy. Agrarian Re form Council (BARC) for the cance llation
of the Eps but was dismisse d by the DAR. The court rule d that Re gional Dire ctor had no jurisdiction
ove r the case as it is the PARAD who has jurisdiction over cancallations of EPs
Me anwhile , in 1994, petitione r filed an OLT Le tte r Prote st be fore the DAR Re gional Dire ctor,
que stioning the coverage of he r landholdings unde r P.D. No. 27,
I n its Nove mber 16, 1994 Orde r, the DAR Re gional Dire ctor de nie d the said OLT prote st, finding
that de spite the re classification of the subje ct parce ls of land, the same will not be a bar in placing
the said lands unde r the OLT program, considering that pe titioner's landholdings e xcee ded 24
he ctare s.
On appe al, the then DAR Se cre tary affirme d the DAR Re gional Dire ctor's Order, de claring that the
subje ct landholdings are covere d by the OLT program unde r P.D. No. 27 as it was only afte r the
landholdings we re place d under the OLT program on Octobe r 21, 1972 whe n it was classifie d as
within the re sidential zone . The Orde r cite d Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 06, se rie s of 1994,
which provide s that re classification of lands to non-agricultural use s shall not operate to dive st
tenant-farme rs of the ir rights ove r lands cove re d by P.D. No. 27, which were ve ste d prior to June
15, 1988, and also Exe cutive Orde r (E. O.) No. 228 which provide s that tenant-farmers are dee me d
full owners of the land the y acquire d by virtue of P.D. No. 27 as of Octobe r 21, 1972
On August 16, 2003,pe titioner file d a Petition for Cance llation of Emancipation Patents and Torre ns
Title against the said re spondents and the Department of Agrarian Re form (DAR), Re gion III .
pe titioner contende d that the issuance of the said EPs and TC Ts we re violative of applicable
agrarian laws conside ring that the subje ct prope rty was alre ady classifie d as re sidential, hence ,
not covered by P.D. No. 27.
On June 18, 2004, the Provincial Re form Adjudicator (PARAD) rende red a De cision in favor of the
pe titioner
Aggrie ved, Gre goria Adolfo and company, appe ale d the de cision howe ve r, DARAB affirme d PARAD's
De cision
The re sponde nts e le vate d the case to the CA for re vie w. Which later re verse d and set aside the
DARAB de cision. Stating that the subje ct land was ne ve r conve rted into a residee ntial land and
the re fore not e xe mpt from the cove rage of the gove rnme nts OLT program under the PD 27.
Issue:
Whethe r THE CA ERR ED I N R EVERSI NG TH E PARA DS AND DARABS ORDER OF CANCELLI NG THE
EP'S?
Ruling:
YES. Agrarian Re form; Grounds for the Cance llation of Emancipation Pate nt (EP) or Ce rtificate of
Land Owne rship (CLOA).—DAR Administrative Orde r No. 02-94 provide s that a re gistered EP or
Ce rtificate of Land Owne rship Award (CLOA) may be cance lle d on the following grounds, to wit:
Grounds for the cance llation of re giste re d EPs or CLOAs may include but not limite d to the
following:
1.Misuse or dive rsion of financial and support se rvice s e xtende d to the ARB (Agrarian Re form
Be ne ficiarie s); (Se ction 37 of R.A. No. 6657)
2. Misuse of the land; (Se ction 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
3. Material misre pre sentation of the ARB’s basic qualifications as provide d under Se ction 22 of
R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and othe r agrarian laws;
4. I lle gal conversion by the ARB; (Cf. Se ction 73, paragraphs C and E of R.A. No. 6657)
5. Sale , transfer, le ase or othe r forms of conve yance by a bene ficiary of the right to use or any
othe r usufructuary right over the land acquired by virtue of be ing a bene ficiary, in order to
circumvent the provisions of Se ction 73 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and othe r agrarian laws.
Howe ve r, if the land has bee n acquire d unde r P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, owne rship may be
transfe rre d afte r full payment of amortization by the be ne ficiary; (Se c. 6 of E.O . No. 228)
6. De fault in the obligation to pay an aggre gate of thre e (3) conse cutive amortizations in case of
voluntary land transfer/dire ct payme nt sche me , e xce pt in case s of fortuitous e ve nts and force
maje ure ;
7. Failure of the ARBs to pay for at le ast thre e (3) annual amortizations to the LBP, e xcept in case s
of fortuitous e ve nts and force maje ure ; (Se ction 26 of R.A. No. 6657)
8. Ne gle ct or abandonme nt of the awarde d land continuously for a pe riod of two (2) calendar ye ars
as de termine d by the Se cre tary or his authorize d re pre se ntative ; (Se ction 22 of R.A. No. 6657)
9. The land is found to be e xe mpt/exclude d from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP cove rage or to
be part of the landowne rs’ re taine d area as de termine d by the Se cre tary or his authorize d
repre se ntative ; and
10. Othe r grounds that will circumvent laws re late d to the imple me ntation of agrarian re form
program.
Charles Bumagat, Julian Bacudio, Rosario Padre, Spouses Rogelio And Zosimapadre, And
Felipe Domincil, Petitioners,V s. Regalado Arribay, Respondent.
G.R. No. 194818.June 9, 2014
Facts:
Pe titioners are the re giste re d owne rs, succe ssors-in-intere st, or posse ssors of agricultural and,
consisting of about e ight he ctare s. Pe titioners file d a Complaint for forcible entry against
re spondent.
Re sponde nt file d a Motion to Dismiss, claiming that the subje ct prope rtie s are agricultural lands
which thus rende rs the dispute an agrarian matte r and subje ct to the e xclusive jurisdiction of the
De partment of Agrarian Re form Adjudication Board (DARAB). Howe ver, in a January 30, 2006
Orde r,17 the MCTC de nie d the motion, finding that the ple adings faile d to show the e xistence of a
tenancy or agrarian re lationship be twee n the partie s that would bring the ir dispute within the
jurisdiction of the DARAB. Re spondent’s motion for re conside ration was similarly re bu ffe d.
Re sponde nt alle ge d among othe rs that pe titioners’ title s have been ordere d cance lled in a De ce mber
1, 2001 Re solution issue d by the De partme nt of Agrarian Re form, Re gion 2 in Administrative Case
No. A0200 0028 94; that he is the absolute owne r of approximate ly 3.5 he ctare s of the subje ct
parce ls of land, and is the administrator and overse er of the re maining portion the re of, which
be longs to his principals Le onardo and Evange line Taggue g (the Taggue gs); that pe titione rs
abandone d the subje ct prope rtie s in 1993, and he plante d the same with corn; that in 2004, he
plante d the land to rice ; that he sued pe titione rs be fore the Municipal Agrarian Re form Office
(MARO)for non-payme nt of rentals since 1995; and that the court has no jurisdiction ove r the
e je ctment case , which is an agrarian controve rsy During the proceedings be fore the MCTC,
re spondent pre se nted ce rtificate s of tit le , uppose dly issued in his name and in the name of the
Taggue gs in 2001, which came as a result of the suppose d dire ctive in Administrative Case No.
A0200 0028 94 to cance l petitione rs’ title s. Meanwhile , Romulo Sr. die d and his he irs instituted
Administrative Case No. A0200 0028 94 to cance l pe titioners’ title s. The he irs won the case , and
late r on ne w title s over the property we re issue d in the ir favor. I n turn, one of the he irs transfe rred
his title in favor of re spondent.
Issue :
Whethe r or not the re was tenurial arrange ment be twee n the partie s.
Ruling:
The re is no tenurial arrange ment, not e ve n an implie d one . As corre ctly argue d by pe titione rs, a
case involving agricultural land doe s not imme diate ly qualify it as an agrarian dispute . The mere
fact that the land is agricultural doe s not ipso facto make the posse ssor an agricultural le ssee or
tenant. The re are conditions or re quisite s be fore he can qualify as an agricultural le ssee or tenant,
and the subje ct be ing agricultural land constitute s just one condition.41 For the DARAB to acquire
jurisdiction ove r the case , the re must exist a tenancy re lation be tween the partie s. "[I ]n order for
a tenancy agree me nt to take hold over a dispute , it is e ssential to e stablish all its indispe nsable
e le ments, to wit: 1) that the partie s are the landowner and the te nant or agricultural le ssee ; 2) that
the subje ct matte r of

SocLeg 1st Exam

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SocLeg 1st Exam

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ---------------- ATTY. SIGRID G.

Association Of Small Landowners In The Phillipphines V s Honorable Secretary Of Agrarian

Association Of Small Landowners In The Phillipphines V s Honorable Secretary Of Agrarian

Constitutionality of Agrarian Reform Law

According to PD 316, which was promulgate d in imple me ntation of PD No. 27

Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR/ G.R. No. 86889 / December 4, 1990

National Housing Authority v Allarde/ GR 106593 / November 16, 1999

Isidro v Court of Appeals

BUMAGAT V s. ARRIBAY GR No. 194818 June 9, 2014

WON the dispute within the jurisdiction of DARAB.

G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989

RTC dismis se d the complaint

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs. Honorable Secretary of Agrarian

G.R. No. 79777:

G.R. No. 79777

G.R. No. 79744

G.R. No. 78742

Department Of Agrarian Reform V s. Carriedo, G.R. No.. 176549

Janu ary 20, 2016

RA No. 6657 imple me nts this dire ctive , thus:

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subje ct to qualification by

whe ther or not private re spondents can re tain the land.

Daez vs CA, G.R 133507, February 17, 2000

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subje ct to qualification by

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Rep. By The DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,

Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v CA

G.R. No. 112526.

October 12, 2001

Central Mindanao University VS DARAB GR No. 100091 October 22, 1992

Rox as & Co. v. CA / G.R. 127876 / December 17, 1999

Land Bank vs. Dumlao

or PPH.Under the CARL, it is provide :

Cabral V s. Heirs Of Adolfo Gr No. 191615 August 2, 2017

2. Misuse of the land; (Se ction 22 of R.A. No. 6657)

Land Bank of the Philippines V Heirs of Marcos

(1 =14.9274 He ctare s and 2 = 9.4653 He ctare s)

July 1996, LandBankPhil (LBP) value d the lands

Afte r proceedings, the Provincial Adjudicator value d the lands

CA re affirme d the RTC de cision

Hacienda Luisita Incorporated V s Presidential Agrarian Reform Council

When is the Re ckoning point of Valuation?

Association Of Small Land Owners In The Philippines V s. Secretary Of Agrarian Reform

G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989

Landbank of the Philipinnes V Avancena (No Case submitted )

Assoc. of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform

G.R 78742, July 14, 1989

Department of Agrarian Reform V Carriedo (No Case Submiited)

G.R. No. 148777 (October 18, 2007)

Cabral vs.CA, DAR RD, et. Al

No, RTC has no jurisdiction.

DAR JURISDICTION RTC JURISDICTION

2) "the prose cution of all criminal offe nse s

Rule s of Court provide s:

Alangilan Realty & Development Corporation vs Office of the President

Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula. Inc vs Court of Appeals

Landbank of the Philippines vs. V illegas Gr. No. 180384

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , Petitioner, V s. ARLENE DE LEON And BERNARDO DE

Sugarland 32.4187 P61,758.85 P2,002,141.63

or an aggre gate amount of P2,491,731.65

Cabaral V s Heirs Of Adolfo

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi