AGL Cases

Today is Monday, June 10, 2019 home
Custom Search
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Fourteenth Congress
Third Regular Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-seventh day of July, two thousand nine.
Republic Act No. 9700 August 7, 2009
AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP), EXTENDING THE
ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS, INSTITUTING NECESSARY REFORMS,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::
Section1. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. - It is the policy of the State to pursue a Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the
highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development
and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size farms as the basis
of Philippine agriculture.
"The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development
and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources,
and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets: Provided, That the conversion of
agricultural lands into industrial, commercial or residential lands shall take into account, tillers' rights and
national food security. Further, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign
competition and trade practices.
"The State recognizes that there is not enough agricultural land to be divided and distributed to each
farmer and regular farmworker so that each one can own his/her economic-size family farm. This being
the case, a meaningful agrarian reform program to uplift the lives and economic status of the farmer and
his/her children can only be achieved through simultaneous industrialization aimed at developing a self-
reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
"To this end, the State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital
industries.
"A more equitable distribution and ownership of land, with due regard to the rights of landowners to just
compensation, retention rights under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and to the
ecological needs of the nation, shall be undertaken to provide farmers and farmworkers with the
opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity
of agricultural lands.
"The agrarian reform program is founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive
a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to the priorities and retention limits set forth in this Act,
taking into account ecological, developmental, and equity considerations, and subject to the payment of
just compensation. The State shall respect the right of small landowners, and shall provide incentive for
voluntary land-sharing.
"As much as practicable, the implementation of the program shall be community-based to assure,
among others, that the farmers shall have greater control of farmgate prices, and easier access to credit.
"The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers and landowners, as well as cooperatives and
other independent farmers’ organizations, to participate in the planning, organization, and management
of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research,
and adequate financial, production, marketing and other support services.
"The State shall recognize and enforce, consistent with existing laws, the rights of rural women to own
and control land, taking into consideration the substantive equality between men and women as
qualified beneficiaries, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof, and to be represented in advisory or
appropriate decision-making bodies. These rights shall be independent of their male relatives and of
their civil status.
"The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform, or stewardship, whenever applicable, in
accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the
public domain, under lease or concession, suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead
rights of small settlers and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
"The State may resettle landless farmers and farm workers in its own agricultural estates, which shall be
distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
"By means of appropriate incentives, the State shall encourage the formation and maintenance of
economic-size family farms to be constituted by individual beneficiaries and small landowners.
"The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the
preferential use of communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production
and marketing assistance and other services. The State shall also protect, develop and conserve such
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against
foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and
fishing resources.
"The State shall be guided by the principles that land has a social function and land ownership has a
social responsibility. Owners of agricultural land have the obligation to cultivate directly or through labor
administration the lands they own and thereby make the land productive.
"The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program
to promote industrialization, employment and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial
instruments used as payment for lands shall contain features that shall enhance negotiability and
acceptability in the marketplace.
"The State may lease undeveloped lands of the public domain to qualified entities for the development
of capital-intensive farms, and traditional and pioneering crops especially those for exports subject to
the prior rights of the beneficiaries under this Act."
Section 2. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 3. Definitions. - For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:
"x x x
"(f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the production of
agricultural crops, livestock and/or fisheries either by himself/herself, or primarily with the assistance of
his/her immediate farm household, whether the land is owned by him/her, or by another person under a
leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with the owner thereof.
"x x x
"(1) Rural women refer to women who are engaged directly or indirectly in farming and/or fishing as
their source of livelihood, whether paid or unpaid, regular or seasonal, or in food preparation, managing
the household, caring for the children, and other similar activities."
"SEC. 4.Scope. -The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable
for agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and
below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
"More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:
"(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No
reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of
this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall
have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;
"(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the
preceding paragraph;
"(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
"(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised
or that can be raised thereon.
"A comprehensive inventory system in consonance with the national land use plan shall be instituted by
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local Government Code, for the
purpose of properly identifying and classifying farmlands within one (1)year from effectivity of this Act,
without prejudice to the implementation of the land acquisition and distribution."
Section 4. There shall be incorporated after Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, new
sections to read as follows:
"SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. - Provincial, city and municipal government ,units acquiring
private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct and
exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites,
local government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the approved
local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this
Section and Sections 70 and 73(a) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended: Provided, That lands subject to
CARP shall first undergo the land acquisition and distribution process of the program: Provided, further,
That when these lands have been subjected to expropriation, the agrarian reform beneficiaries therein
shall be paid just compensation."
"SEC. 6-B. Review of Limits of Land Size. - Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the DAR
shall submit a comprehensive study on the land size appropriate for each type of crop to Congress for a
possible review of limits of land sizes provided in this Act."
"SEC. 7. Priorities. - The DAR, in coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall
plan and program the final acquisition and distribution of all remaining unacquired and undistributed
agricultural lands from the effectivity of this Act until June 30, 2014. Lands shall be acquired and
distributed as follows:
"Phase One: During the five (5)-year extension period hereafter all remaining lands above fifty (50)
hectares shall be covered for purposes of agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act. All private
agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings in excess of fifty (50) hectares which have
already been subjected to a notice of coverage issued on or before December 10, 2008; rice and corn
lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered
by the owners for agrarian reform: Provided, That with respect to voluntary land transfer, only those
submitted by June 30, 2009 shall be allowed Provided, further, That after June 30, 2009, the modes of
acquisition shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition: Provided, furthermore,
That all previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to challenge by landowners shall be
completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended: Provided,
finally, as mandated by the Constitution, Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and Republic Act No.
3844,as amended, only farmers (tenants or lessees) and regular farmworkers actually tilling the lands, as
certified under oath by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) and attested under oath by the
landowners, are the qualified beneficiaries. The intended beneficiary shall state under oath before the
judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing to work on the land to make it productive and
to assume the obligation of paying the amortization for the compensation of the land and the land taxes
thereon; all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions; all lands acquired by the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG); and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this
Act, with the implementation to be completed by June 30, 2012;
"Phase Two: (a) Lands twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares shall likewise be covered for
purposes of agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act. All alienable and disposable public
agricultural lands; all arable public agricultural lands under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases
already cultivated and planted to crops in accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all
public agricultural lands which are to be opened for new development and resettlement: and all private
agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty
(50) hectares which have already been subjected to a notice of coverage issued on or before December
1O, 2008, to implement principally the rights of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to
own directly or collectively the lands they till, which shall be distributed immediately upon the effectivity
of this Act, with the implementation to be completed by June 30, 2012; and
"(b) All remaining private agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings in excess of
twenty-four (24) hectares, regardless as to whether these have been subjected to notices of coverage or
not, with the implementation to begin on July 1, 2012 and to be completed by June 30, 2013;
"Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings and proceeding to
medium and small landholdings under the following schedule:
"(a) Lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings above ten (10) hectares up to twenty- four
(24)hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage above ten (10) hectares is concerned, to begin on July
1,2012 and to be completed by June 30, 2013; and
"(b) Lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings from the retention limit up to ten (10) hectares, to
begin on July 1, 2013 and to be completed by June 30, 2014; to implement principally the right of
farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till.
"The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by this program shall be
made in accordance with the above order o f priority, which shall be provided in the implementing rules
to be prepared by the PARC, taking into consideration the following: the landholdings wherein the
farmers are organized and understand ,the meaning and obligations of farmland ownership; the
distribution of lands to the tillers at the earliest practicable time; the enhancement of agricultural
productivity; and the availability of funds and resources to implement and support the program:
Provided, That the PARC shall design and conduct seminars, symposia, information campaigns, and other
similar programs for farmers who are not organized or not covered by any landholdings. Completion by
these farmers of the aforementioned seminars, symposia, and other similar programs shall be
encouraged in the implementation of this Act particularly the provisions of this Section.
"Land acquisition and distribution shall be completed by June 30, 2014 on a province-by- province basis.
In any case, the PARC or the PARC Executive Committee (PARC EXCOM), upon recommendation by the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces as
priority land reform areas, in which case the acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands
therein under advanced phases may be implemented ahead of the above schedules on the condition
that prior phases in these provinces have been completed: Provided, That notwithstanding the above
schedules, phase three (b) shall not be implemented in a particular province until at least ninety percent
(90%) of the provincial balance of that particular province as of January 1, 2009 under Phase One, Phase
Two (a), Phase Two (b),,and Phase Three (a), excluding lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), have been successfully completed.
"The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution scheme,
including the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller may be a
beneficiary of the land he/she does not own but is actually cultivating to the extent of the difference
between the area of the land he/she owns and the award ceiling of three (3) hectares: Provided, further,
That collective ownership by the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject to Section 25 of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended: Provided, furthermore, That rural women shall be given the opportunity t o
participate in the development planning and implementation of this Act: Provided, finally, That in no
case should the agrarian reform beneficiaries' sex, economic, religious, social, cultural and political
attributes adversely affect the distribution of lands."
Section 6. The title of Section 16of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to
read as follows:
"SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands."
Section 7. Section 17of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
"SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. - In determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the value of the standing crop, the current: value of like properties, its nature,
actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, the assessment made by
government assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final
decision of the proper court. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the
farmworkers and by the Government t o the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans
secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional
factors to determine its valuation."
Section 8. There shall be incorporated after Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, a new
section to read as follows:
"SEC. 22-A. Order of Priority. - A landholding of a landowner shall be distributed first to qualified
beneficiaries under Section 22, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that same landholding up to a maximum of
three (3) hectares each. Only when these beneficiaries have all received three (3) hectares each, shall
the remaining portion of the landholding, if any, be distributed to other beneficiaries under Section 22,
subparagraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g)."
Section 9. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
"SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. - The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence
from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and
their actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not more than
one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of
the Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land ownership award, and
other titles issued under any agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one
(1) year from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the conditions,
limitations and qualifications of this Act, the property registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The
emancipation patents or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought under the
operation of the torrens system, are conferred with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all
titles under the said system, as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by Republic
Act No. 6732.
"It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the title of the land in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines, after the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary
deposit in the name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond with due notice to the
landowner and the registration of the certificate of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries,
and to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto.
"Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as,
amended, shall have usufructuary rights over the awarded land as soon as the DAR takes possession of
such land, and such right shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation patent
or the certificate of land ownership award.
"All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership
award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR."
Section 10. Section 25 of Republic Act So. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:
"SEC.25. Award Ceilings for Beneficiaries. - Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area not exceeding three
(3) hectares, which may cover a contiguous tract of land or several parcels of land cumulated up to the
prescribed award limits. The determination of the size of the land for distribution shall consider crop
type, ,soil type, weather patterns and other pertinent variables or factors which are deemed critical for
the success of the beneficiaries.
"For purposes of this Act, a landless beneficiary is one who owns less than three (3) hectares of
agricultural land.
"Whenever appropriate, the DAR shall encourage the agrarian reform beneficiaries to form or join
farmers' cooperatives for purposes of affiliating with existing cooperative banks in their respective
provinces or localities, as well as forming blocs of agrarian reform beneficiaries, corporations, and
partnerships and joining other farmers' collective organizations, including irrigators' associations:
Provided, That the agrarian reform beneficiaries shall be assured of corresponding shares in the
corporation, seats in the board of directors, and an equitable share in the profit.
"In general, the land awarded to a farmer- beneficiary should be in the form of an individual title,
covering one (1)contiguous tract or several parcels of land cumulated up to a maximum of three (3)
hectares.
"The beneficiaries may opt for collective ownership, such as co-workers or farmers cooperative or some
other form of collective organization and for the issuance of collective ownership titles: Provided, That
the total area that may be awarded shall not exceed the total number of co-owners or members of the
cooperative or collective organization multiplied by the award limit above prescribed, except in
meritorious cases as determined by the PARC.
"The conditions for the issuance of collective titles are as follows:
"(a) The current farm management system of the land covered by CARP will not be appropriate for
individual farming of farm parcels;
"(b) The farm labor system is specialized, where the farmworkers are organized by functions and not by
specific parcels such as spraying, weeding, packing and other similar functions;
"(c) The potential beneficiaries are currently not farming individual parcels hut collectively work on large
contiguous areas; and
"(d) The farm consists of multiple crops being farmed in an integrated manner or includes non- crop
production areas that are necessary for the viability of farm operations, such as packing plants, storage
areas, dikes, and other similar facilities that cannot be subdivided or assigned to individual farmers.
"For idle and abandoned lands or underdeveloped agricultural lands to be covered by CARP, collective
ownership shall be allowed only if the beneficiaries opt for it and there is a clear development plan that
would require collective farming or integrated farm operations exhibiting the conditions described
above. Otherwise, the land awarded to a farmer-beneficiary should be in the form of a n individual title,
covering one (1) contiguous tract or several parcels of land cumulated up to a maximum of three (3)
hectares.
"In case of collective ownership, title to the property shall be issued in the name of the co- owners or the
cooperative or collective organization as the case may be. If the certificates of land ownership award are
given to cooperatives then the names of the beneficiaries must also be listed in the same certificate of
land ownership award.
"With regard to existing collective certificates of land ownership award, the DAR should immediately
undertake the parcelization of said certificates of land ownership award, particularly those that do not
exhibit the conditions for collective ownership outlined above. The DAR shall conduct a review and
redocumentation of all the collective certificates of land ownership award. The DAR shall prepare a
prioritized list of certificates of land ownership award to be parcelized. The parcelization shall commence
immediately upon approval of this Act and shall not exceed a period of three (3) years. Only those
existing certificates of land ownership award that are collectively farmed or are operated in an integrated
manner shall remain as collective."
follows:
"SEC. 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. - Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for by the
beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. The
annual amortization shall start one (1) year from the date of the certificate of land ownership award
registration. However, if the occupancy took place after the certificate of land ownership award
registration, the amortization shall start one (1) year from actual occupancy. The payments for the first
three (3) years after the award shall be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC: Provided, That
the first five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual
gross production as established by the DAR. Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth (5th)
year exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual gross production and the failure to produce accordingly is
not due to the beneficiary's fault, the LBP shall reduce the interest rate and/or reduce the principal
obligation to make the repayment affordable.
"The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage
may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations. The
LBP shall advise the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited
landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land, as provided herein, has been
foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this Act."
follows:
"SEC. 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. - Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act or other
agrarian reform laws shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or
to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a period of ten
(10) years: Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to
repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the
availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the BARC of the barangay where the land is situated.
The PARCCOM, as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.
"The title of the land awarded under the agrarian reform must indicate that it is an emancipation patent
or a certificate of land ownership award and the subsequent transfer title must also indicate that it is an
emancipation patent or a certificate of land ownership award.
"If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or
conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who,
as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself/herself. Failing compliance
herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the
land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.
"In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sump
for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he/she has made
on the land."
follows:
"SEC. 36. Funding for Support Services. - In order to cover the expenses and cost of support services, at
least forty percent (40%) of all appropriations for agrarian reform during the five (5) year extension
period shall be immediately set aside and made available for this purpose: Provided, That the DAR shall
pursue integrated land acquisition and distribution and support services strategy requiring a plan to be
developed parallel to the land acquisition and distribution process. The planning and implementation for
land acquisition and distribution shall be hand-in-hand with support services delivery: Provided, further,
That for the next five (5) years, as far as practicable, a minimum of two (2) Agrarian Reform Communities
(ARCs) shall be established by the DAR, in coordination with the local government units, non-
governmental organizations, 'community-based cooperatives and people's organizations in each
legislative district with a predominant agricultural population: Provided, furthermore, That the areas in
which the ARCS are to be established shall have been substantially covered under the provisions of this
Act and other agrarian or land reform laws: Provided, finally, That a complementary support services
delivery strategy for existing agrarian reform beneficiaries that are not in barangays within the ARCs shall
be adopted by the DAR.
"For this purpose, an Agrarian Reform Community is composed and managed by agrarian reform
beneficiaries who shall be willing to be organized and to undertake the integrated development of an
area and/or their organizations/ cooperatives. In each community, the DAR, together with the agencies
and organizations abovementioned, shall identify the farmers' association, cooperative or their
respective federations approved by the farmers- beneficiaries that shall take the lead in the agricultural
development of the area. In addition, the DAR, in close coordination with the congressional oversight
committee created herein, with due notice to the concerned representative of the legislative district
prior to implementation shall be authorized to package proposals and receive grants, aids and other
forms of financial assistance from any source"
follows:
"SEC. 37. Support Services for the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries. - The State shall adopt the integrated
policy of support services delivery to agrarian reform beneficiaries. To this end, the DAR, the Department
of Finance, and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) shall institute reforms to liberalize access to credit
by agrarian reform beneficiaries. The PARC shall ensure that support services for agrarian reform
beneficiaries are provided, such as:
"(a) Land surveys and titling;
"(b) Socialized terms on agricultural credit facilities;
"Thirty percent (30%) of all appropriations for support services referred to in Section 36 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended, shall be immediately set aside and made available for agricultural credit facilities:
Provided, That one-third (1/3) of this segregated appropriation shall be specifically allocated for
subsidies to support the initial capitalization for agricultural production to new agrarian reform
beneficiaries upon the awarding of the emancipation patent or the certificate of land ownership award
and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) shall be allocated to provide access to socialized credit to existing
agrarian reform beneficiaries, including the leaseholders: Provided, further, the LBP and other concerned
government financial institutions, accredited savings and credit cooperatives, financial service
cooperatives and accredited cooperative banks shall provide the delivery system for disbursement of the
above financial assistance to individual agrarian reform beneficiaries, holders of collective titles and
cooperatives.
"For this purpose, all financing institutions may accept as collateral for loans the purchase orders,
marketing agreements or expected harvests: Provided, That loans obtained shall be used in the
improvement or development of the farm holding of the agrarian reform beneficiary or the
establishment of facilities which shall enhance production or marketing of agricultural products of
increase farm income therefrom: Provided, further, That of the remaining seventy percent (70%) for the
support services, fifteen percent (15%) shall be earmarked for farm inputs as requested by the duly
accredited agrarian reform beneficiaries' organizations, such as, but not limited to: (1) seeds, seedlings
and/or planting materials; (2) organic fertilizers; (3) pesticides; (4)herbicides; and (5) farm animals,
implements/'machineries; and five percent (5%) for seminars, trainings and the like to help empower
agrarian reform beneficiaries.
"(c) Extension services by way of planting, cropping, production and post-harvest technology transfer, as
well as marketing and management assistance and support to cooperatives and farmers' organizations;
"(d) Infrastructure such as, but not limited to, access trails, mini-dams, public utilities, marketing and
storage facilities;
"(e) Research, production and use of organic fertilizers and other local substances necessary in farming
and cultivation; and
"(f) Direct and active DAR assistance in the education and organization of actual and potential agrarian
reform beneficiaries, at the barangay, municipal, city, provincial, and national levels, towards helping
them understand their rights and responsibilities as owner-cultivators developing farm- related trust
relationships among themselves and their neighbors, and increasing farm production and profitability
with the ultimate end of empowering them to chart their own destiny. The representatives of the
agrarian reform beneficiaries to the PARC shall be chosen from the 'nominees of the duly accredited
agrarian reform beneficiaries' organizations, or in its absence, from organizations of actual and potential
agrarian reform beneficiaries as forwarded to and processed by the PARC EXCOM.
"The PARC shall formulate policies to ensure that support services for agrarian reform beneficiaries shall
be provided at all stages of the program implementation with the concurrence of the concerned agrarian
reform beneficiaries.
"The PARC shall likewise adopt, implement, and monitor policies and programs to ensure the
fundamental equality of women and men in the agrarian reform program as well as respect for the
human rights, social protection, and decent working conditions of both paid and unpaid men and
women farmer-beneficiaries.
"The Bagong Kilusang Kabuhayan sa Kaunlaran (BKKK) Secretariat shall be transferred and attached t o
the LBP, for its supervision including all its applicable and existing funds, personnel, properties,
equipment and records.
"Misuse or diversion of the financial and support services herein provided shall result in sanctions
against the beneficiary guilty thereof, including the forfeiture of the land transferred to him/her or lesser
sanctions as may be provided by the PARC, without prejudice to criminal prosecution."
Section 15. There shall be incorporated after Section 37 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, a new
section to read as follows:
"SEC. 37-A. Equal Support Services for Rural Women. - Support services shall be extended equally to
women and men agrarian reform beneficiaries.
"The PARC shall ensure that these support services, as provided for in this Act, integrate the specific
needs and well-being of women farmer- beneficiaries taking into account the specific requirements of
female family members of farmer- beneficiaries.
"The PARC shall also ensure that rural women will be able to participate in all community activities. To
this effect, rural women are entitled to self-organization in order to obtain equal access to economic
opportunities and to have access to agricultural credit and loans, marketing facilities and technology, and
other support services, and equal treatment in land reform and resettlement schemes.
"The DAR shall establish and maintain a women's desk, which will be primarily responsible for
formulating and implementing programs and activities related to the protection and promotion of
women's rights, as well as providing an avenue where women can register their complaints and
grievances principally related t o their rural activities."
follows:
"SEC. 38. Support Services for Landowners. - The PARC, with the assistance of such other government
agencies and instrumentalities as it may direct, shall provide landowners affected by the CARP and prior
agrarian reform programs with the following services:
"(a) Investment information, financial and counseling assistance, particularly investment information on
government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and disposable assets of the government in pursuit
of national industrialization and economic independence:
"(b) Facilities, programs and schemes for the conversion or exchange of bonds issued for payment of the
lands acquired with stocks and bonds issued by the National Government, the BSP and other
government institutions and instrumentalities;
"(c) Marketing of agrarian reform bonds, as well as promoting the marketability of said bonds in
traditional and non-traditional financial markets and stock exchanges: and/or
"(d) Other services designed t o utilize productively the proceeds of the sale of such lands for rural
industrialization.
"A landowner who invests in rural-based industries shall be entitled to the incentives granted to a
registered enterprise engaged in a pioneer or preferred area of investment as provided for in the
Omnibus Investment Code of 1987,or to such other incentives as the PARC, the LBP, or other government
financial institutions shall provide.
"The LBP shall redeem a landowner's agrarian reform bonds at face value as an incentive: Provided, That
at least fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds thereof shall be invested in a Board of Investments (BOI)-
registered company or in any agri-business or agro-industrial enterprise in the region where the CARP-
covered landholding is located. An additional incentive of two percent (2%) in cash shall be paid to a
landowner who maintains his/her enterprise as a going concern for five (5) years or keeps his/her
investments in a BOI- registered firm for the same period: Provided, further, That the rights of the
agrarian reform beneficiaries are not, in any way, prejudiced or impaired thereby.
"The DAR, the LBP and the Department of Trade and Industry shall jointly formulate the program to carry
out these provisions under the supervision of the PARC: Provided, That in no case shall the landowners'
sex, economic, religious, social, cultural and political attributes exclude them from accessing these
support services."
follows:
"SEC. 41. The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. - The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)
shall be composed of the President of the Philippines as Chairperson, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
as Vice-Chairperson and the following as members: Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture;
Environment and Natural Resources; Budget and Management; Interior and Local Government; Public
Works and Highways; Trade and Industry; Finance; and Labor and Employment; Director-General of the
National Economic and Development Authority; President, Land Bank of the Philippines; Administrator,
National Irrigation Administration; Administrator, Land Registration Authority; and six (6) representatives
of affected landowners to represent Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; six (6) representatives of agrarian
reform beneficiaries, two (2) each from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao: Provided, That at least one (1) of
them shall be from the indigenous peoples: Provided, further, That at least one (1)of them shall come
from a duly recognized national organization of rural women or a national organization of agrarian
reform beneficiaries with a substantial number of women members: Provided, finally, That at least
twenty percent (20%) of the members of the PARC shall be women but in no case shall they be less than
two (Z)."
follows:
"SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the DENR.
"It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide
all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward
this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination of every action or proceeding before it.
"It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of
reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue
subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized
officers. It shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and
subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
"Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their
organizations in any proceedings before the DAR Provided, however, That when there are two or more
representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among
themselves to represent such party or group before any DAB proceedings.
"Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately
executory except a decision or a portion thereof involving solely the issue of just compensation."
Section 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding
Section 50-A to read as follows:
"SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. - No court or prosecutor's office shall take
cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section
57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be
automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify
within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the
determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the
municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court,
and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform
beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing and interest to
intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP.
"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government agency shall not be used against
them to deny the existence of their legal standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and
quasi-judicial bodies."
follows:
"SEC. 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. -Except for the Supreme Court, no court in the
Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against
the PARC, the DAR, or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or
controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation,
enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform."
follows:
"SEC. 63. Funding Source. - The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act,
until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws,
shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One
hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00).
"Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to augment the
Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act during the five (5)-year
extension period.
"Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
"(a) Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO);
"e)All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the PCGG
excluding the amount appropriated for compensation to victims of human rights violations under the
applicable law;
"(c) Proceeds of the disposition and development of the properties of the Government in foreign
countries, for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructure and other support
services required by this Act;
"(d) All income and, collections of whatever form and nature arising from the agrarian reform
operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CARP implementing agencies;
"(e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign. aid grants and
concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing productions,
credits, infrastructures, and other support services required by this Act:
"(f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Five billion pesos (P5,000,000,000.00) from the General
Appropriations Act;
"(g) Gratuitous financial assistance from legitimate sources; and
"(h) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated.
"All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered continuing
appropriations during the period of its implementation: Provided, That if the need arises, specific
amounts for bond redemptions, interest payments and other existing obligations arising from the
implementation of the program shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act: Provided,
further, That all just compensation payments to landowners, including execution of judgments therefore,
shall only be sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund: Provided, however, That just compensation
payments that cannot be covered within the approved annual budget of the program shall be chargeable
against the debt service program of the national government, or any unprogrammed item in the General
Appropriations Act: Provided, finally, That after the completion of the land acquisition and distribution
component of the CARP, the yearly appropriation shall be allocated fully to support services, agrarian
justice delivery and operational requirements of the DAR and the other CARP implementing agencies."
follows:
"SEC. 65. Conversion of Lands. - After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to
be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and
the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR,
upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner with respect only to his/her retained area which is
tenanted, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the
reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That if the applicant is a
beneficiary under agrarian laws and the land sought to be converted is the land awarded to him/her or
any portion thereof, the applicant, after the conversion is granted, shall invest at least ten percent
(10%)of the proceeds coming from the conversion in government securities: Provided, further, That the
applicant upon conversion shall fully pay the price of the land: Provided, furthermore, That irrigated and
irrigable lands, shall not be subject to conversion: Provided, finally, That the National Irrigation
Administration shall submit a consolidated data on the location nationwide of all irrigable lands within
one (1)year from the effectivity of this Act.
"Failure to implement the conversion plan within five (5) years from the approval of such conversion plan
or any violation of the conditions of the conversion order due to the fault of the applicant shall cause the
land to automatically be covered by CARP."
follows:
"SEC. 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. - In cases falling within their
jurisdiction, no injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the regional
trial courts, municipal trial courts, municipal circuit trial courts, and metropolitan trial courts against the
DAR, the DA, the DENR, and the Department of Justice in their implementation of the program."
follows:
"SEC. 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. - The following are prohibited:
"(a) The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of
agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or
juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries;
"(b) The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to
avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program:
"(c) Any conversion by , any landowner of his/her agricultural' land into any non-agricultural use with
intent to avoid the application of this Act to his/her landholdings and to dispossess his/her bonafide
tenant farmers:
"(d) The malicious and willful prevention or obstruction by any person, association or entity of the
implementation of the CARP;
"(e) The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the nature of lands outside of urban centers and city
limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act, except after final completion of the
appropriate conversion under Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. The date of the
registration of the deed of conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and the date
of the issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered
lands, as the case may be, shall be conclusive for the purpose of this Act;
"(f) The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right
over the land he/she acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions of
this Act;
"(g) The unjustified, willful, and malicious act by a responsible officer or officers of the government
through the following:
"(1) The denial of notice and/or reply to landowners;
"(2) The deprivation of retention rights;
"(3) The undue or inordinate delay in the preparation of claim folders; or
"(4) Any undue delay, refusal or failure in the payment of just compensation;
"(h) The undue delay or unjustified failure of the DAR, the LBP, the PARC, the PARCCOM, and any
concerned government agency or any government official or employee to submit the required report,
data and/or other official document involving the implementation of the provisions of this Act, as
required by the parties or the government, including the House of Representatives and the Senate of the
Philippines as well as their respective committees, and the congressional oversight committee created
herein;
"(i) The undue delay in the compliance with the obligation to certify or attest and/or falsification of the
certification or attestation as required under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended; and
"(j) Any other culpable neglect or willful violations of the provisions of this Act.
"In the case of government officials and employees, a conviction under this Act is without prejudice to
any civil case and/or appropriate administrative proceedings under civil service law, rules and
regulations. "Any person convicted under this Act shall not be entitled to any benefit provided for in any
agrarian reform law or program."
follows:
"SEC. 74. Penalties. - Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this Act shall be
punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not more than three (3) years or a fine of
not less than One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00),
or both, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That the following corresponding penalties shall be
imposed for the specific violations hereunder:
"(a) Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six (6) years or a fine of not less than Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00)and not more than One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000.00), or
both, at the discretion of the court upon any person who violates Section 73, subparagraphs (a), (b), (f),
(g), and (h) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended; and
"(b) Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years or a fine of not less than Two
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) and not more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00), or both,
at the discretion of the court upon any person who violates Section 73, subparagraphs (c), (d), (e), and (i)
of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended.
"If the offender is a corporation or association, the officer responsible therefor shall be criminally liable."
Section 26. Congressional Oversight Committee. - A Congressional Oversight Committee on Agrarian

Reform (COCAR) is hereby created to oversee and monitor the implementation of this Act. It shall be
composed of the Chairpersons of the Committee on Agrarian Reform of both Houses of Congress, three
(3) Members of the House of Representatives, and three (3) Members of the Senate of the Philippines,
to be designated respectively by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate of the Philippines.
The Chairpersons of the Committees on Agrarian Reform of the House of Representatives and of the
Senate of the Philippines shall be the Chairpersons of the COCAR. The Members shall receive no
compensation; however, traveling and other necessary expenses shall be allowed.
In order to carry out the objectives of this Act, the COCAR shall be provided with the necessary
appropriations for its operation. An initial amount of Twenty-five million pesos (P25,000,000.00) is
hereby appropriated for the COCAR for the first year of its operation and the same amount shall be
appropriated every year thereafter.
The term of the COCAR shall end six (6) months after the expiration of the extended period of five (5)
years.
Section 27. Powers and Functions of the COCAR. - The COCAR shall have the following powers and
functions:
(a) Prescribe and adopt guidelines which shall govern its work;
(b) Hold hearings and consultations, receive testimonies and reports pertinent to its specified concerns;
(c) Secure from any department, bureau, office or instrumentality of the government such assistance as
may be needed, including technical information, preparation and production of reports and submission
of recommendations or plans as it may require, particularly a yearly report of the record or performance
of each agrarian reform beneficiary as provided under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended;
(d) Secure from the DAR or the LBP information on the amount of just compensation determined to be
paid or which has been paid to any landowner;
(e) Secure from the DAR or the LBP quarterly reports on the disbursement of funds for the agrarian
reform program;
(f) Oversee and monitor, in such a manner as it may deem necessary, the actual implementation of the
program and projects by the DAR;
(g) Summon by subpoena any public or private citizen to testify before it, or require by subpoena duces
tecum to produce before it such records, reports, or other documents as may be necessary in the
performance of its functions;
(h) Engage the services of resource persons from the public and private sectors as well as civil society
including the various agrarian reform groups or organizations in the different regions of the country as
may be needed;
(i) Approve the budget for the work of the Committee and all disbursements therefrom, including
compensation of all personnel;
(j) Organize its staff and hire and appoint such employees and personnel whether temporary, contractual
or on constancy subject to applicable rules; and
(k) Exercise all the powers necessary and incidental to attain the purposes for which it is created.
Section 28. Periodic Reports. - The COCAR shall submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
and to the President of the Senate of the Philippines periodic reports on its findings and
recommendations on actions to be undertaken by both Houses of Congress, the DAR, and the PARC.
Section 29. Access to Information. - Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 and other
pertinent laws, information on the amount of just compensation paid to any landowner under Republic
Act No. 6657, as amended, and other agrarian reform laws shall be deemed public information.
Section 30. Resolution of Case. - Any case and/or proceeding involving the implementation of the
provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, which may remain pending on June 30, 2014 shall be
allowed to proceed to its finality and be executed even beyond such date.
Section 31. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The PARC and the DAR shall provide the necessary
implementing rules and regulations within thirty (30) days upon the approval of this Act. Such rules and
regulations shall take effect on July 1, 2009 and it shall be published in at least two (2) newspapers of
general circulation.
Section 32. Repealing Clause. - Section 53 of Republic Act No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural
Land Reform Code, is hereby repealed and all other laws, decrees, executive orders, issuances, rules and
regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby likewise repealed or amended
accordingly.
Section 33. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is declared
unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 34. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect on July 1,2009 and it shall be published in at
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
(Sgd.) PROSPERO C. NOGRALES
Speaker of the House of Representatives
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE
President of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2666 and, House Bill No. 4077 was finally passed by
the Senate and the House of Representatives on August 3, 2009 and July 29, 2009, respectively.
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP
Secretary General
House of Represenatives
(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES
Secretary of Senate
Approved: August 7, 2009
(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Custom Search
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Eighth Congress
Republic Act No. 6657 June 10, 1988
AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE

AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::
CHAPTER I
Preliminary Chapter
Section 1. Title. — This Act shall be known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
Section 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. — It is the policy of the State to pursue a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers
will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound
rural development and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size
farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture.
To this end, a more equitable distribution and ownership of land, with due regard to the rights of
landowners to just compensation and to the ecological needs of the nation, shall be undertaken to
provide farmers and farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality
of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands.
The agrarian reform program is founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to receive
a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to the priorities and retention limits set forth in this Act,
having taken into account ecological, developmental, and equity considerations, and subject to the
payment of just compensation. The State shall respect the right of small landowners, and shall provide
incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers and landowners, as well as cooperatives and
other independent farmers' organizations, to participate in the planning, organization, and management
of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research,
and adequate financial production, marketing and other support services.
The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform, or stewardship, whenever applicable, in
accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the
public domain, under lease or concession, suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead
rights of small settlers and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates, which shall be
distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
By means of appropriate incentives, the State shall encourage the formation and maintenance of
economic-size family farms to be constituted by individual beneficiaries and small landowners.
The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the
preferential use of communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore.t shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production
and marketing assistance and other services. The State shall also protect, develop and conserve such
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against
foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and
fishing resources.
The State shall be guided by the principles that land has a social function and land ownership has a social
responsibility. Owners of agricultural lands have the obligation to cultivate directly or through labor
administration the lands they own and thereby make the land productive.
The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program
to promote industrialization, employment and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial
instruments used as payment for lands shall contain features that shall enhance negotiability and
acceptability in the marketplace.
The State may lease undeveloped lands of the public domain to qualified entities for the development of
capital-intensive farms, and traditional and pioneering crops especially those for exports subject to the
prior rights of the beneficiaries under this Act.
Section 3. Definitions. — For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:
(a) Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to farmers and
regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of
factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other
arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing,
labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a
just share of the fruits of the lands they work.
(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting
of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm
products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such
farming operations done by person whether natural or juridical.
(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified
as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
(d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning
farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or
seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms
and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian
reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
(e) Idle or Abandoned Land refers to any agricultural land not cultivated, tilled or developed to produce
any crop nor devoted to any specific economic purpose continuously for a period of three (3) years
immediately prior to the receipt of notice of acquisition by the government as provided under this Act,
but does not include land that has become permanently or regularly devoted to non-agricultural
purposes.t does not include land which has become unproductive by reason of force majeure or any
other fortuitous event, provided that prior to such event, such land was previously used for agricultural
or other economic purpose.
(f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the production of
agricultural crops, either by himself, or primarily with the assistance of his immediate farm household,
whether the land is owned by him, or by another person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement
or arrangement with the owner thereof.
(g) Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as an employee or laborer in an
agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly,
monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of,
or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent
and regular farm employment.
(h) Regular Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an agricultural
enterprise or farm.
(i) Seasonal Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent
basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or a non-permanent laborer, such as
"dumaan", "sacada", and the like.
(j) Other Farmworker is a farmworker who does not fall under paragraphs (g), (h) and (i).
(k) Cooperatives shall refer to organizations composed primarily of small agricultural producers, farmers,
farmworkers, or other agrarian reform beneficiaries who voluntarily organize themselves for the purpose
of pooling land, human, technological, financial or other economic resources, and operated on the
principle of one member, one vote. A juridical person may be a member of a cooperative, with the same
rights and duties as a natural person.
CHAPTER II
Coverage
Section 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands, as provided in
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable
for agriculture.
More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No
reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of
this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall
have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain.
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the
preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or
that can be raised thereon.
Section 5. Schedule of Implementation. — The distribution of all lands covered by this Act shall be
implemented immediately and completed within ten (10) years from the effectivity thereof.
Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain,
directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil
fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no
case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to
each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15)
years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: provided, that
landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the
areas originally retained by them thereunder: provided, further, that original homestead grantees or
their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act
shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the
landowner: provided, however, that in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted,
the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or
another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.n case the tenant chooses to remain in the
retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
Act.n case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a
leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period
of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this
Act shall be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or transfer of
possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of the Act shall be null and
void: provided, however, that those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with
the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all
Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any
transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
Section 7. Priorities. — The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in coordination with the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural
lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and
distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private
lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform; all lands foreclosed by the government
financial institutions; all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG);
and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be
acquired and distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years;
Phase Two: All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all arable public agricultural lands
under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops in accordance
with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands which are to be opened for
new development and resettlement; and all private agricultural lands in excess of fifty (50) hectares,
insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned, to implement principally the rights of farmers and regular
farmworkers, who are the landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till, which shall be
distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed within
a period of not more than four (4) years.
Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings and proceeding to
medium and small landholdings under the following schedule:
(a) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares, to begin on the fourth (4th)
year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within three (3) years; and
(b) Landholdings from the retention limit up to twenty-four (24) hectares, to begin on the sixth (6th) year
from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within four (4) years; to implement principally the
right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they
till.
The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by this program shall be
made in accordance with the above order of priority, which shall be provided in the implementing rules
to be prepared by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), taking into consideration the
following; the need to distribute land to the tillers at the earliest practicable time; the need to enhance
agricultural productivity; and the availability of funds and resources to implement and support the
program.
In any case, the PARC, upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces or region as priority land reform areas, in which the
acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands therein may be implemented ahead of the above
schedules.
In effecting the transfer within these guidelines, priority must be given to lands that are tenanted.
The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution scheme, including
the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: provided, that an owner-tiller may be a beneficiary
of the land he does not own but is actually cultivating to the extent of the difference between the area
of the land he owns and the award ceiling of three (3) hectares.
Section 8. Multinational Corporations. — All lands of the public domain leased, held or possessed by
multinational corporations or associations, and other lands owned by the government or by
government-owned or controlled corporations, associations, institutions, or entities, devoted to existing
and operational agri-business or agro-industrial enterprises, operated by multinational corporations and
associations, shall be programmed for acquisition and distribution immediately upon the effectivity of
this Act, with the implementation to be completed within three (3) years.
Lands covered by the paragraph immediately preceding, under lease, management, grower or service
contracts, and the like, shall be disposed of as follows:
(a) Lease, management, grower or service contracts covering such lands covering an aggregate area in
excess of 1,000 hectares, leased or held by foreign individuals in excess of 500 hectares are deemed
amended to conform with the limits set forth in Section 3 of Article XII of the Constitution.
(b) Contracts covering areas not in excess of 1,000 hectares in the case of such corporations and
associations, and 500 hectares, in the case of such individuals, shall be allowed to continue under their
original terms and conditions but not beyond August 29, 1992, or their valid termination, whichever
comes sooner, after which, such agreements shall continue only when confirmed by the appropriate
government agency. Such contracts shall likewise continue even after the lands has been transferred to
beneficiaries or awardees thereof, which transfer shall be immediately commenced and implemented
and completed within the period of three (3) years mentioned in the first paragraph hereof.
(c) In no case will such leases and other agreements now being implemented extend beyond August 29,
1992, when all lands subject hereof shall have been distributed completely to qualified beneficiaries or
awardees.
Such agreements can continue thereafter only under a new contract between the government or
qualified beneficiaries or awardees, on the one hand, and said enterprises, on the other.
Lands leased, held or possessed by multinational corporations, owned by private individuals and private
non-governmental corporations, associations, institutions and entities, citizens of the Philippines, shall
be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution upon the expiration of the applicable
lease, management, grower or service contract in effect as of August 29, 1987, or otherwise, upon its
valid termination, whichever comes sooner, but not later than after ten (10) years following the
effectivity of the Act. However during the said period of effectivity, the government shall take steps to
acquire these lands for immediate distribution thereafter.
In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual worker-beneficiaries.n case it is not
economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then they shall form a workers' cooperative or
association which will deal with the corporation or business association or any other proper party for the
purpose of entering into a lease or growers agreement and for all other legitimate purposes. Until a new
agreement is entered into by and between the workers' cooperative or association and the corporation
or business association or any other proper party, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes effect
between the former and the previous landowner shall be respected by both the workers' cooperative or
association and the corporation, business, association or such other proper party.n no case shall the
implementation or application of this Act justify or result in the reduction of status or diminution of any
benefits received or enjoyed by the worker-beneficiaries, or in which they may have a vested right, at the
time this Act becomes effective.
The provisions of Section 32 of this Act, with regard to production and income-sharing shall apply to
farms operated by multinational corporations.
During the transition period, the new owners shall be assisted in their efforts to learn modern
technology in production. Enterprises which show a willingness and commitment and good-faith efforts
to impart voluntarily such advanced technology will be given preferential treatment where feasible.
In no case shall a foreign corporation, association, entity or individual enjoy any rights or privileges
better than those enjoyed by a domestic corporation, association, entity or individual.
Section 9. Ancestral Lands. — For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural
community shall include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and
occupation of the community and its members: provided, that the Torrens Systems shall be respected.
The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected to ensure their economic,
social and cultural well-being.n line with the principles of self-determination and autonomy, the systems
of land ownership, land use, and the modes of settling land disputes of all these communities must be
recognized and respected.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the implementation of this
Act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands: provided,
that in the autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own laws on ancestral
domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles enunciated in this Act and other
national laws.
Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm
stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research
and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic
centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms
actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands
with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the
coverage of the Act.
Section 11. Commercial Farming. — Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising, and aquaculture including saltbeds, fishponds and
prawn ponds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and cacao, coffee and rubber
plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after (10) years from
the effectivity of the Act.n the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first year of
commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the
government shall initiate the steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just
compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives
or associations, which shall hereafter manage the said lands for the worker-beneficiaries.
If the DAR determines that the purposes for which this deferment is granted no longer exist, such areas
shall automatically be subject to redistribution.
The provisions of Section 32 of the Act, with regard to production-and income-sharing, shall apply to
commercial farms.
CHAPTER III
Improvement of Tenurial and Labor Relations
Section 12. Determination of Lease Rentals. — In order to protect and improve the tenurial and
economic status of the farmers in tenanted lands under the retention limit and lands not yet acquired
under this Act, the DAR is mandated to determine and fix immediately the lease rentals thereof in
accordance with Section 34 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended: provided, that the DAR shall
immediately and periodically review and adjust the rental structure for different crops, including rice and
corn, or different regions in order to improve progressively the conditions of the farmer, tenant or lessee.
Section 13. Production-Sharing Plan. — Any enterprise adopting the scheme provided for in Section 32
or operating under a production venture, lease, management contract or other similar arrangement and
any farm covered by Sections 8 and 11 hereof is hereby mandated to execute within ninety (90) days
from the effectivity of this Act, a production-sharing plan, under guidelines prescribed by the
appropriate government agency.
Nothing herein shall be construed to sanction the diminution of any benefits such as salaries, bonuses,
leaves and working conditions granted to the employee-beneficiaries under existing laws, agreements,
and voluntary practice by the enterprise, nor shall the enterprise and its employee-beneficiaries be
prevented from entering into any agreement with terms more favorable to the latter.
CHAPTER IV
Registration
Section 14. Registration of Landowners. — Within one hundred eighty (180) days from the effectivity of
this Act, all persons, natural or juridical, including government entities, that own or claim to own
agricultural lands, whether in their names or in the name of others, except those who have already
registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 229, who shall be entitled to such incentives as may be
provided for the PARC, shall file a sworn statement in the proper assessor's office in the form to be
prescribed by the DAR, stating the following information:
(a) the description and area of the property;
(b) the average gross income from the property for at least three (3) years;
(c) the names of all tenants and farmworkers therein;
(d) the crops planted in the property and the area covered by each crop as of June 1, 1987;
(e) the terms of mortgages, lease, and management contracts subsisting as of June 1, 1987, and
(f) the latest declared market value of the land as determined by the city or provincial assessor.
Section 15. Registration of Beneficiaries. — The DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers
who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries with the assistance of the
BARC and the DAR shall provide the following data:
(a) names and members of their immediate farm household;
(b) owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the length of tenurial relationship;
(c) location and area of the land they work;
(d) crops planted; and
(e) their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages received.
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall be posted in the
barangay hall, school or other public buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to inspection by
the public at all reasonable hours.
CHAPTER V
Land Acquisition
Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands,
the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to
acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a
conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located.
Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the
valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered
mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or
rejection of the offer.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the
landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of
transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to
determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties
to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of
the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The
DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response
from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate
possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for
final determination of just compensation.
CHAPTER VI
Compensation
Section 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the current value of the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors
shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers
and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any
government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine
its valuation.
Section 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. — The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such
amounts as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP, in accordance with the
criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally
determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land.
The compensation shall be paid on one of the following modes, at the option of the landowner:
(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions;
(a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned.
Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable
at any time.
(b) For lands above twenty-four (24) hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares.
—
Thirty percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any
time.
(c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below.
Thirty-five percent (35%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at
any time.
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred shares, physical
assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set by the PARC;
(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;
(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:
(a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent (10%) of the face value of
the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance until the tenth (10th) year: provided, that
should the landowner choose to forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid
correspondingly in LBP bonds;
(b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner, his successors in
interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face value, for any of the following:
(i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including assets under the Asset
Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by government financial institutions in the same
province or region where the lands for which the bonds were paid are situated;
(ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or -controlled corporations or shares of stocks

owned by the government in private corporations;
(iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused persons, or performance
bonds;
(iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the proceeds of the loans shall
be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a small-and medium-scale industry, in the same
province or region as the land for which the bonds are paid;
(v) Payment for various taxes and fees to government; provided, that the use of these bonds for these
purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the outstanding balance of the financial instruments:
provided, further, that the PARC shall determine the percentage mentioned above;
(vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government
universities, colleges, trade schools, and other institutions;
(vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government hospitals; and
(viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.
In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate measures to protect the economy.
Section 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales. — Landowners, other than banks and other financial
institutions, who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%)
cash payment.
Section 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. — Landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition under this
Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries
subject to the following guidelines:
(a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first year of the
implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners and qualified beneficiaries covering
any voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such
land shall instead be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act.
(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the transferee than those of
the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries, if
such offers have been made and are fully known to both parties.
(c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party and shall be duly
recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.
Section 21. Payment of Compensation by Beneficiaries Under Voluntary Land Transfer. — Direct
payments in cash or in kind may be by the farmer-beneficiary to the landowner under terms to be
mutually agreed upon by both parties, which shall be binding upon them, upon registration with the
approval by the DAR. Said approval shall be considered given, unless notice of disapproval is received by
the farmer-beneficiary within thirty (30) days from the date of registration.
In the event they cannot agree on the price of land, the procedure for compulsory acquisition as
provided in Section 16 shall apply. The LBP shall extend financing to the beneficiaries for purposes of
acquiring the land.
CHAPTER VII
Land Redistribution
Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as
possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the
same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, that the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be
given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents: and provided, further, that actual
tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their
land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make
the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or
performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any
support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit
periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC.
If, due to the landowner's retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land,
there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other
lands available for distribution under this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned lands will
be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.
Section 23. Distribution Limit. — No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of
agricultural land.
Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence
from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be completed within one
hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the
beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the
restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds
concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.
Section 25. Award Ceilings for Beneficiaries. — Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area not exceeding
three (3) hectares which may cover a contiguous tract of land or several parcels of land cumulated up to
the prescribed award limits.
For purposes of this Act, a landless beneficiary is one who owns less than three (3) hectares of
agricultural land.
The beneficiaries may opt for collective ownership, such as co-ownership or farmers cooperative or
some other form of collective organization: provided, that the total area that may be awarded shall not
exceed the total number of co-owners or member of the cooperative or collective organization
multiplied by the award limit above prescribed, except in meritorious cases as determined by the PARC.
Title to the property shall be issued in the name of the co-owners or the cooperative or collective
organization as the case may be.
Section 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. — Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for by the
beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. The
payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the
PARC: provided, that the first five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the
value of the annual gross production as established by the DAR. Should the scheduled annual payments
after the fifth year exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual gross production and the failure to produce
accordingly is not due to the beneficiary's fault, the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the
principal obligations to make the repayment affordable.
The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage
may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations. The
LBP shall advise the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited
landholdings to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land, as provided herein, has been
foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this Act.
Section 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not
be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP,
or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: provided, however, that the children or
the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within
a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial
Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due
notice thereof by the BARC.
If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or
conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who,
as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance
herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the
land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for
the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the
land.
Section 28. Standing Crops at the Time of Acquisition. — The landowner shall retain his share of any
standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR shall take possession of the land under Section 16 of the
Act, and shall be given a reasonable time to harvest the same.
CHAPTER VIII
Corporate Farms
Section 29. Farms Owned or Operated by Corporations or Other Business Associations. — In the case of
farms owned or operated by corporations or other business associations, the following rules shall be
observed by the PARC:
In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual worker-beneficiaries.
In case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then it shall be owned collectively by
the workers' cooperative or association which will deal with the corporation or business association.
Until a new agreement is entered into by and between the workers' cooperative or association and the
corporation or business association, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes effect between the
former and the previous landowner shall be respected by both the workers' cooperative or association
and the corporation or business association.
Section 30. Homelots and Farmlots for Members of Cooperatives. — The individual members of the
cooperatives or corporations mentioned in the preceding section shall be provided with homelots and
small farmlots for their family use, to be taken from the land owned by the cooperative or corporation.
Section 31. Corporate Landowners. — Corporate landowners may voluntarily transfer ownership over
their agricultural landholdings to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to
qualified beneficiaries, under such terms and conditions, consistent with this Act, as they may agree
upon, subject to confirmation by the DAR.
Upon certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may give their qualified
beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the
agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total
assets, under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them.n no case shall the
compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are distributed be reduced. The
same principle shall be applied to associations, with respect to their equity or participation.
Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity or
participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed
to have complied with the provisions of the Act: provided, that the following conditions are complied
with:
a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to dividends and other
financial benefits, the books of the corporation or association shall be subject to periodic audit by
certified public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries;
b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association, the beneficiaries shall be
assured of at least one (1) representative in the board of directors, or in a management or executive
committee, if one exists, of the corporation or association; and
c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same rights and features as all
other shares.
d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void ab initio unless said
transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered beneficiary within the same corporation.
If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer envisioned above is not
made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution approved by the PARC within the same period,
the agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage
of this Act.
Section 32. Production-Sharing. — Pending final land transfer, individuals or entities owning, or operating
under lease or management contract, agricultural lands are hereby mandated to execute a production-
sharing plan with their farm workers or farmworkers' reorganization, if any, whereby three percent (3%)
of the gross sales from the production of such lands are distributed within sixty (60) days of the end of
the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other farmworkers in such lands over and above the
compensation they currently receive: provided, that these individuals or entities realize gross sales in
excess of five million pesos per annum unless the DAR, upon proper application, determines a lower
ceiling.
In the event that the individual or entity realizes a profit, an additional ten percent (10%) of the net
profit after tax shall be distributed to said regular and other farmworkers within ninety (90) days of the
end of the fiscal year.
To forestall any disruption in the normal operation of lands to be turned over to the farmworker-
beneficiaries mentioned above, a transitory period, the length of which shall be determined by the DAR,
shall be established.
During this transitory period, at least one percent (1%) of the gross sales of the entity shall be distributed
to the managerial, supervisory and technical group in place at the time of the effectivity of this Act, as
compensation for such transitory managerial and technical functions as it will perform, pursuant to an
agreement that the farmworker-beneficiaries and the managerial, supervisory and technical group may
conclude, subject to the approval of the DAR.
Section 33. Payment of Shares of Cooperative or Association. — Shares of a cooperative or association

acquired by farmers-beneficiaries or workers-beneficiaries shall be fully paid for in an amount
corresponding to the valuation as determined in the immediately succeeding section. The landowner
and the LBP shall assist the farmers-beneficiaries and workers-beneficiaries in the payment for said
shares by providing credit financing.
Section 34. Valuation of Lands. — A valuation scheme for the land shall be formulated by the PARC,
taking into account the factors enumerated in Section 17, in addition to the need to stimulate the growth
of cooperatives and the objective of fostering responsible participation of the workers-beneficiaries in
the creation of wealth.
In the determination of price that is just not only to the individuals but to society as well, the PARC shall
consult closely with the landowner and the workers-beneficiaries.
In case of disagreement, the price as determined by the PARC, if accepted by the workers-beneficiaries,
shall be followed, without prejudice to the landowner's right to petition the Special Agrarian Court to
resolve the issue of valuation.
CHAPTER IX
Support Services
Section 35. Creation of Support Services Office. — There is hereby created the Office of Support Services
under the DAR to be headed by an Undersecretary.
The Office shall provide general support and coordinative services in the implementation of the program
particularly in carrying out the provisions of the following services to farmer-beneficiaries and affected
landowners:
1) Irrigation facilities, especially second crop or dry season irrigation facilities;
2) Infrastructure development and public works projects in areas and settlements that come under
agrarian reform, and for this purpose, the preparation of the physical development plan of such
settlements providing suitable barangay sites, potable water and power resources, irrigation systems and
other facilities for a sound agricultural development plan;
3) Government subsidies for the use of irrigation facilities;
4) Price support and guarantee for all agricultural produce;
5) Extending to small landowners, farmers' organizations the necessary credit, like concessional and
collateral-free loans, for agro-industrialization based on social collaterals like the guarantees of farmers'
organization:
6) Promoting, developing and extending financial assistance to small-and medium-scale industries in
agrarian reform areas;
7) Assigning sufficient numbers of agricultural extension workers to farmers' organizations;
8) Undertake research, development and dissemination of information on agrarian reform and low-cost
and ecologically sound farm inputs and technologies to minimize reliance on expensive and imported
agricultural inputs;
9) Development of cooperative management skills through intensive training;
10) Assistance in the identification of ready markets for agricultural produce and training in other various
prospects of marketing; andtai
11) Administration operation management and funding of support services, programs and projects
including pilot projects and models related to agrarian reform as developed by the DAR.
Section 36. Funding for Support Services. — In order to cover the expenses and cost of support services,
at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all appropriations for agrarian reform shall be immediately set aside
and made available for this purpose.n addition, the DAR shall be authorized to package proposals and
receive grants, aid and other forms of financial assistance from any source.
Section 37. Support Services to the Beneficiaries. — The PARC shall ensure that support services to
farmers-beneficiaries are provided, such as:
(a) Land surveys and titling;
(b) Liberalized terms on credit facilities and production loans;

(c) Extension services by way of planting, cropping, production and post-harvest technology transfer, as
well as marketing and management assistance and support to cooperatives and farmers' organizations;
(d) Infrastructure such as access trails, mini-dams, public utilities, marketing and storage facilities; and
(e) Research, production and use of organic fertilizers and other local substances necessary in farming
and cultivation.
The PARC shall formulate policies to ensure that support services to farmer-beneficiaries shall be
provided at all stages of land reform.
The Bagong Kilusang Kabuhayan sa Kaunlaran (BKKK) Secretariat shall be transferred and attached to the
LBP, for its supervision including all its applicable and existing funds, personnel, properties, equipment
and records.
Misuse or diversion of the financial and support services herein provided shall result in sanctions against
the beneficiary guilty thereof, including the forfeiture of the land transferred to him or lesser sanctions
as may be provided by the PARC, without prejudice to criminal prosecution.
Section 38. Support Services to Landowners. — The PARC with the assistance of such other government
agencies and instrumentalities as it may direct, shall provide landowners affected by the CARP and prior
agrarian reform programs with the following services:
(a) Investment information financial and counseling assistance;
(b) Facilities, programs and schemes for the conversion or exchange of bonds issued for payment of the
lands acquired with stocks and bonds issued by the National Government, the Central Bank and other
government institutions and instrumentalities;
(c) Marketing of LBP bonds, as well as promoting the marketability of said bonds in traditional and non-
traditional financial markets and stock exchanges; and
(d) Other services designed to utilize productively the proceeds of the sale of such lands for rural
industrialization.
A landowner who invests in rural-based industries shall be entitled to the incentives granted to a
registered enterprise engaged in a pioneer or preferred area of investment as provided for in the
Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, or to such other incentives as the PARC, the LBP, or other
government financial institutions may provide.
The LBP shall redeem a landowner's LBP bonds at face value, provided that the proceeds thereof shall be
invested in a BOI-registered company or in any agri-business or agro-industrial enterprise in the region
where the landowner has previously made investments, to the extent of thirty percent (30%) of the face
value of said LBP bonds, subject to guidelines that shall be issued by the LBP.
Section 39. Land Consolidation. — The DAR shall carry out land consolidation projects to promote equal
distribution of landholdings, to provide the needed infrastructures in agriculture, and to conserve soil
fertility and prevent erosion.
CHAPTER X
Special Areas of Concern
Section 40. Special Areas of Concern. — As an integral part of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, the following principles in these special areas of concern shall be observed:
(1) Subsistence Fishing. — Small fisherfolk, including seaweed farmers, shall be assured of greater access
to the utilization of water resources.
(2) Logging and Mining Concessions. — Subject to the requirement of a balanced ecology and
conservation of water resources, suitable areas, as determined by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), in logging, mining and pasture areas, shall be opened up for agrarian
settlements whose beneficiaries shall be required to undertake reforestation and conservation
production methods. Subject to existing laws, rules and regulations, settlers and members of tribal
communities shall be allowed to enjoy and exploit the products of the forest other than timer within the
logging concessions.
(3) Sparsely Occupied Public Agricultural Lands. — Sparsely occupied agricultural lands of the public
domain shall be surveyed, proclaimed and developed as farm settlements for qualified landless people
based on an organized program to ensure their orderly and early development.
Agricultural land allocations shall be made for ideal family-size farms as determined by the PARC.
Pioneers and other settlers shall be treated equally in every respect.
Subject to the prior rights of qualified beneficiaries, uncultivated lands of the public domain shall be
made available on a lease basis to interested and qualified parties. Parties who will engaged in the
development of capital-intensive, traditional or pioneering crops shall be given priority.
The lease period, which shall not be more than a total of fifty (50) years, shall be proportionate to the
amount of investment and production goals of the lessee. A system of evaluation and audit shall be
instituted.
(4) Idle, Abandoned, Foreclosed and Sequestered Lands. — Idle, abandoned, foreclosed and sequestered
lands shall be planned for distribution as home lots and family-size farmlots to actual occupants.f land
area permits, other landless families shall be accommodated in these lands.
(5) Rural Women. — All qualified women members of the agricultural labor force must be guaranteed
and assured equal right to ownership of the land, equal shares of the farm's produce, and representation
in advisory or appropriate decision-making bodies.
(6) Veterans and Retirees. — In accordance with Section 7 of Article XVI of the Constitution, landless war
veterans and veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouse and orphans, retirees of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Integrated National Police (INP), returnees, surrenderees, and
similar beneficiaries shall be given due consideration in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public
domain.
(7) Agriculture Graduates. — Graduates of agricultural schools who are landless shall be assisted by the
government, through the DAR, in their desire to own and till agricultural lands.
CHAPTER XI
Program Implementation
Section 41. The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council. — The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)
shall be composed of the President of the Philippines as Chairman, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform as
Vice-Chairman and the following as members; Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture;
Environment and Natural Resources; Budget and Management; Local Government: Public Works and
Highways; Trade and Industry; Finance; Labor and Employment; Director-General of the National
Economic and Development Authority; President, Land Bank of the Philippines; Administrator, National
Irrigation Administration; and three (3) representatives of affected landowners to represent Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao; six (6) representatives of agrarian reform beneficiaries, two (2) each from Luzon,
Visayas and Mindanao, provided that one of them shall be from the cultural communities.
Section 42. Executive Committee. — There shall be an Executive Committee (EXCOM) of the PARC
composed of the Secretary of the DAR as Chairman, and such other members as the President may
designate, taking into account Article XIII, Section 5 of the Constitution. Unless otherwise directed by
PARC, the EXCOM may meet and decide on any and all matters in between meetings of the PARC:
provided, however, that its decisions must be reported to the PARC immediately and not later than the
next meeting.
Section 43. Secretariat. — A PARC Secretariat is hereby established to provide general support and
coordinative services such as inter-agency linkages; program and project appraisal and evaluation and
general operations monitoring for the PARC.
The Secretariat shall be headed by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who shall be assisted by an
Undersecretary and supported by a staff whose composition shall be determined by the PARC Executive
Committee and whose compensation shall be chargeable against the Agrarian Reform Fund. All officers
and employees of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
Section 44. Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM). — A Provincial Agrarian
Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) is hereby created in each province, composed of a
Chairman, who shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the EXCOM, the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer as Executive Officer, and one representative each from the
Departments of Agriculture, and of Environment and Natural Resources and from the LBP, one
representative each from existing farmers' organizations, agricultural cooperatives and non-
governmental organizations in the province; two representatives from landowners, at least one of whom
shall be a producer representing the principal crop of the province, and two representatives from farmer
and farmworker-beneficiaries, at least one of whom shall be a farmer or farmworker representing the
principal crop of the province, as members: provided, that in areas where there are cultural
communities, the latter shall likewise have one representative.
The PARCCOM shall coordinate and monitor the implementation of the CARP in the province.t shall
provide information on the provisions of the CARP, guidelines issued by the PARC and on the progress of
the CARP in the province.
Section 45. Province-by-Province Implementation. — The PARC shall provide the guidelines for a
province-by-province implementation of the CARP. The ten-year program of distribution of public and
private lands in each province shall be adjusted from year by the province's PARCCOM in accordance
with the level of operations previously established by the PARC, in every case ensuring that support
services are available or have been programmed before actual distribution is effected.
Section 46. Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC). — Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the
provisions of Executive Order No. 229 regarding the organization of the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) shall be in effect.
Section 47. Functions of the BARC. — In addition to those provided in Executive Order No. 229, the BARC
shall have the following functions:
(a) Mediate and conciliate between parties involved in an agrarian dispute including matters related to
tenurial and financial arrangements;
(b) Assist in the identification of qualified beneficiaries and landowners within the barangay;
(c) Attest to the accuracy of the initial parcellary mapping of the beneficiary's tillage;
(d) Assist qualified beneficiaries in obtaining credit from lending institutions;
(e) Assist in the initial determination of the value of the land;
(f) Assist the DAR representatives in the preparation of periodic reports on the CARP implementation for
submission to the DAR;
(g) Coordinate the delivery of support services to beneficiaries; and
(h) Perform such other functions as may be assigned by the DAR.
(2) The BARC shall endeavor to mediate, conciliate and settle agrarian disputes lodged before it within
thirty (30) days from its taking cognizance thereof.f after the lapse of the thirty day period, it is unable to
settle the dispute, it shall issue a certificate of its proceedings and shall furnish a copy thereof upon the
parties within seven (7) days after the expiration of the thirty-day period.
Section 48. Legal Assistance. — The BARC or any member thereof may, whenever necessary in the
exercise of any of its functions hereunder, seek the legal assistance of the DAR and the provincial, city, or
municipal government.
Section 49. Rules and Regulations. — The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and
regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said
rules shall take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.
CHAPTER XII
Administrative Adjudication
Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with the primary jurisdiction
to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR).
It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide
all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward
this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive
determination for every action or proceeding before it.
It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, require submission of
reports, compel the production of books and documents and answers to interrogatories and issue
subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum, and enforce its writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized
officers.t shall likewise have the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and
subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow farmers, or their
organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: provided, however, that when there are two or more
representatives for any individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among
themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be immediately
executory.
Section 51. Finality of Determination. — Any case or controversy before it shall be decided within thirty
(30) days after it is submitted for resolution. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed.
Any order, ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof.
Section 52. Frivolous Appeals. — To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals from the decisions or orders
on the local or provincial levels, the DAR may impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to
fines or censures upon erring parties.
Section 53. Certification of the BARC. — The DAR shall not take cognizance of any agrarian dispute or
controversy unless a certification from the BARC that the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation
and conciliation without any success of settlement is presented: provided, however, that if no
certification is issued by the BARC within thirty (30) days after a matter or issue is submitted to it for
mediation or conciliation the case or dispute may be brought before the PARC.
CHAPTER XIII
Judicial Review
Section 54. Certiorari. — Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on
any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and
other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari except as
otherwise provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of a copy thereof.
The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence.
Section 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. — No court in the Philippines shall have
jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its
duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or
in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other
pertinent laws on agrarian reform.
Section 56. Special Agrarian Court. — The Supreme Court shall designate at least one (1) branch of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) within each province to act as a Special Agrarian Court.
The Supreme Court may designate more branches to constitute such additional Special Agrarian Courts
as may be necessary to cope with the number of agrarian cases in each province.n the designation, the
Supreme Court shall give preference to the Regional Trial Courts which have been assigned to handle
agrarian cases or whose presiding judges were former judges of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges assigned to said courts shall exercise said special jurisdiction in
addition to the regular jurisdiction of their respective courts.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall have the powers and prerogatives inherent in or belonging to the
Regional Trial Courts.
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. — The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings
before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act.
The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty
(30) days from submission of the case for decision.
Section 58. Appointment of Commissioners. — The Special Agrarian Courts, upon their own initiative or
at the instance of any of the parties, may appoint one or more commissioners to examine, investigate
and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute including the valuation of properties, and to file a written
report thereof with the court.
Section 59. Orders of the Special Agrarian Courts. — No order of the Special Agrarian Courts on any
issue, question, matter or incident raised before them shall be elevated to the appellate courts until the
hearing shall have been terminated and the case decided on the merits.
Section 60. Appeals. — An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by filing
a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days receipt of notice of the decision;
otherwise, the decision shall become final.
An appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals, or from any order, ruling or decision of the DAR, as
the case may be, shall be by a petition for review with the Supreme Court within a non-extendible period
of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy of said decision.
Section 61. Procedure on Review. — Review by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, as the case
may be, shall be governed by the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals, however, may require the parties
to file simultaneous memoranda within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice, after which the case is
deemed submitted for decision.
Section 62. Preferential Attention in Courts. — All courts in the Philippines, both trial and appellate, shall
give preferential attention to all cases arising from or in connection with the implementation of the
provisions of this Act.
All cases pending in court arising from or in connection with the implementation of this Act shall
continue to be heard, tried and decided into their finality, notwithstanding the expiration of the ten-year
period mentioned in Section 5 hereof.
CHAPTER XIV
Financing
Section 63. Funding Source. — The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten
(10) years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections
20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229.
Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to augment the
Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act.
Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:

(a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust;
(b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the
Presidential Commission on Good Government;
(c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign countries;
(d) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign grants and
concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing production
credits, infrastructures, and other support services required by this Act;
(e) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated.
All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered continuing
appropriations during the period of its implementation.
Section 64. Financial Intermediary for the CARP. — The Land Bank of the Philippines shall be the financial
intermediary for the CARP, and shall insure that the social justice objectives of the CARP shall enjoy a
preference among its priorities.
CHAPTER XV
General Provisions
Section 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases
to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized
and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the
DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and
subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition:
provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
Section 66. Exemptions from Taxes and Fees of Land Transfers. — Transactions under this Act involving a
transfer of ownership, whether from natural or juridical persons, shall be exempted from taxes arising
from capital gains. These transactions shall also be exempted from the payment of registration fees, and
all other taxes and fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof; provided, that all arrearages in real
property taxes, without penalty or interest, shall be deductible from the compensation to which the
owner may be entitled.
Section 67. Free Registration of Patents and Titles. — All Registers of Deeds are hereby directed to
register, free from payment of all fees and other charges, patents, titles and documents required for the
implementation of the CARP.
Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. — No injunction, restraining
order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program.
Section 69. Assistance of Other Government Entities. — The PARC, in the exercise of its functions, is
hereby authorized to call upon the assistance and support of other government agencies, bureaus and
offices, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
Section 70. Disposition of Private Agricultural Lands. — The sale or disposition of agricultural lands
retained by a landowner as a consequence of Section 6 hereof shall be valid as long as the total
landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not
exceed the landholding ceilings provided for in this Act.
Any sale or disposition of agricultural lands after the effectivity of this Act found to be contrary to the
provisions hereof shall be null and void.
Transferees of agricultural lands shall furnish the appropriate Register of Deeds and the BARC an affidavit
attesting that his total landholdings as a result of the said acquisition do not exceed the landholding
ceiling. The Register of Deeds shall not register the transfer of any agricultural land without the
submission of this sworn statement together with proof of service of a copy thereof to the BARC.
Section 71. Bank Mortgages. — Banks and other financial institutions allowed by law to hold mortgage
rights or security interests in agricultural lands to secure loans and other obligations of borrowers, may
acquire title to these mortgaged properties, regardless of area, subject to existing laws on compulsory
transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 13 of this Act.
Section 72. Lease, Management, Grower or Service Contracts, Mortgages and Other Claims. — Lands
covered by this Act under lease, management, grower or service contracts, and the like shall be disposed
of as follows:
(a) Lease, management, grower or service contracts covering private lands may continue under their
original terms and conditions until the expiration of the same even if such land has, in the meantime,
been transferred to qualified beneficiaries.
(b) Mortgages and other claims registered with the Register of Deeds shall be assumed by the
government up to an amount equivalent to the landowner's compensation value as provided in this Act.
Section 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. — The following are prohibited:
(a) The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of
juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries.
(b) The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to
avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program.
(c) The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent to
avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled
by them.
(d) The willful prevention or obstruction by any person, association or entity of the implementation of
the CARP.
(e) The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the nature of lands outside of urban centers and city
limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act. The date of the registration of the deed of
conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and the date of the issuance of the tax
declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be,
shall be conclusive for the purpose of this Act.
(f) The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right
over the land he acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions of this
Act.
Section 74. Penalties. — Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this Act shall be
punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not more than three (3) years or a fine of
not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00),
or both, at the discretion of the court.
If the offender is a corporation or association, the officer responsible therefore shall be criminally liable.
Section 75. Suppletory Application of Existing Legislation. — The provisions of Republic Act No. 3844 as
amended, Presidential Decree Nos. 27 and 266 as amended, Executive Order Nos. 228 and 229, both
Series of 1987; and other laws not inconsistent with this Act shall have suppletory effect.
Section 76. Repealing Clause. — Section 35 of Republic Act No. 3834, Presidential Decree No. 316, the
last two paragraphs of Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, Presidential Decree No. 1038, and all
other laws, decrees executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with
this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
Section 77. Separability Clause. — If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is declared null
and void, no other section, provision, or part thereof shall be affected and the same shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 78. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect immediately after publication in at least two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved: June 10, 1988
Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence

International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive
497 Phil. 738
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 127198, May 16, 2005 ]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, AND JOSE R. CAGUIAT REPRESENTED
BY ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT JOSE T. BARTOLOME AND VICTORIO MANGALINDAN, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review[1] dated December 6, 1996 assailing the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial
Court[3] dated July 5, 1996 which ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and petitioner Land
Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) to pay private respondents the amount of P30.00 per square meter
as just compensation for the State's acquisition of private respondents' properties under the land reform
program.
The facts follow.
On May 14, 1993, private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just
compensation for their agricultural lands situated in Arayat, Pampanga, which were acquired by the
government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27). The petition named as respondents the DAR
and Land Bank. With leave of court, the petition was amended to implead as co-respondents the
registered tenants of the land.
After trial, the court rendered the assailed Decision the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of petitioners and against respondents, ordering
respondents, particularly, respondents Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank of the
Philippines, to pay these lands owned by petitioners and which are the subject of acquisition by the
State under its land reform program, the amount of THIRTY PESOS (P30.00) per square meter, as the just
compensation due for payment for same lands of petitioners located at San Vicente (or Camba), Arayat,
Pampanga.
Respondent Department of Agrarian Reform is also ordered to pay petitioners the amount of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as Attorney's Fee, and to pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[4]
DAR and Land Bank filed separate motions for reconsideration which were denied by the trial court in its
Order[5] dated July 30, 1996 for being pro forma as the same did not contain a notice of hearing. Thus,
the prescriptive period for filing an appeal was not tolled. Land Bank consequently failed to file a timely
appeal and the assailed Decision became final and executory.
Land Bank then filed a Petition for Relief from Order Dated 30 July 1996,[6] citing excusable negligence
as its ground for relief. Attached to the petition for relief were two affidavits of merit claiming that the
failure to include in the motion for reconsideration a notice of hearing was due to accident and/or
mistake.[7] The affidavit of Land Bank's counsel of record notably states that "he simply scanned and
signed the Motion for Reconsideration for Agrarian Case No. 2005, Regional Trial Court of Pampanga,
Branch 48, not knowing, or unmindful that it had no notice of hearing"[8] due to his heavy workload.
The trial court, in its Order[9] of November 18, 1996, denied the petition for relief because Land Bank
lost a remedy in law due to its own negligence.
In the instant petition for review, Land Bank argues that the failure of its counsel to include a notice of
hearing due to pressure of work constitutes excusable negligence and does not make the motion for
reconsideration pro forma considering its allegedly meritorious defenses. Hence, the denial of its
petition for relief from judgment was erroneous.
According to Land Bank, private respondents should have sought the reconsideration of the DAR's
valuation of their properties. Private respondents thus failed to exhaust administrative remedies when
they filed a petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court. Land Bank
also insists that the trial court erred in declaring that PD 27 and Executive Order No. 228 (EO 228) are
mere guidelines in the determination of just compensation, and in relying on private respondents'
evidence of the valuation of the properties at the time of possession in 1993 and not on Land Bank's
evidence of the value thereof as of the time of acquisition in 1972.
Private respondents filed a Comment[10] dated February 22, 1997, averring that Land Bank's failure to
include a notice of hearing in its motion for reconsideration due merely to counsel's heavy workload,
which resulted in the motion being declared pro forma, does not constitute excusable negligence,
especially in light of the admission of Land Bank's counsel that he has been a lawyer since 1973 and has
"mastered the intricate art and technique of pleading."
Land Bank filed a Reply[11] dated March 12, 1997 insisting that equity considerations demand that it be
heard on substantive issues raised in its motion for reconsideration.
The Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.[12] Both parties complied.[13]
The petition is unmeritorious.
At issue is whether counsel's failure to include a notice of hearing constitutes excusable negligence
entitling Land Bank to a relief from judgment.
Section 1, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings. —When a judgment or final order
is entered, or any other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and in the same case
praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
As can clearly be gleaned from the foregoing provision, the remedy of relief from judgment can only be
resorted to on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence. Negligence to be excusable
must be one which ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded against.[14]
Measured against this standard, the reason profferred by Land Bank's counsel, i.e., that his heavy
workload prevented him from ensuring that the motion for reconsideration included a notice of hearing,
was by no means excusable.
Indeed, counsel's admission that "he simply scanned and signed the Motion for Reconsideration for
Agrarian Case No. 2005, Regional Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch 48, not knowing, or unmindful that it
had no notice of hearing" speaks volumes of his arrant negligence, and cannot in any manner be deemed
to constitute excusable negligence.
The failure to attach a notice of hearing would have been less odious if committed by a greenhorn but
not by a lawyer who claims to have "mastered the intricate art and technique of pleading."[15]
Indeed, a motion that does not contain the requisite notice of hearing is nothing but a mere scrap of
paper. The clerk of court does not even have the duty to accept it, much less to bring it to the attention
of the presiding judge.[16] The trial court therefore correctly considered the motion for reconsideration
pro forma. Thus, it cannot be faulted for denying Land Bank's motion for reconsideration and petition for
relief from judgment.
It should be emphasized at this point that procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of
cases. Courts and litigants alike are enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. While in certain instances, we
allow a relaxation in the application of the rules, we never intend to forge a weapon for erring litigants to
violate the rules with impunity. The liberal interpretation and application of rules apply only in proper
cases of demonstrable merit and under justifiable causes and circumstances. While it is true that
litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.
Party litigants and their counsel are well advised to abide by, rather than flaunt, procedural rules for
these rules illumine the path of the law and rationalize the pursuit of justice.[17]
Aside from ruling on this procedural issue, the Court shall also resolve the other issues presented by
Land Bank, specifically as regards private respondents' alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies
and the question of just compensation.
Land Bank avers that private respondents should have sought the reconsideration of the DAR's valuation
instead of filing a petition to fix just compensation with the trial court.
The records reveal that Land Bank's contention is not entirely true. In fact, private respondents did write
a letter[18] to the DAR Secretary objecting to the land valuation summary submitted by the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office and requesting a conference for the purpose of fixing just compensation. The
letter, however, was left unanswered prompting private respondents to file a petition directly with the
trial court.
At any rate, in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,[19] we declared that there is nothing
contradictory between the DAR's primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform, which includes the determination of questions of just compensation, and the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of regional trial courts over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation. The first refers to administrative proceedings, while the second refers to judicial
proceedings.
In accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to
determine in a preliminary manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform
program, but such determination is subject to challenge before the courts. The resolution of just
compensation cases for the taking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicial
function.[20]
Thus, the trial did not err in taking cognizance of the case as the determination of just compensation is a
function addressed to the courts of justice.
Land Bank's contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21,
1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the
property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the
President, Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals,[21] we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did
not take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just
compensation.
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just
compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic
Act No. 6657 (RA 6657)[22] before the completion of this process, the just compensation should be
determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with
PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.[23]
Section 17 of RA 6657 which is particularly relevant, providing as it does the guideposts for the
determination of just compensation, reads as follows:
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation.—In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition
of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation
by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be
considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workers and by
the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any
its valuation.
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD
27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable
length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD
27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real,
substantial, full and ample.[24]
In this case, the trial court arrived at the just compensation due private respondents for their property,
taking into account its nature as irrigated land, location along the highway, market value, assessor's value
and the volume and value of its produce. This Court is convinced that the trial court correctly
determined the amount of just compensation due private respondents in accordance with, and guided
by, RA 6657 and existing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-24.
[2] Id. at 66-74.
[3] Regional Trial Court, San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 48.
[4] Rollo, p. 74.
[5] Id. at 92-94.
[6] Id. at 99-102.
[7] Id. at 103-112, Affidavits of Solomon B. Garcia, Clerk III of petitioner LBP, and of Alfredo B. Pandico, Jr.
[8] Id. at 105, Affidavit of Alfredo B. Pandico, Jr.
[9] Id. at 118-119.

[10] Id. at 128-134.
[11] Id. at 139-146.
[12] Id. at 172-173.
[13] Id. at 178-192, 194-207.
[14] Gold Line Transit, Inc. v. Ramos, 415 Phil. 492 (2001).
[15] Supra note 8.
[16] Norris v. Parentela, Jr., 446 Phil. 462 (2003).
[17] Id. at 354.
[18] Rollo, pp. 38-39, Letter dated January 15, 1993 addressed to then DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao.
[19] 379 Phil. 141, 147 (2000).
[20] Id. at 148. See also EPZA v. Dulay, No. L-59603, April 29, 1987, 149 SCRA 305.
[21] 413 Phil. 711 (2001).

[22] Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
[23] 416 Phil. 473 (2001), citing Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 629.
[24] Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: October 15, 2014
This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
Supreme Court E-Library
Custom Search
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO, AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT &
DEVELOPMENT CORP., respondents.
G.R. No. 118745 October 6, 1995
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO, AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT &
DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL., respondents.
FRANCISCO, R., J.:
It has been declared that the duty of the court to protect the weak and the underprivileged should not
be carried out to such an extent as deny justice to the landowner whenever truth and justice happen to
be on his side.1 As eloquently stated by Justice Isagani Cruz:
. . . social justice — or any justice for that matter — is for the deserving, whether he be a millionaire in
his mansion or a pauper in his hovel. It is true that, in case of reasonable doubt, we are called upon to
tilt the balance in favor of the poor, to whom the Constitution fittingly extends its sympathy and
compassion. But never is it justified to prefer the poor simply because they are poor, or to reject the rich
simply because they are rich, for justice must always be served, for poor and rich alike, according to the
mandate of the law.2
In this agrarian dispute, it is once more imperative that the aforestated principles be applied in its
resolution.
Separate petitions for review were filed by petitioners Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) (G.R. No.
118745) and Land Bank of the Philippines (G.R. No. 118712) following the adverse ruling by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 33465. However, upon motion filed by private respondents, the petitions were
ordered consolidated.3
Petitioners assail the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 20, 1994, which granted
private respondents' Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus and ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus is hereby GRANTED:
a) DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 is declared null and void insofar as it provides for
the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposits in cash or bonds;
b) Respondent Landbank is ordered to immediately deposit — not merely "earmark", "reserve" or

"deposit in trust" — with an accessible bank designated by respondent DAR in the names of the
following petitioners the following amounts in cash and in government financial instruments — within
the parameters of Sec. 18 (1) of RA 6657:
P 1,455,207.31 Pedro L. Yap
P 135,482.12 Heirs of Emiliano Santiago
P 15,914,127.77 AMADCOR;
c) The DAR-designated bank is ordered to allow the petitioners to withdraw the above-deposited
amounts without prejudice to the final determination of just compensation by the proper authorities;
and
d) Respondent DAR is ordered to 1) immediately conduct summary administrative proceedings to

determine the just compensation for the lands of the petitioners giving the petitioners 15 days from
notice within which to submit evidence and to 2) decide the cases within 30 days after they are
submitted for decision.4
Likewise, petitioners seek the reversal of the Resolution dated January 18, 1995,5 denying their motion
for reconsideration.
Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR and subjected to
transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL,
Republic Act No. 6657).
Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment
of compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions of RA 6657, private respondents filed with this
Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. Private
respondents questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 19926 and DAR
Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990,7 and sought to compel the DAR to expedite the pending
summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the just compensation of their properties, and
the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked", "reserved" and
"deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents, and to allow them to withdraw the same.
Through a Resolution of the Second Division dated February 9, 1994, this Court referred the petition to
respondent Court of Appeals for proper determination and disposition.
As found by respondent court , the following are undisputed:

Petitioner Pedro Yap alleges that "(o)n 4 September 1992 the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) of
petitioner Yap were totally cancelled by the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte and were transferred in the
names of farmer beneficiaries collectively, based on the request of the DAR together with a certification
of the Landbank that the sum of P735,337.77 and P719,869.54 have been earmarked for Landowner
Pedro L. Yap for the parcels of lands covered by TCT Nos. 6282 and 6283, respectively, and issued in lieu
thereof TC-563 and TC-562, respectively, in the names of listed beneficiaries (ANNEXES "C" & "D")
without notice to petitioner Yap and without complying with the requirement of Section 16 (e) of RA
6657 to deposit the compensation in cash and Landbank bonds in an accessible bank. (Rollo, p. 6).
The above allegations are not disputed by any of the respondents.
Petitioner Heirs of Emiliano Santiago allege that the heirs of Emiliano F. Santiago are the owners of a
parcel of land located at Laur, NUEVA ECIJA with an area of 18.5615 hectares covered by TCT No. NT-
60359 of the registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, registered in the name of the late Emiliano F. Santiago;
that in November and December 1990, without notice to the petitioners, the Landbank required and the
beneficiaries executed Actual tillers Deed of Undertaking (ANNEX "B") to pay rentals to the LandBank for
the use of their farmlots equivalent to at least 25% of the net harvest; that on 24 October 1991 the DAR
Regional Director issued an order directing the Landbank to pay the landowner directly or through the
establishment of a trust fund in the amount of P135,482.12, that on 24 February 1992, the Landbank
reserved in trust P135,482.12 in the name of Emiliano F. Santiago. (ANNEX "E"; Rollo,
p. 7); that the beneficiaries stopped paying rentals to the landowners after they signed the Actual Tiller's
Deed of Undertaking committing themselves to pay rentals to the LandBank (Rollo, p. 133).
The above allegations are not disputed by the respondents except that respondent Landbank claims 1)
that it was respondent DAR, not Landbank which required the execution of Actual Tillers Deed of
Undertaking (ATDU, for brevity); and 2) that respondent Landbank, although armed with the ATDU, did
not collect any amount as rental from the substituting beneficiaries (Rollo, p. 99).
Petitioner Agricultural Management and Development Corporation (AMADCOR, for brevity) alleges —
with respect to its properties located in San Francisco, Quezon — that the properties of AMADCOR in San
Francisco, Quezon consist of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 34314 with an area of 209.9215
hectares and another parcel covered by TCT No. 10832 with an area of 163.6189 hectares; that a
summary administrative proceeding to determine compensation of the property covered by TCT No.
34314 was conducted by the DARAB in Quezon City without notice to the landowner; that a decision was
rendered on 24 November 1992 (ANNEX "F") fixing the compensation for the parcel of land covered by
TCT No. 34314 with an area of 209.9215 hectares at P2,768,326.34 and ordering the Landbank to pay or
establish a trust account for said amount in the name of AMADCOR; and that the trust account in the
amount of P2,768,326.34 fixed in the decision was established by adding P1,986,489.73 to the first trust
account established on 19 December 1991 (ANNEX "G"). With respect to petitioner AMADCOR's
property in Tabaco, Albay, it is alleged that the property of AMADCOR in Tabaco, Albay is covered by TCT
No. T-2466 of the Register of Deeds of Albay with an area of 1,629.4578 hectares'; that emancipation
patents were issued covering an area of 701.8999 hectares which were registered on 15 February 1988
but no action was taken thereafter by the DAR to fix the compensation for said land; that on 21 April
1993, a trust account in the name of AMADCOR was established in the amount of P12,247,217.83', three
notices of acquisition having been previously rejected by AMADCOR. (Rollo, pp. 8-9)
The above allegations are not disputed by the respondents except that respondent Landbank claims that
petitioner failed to participate in the DARAB proceedings (land valuation case) despite due notice to it
(Rollo, p. 100).8
Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 was issued without
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the
Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the
compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e)
of RA 6657.9 Private respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank merely
"earmarked", "deposited in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite
the clear mandate that before taking possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in
cash or in bonds. 10
Petitioner DAR, however, maintained that Administrative Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making
power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657.11 Moreover, the DAR maintained that the issuance of the
"Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and
the ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Hon. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989 (175 SCRA 343).12
For its part, petitioner Landbank declared that the issuance of the Certificates of Deposits was in
consonance with Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where the words
"reserved/deposited" were also used.13
On October 20, 1994, the respondent court rendered the assailed decision in favor of private
respondents.14 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but respondent court denied the same.15
Hence, the instant petitions.
On March 20, 1995, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition in G.R. No. 118745
alleging that the appeal has no merit and is merely intended to delay the finality of the appealed
decision.16 The Court, however, denied the motion and instead required the respondents to file their
comments.17
Petitioners submit that respondent court erred in (1) declaring as null and void DAR Administrative Order
No. 9, Series of 1990, insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or
in bonds, and (2) in holding that private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to the immediate
and provisional release of the amounts deposited in trust pending the final resolution of the cases it has
filed for just compensation.
Anent the first assignment of error, petitioners maintain that the word "deposit" as used in Section 16(e)
of RA 6657 referred merely to the act of depositing and in no way excluded the opening of a trust
account as a form of deposit. Thus, in opting for the opening of a trust account as the acceptable form of
deposit through Administrative Circular No. 9, petitioner DAR did not commit any grave abuse of
discretion since it merely exercised its power to promulgate rules and regulations in implementing the
declared policies of RA 6657.
The contention is untenable. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows:
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands —
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no
response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. . . . (emphasis supplied)
It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". Nowhere
does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the
intention to include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made
express, or at least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a
"trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an
expanded construction of the term "deposit".
The conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute. Action of an administrative agency
may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, a grave abuse of
power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the
spirit of a legislative enactment.18 In this regard, it must be stressed that the function of promulgating
rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the
law into effect. The power of administrative agencies is thus confined to implementing the law or putting
it into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot extend
the law and amend a legislative enactment,19 for settled is the rule that administrative regulations must
be in harmony with the provisions of the law. And in case there is a discrepancy between the basic law
and an implementing rule or regulation, it is the former that prevails.20
In the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to enact rules and regulations
when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis in allowing the opening of a trust account
in behalf of the landowner as compensation for his property because, as heretofore discussed, Section
16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". In the
same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 because these implementing
regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law. Respondent court therefore did not commit
any error in striking down Administrative Circular No. 9 for being null and void.
Proceeding to the crucial issue of whether or not private respondents are entitled to withdraw the
amounts deposited in trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of the cases involving the final
valuation of their properties, petitioners assert the negative.
The contention is premised on the alleged distinction between the deposit of compensation under
Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and payment of final compensation as provided under Section 1821 of the
same law. According to petitioners, the right of the landowner to withdraw the amount deposited in his
behalf pertains only to the final valuation as agreed upon by the landowner, the DAR and the LBP or that
adjudged by the court. It has no reference to amount deposited in the trust account pursuant to Section
16(e) in case of rejection by the landowner because the latter amount is only provisional and intended
merely to secure possession of the property pending final valuation. To further bolster the contention
petitioners cite the following pronouncements in the case of "Association of Small Landowners in the
Phil. Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform".22
The last major challenge to CARP is that the landowner is divested of his property even before actual
payment to him in full of just compensation, in contravention of a well-accepted principle of eminent
domain.
xxx xxx xxx
The CARP Law, for its part conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the
landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.
xxx xxx xxx
Hence the argument that the assailed measures violate due process by arbitrarily transferring title
before the land is fully paid for must also be rejected.
Notably, however, the aforecited case was used by respondent court in discarding petitioners' assertion
as it found that:
. . . despite the "revolutionary" character of the expropriation envisioned under RA 6657 which led the
Supreme Court, in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil. Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform (175 SCRA 343), to conclude that "payments of the just compensation is not always required to
be made fully in money" — even as the Supreme Court admits in the same case "that the traditional
medium for the payment of just compensation is money and no other" — the Supreme Court in said
case did not abandon the "recognized rule . . . that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the
owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation." 23 (Emphasis supplied)
We agree with the observations of respondent court. The ruling in the "Association" case merely
recognized the extraordinary nature of the expropriation to be undertaken under RA 6657 thereby
allowing a deviation from the traditional mode of payment of compensation and recognized payment
other than in cash. It did not, however, dispense with the settled rule that there must be full payment of
just compensation before the title to the expropriated property is transferred.
The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of compensation under Section 16(e) of RA 6657
and determination of just compensation under Section 18 is unacceptable. To withhold the right of the
landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as compensation for their
properties simply because they rejected the DAR's valuation, and notwithstanding that they have already
been deprived of the possession and use of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent
domain. The irresistible expropriation of private respondents' properties was painful enough for them.
But petitioner DAR rubbed it in all the more by withholding that which rightfully belongs to private
respondents in exchange for the taking, under an authority (the "Association" case) that is, however,
misplaced. This is misery twice bestowed on private respondents, which the Court must rectify.
Hence, we find it unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16(e) and
final compensation under Section 18 for purposes of exercising the landowners' right to appropriate the
same. The immediate effect in both situations is the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and
possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated. Fittingly, we
reiterate the cardinal rule that:
. . . within the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain, just compensation means not
only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment
of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately
deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount
necessary to cope with his loss. 24 (Emphasis supplied)
The promulgation of the "Association" decision endeavored to remove all legal obstacles in the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and clear the way for the true freedom
of the farmer.25 But despite this, cases involving its implementation continue to multiply and clog the
courts' dockets. Nevertheless, we are still optimistic that the goal of totally emancipating the farmers
from their bondage will be attained in due time. It must be stressed, however, that in the pursuit of this
objective, vigilance over the rights of the landowners is equally important because social justice cannot
be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners, who under our Constitution and laws are also
entitled to protection.26
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit and the
appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1 Gelos v. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 608. 615 (1992), quoting Justice Alicia Sempio-Diy.
2 Ibid, p. 616.
3 Rollo, p. 7.
4 Rollo, pp. 122-123.
5 Rollo, p. 149.
6 which provides formulas for the valuation of land expropriated under RA 6657.
7 which provides for the opening of trust accounts in the Land Bank instead of depositing in an
accessible bank, in cash and bonds, the compensation for land expropriated by the DAR.
8 Rollo, pp. 109-111.
9 Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private
lands, the following shall be followed:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no
response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
10 Rollo, p. 111.
11 Sec. 49. Rules and Regulations. — The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and
regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act. Said
rules shall take effect ten (l0) days after the publication in two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.
12 Rollo, pp. 111-112.
13 Rollo, p. 112.
14 Rollo, p. 107.
15 Rollo, p. 149.
16 Rollo, p. 63.
17 Rollo, p. 67.
18 Peralta vs. Civil Service Commission 212 SCRA 425, 432 (1992).
19 Toledo vs. Civil Service Commission 202 SCRA 507, 54 (1991) citing Teoxon v. Members of the
Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration, 33 SCRA 585, 589 (1970), citing Santos vs.
Estenzo, 109 Phil. 419 (1960); Animos vs. Phil. Veterans Affairs Office, 174 SCRA 214, 223-224 (1989).
20 Shell Philippines, Inc. vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 162 SCRA 628 (1988).
21 Sec. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. — The LBP shall compensate the landowner in
such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and LBP in accordance with the
criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17 and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally
determined by the court as the just compensation for the land.
22 175 SCRA 343.
23 Decision, Court of Appeals, p. 14.
24 Municipality of Makati vs. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 207, 213 (1990) citing Cosculluela vs. The
Hon. Court of Appeals, 164 SCRA 393, 400 (1988); Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Vda. de
Villaroya, 153 SCRA 291, 302 (1987).
25 175 SCRA 343, 392.
26 Mata vs. Court of Appeals, 207 SCRA 748, 753 (1992).
Toggle navigation
Show opinions
Show as cited by other cases (10 times)
DIVISION
[ GR NO. 170220, Nov 20, 2006 ]
JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES +
DECISION
537 Phil. 571
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the October 27, 2005
Amended Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77530, which vacated its May 26, 2004
Decision affirming (a) the Order of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46,
acting as Special Agrarian Court, in Agrarian Case Nos. R-1339 and R-1340, dated March 31, 2003
directing respondent Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to deposit the provisional compensation as
determined by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD); (b) the May 26, 2003 Resolution
denying LBP's motion for reconsideration; and (c) the May 27, 2003 Order requiring Teresita V. Tengco,
LBP's Land Compensation Department Manager, to comply with the March 31, 2003 Order.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee[2] of Federico C. Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural
land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area of 3,682.0285 hectares covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-31 (T-1326)[3] of the Registry of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro. In
1972, a portion of the said property with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land
reform program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972)[4] and Executive Order No. 228 (1987).[5]
The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited in
cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica.
On the other hand, petitioners Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico
Suntay a parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro covered by TCT
No. T-128[6] of the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro, consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with an
area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of 165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331
hectares. Lot 2 was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 hectares was considered
by LBP and valued the same at P1,512,575.05.
Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings for determination of just
compensation. On January 29, 2003, the PARAD fixed the preliminary just compensation at
P51,800,286.43 for the 311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31) and P21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161 hectares
(TCT No. T-128).[7]
Not satisfied with the valuation, LBP filed on February 17, 2003, two separate petitions[8] for judicial
determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro,
acting as a Special Agrarian Court, docketed as Agrarian Case No. R-1339 for TCT No. T-31 and Agrarian
Case No. R-1340 for TCT No. T-128, and raffled to Branch 46 thereof.
Petitioners filed separate Motions to Deposit the Preliminary Valuation Under Section 16(e) of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 6657 (1988)[9] and Ad Cautelam Answer praying among others that LBP deposit the
preliminary compensation determined by the PARAD.
On March 31, 2003, the trial court issued an Order[10] granting petitioners' motion, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, Ms. Teresita V. Tengco, of the Land Compensation Department I (LCD I), Land Bank of the
Philippines, is hereby ordered pursuant to Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 in relation to Section 2,
Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1991, to deposit the provisional compensation as determined by
the PARAD in cash and bonds, as follows:
In Agrarian Case No. R-1339, the amount of P 51,800,286.43, minus the amount received by the
Landowner;
In Agrarian Case No. R-1340, the amount of P 21,608,215.28, less the amount of P 1,512,575.16, the
amount already deposited.
Such deposit must be made with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Manila within five (5) days from
receipt of a copy of this order and to notify this court of her compliance within such period.
Let this order be served by the Sheriff of this Court at the expense of the movants.
SO ORDERED.[11]
LBP's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution[12] dated May 26, 2003. The following day,
May 27, 2003, the trial court issued an Order[13] directing Ms. Teresita V. Tengco, LBP's Land
Compensation Department Manager, to deposit the amounts.
Thus, on June 17, 2003, LBP filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 77530.[14]
On June 27, 2003, the appellate court issued a 60-day temporary restraining order[15] and on October 6,
2003, a writ of preliminary injunction.[16]
On May 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[17] in favor of the petitioners, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no grave abuse of discretion, the instant Petition for
Certiorari and Prohibition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Order dated March 31, 2003, Resolution dated May
26, 2003, and Order dated May 27, 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED. The preliminary injunction We
previously issued is hereby LIFTED and DISSOLVED.
SO ORDERED.[18]
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly ordered LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally
determined by the PARAD as there is no law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of
the final amount of just compensation. It also noted that there is no reason for LBP to further delay the
deposit considering that the DAR already took possession of the properties and distributed the same to
farmer-beneficiaries as early as 1972.
LBP moved for reconsideration which was granted. On October 27, 2005, the appellate court rendered
the assailed Amended Decision,[19] the dispositive portion of which reads:
Wherefore, in view of the prescription of a different formula in the case of Gabatin which We hold as
cogent and compelling justification necessitating Us to effect the reversal of Our judgment herein sought
to be reconsidered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED, and Our May 26, 2004 Decision
is hereby VACATED and ABANDONED with the end in view of giving way to and acting in harmony and in
congruence with the tenor of the ruling in the case of Gabatin. Accordingly, the assailed rulings of the
Special Agrarian Court is (sic) commanded to compute and fix the just compensation for the
expropriated agricultural lands strictly in accordance with the mode of computation prescribed (sic) Our
May 26, 2004 judgment in the case of Gabatin.
SO ORDERED.[20]
In the Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals held that the immediate deposit of the preliminary value
of the expropriated properties is improper because it was erroneously computed. Citing Gabatin v. Land
Bank of the Philippines,[21] it held that the formula to compute the just compensation should be: Land
Value = 2.5 x Average Gross Production x Government Support Price. Specifically, it held that the value of
the government support price for the corresponding agricultural produce (rice and corn) should be
computed at the time of the legal taking of the subject agricultural land, that is, on October 21, 1972
when landowners were effectively deprived of ownership over their properties by virtue of P.D. No. 27.
According to the Court of Appeals, the PARAD incorrectly used the amounts of P500 and P300 which are
the prevailing government support price for palay and corn, respectively, at the time of payment, instead
of P35 and P31, the prevailing government support price at the time of the taking in 1972.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues:
THE COURT A QUO HAS DECIDED THE CASE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE LATEST DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD, ET
AL., G.R. NO. 127198, PROM. MAY 16, 2005; and[22]
THE COURT A QUO HAS, WITH GRAVE GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, SO FAR DEPARTED FROM THE
ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, DECIDING ISSUES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
RAISED, AS TO CALL FOR AN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF SUPERVISION.[23]
Petitioners insist that the determination of just compensation should be based on the value of the
expropriated properties at the time of payment. Respondent LBP, on the other hand, claims that the
value of the realties should be computed as of October 21, 1972 when P.D. No. 27 took effect.
The petition is impressed with merit.
In the case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad,[24] the Court ruled thus:
Land Bank's contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on October 21,
1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based on the value of the
property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is likewise erroneous. In Office of the
President, Malacañang, Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the seizure of the landholding did not
take place on the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation.
The Natividad case reiterated the Court's ruling in Office of the President v. Court of Appeals[25] that the
expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972
but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined.
Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Francisco R. Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals,[26] we held that
expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the effectivity of the Act on
June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation.
In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of their properties in 1972 but have yet to receive the just
compensation therefor. The parcels of land were already subdivided and distributed to the farmer-
beneficiaries thereby immediately depriving petitioners of their use. Under the circumstances, it would
be highly inequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute the just compensation using the values at
the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of the payment, considering that the government and
the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited from the land although ownership thereof have not yet
been transferred in their names. Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just
compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away from its
owners.[27] The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned
upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the
compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner.[28]
Our ruling in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform[29]
is instructive, thus:
It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as October 21, 1972 and
declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land consisting of a family-sized farm
except that "no title to the land owned by him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had
become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmer's cooperative." It was understood, however,
that full payment of the just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
requirement.
When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:
All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21, 1972 of the land they
acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27 (Emphasis supplied.)
it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said decree, after proof of full-
fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives and full payment of just compensation. x x x
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.
We also note that the expropriation proceedings in the instant case was initiated under P.D. No. 27 but
the agrarian reform process is still incomplete considering that the just compensation to be paid to
petitioners has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of R.A. No. 6657 before the completion of this
process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law.
Indeed, R.A. No. 6657 is the applicable law, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only suppletory
effect.[30]
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals,[31] we held that:

RA 6657 includes PD 27 lands among the properties which the DAR shall acquire and distribute to the
landless. And to facilitate the acquisition and distribution thereof, Secs. 16, 17 and 18 of the Act should
be adhered to.
Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that the LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as
may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally determined by the
court as the just compensation for the land. In determining just compensation, the cost of the
acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn
valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be
considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by
the government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any
its valuation.[32]
Corollarily, we held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada[33] that the above provision was converted
into a formula by the DAR through Administrative Order No. 05, S. 1998, to wit:
Land Value (LV) = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + (Comparable Sales x 0.3) + (Market Value per Tax
Declaration x 0.1)
Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in 1972, yet to date, they have not yet received
just compensation. Thus, it would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the
guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228 considering the failure to determine just
compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in
accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 227 or E.O. No. 228, is important considering that just
compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.[34]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Amended Decision dated
October 27, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77530 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
Decision dated May 26, 2004 of the Court of Appeals affirming (a) the March 31, 2003 Order of the
Special Agrarian Court ordering the respondent Land Bank of the Philippines to deposit the just
compensation provisionally determined by the PARAD; (b) the May 26, 2003 Resolution denying
respondent's Motion for Reconsideration; and (c) the May 27, 2003 Order directing Teresita V. Tengco,
respondent's Land Compensation Department Manager to comply with the March 31, 2003 Order, is
REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 46, acting as Special
Agrarian Court is ORDERED to proceed with dispatch in the trial of Agrarian Case Nos. R-1339 and R-
1340, and to compute the final valuation of the subject properties based on the aforementioned
formula.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, C.J., (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 30-35. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by Associate
Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Elvi John S. Asuncion.
[2] CA rollo, p. 157.
[3] Id. at 65-88.
[4] DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO
THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM
THEREFOR.
[5] DECLARING FULL LAND OWNERSHIP TO QUALIFIED FARMER BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27: DETERMINING THE VALUE OF REMAINING UNVALUED RICE AND CORN
LANDS SUBJECT TO P.D. NO. 27; AND PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF PAYMENT BY THE FARMER
BENEFICIARY AND MODE OF COMPENSATION TO THE LANDOWNER.
[6] CA rollo, pp. 89-95.
[7] Id. at 96-118.

[8] Id. at 119-133.
[9] Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
[10] CA rollo, pp. 51-54. Penned by Judge Ernesto P. Pagayatan.
[11] Id. at 53-54.
[12] Id. at 55-62.
[13] Id. at 63-64.
[14] Id. at 2-50.
[15] Id. at 220-222.
[16] Id. at 355-356.
[17] Id. at 481-491.
[18] Id. at 490-491.
[19] Id. at 514-518.
[20] Rollo, p. 34.

[21] G.R. No. 148223, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 176.
[22] Rollo, p. 18.
[23] Id. at 22.
[24] G.R. No. 127198, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 441, 451.
[25] 413 Phil. 711 (2001).
[26] G.R. No. 149621, May 5, 2006, SC E-Library.
[27] Id.
[28] Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 727, 755 (1999).
[29] G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744 & 79777, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 390-391.
[30] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, supra note 24 at 451-452; Paris v. Alfeche, 416 Phil. 473,
488 (2001); Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 1248, 1260-1261.
[31] Id. at 1261.
[32] Republic Act No. 6657 (1988), Sec. 17.

[33] G.R. No. 164876, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 495, 508-509.
[34] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, supra note 24 at 452, citing Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, supra note 29.
Copyright Notice | Disclaimer | Terms of Service | Privacy | Content Policy | Contact Us
Custom Search
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 159674 June 30, 2006
SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO, CALIXTO P. ABAYATO, JR., RONGIE D. AGUILAR, TACIANA D. AGUILAR, ARTEMIO G.
DE JUAN, ESTANISLAO DELA CRUZ, SR., EDGAR DUENAS, MARIO ERIBAL, REYNALDO C. ESENCIA, EMMA
GONZAGA, RUBEN A. IBOJO, SAMUEL JAMANDRE, HILARION V. LANTIZA, ANSELMO LOPEZ, TERESITA
NACION, CHARIE E. NASTOR, NELSON L. NULLAS, CARLITO S. OLIA, ANA PATIÑO, ROBERTO T. PATIÑO,
ANTONIO P. ROCHA, FERNANDO C. RUFINO, PATERNO P. SAIN, CLAUDIO S. SAYSON, and JOEMARIE VIBO,
Petitioners,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM and HACIENDA MARIA, INC., Respondents.

DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking the review and
reversal of the Resolutions1 of the Court of Appeals dated 27 January 2003 and 28 August 2003,
respectively.
The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:
The petitioners, with the exception of two, are the recipients of Emancipation Patents (EPs) over parcels
of land located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur, with their respective Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) and EP numbers presented below:
Petitioners TCT/EP Nos. Areas
(has.)
1. SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO TCT No. T-287/EP No. A-037675 1.7833
2. CALIXTO P. ABAYATO, JR. TCT No. T-297/EP No. A-037814
TCT No. T-829/EP No. A-027293 2.0000
0.1565
3. RONGIE D. AGUILAR TCT No. T-913/EP No. A-027295 3.1441
4. TACIANA D. AGUILAR TCT No. T-944/EP No. A-027296 4.2405
5. ARTEMIO G. DE JUAN TCT No. T-302/EP No. A-037809 3.3082
6. ESTANISLAO DELA CRUZ, SR. TCT No. T-290/EP No. A-035676 3.1437
7. EDGAR DUENAS TCT No. T-949/EP No. A-037658 4.0128
8. MARIO P. ERIBAL TCT No. T-952/EP No. A-037836 2.3087
9. REYNALDO C. ESENCIA TCT No. T-950/EP No. A-037844 2.0950

10. RUBEN A. IBOJO TCT No. T-928/EP No. A-037873 1.5737
11. SAMUEL JAMANDRETCT No. T-909/EP No. A-159348 2.2670
12. HILARION V. LANTIZA TCT No. T-288/EP No. A-037674
TCT No. T-401/EP No. A-037825 4.5526
0.4579
13. ANSELMO LOPEZ TCT No. T-973/EP No. A-037840 4.4939
14. TERESITA NACION TCT No. T-900/EP No. A-037849 2.2140
15. CHARIE E. NASTOR TCT No. T-825/EP No. A-037829 3.9291
16. NELSON L. NULLAS TCT No. T-396/EP No. A-037826 2.7491
17. CARLITO S. OLIA TCT No. T-910/EP No. A-037673 1.7954
18. ROBERTO T.PATIÑO TCT No. T-912/EP No. A-037860 6.4266
19. ANTONIO P. ROCHA TCT No. T-914/EP No. A-037830 2.2143
20. FERNANDO C. RUFINO TCT No. T-923/EP No. A-037848 4.5322
21. PATERNO P. SAIN TCT No. T-954/EP No. A-037813 4.3223
22. CLAUDIO S. SAYSON, and TCT No. T-891/EP No. A-037880 3.7151
23. JOEMARIE VIBO TCT No. T-893/EP No. A-037827 1.31852
The two other petitioners, Emma Gonzaga and Ana Patiño, are the surviving spouses of deceased
recipients of EPs over parcels of land also located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur, with
their corresponding TCT and EP numbers identified as follows:
(Deceased) Registered Owners TCT/EP Nos. Areas
(has.)
1. MANUEL S. GONZAGA TCT No. T-920/EP No. A-037832 4.1953
2. RAFAEL PATIÑO TCT No. T-929/EP No. A-037861 3.00783
The parcels of land described above, the subject matters in this Petition, were formerly part of a forested
area which have been denuded as a result of the logging operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc.
(HMI). Petitioners, together with other persons, occupied and tilled these areas believing that the same
were public lands. HMI never disturbed petitioners and the other occupants in their peaceful cultivation
thereof.
HMI acquired such forested area from the Republic of the Philippines through Sales Patent No. 2683 in
1956 by virtue of which it was issued OCT No. P-3077-1661. The title covered three parcels of land with a
total area of 527.8308 hectares, to wit:
Lot No. Area
(in hectares)
Lot No. 1620, Pls – 4 28.52
Lot No. 1621, Pls – 4 11.64
Lot No. 1622, Pls – 4 487.47
TOTAL 527.834
On 21 October 1972, Presidential Decree No. 275 was issued mandating that tenanted rice and corn
lands be brought under Operation Land Transfer and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries.
HMI, through a certain Joaquin Colmenares, requested that 527.8308 hectares of its landholdings be
placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving compensation therefor, HMI allowed
petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the landholdings so that the same may be covered under
said law.
In 1973, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) conducted a parcellary mapping of the entire
landholdings of 527.8308 hectares covered by OCT No. P-3077-1661. In 1975 and 1976, the DAR
approved the Parcellary Map Sketching (PMS) and the Amended PMS covering the entire landholdings.
HMI, through its representatives, actively participated in all relevant proceedings, including the
determination of the Average Gross Production per hectare at the Barangay Committee on Land
Production, and was a signatory of an undated Landowner and Tenant Production Agreement (LTPA),
covering the 527.8308 hectares. The LTPA was submitted to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in
1977.
Also in 1977, HMI executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights in favor of petitioners, among other persons,
which was registered with the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of OCT No. P-3077-1661. The
annotation in the OCT showed that the entire 527.8308 hectares was the subject of the Deed of
Assignment.
In 1982, a final survey over the entire area was conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988, the
corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to petitioners, among
other persons.
In December 1997, HMI filed with the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) of CARAGA, Region
XIII, 17 petitions seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 of
277.5008 hectares of its former landholdings covered by OCT No. P-3077-1661. HMI claimed that said
area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and that no compensation
was paid therefor. The 17 petitions, which were later consolidated, sought for the cancellation of the EPs
covering the disputed 277.5008 hectares which had been awarded to petitioners. HMI did not question
the coverage of the other 250.3300 hectares under Presidential Decree No. 27 despite claiming that the
entire landholdings were untenanted and not devoted to rice and corn.
On 27 November 1998, after petitioners failed to submit a Position Paper, the RARAD rendered a
Decision declaring as void the TCTs and EPs awarded to petitioners because the land covered was not
devoted to rice and corn, and neither was there any established tenancy relations between HMI and
petitioners when Presidential Decree No. 27 took effect on 21 October 1972. The Decision was based on
a 26 March 1998 report submitted by the Hacienda Maria Action Team. Petitioners’ TCTs and EPs were
ordered cancelled. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was denied. Petitioners
appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) which affirmed the RARAD
Decision.
After the DARAB denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration, the latter proceeded to the Court of
Appeals with their Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court of Appeals issued the following assailed
Resolution:
A perusal of the petition reveals that the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was
executed by Samuel A. Estribillo who is one of the petitioners, without the corresponding Special Power
of Attorneys executed by the other petitioners authorizing him to sign for their behalf in violation of
Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and necessarily DISMISSED.6
Petitioners filed a "Motion for Reconsideration With Alternative Prayer with Leave of Court for the
Admission of Special Power of Attorney (SPA) Granted to Petitioner Samuel Estribillo by his Co-
Petitioners." The Court of Appeals denied the motion by issuing the following assailed Resolution:
Petitioners seek the reconsideration of Our Resolution promulgated on January 27, 2003 which
dismissed the petition for certiorari.
We find no reason to reverse, alter or modify the resolution sought to be reconsidered, since petitioners
have failed to show that their belated submission of the special power of attorney can be justified as
against the unequivocal requirements set forth by Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended.
While it is true that the Supreme Court has recognized special circumstances that justify the relaxation of
the rules on non-forum shopping, such circumstances, however, are not present in the case at bar.
More importantly, said Rules cannot be relaxed in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loquias vs.
Ombudsman, 338 SCRA 62, which stated that, substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter
involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation contained in the certification [on] non-forum
shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same.
Since the Verification and Certification on Non-Forum shopping was executed without the proper
authorization from all the petitioners, such personal knowledge cannot be presumed to exist thereby
rendering the petition fatally defective.
Par. 2, Sec. 5 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended states:
"Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice x
x x"
It is, thus, clear that the Motion for Reconsideration has no legal basis to support it and should be
dismissed forthwith. Moreover, granting arguendo that a special power of attorney belatedly filed could
cure the petition’s defect, the requirement of personal knowledge of all the petitioners still has not been
met since some of the other petitioners failed to sign the same.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.7
Petitioners now file this present Petition contending that there had been compliance with Rule 7, Section
5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. They further reiterate their argument that the EPs are ordinary
titles which become indefeasible one year after their registration.
The petition is impressed with merit.1awphil.net
Petitioners have sufficiently complied with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
concerning the Certification Against Forum shopping
Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was preceded by Revised Circular No. 28-91 and
Administrative Circular No. 04-94, which required a certification against forum shopping to avoid the
filing of multiple petitions and complaints involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, and other tribunals and agencies. Stated differently, the rule was designed to avoid a situation
where said courts, tribunals and agencies would have to resolve the same issues. Rule 7, Section 5, now
provides:
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. – The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in
the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or
filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action
or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that
the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false certification or
non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without
prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel
clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal
with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.
Revised Circular No. 28-91 "was designed x x x to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of
justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and
legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure – which is to achieve substantial justice as
expeditiously as possible."8 Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate,
justice.9 The same guidelines should still apply in interpreting what is now Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Petitioner Samuel A. Estribillo, in signing the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping, falls
within the phrase "plaintiff or principal party" who is required to certify under oath the matters
mentioned in Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Such was given emphasis by this
Court when we held in Mendigorin v. Cabantog10 and Escorpizo v. University of Baguio11 that the
certification of non-forum shopping must be signed by the plaintiff or any of the principal parties and not
only by the legal counsel. In Condo Suite Club Travel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,12 we
likewise held that:
The certification in this petition was improperly executed by the external legal counsel of petitioner. For
a certification of non-forum shopping must be by the petitioner, or any of the principal parties and not
by counsel unless clothed with a special power of attorney to do so. This procedural lapse on the part of
petitioner is also a cause for the dismissal of this action. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals heavily relied on the seemingly conflicting case of Loquias v. Office of the
Ombudsman,13 where this Court ruled that:
At the outset, it is noted that the Verification and Certification was signed by Antonio Din, Jr., one of the
petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the Solicitor General that the petition is defective. Section
5, Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath that he
has not commenced any action involving the same issues in any court, etc. Only petitioner Din, the Vice-
Mayor of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, signed the certification. There is no showing that he was
authorized by his co-petitioners to represent the latter and to sign the certification. It cannot likewise be
presumed that petitioner Din knew, to the best of his knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the
same or similar actions or claims filed or pending. We find that substantial compliance will not suffice in
a matter involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation contained in the certification on non-
forum shopping requires personal knowledge by the party who executed the same. Petitioners must
show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the rules cannot
justly be rationalized by harking on the policy of liberal construction. (Emphasis supplied)
Loquias, however, was a case involving only five petitioners seeking relief from the Resolution of the
Ombudsman charging them with violation of Republic Act No. 3019, where the above declaration "at the
outset" was made together with a determination on the lack of jurisdiction on our part to decide the
Petition.14 There being only five petitioners in Loquias, the unreasonableness of the failure to obtain the
signatures of Antonio Din, Jr.’s four co-accused is immediately apparent, hence the remark by this Court
that "[p]etitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to personally sign the certification." In the
present petition, petitioners allege that they are farmer-beneficiaries who reside in a very remote
barangay in Agusan del Sur. While they reside in the same barangay, they allegedly have to walk for
hours on rough terrain to reach their neighbors due to the absence of convenient means of
transportation. Their houses are located far apart from each other and the mode of transportation,
habal-habal, is scarce and difficult. Majority of them are also nearing old age. On the other hand, their
lawyers (who are members of a non-government organization engaged in development work) are based
in Quezon City who started assisting them at the latter part of the RARAD level litigation in 1998, and
became their counsel of record only at the DARAB level. The petitioner who signed the initiatory
pleading, Samuel Estribillo, was the only petitioner who was able to travel to Manila at the time of the
preparation of the Petition due to very meager resources of their farmers’ organization, the Kahiusahan
sa Malahutayong mga Mag-uugma Para sa Ekonomikanhong Kalambuan (KAMMPE). When the Petition a
quo was dismissed, petitioners’ counsel went to Agusan del Sur and tried earnestly to secure all the
signatures for the SPA. In fact, when the SPA was being circulated for their signatures, 24 of the named
petitioners therein failed to sign for various reasons – some could not be found within the area and were
said to be temporarily residing in other towns, while some already died because of old age.15 Be that as
it may, those who did not sign the SPA did not participate, and are not parties to this petition.
The Court of Appeals merely said that the special circumstances recognized by this Court that justify the
relaxation of the rules on the certification against forum shopping are not present in the case at bar,16
without discussing the circumstances adduced by the petitioners in their Motion for Reconsideration.
Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that the actuation of petitioners was not strictly in consonance
with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, it should still be determined whether there
are special circumstances that would justify the suspension or relaxation of the rule concerning
verification and certification against forum shopping, such as those which we appreciated in the ensuing
cases.
In General Milling Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,17 the appeal to the Court of
Appeals had a certificate against forum shopping, but was dismissed as it did not contain a board
resolution authorizing the signatory of the Certificate. Petitioners therein attached the board resolution
in their Motion for Reconsideration but the Court of Appeals, as in this case, denied the same. In
granting the Petition therein, we explained that:
[P]etitioner complied with this procedural requirement except that it was not accompanied by a board
resolution or a secretary’s certificate that the person who signed it was duly authorized by petitioner to
represent it in the case. It would appear that the signatory of the certification was, in fact, duly
authorized as so evidenced by a board resolution attached to petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
before the appellate court. It could thus be said that there was at least substantial compliance with, and
that there was no attempt to ignore, the prescribed procedural requirements.
The rules of procedure are intended to promote, rather than frustrate, the ends of justice, and while the
swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, it, nevertheless, must not be met at the
expense of substantial justice. Technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, not suppress,
the cause of justice and a deviation from the rigid enforcement of the rules may be allowed to attain that
prime objective for, after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.
[Acme Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corp. vs. Court of Appeals; BA Savings Bank vs. Sia, 336 SCRA 484].
In Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,18 the authority of petitioner’s resident manager to sign the
certification against forum shopping was submitted to the Court of Appeals only after the latter
dismissed the Petition. It turned out, in the Motion for Reconsideration, that he already had board
authority ten days before the filing of the Petition. We ratiocinated therein that:
On the other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the
submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that should accompany the
petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a
corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on
behalf of the corporation.
In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the
certification. In Loyola v. Court of Appeals, et al. (245 SCRA 477 [1995]), the Court considered the filing of
the certification one day after the filing of an election protest as substantial compliance with the
requirement. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al. (264 SCRA 696 [1996]), the Court
allowed the filing of the certification 14 days before the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. Landbank,
supra, the Court had dismissed Uy’s petition for lack of verification and certification against non-forum
shopping. However, it subsequently reinstated the petition after Uy submitted a motion to admit
certification and non-forum shopping certification. In all these cases, there were special circumstances or
compelling reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification on non-
forum shopping.
In the instant case, the merits of petitioner’s case should be considered special circumstances or
compelling reasons that justify tempering the requirement in regard to the certificate of non-forum
shopping. Moreover, in Loyola, Roadway, and Uy, the Court excused non-compliance with the
requirement as to the certificate of non-forum shopping. With more reason should we allow the instant
petition since petitioner herein did submit a certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show
proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. That petitioner subsequently submitted a secretary’s
certificate attesting that Balbin was authorized to file an action on behalf of petitioner likewise mitigates
this oversight.
It must also be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is
mandatory, nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the
objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum-shopping. Lastly, technical rules of procedure
should be used to promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a
laudable objective, the granting of substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.
In Uy v. Land Bank of the Philippines,19 we, likewise, considered the apparent merits of the substantive
aspect of the case as a special circumstance or compelling reason for the reinstatement of the case, and
invoked our power to suspend our rules to serve the ends of justice. Thus:
The admission of the petition after the belated filing of the certification, therefore, is not unprecedented.
In those cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the requirements, there were special
circumstances or compelling reasons making the strict application of the rule clearly unjustified. In the
case at bar, the apparent merits of the substantive aspects of the case should be deemed as a "special
circumstance" or "compelling reason" for the reinstatement of the petition. x x x
There were even cases where we held that there was complete non-compliance with the rule on
certification against forum shopping, but we still proceeded to decide the case on the merits. In De Guia
v. De Guia,20 petitioners raised in their Petition for Review the allowance of respondents’ Appeal Brief
which did not contain a certificate against forum shopping. We held therein that:
With regard to the absence of a certification of non-forum shopping, substantial justice behooves us to
agree with the disquisition of the appellate court. We do not condone the shortcomings of respondents’
counsel, but we simply cannot ignore the merits of their claim. Indeed, it has been held that "[i]t is
within the inherent power of the Court to suspend its own rules in a particular case in order to do
justice."
In Damasco v. National Labor Relations Commission,21 the non-compliance was disregarded because of
the principle of social justice, which is equally applicable to the case at bar:
We note that both petitioners did not comply with the rule on certification against forum shopping. The
certifications in their respective petitions were executed by their lawyers, which is not correct. The
certification of non-forum shopping must be by the petitioner or a principal party and not the attorney.
This procedural lapse on the part of petitioners could have warranted the outright dismissal of their
actions.
But, the court recognizes the need to resolve these two petitions on their merits as a matter of social
justice involving labor and capital. After all, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of
equitably and completely resolving herein the rights and obligations of these parties. Moreover, we must
stress that technical rules of procedure in labor cases are not to be strictly applied if the result would be
detrimental to the working woman.
The foregoing cases show that, even if we assume for the sake of argument that there was violation of
Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a relaxation of such rule would be justified for two
compelling reasons: social justice considerations and the apparent merit of the Petition, as shall be
heretofore discussed.
Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as TCTs issued in
registration proceedings.
Petitioners claim that the EPs have become indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of
its issuance. The DARAB, however, ruled that the EP "is a title issued through the agrarian reform
program of the government. Its issuance, correction and cancellation is governed by the rules and
regulations issued by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Hence, it is not the
same as or in the same category of a Torrens title."
The DARAB is grossly mistaken.
Ybañez v. Intermediate Appellate Court,22 provides that certificates of title issued in administrative
proceedings are as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in judicial proceedings:
It must be emphasized that a certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a
homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial
registration proceeding, provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable public land within
the contemplation of the Public Land Law.
There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law (C.A. No. 141, as amended) or the Land Registration
Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing the one (1) year period within which the public land patent is open to
review on the ground of actual fraud as in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of P.D.
1529, and clothing a public land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, the pertinent
pronouncements in the aforecited cases clearly reveal that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, now
Section 32 of P.D. 1529 was applied by implication by this Court to the patent issued by the Director of
Lands duly approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources, under the signature of the President of the
Philippines in accordance with law. The date of issuance of the patent, therefore, corresponds to the
date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases because the decree finally awards the
land applied for registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the Director of Lands
equally and finally grants, awards, and conveys the land applied for to the applicant. This, to our mind, is
in consonance with the intent and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e. conservation of a family home, and
to encourage the settlement, residence and cultivation and improvement of the lands of the public
domain. If the title to the land grant in favor of the homesteader would be subjected to inquiry, contest
and decision after it has been given by the Government through the process of proceedings in
accordance with the Public Land Law, there would arise uncertainty, confusion and suspicion on the
government’s system of distributing public agricultural lands pursuant to the "Land for the Landless"
policy of the State.
The same confusion, uncertainty and suspicion on the distribution of government-acquired lands to the
landless would arise if the possession of the grantee of an EP would still be subject to contest, just
because his certificate of title was issued in an administrative proceeding. The silence of Presidential
Decree No. 27 as to the indefeasibility of titles issued pursuant thereto is the same as that in the Public
Land Act where Prof. Antonio Noblejas commented:
Inasmuch as there is no positive statement of the Public Land Law, regarding the titles granted
thereunder, such silence should be construed and interpreted in favor of the homesteader who come
into the possession of his homestead after complying with the requirements thereof. Section 38 of the
Land Registration Law should be interpreted to apply by implication to the patent issued by the Director
of Lands, duly approved by the Minister of Natural Resources, under the signature of the President of
the Philippines, in accordance with law.23
After complying with the procedure, therefore, in Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree (where the DAR is required to issue the
corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied with
Presidential Decree No. 27), 24 the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs acquire the same
protection accorded to other TCTs. "The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible
upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent,
x x x. Lands covered by such title may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can
it be decreed to another person."25
As we held through Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Lahora v. Dayanghirang, Jr.26 :
The rule in this jurisdiction, regarding public land patents and the character of the certificate of title that
may be issued by virtue thereof, is that where land is granted by the government to a private individual,
the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee;
thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title
issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Section 38 of the said Act. In
other words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become
irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.)
The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in Republic Act No. 6657 (the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), are enrolled in the Torrens system of registration. The
Property Registration Decree in fact devotes Chapter IX27 on the subject of EPs. Indeed, such EPs and
CLOAs are, in themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in registration
proceedings.
The only defense of respondents, that the issue of indefeasibility of title was raised for the first time on
appeal with the DARAB, does not hold water because said issue was already raised before the RARAD.28
The recommendation of the Hacienda Maria Action Team to have the EPs cancelled and the lots covered
under the Republic Act No. 6657,29 with the farmer-beneficiaries later on being issued with CLOAs,
would only delay the application of agrarian reform laws to the disputed 277.5008 hectares, leading to
the expenditure of more time and resources of the government.
The unreasonable delay of HMI in filing the Petition for cancellation more than 20 years after the alleged
wrongful annotation of the Deed of Assignment in OCT No. P-3077-1661, and more than ten years after
the issuance of the TCTs to the farmers, is apparently motivated by its desire to receive a substantially
higher valuation and just compensation should the disputed 277.5008 hectares be covered under
Republic Act No. 6657 instead of Presidential Decree No. 27.30 This is further proved by the following
uncontested allegations by petitioners:
(i) HMI neither asked for rentals nor brought any action to oust petitioners from the farm they were
cultivating;
(ii) HMI had not paid realty taxes on the disputed property from 1972 onwards and never protested
petitioners’ act of declaring the same for realty taxation;
(iii) HMI, represented by a certain Angela Colmenares, signed the LTPA covering the entire landholdings
or the area of 527.8308 hectares, which was then represented to be rice and corn lands;
(iv) HMI abandoned the entire landholdings after executing the Deed of Assignment of Rights in 1977.
WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73902 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The following EPs and the corresponding TCTs issued to petitioners or to their successors-in-
interest are hereby declared VALID and SUBSISTING:
Original Grantees TCT/EP Nos.
1. SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO TCT No. T-287/EP No. A-037675
2. CALIXTO P. ABAYATO, JR. TCT No. T-297/EP No. A-037814
TCT No. T-829/EP No. A-027293
3. RONGIE D. AGUILAR TCT No. T-913/EP No. A-027295
4. TACIANA D. AGUILAR TCT No. T-944/EP No. A-027296
5. ARTEMIO G. DE JUAN, TCT No. T-302/EP No. A-037809
6. ESTANISLAO DELA CRUZ, SR. TCT No. T-290/EP No. A-035676
7. EDGAR DUENAS TCT No. T-949/EP No. A-037658
8. MARIO P. ERIBAL TCT No. T-952/EP No. A-037836
9. REYNALDO C. ESENCIA TCT No. T-950/EP No. A-037844
10. RUBEN A. IBOJO TCT No. T-928/EP No. A-037873
11. SAMUEL JAMANDRETCT No. T-909/EP No. A-159348
12. HILARION V. LANTIZA TCT No. T-288/EP No. A-037674
TCT No. T-401/EP No. A-037825
13. ANSELMO LOPEZ TCT No. T-973/EP No. A-037840
14. TERESITA NACION TCT No. T-900/EP No. A-037849
15. CHARIE E. NASTOR TCT No. T-825/EP No. A-037829
16. NELSON L. NULLAS TCT No. T-396/EP No. A-037826

17. CARLITO S. OLIA TCT No. T-910/EP No. A-037673
18. ROBERTO T.PATIÑO TCT No. T-912/EP No. A-037860
19. ANTONIO P. ROCHA TCT No. T-914/EP No. A-037830
20. FERNANDO C. RUFINO TCT No. T-923/EP No. A-037848
21. PATERNO P. SAIN TCT No. T-954/EP No. A-037813
22. CLAUSIO S. SAYSON TCT No. T-891/EP No. A-037880
23. JOEMARIE VIBO TCT No. T-893/EP No. A-037827
24. MANUEL S. GONZAGA TCT No. T-920/EP No. A-037832
25. RAFAEL PATIÑO TCT No. T-297/EP No. A-037861
Costs against respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc.
SO ORDERED.
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
On Official Leave
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairman MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Asscociate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairman, First Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Acting Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 CA-G.R. SP No. 73902. Both Resolutions were penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with
Associate Justices Bernardo P. Abesamis and Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurring; Rollo, pp. 35-36; 38-40.
2 Rollo, p. 5.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 6.
5 DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL TRANSFERRING TO
THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM
THEREFOR.
6 Id. at 36.
7 Id. at 39-40.
8 Gabionza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112547, 18 July 1994, 234 SCRA 192, 198.
9 Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, 390 Phil. 1245, 1252 (2000).
10 436 Phil. 483, 491 (2002).
11 366 Phil. 166, 175 (1999).
12 380 Phil. 660, 667 (2000).

13 392 Phil. 596, 603-604 (2000).
14 We held in Loquias that "this court will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his
constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. Otherwise stated, it is beyond the
ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a
complaint filed before it. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who,
beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public
service. x x x" (Id.)
15 Rollo, pp. 190-191.
16 Id. at 30.
17 442 Phil. 425, 427-428 (2002).
18 G.R. No. 143377, 20 February 2001, 352 SCRA 334, 346-347.
19 391 Phil. 303, 314 (2000), citing Melo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123686, 16 November 1999, 318
SCRA 94.
20 G.R. No. 135384, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 287, 294-295.
21 G.R. Nos. 115755 & 116101, 4 December 2000, 346 SCRA 714, 720-721, citing Condo Suite Club
Travel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 125671, January 28, 2000, 323 SCRA 679;
Philippine Scout Veterans Security and Investigation Agency Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 124500, 4 December 1998, 299 SCRA 690, 694; Judy Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 111934, 29 April 1998, 289 SCRA 755, 764.
22 G.R. No. 68291, 6 March 1991, 194 SCRA 743, 749-750.

23 REGISTRATION OF LAND, TITLES AND DEEDS, Antonio H. Noblejas, p. 431 (1992 revised ed.)
24 Presidential Decre No. 1529, Section 105: "x x x After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with
the requirements for a grant of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which may cover
previously titled or untitled property shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the aforementioned Emancipation Patent and shall
assign an original certificate of title in case of unregistered land, and in case of registered property, shall
issue the corresponding certificate of title without requiring the owner’s duplicate of the title to be
cancelled.x x x"
25 Amado D. Aquino, Land registration and related Proceedings, Chapter XII "Land Patents", p. 139;
citing Gomez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-77770, 15 December 1988, 168 SCRA 503, 511; Duran v.
Oliva, 113 Phil. 144, 148-149 (1961).
26 147 Phil. 301, 304 (1971).
27 Chapter IX: CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT, AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY.
28 DARAB/RARAD Records, p. 472: "x x x It bears emphasis that a patent when registered in the
corresponding Register of Deeds is a veritable Torrens title and becomes as indefeasible as to the Torrens
title upon the expiration of one (1) year from the date of its issuance. Nullification of certificate may be
had only in a case directly attacking its validity but never collaterally."
29 Under R.A. No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, Agrarian Reform means the
"redistribution of lands, regardless of crops and fruits produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers
who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, x x x."
30 See DARAB records, p. 472.


Custom Search
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 169913 June 8, 2011
HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE, namely: JOSEFA DELESTE, JOSE RAY DELESTE, RAUL HECTOR DELESTE, and
RUBEN ALEX DELESTE, Petitioners,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), as represented by its Manager, LAND VALUATION OFFICE OF LBP
COTABATO CITY; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR - REGION 12 OF COTABATO CITY, THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION X - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY,
represented by MCMILLAN LUCMAN, in his capacity as Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of DAR
Lanao del Norte; LIZA BALBERONA, in her capacity as DAR Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO);
REYNALDO BAGUIO, in his capacity as the Register of Deeds of Iligan City as nominal party; the
emancipation patent holders: FELIPE D. MANREAL, CUSTUDIO M. RICO, HEIRS OF DOMINGO V. RICO,
HEIRS OF ABDON T. MANREAL, MACARIO M. VELORIA, ALICIA B. MANREAL, PABLO RICO, SALVACION
MANREAL, HEIRS OF TRANQUILIANA MANREAL, HEIRS OF ANGELA VELORIA, HEIRS OF NECIFURO
CABALUNA, HEIRS OF CLEMENTE RICO, HEIRS OF MANTILLANO OBISO, HEIRS OF HERCULANO BALORIO,
and TITO BALER, Respondents.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse and set aside the
October 28, 2004 Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and its September 13, 2005 Resolution2
denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of
agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan City, consisting of 34.7 hectares (subject property). Said spouses
were childless, but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. Virgilio had
been raised by the couple since he was two years old. Gregorio also had two daughters, Esperanza and
Caridad, by still another woman.3
When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject property.4 On February 16,
1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP 16,000.5 The
deed of sale was notarized on February 17, 1954 and registered on March 2, 1954. Also, the tax
declaration in the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the name of
Deleste. The arrears in the payment of taxes from 1952 had been updated by Deleste and from then on,
he paid the taxes on the property.6
On May 15, 1954, Hilaria died.7 Gregorio’s brother, Juan Nanaman, was appointed as special
administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. Subsequently, Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed
as the regular administrator of the joint estate.8
On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased spouses, filed
before the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Lanao del Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion
of title over the subject property, docketed as Civil Case No. 698.9 Said case went up to this Court in Noel
v. CA, where We rendered a Decision10 on January 11, 1995, affirming the ruling of the CA that the
subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and that the latter
could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste. As a result, Deleste, who died
in 1992, and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the subject property, each
with a one-half (1/2) interest in it.11
Notably, while Civil Case No. 698 was still pending before the CFI, particularly on October 21, 1972,
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be
brought under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. Thus,
the subject property was placed under the said program.12 However, only the heirs of Gregorio were
identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners. Concomitantly, the notices
and processes relative to the coverage were sent to these heirs.13
In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the "Zoning Regulation of Iligan
City," reclassifying the subject property as commercial/residential.14
Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of private
respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject property.15 The CLTs were registered
on July 15, 1986.16
In 1991, the subject property was surveyed.17 The survey of a portion of the land consisting of 20.2611
hectares, designated as Lot No. 1407, was approved on January 8, 1999.18 The claim folder for Lot No.
1407 was submitted to the LBP which issued a Memorandum of Valuation and a Certificate of Cash
Deposit on May 21, 2001 and September 12, 2001, respectively. Thereafter, Emancipation Patents (EPs)
and Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued on August 1, 2001 and October 1, 2001, respectively,
in favor of private respondents over their respective portions of Lot No. 1407.19
Meanwhile, on November 22, 1999, the City of Iligan filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 4 in Iligan City for the expropriation of a 5.4686-hectare portion of Lot No. 1407, docketed
as Special Civil Action No. 4979. On December 11, 2000, the RTC issued a Decision granting the
expropriation. Considering that the real owner of the expropriated portion could not be determined, as
the subject property had not yet been partitioned and distributed to any of the heirs of Gregorio and
Deleste, the just compensation for the expropriated portion of the subject property in the amount of
PhP 27,343,000 was deposited with the Development Bank of the Philippines in Iligan City, in trust for
the RTC in Iligan City.20
On February 28, 2002, the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify private respondents’ EPs.21 This was
docketed as Reg. Case No. X-471-LN-2002.
On July 21, 2003, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision22 declaring
that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending issues of ownership, the subsequent
reclassification of the subject property into a residential/commercial land, and the violation of
petitioners’ constitutional right to due process of law.
Dissatisfied, private respondents immediately filed their Notice of Appeal on July 22, 2003.
Notwithstanding it, on July 24, 2003, petitioners filed a Motion for a Writ of Execution pursuant to
Section 2, Rule XII of the Revised Rules of Procedure, which was granted in an Order dated August 4,
2003 despite strong opposition from private respondents.23 On January 28, 2004, the DARAB nullified
the Order dated August 4, 2003 granting the writ of execution.24
Subsequently, the DARAB, in DARAB Case No. 12486, reversed the ruling of the PARAD in its Decision25
dated March 15, 2004. It held, among others, that the EPs were valid as it was the heirs of Deleste who
should have informed the DAR of the pendency of Civil Case No. 698 at the time the subject property
was placed under the coverage of the OLT Program considering that DAR was not a party to the said
case. Further, it stated that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city ordinance has been
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), as mandated by DAR Administrative
Order No. 01, Series of 1990, and held that whether the subject property is indeed exempt from the OLT
Program is an administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with the DAR
Secretary or the latter’s authorized representative. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied by the DARAB in its Resolution26 dated July 8, 2004.
Undaunted, petitioners filed a petition for review with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 85471,
challenging the Decision and Resolution in DARAB Case No. 12486. This was denied by the CA in a
Resolution dated October 28, 2004 for petitioners’ failure to attach the writ of execution, the order
nullifying the writ of execution, and such material portions of the record referred to in the petition and
other supporting papers, as required under Sec. 6 of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners’ motion
for reconsideration was also denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated September 13, 2005 for
being pro forma.
On November 18, 2005, petitioners filed a petition for review with this Court. In Our Resolution27 dated
February 4, 2008, We resolved to deny the said petition for failure to show sufficiently any reversible
error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise by the Court of its discretionary appellate
jurisdiction in this case.
On March 19, 2008, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration.28 On April 11, 2008, they also filed a
Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration.29
In Our Resolution30 dated August 20, 2008, this Court resolved to grant petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration and give due course to the petition, requiring the parties to submit their respective
memoranda.
The Issues
I. [WHETHER THE CA WAS CORRECT IN DISMISSING] OUTRIGHT THE PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
PETITIONERS X X X.
II. [WHETHER] THE OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BASED ON A
MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS IS JUSTIFIED; AND [WHETHER THE] OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION
IS JUST CONSIDERING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUES RAISED THEREIN.
XXXX
III. [WHETHER PETITIONERS’ LAND IS] COVERED BY AGRARIAN REFORM GIVEN THAT THE CITY OF ILIGAN
PASSED [CITY] ORDINANCE NO. 1313 RECLASSIFYING THE AREA INTO A STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL AREA IN
1975.
IV. [WHETHER THE LAND] THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY AND PARTIALLY EXPROPRIATED BY A CITY
GOVERNMENT [MAY] STILL BE SUBJECT[ED] TO AGRARIAN REFORM.
V. [WHETHER DAR VIOLATED] THE RIGHTS OF PETITIONERS TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
VI. [WHETHER] THE COMPENSATION DETERMINED BY DAR AND LBP IS CORRECT GIVEN THAT THE
FORMULA USED HAD BEEN REPEALED.
VII. [WHETHER] THE ISSUANCE OF EMANCIPATION PATENTS [IS] LEGAL GIVEN THAT THEY WERE FRUITS
OF AN ILLEGAL PROCEEDING.
VIII. [WHETHER] THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE [ARE] VALID GIVEN THAT THEY WERE DIRECTLY ISSUED TO
THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES IN GROSS VIOLATION OF SECTION 16(E) OF R.A. 6657 X X X.31
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Effect of non-compliance with the requirements
under Sec. 6, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court

In filing a petition for review as an appeal from awards, judgments, final orders, or resolutions of any
quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, it is required under Sec. 6(c), Rule 43
of the Rules of Court that it be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy
of the award, judgment, final order, or resolution appealed from, with certified true copies of such
material portions of the record referred to in the petition and other supporting papers. As stated:
Sec. 6. Contents of the petition. – The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to
the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a
concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final
order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the
record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against
forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the
specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein. (Emphasis supplied.)
Non-compliance with any of the above-mentioned requirements concerning the contents of the petition,
as well as the documents that should accompany the petition, shall be sufficient ground for its dismissal
as stated in Sec. 7, Rule 43 of the Rules:
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. – The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of
the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for
costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany
the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, the CA dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 85471 for petitioners’ failure to
attach the writ of execution, the order nullifying the writ of execution, and such material portions of the
record referred to in the petition and other supporting papers.32
A perusal of the issues raised before the CA would, however, show that the foregoing documents
required by the appellate court are not necessary for the proper disposition of the case. Specifically:
Is [Lot No. 1407] within the ambit of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program]?
Can the OLT by DAR over the subject land validly proceed without notice to the landowner?
Can the OLT be validly completed without a certification of deposit by Land Bank?
[I]s the landowner barred from exercising his right of retention x x x [considering that EPs were already
issued on the basis of CLTs]?
Are the EPs over the subject land x x x valid x x x?33
Petitioners complied with the requirement under Sec. 6(c), Rule 43 of the Rules of Court when they
appended to the petition filed before the CA certified true copies of the following documents: (1) the
challenged resolution dated July 8, 2004 issued by the DARAB denying petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration; (2) the duplicate original copy of petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration dated April 6,
2005; (3) the assailed decision dated March 15, 2004 issued by the DARAB reversing on appeal the
decision of the PARAD and nullifying with finality the order of execution pending appeal; (4) the Order
dated December 8, 2003 issued by the PARAD reinstating the writ of execution earlier issued; and (5) the
Decision dated July 21, 2003 issued by the PARAD in the original proceedings for the cancellation of the
EPs.34 The CA, therefore, erred when it dismissed the petition based on such technical ground.
Even assuming that the omitted documents were material to the appeal, the appellate court, instead of
dismissing outright the petition, could have just required petitioners to submit the necessary documents.
In Spouses Espejo v. Ito,35 the Court held that "under Section 3 (d), Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules
of the Court of Appeals,36 the Court of Appeals is with authority to require the parties to submit
additional documents as may be necessary to promote the interests of substantial justice."
Moreover, petitioners’ subsequent submission of the documents required by the CA with the motion for
reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with Section 6(c), Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.37 In
Jaro v. CA, this Court held that subsequent and substantial compliance may call for the relaxation of the
rules of procedure. Particularly:
The amended petition no longer contained the fatal defects that the original petition had but the Court
of Appeals still saw it fit to dismiss the amended petition. The Court of Appeals reasoned that "non-
compliance in the original petition is admittedly attributable to the petitioner and that no highly
justifiable and compelling reason has been advanced" to the court for it to depart from the mandatory
requirements of Administrative Circular No. 3-96. The hard stance taken by the Court of Appeals in this
case is unjustified under the circumstances.
There is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant
may call for the relaxation of the rules of procedure. In Cusi-Hernandez vs. Diaz and Piglas-Kamao vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, we ruled that the subsequent submission of the missing
documents with the motion for reconsideration amounts to substantial compliance. The reasons behind
the failure of the petitioners in these two cases to comply with the required attachments were no longer
scrutinized. What we found noteworthy in each case was the fact that the petitioners therein
substantially complied with the formal requirements. We ordered the remand of the petitions in these
cases to the Court of Appeals, stressing the ruling that by precipitately dismissing the petitions "the
appellate court clearly put a premium on technicalities at the expense of a just resolution of the case."38
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)1avvphi1
Time and again, this Court has held that a strict and rigid application of technicalities must be avoided if
it tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice.39 As held in Sta. Ana v. Spouses Carpo:40
Rules of procedure are merely tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. If the application of
the Rules would tend to frustrate rather than to promote justice, it is always within our power to
suspend the rules or except a particular case from their operation. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts
the prerogative to relax compliance with the procedural rules, even the most mandatory in character,
mindful of the duty to reconcile the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties’ right to an
opportunity to be heard.
Our recent ruling in Tanenglian v. Lorenzo is instructive:
We have not been oblivious to or unmindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application
of the Rules, allowing us, depending on the circumstances, to set aside technical infirmities and give due
course to the appeal. In cases where we dispense with the technicalities, we do not mean to undermine
the force and effectivity of the periods set by law. In those rare cases where we did not stringently apply
the procedural rules, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of a grave injustice.
Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict
enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for
the just and proper disposition of his cause. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, the dismissal of the petition by the CA on mere technicality is unwarranted in the instant case.
On the coverage of the subject property by the agrarian reform program
Petitioners contend that the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the
agrarian reform program in view of the enactment of City Ordinance No. 1313 by the City of Iligan
reclassifying the area into a residential/commercial land.41
Unconvinced, the DARAB, in its Decision, noted that the record is bereft of any evidence that the city
ordinance has been approved by the HLURB, thereby allegedly casting doubt on the validity of the
reclassification over the subject property.42 It further noted that whether the subject property is exempt
from the OLT Program is an administrative determination, the jurisdiction of which lies exclusively with
the DAR Secretary, not with the DARAB.
Indeed, it is the Office of the DAR Secretary which is vested with the primary and exclusive jurisdiction
over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program.43 However, this will not
prevent the Court from assuming jurisdiction over the petition considering that the issues raised in it
may already be resolved on the basis of the records before Us. Besides, to allow the matter to remain
with the Office of the DAR Secretary would only cause unnecessary delay and undue hardship on the
parties. Applicable, by analogy, is Our ruling in the recent Bagong Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa ng
Triumph International v. Department of Labor and Employment Secretary,44 where We held:
But as the CA did, we similarly recognize that undue hardship, to the point of injustice, would result if a
remand would be ordered under a situation where we are in the position to resolve the case based on
the records before us. As we said in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals:
[w]e have laid down the rule that the remand of the case to the lower court for further reception of
evidence is not necessary where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records
before it. On many occasions, the Court, in the public interest and for the expeditious administration of
justice, has resolved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the trial court for further
proceedings, such as where the ends of justice, would not be subserved by the remand of the case.
Thus, we shall directly rule on the dismissal issue. And while we rule that the CA could not validly rule on
the merits of this issue, we shall not hesitate to refer back to its dismissal ruling, where appropriate.
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Pertinently, after an assiduous study of the records of the case, We agree with petitioners that the
subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program in
view of the enactment by the City of Iligan of its local zoning ordinance, City Ordinance No. 1313.
It is undeniable that the local government has the power to reclassify agricultural into non-agricultural
lands. In Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. CA,45 this Court held that pursuant to Sec. 3 of
Republic Act No. (RA) 2264, amending the Local Government Code, municipal and/or city councils are
empowered to "adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations in consultation with the National
Planning Commission." It was also emphasized therein that "[t]he power of the local government to
convert or reclassify lands [from agricultural to non-agricultural lands prior to the passage of RA 6657] is
not subject to the approval of the [DAR]."46
Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which was enacted by the City of Iligan in
1975, reclassified the subject property into a commercial/residential area. DARAB, however, believes
that the approval of HLURB is necessary in order for the reclassification to be valid.
We differ. As previously mentioned, City Ordinance No. 1313 was enacted by the City of Iligan in 1975.
Significantly, there was still no HLURB to speak of during that time. It was the Task Force on Human
Settlements, the earliest predecessor of HLURB, which was already in existence at that time, having been
created on September 19, 1973 pursuant to Executive Order No. 419. It should be noted, however, that
the Task Force was not empowered to review and approve zoning ordinances and regulations. As a
matter of fact, it was only on August 9, 1978, with the issuance of Letter of Instructions No. 729, that
local governments were required to submit their existing land use plans, zoning ordinances, enforcement
systems and procedures to the Ministry of Human Settlements for review and ratification. The Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) was the regulatory arm of the Ministry of Human
Settlements.47
Significantly, accompanying the Certification48 dated October 8, 1999 issued by Gil R. Balondo, Deputy
Zoning Administrator of the City Planning and Development Office, Iligan City, and the letter49 dated
October 8, 1999 issued by Ayunan B. Rajah, Regional Officer of the HLURB, is the Certificate of Approval
issued by Imelda Romualdez Marcos, then Minister of Human Settlements and Chairperson of the HSRC,
showing that the local zoning ordinance was, indeed, approved on September 21, 1978. This leads to no
other conclusion than that City Ordinance No. 1313 enacted by the City of Iligan was approved by the
HSRC, the predecessor of HLURB. The validity of said local zoning ordinance is, therefore, beyond
question.
Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential/commercial land with the enactment of
City Ordinance No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an "agricultural land" within the
ambit of RA 6657. As this Court held in Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos
and Sons, Inc.,50 "To be exempt from CARP, all that is needed is one valid reclassification of the land
from agricultural to non-agricultural by a duly authorized government agency before June 15, 1988,
when the CARL took effect."
Despite the foregoing ruling, respondents allege that the subsequent reclassification by the local zoning
ordinance cannot free the land from the legal effects of PD 27 which deems the land to be already taken
as of October 21, 1972, when said law took effect. Concomitantly, they assert that the rights which
accrued from said date must be respected. They also maintain that the reclassification of the subject
property did not alter its agricultural nature, much less its actual use.51
Verily, vested rights which have already accrued cannot just be taken away by the expedience of issuing a
local zoning ordinance reclassifying an agricultural land into a residential/commercial area. As this Court
extensively discussed in Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. CA:52
In the main, REMMAN hinges its application for exemption on the ground that the subject lands had
ceased to be agricultural lands by virtue of the zoning classification by the Sangguniang Bayan of
Dasmariñas, Cavite, and approved by the HSRC, specifying them as residential.
In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture, this Court resolved the issue of whether lands
already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its precursor agencies, i.e., National Housing Authority and Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission, prior to 15 June 1988, are covered by Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. We answered in the negative,
thus:
We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL. Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that
the CARL shall "cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and
private agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land devoted to
agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land." The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. "Agricultural
lands" are only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural lands" and "do not include
commercial, industrial and residential land."
xxx xxx xxx
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands
previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies
other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, DAR itself defined "agricultural land" thus —
. . . Agricultural lands refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not
classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15
June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use.
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such
conversion. . . . .
However, Natalia should be cautiously applied in light of Administrative Order 04, Series of 2003, which
outlines the rules on the Exemption on Lands from CARP Coverage under Section (3) of Republic Act No.
6657, and Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990. It reads:
I. Prefatory Statement
Republic Act (RA) 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Section 3, Paragraph (c)
defines "agricultural land" as referring to "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and
not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, (or "DOJ Opinion 44-1990" for brevity) and the
case of Natalia Realty versus Department of Agrarian Reform (12 August 2993, 225 SCRA 278) opines
that with respect to the conversion of agricultural land covered by RA 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the
authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve such conversion may be exercised
from the date of its effectivity, on 15 June 1988. Thus, all lands that are already classified as commercial,
industrial or residential before 15 June 1988 no longer need any conversion clearance.
However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest
tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which have been
vested prior to 15 June 1988.
As emphasized, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural cannot be applied to defeat vested rights
of tenant-farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27.
Indeed, in the recent case of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation v. Amante, where the Court was
confronted with the issue of whether the contentious property therein is agricultural in nature on the
ground that the same had been classified as "park" since 1979 under the Zoning Ordinance of Cabuyao,
as approved by the HLURB, the Court said:
The Court recognizes the power of a local government to reclassify and convert lands through local
ordinance, especially if said ordinance is approved by the HLURB. Municipal Ordinance No. 110-54 dated
November 3, 1979, enacted by the Municipality of Cabuyao, divided the municipality into residential,
commercial, industrial, agricultural and institutional districts, and districts and parks for open spaces. It
did not convert, however, existing agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial, or
institutional. While it classified Barangay Casile into a municipal park, as shown in its permitted uses of
land map, the ordinance did not provide for the retroactivity of its classification. In Co vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, it was held that an ordinance converting agricultural lands into residential or light
industrial should be given prospective application only, and should not change the nature of existing
agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships existing over such land. . . . .
A reading of Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01, series of 1981, does not disclose any provision
converting existing agricultural lands in the covered area into residential or light industrial. While it
declared that after the passage of the measure, the subject area shall be used only for residential or light
industrial purposes, it is not provided therein that it shall have retroactive effect so as to discontinue all
rights previously acquired over lands located within the zone which are neither residential nor light
industrial in nature. This simply means that, if we apply the general rule, as we must, the ordinance
should be given prospective operation only. The further implication is that it should not change the
nature of existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships existing over such lands.
(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
This, however, raises the issue of whether vested rights have actually accrued in the instant case. In this
respect, We reckon that under PD 27, tenant-farmers of rice and corn lands were "deemed owners" of
the land they till as of October 21, 1972. This policy, intended to emancipate the tenant-farmers from the
bondage of the soil, is given effect by the following provision of the law:
The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a
portion constituting a family size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if
irrigated. (Emphasis supplied.)
It should be clarified that even if under PD 27, tenant-farmers are "deemed owners" as of October 21,
1972, this is not to be construed as automatically vesting upon these tenant-farmers absolute ownership
over the land they were tilling. Certain requirements must also be complied with, such as payment of
just compensation, before full ownership is vested upon the tenant-farmers. This was elucidated by the
Court in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform:53
It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as October 21, 1972 and
declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land consisting of a family-sized farm
except that "no title to the land owned by him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had
become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers’ cooperative." It was understood, however,
that full payment of the just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
requirement.
When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:
All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21, 1972 of the land they
acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27.
it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said decree, after proof of full-
fledged membership in the farmers’ cooperatives and full payment of just compensation. Hence, it was
also perfectly proper for the Order to also provide in its Section 2 that the "lease rentals paid to the
landowner by the farmer-beneficiary after October 21, 1972 (pending transfer of ownership after full
payment of just compensation), shall be considered as advance payment for the land."
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the
landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either. (Citations omitted; emphasis
supplied.)
Prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements, tenant-farmers have, at most, an inchoate right
over the land they were tilling. In recognition of this, a CLT is issued to a tenant-farmer to serve as a
"provisional title of ownership over the landholding while the lot owner is awaiting full payment of [just
compensation] or for as long as the [tenant-farmer] is an ‘amortizing owner’."54 This certificate "proves
inchoate ownership of an agricultural land primarily devoted to rice and corn production. It is issued in
order for the tenant-farmer to acquire the land"55 he was tilling.
Concomitantly, with respect to the LBP and the government, tenant-farmers cannot be considered as full
owners of the land they are tilling unless they have fully paid the amortizations due them. This is
because it is only upon such full payment of the amortizations that EPs may be issued in their favor.
In Del Castillo v. Orciga, We explained that land transfer under PD 27 is effected in two (2) stages. The
first stage is the issuance of a CLT to a farmer-beneficiary as soon as the DAR transfers the landholding to
the farmer-beneficiary in recognition that said person is its "deemed owner." And the second stage is the
issuance of an EP as proof of full ownership of the landholding upon full payment of the annual
amortizations or lease rentals by the farmer-beneficiary.56
In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it was only in
1984 that private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an inchoate right over
the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements. Considering that the local
zoning ordinance was enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978, private
respondents still had no vested rights to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that private
respondents were issued the CLTs and were "deemed owners."
The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since reclassification had taken place
twenty-six (26) years prior to their issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued prior to reclassification
and its approval. Consequently, the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of
the agrarian reform program.
On the violation of petitioners’ right to due process of law
Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the
coverage of the agrarian reform program; hence, their right to due process of law was violated.57 Citing
De Chavez v. Zobel,58 both the DAR and the private respondents claim that the enactment of PD 27 is a
statutory notice to all owners of agricultural lands devoted to rice and/or corn production,59 implying
that there was no need for an actual notice.
We agree with petitioners. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property under the
agrarian reform program cannot be underrated, as non-compliance with it trods roughshod with the
essential requirements of administrative due process of law.60 Our ruling in Heirs of Jugalbot v. CA61 is
particularly instructive:
Firstly, the taking of subject property was done in violation of constitutional due process. The Court of
Appeals was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process because the DAR failed
to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party. The records show that notices
were erroneously addressed and sent in the name of Pedro N. Roa who was not the owner, hence, not
the proper party in the instant case. The ownership of the property, as can be gleaned from the records,
pertains to Virginia A. Roa. Notice should have been therefore served on her, and not Pedro N. Roa.
xxxx
In addition, the defective notice sent to Pedro N. Roa was followed by a DAR certification signed by team
leader Eduardo Maandig on January 8, 1988 stating that the subject property was tenanted as of
October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to rice and corn despite the fact that there was no ocular
inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of
Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property. The absence of such ocular inspection or on-site
fact-finding investigation and report likewise deprives Virginia A. Roa of her right to property through the
denial of due process.
By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a
violation of due process in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law when the
petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and investigation to be conducted by the DAR before
acquisition of the property was to be undertaken. Neither was there proof that petitioner was given the
opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired. Both in
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and Presidential Decree No. 27, the right of retention and how
this right is exercised, is guaranteed by law.
Since land acquisition under either Presidential Decree No. 27 and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law govern the extraordinary method of expropriating private property, the law must be strictly
construed. Faithful compliance with legal provisions, especially those which relate to the procedure for
acquisition of expropriated lands should therefore be observed. In the instant case, no proper notice was
given to Virginia A. Roa by the DAR. Neither did the DAR conduct an ocular inspection and investigation.
Hence, any act committed by the DAR or any of its agencies that results from its failure to comply with
the proper procedure for expropriation of land is a violation of constitutional due process and should be
deemed arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and tainted with grave abuse of discretion. (Citations omitted;
emphasis supplied.)
Markedly, a reading of De Chavez invoked by both the DAR and private respondents does not show that
this Court ever made mention that actual notice may be dispensed with under PD 27, its enactment
being a purported "statutory notice" to all owners of agricultural lands devoted to rice and/or corn
production that their lands are subjected to the OLT program.
Quite contrarily, in Sta. Monica Industrial & Dev’t. Corp. v. DAR,62 this Court underscored the
significance of notice in implementing the agrarian reform program when it stated that "notice is part of
the constitutional right to due process of law. It informs the landowner of the State’s intention to acquire
a private land upon payment of just compensation and gives him the opportunity to present evidence
that his landholding is not covered or is otherwise excused from the agrarian law."
The Court, therefore, finds interest in the holding of the DARAB that petitioners were not denied the
right to due process despite the fact that only the Nanamans were identified as the owners. Particularly:
Fourthly, the PARAD also ruled that the petitioners were denied the right to be given the notice since
only the Nanamans were identified as the owners. The fault lies with petitioners who did not present the
tax declaration in the name of Dr. Deleste as of October 21, 1972. It was only in 1995 that Civil Case No.
698 was finally decided by the Supreme Court dividing the 34.7 hectares between the Delestes and the
Nanamans. Note that Dr. Deleste died in 1992 after PD 27 was promulgated, hence, the subject land or
his ½ share was considered in his name only (see Art. 777, New Civil Code). Even then, it must be borne
in mind that on September 26, 1972, PD No. 2 was issued by President Marcos proclaiming the whole
country as a land reform area, this was followed by PD 27. This should have alarmed them more so when
private respondents are in actual possession and cultivation of the subject property.
But it was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the landowner of the subject property. It
should be noted that the deed of sale executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was registered on March 2,
1954, and such registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole world that the subject property
was already owned by Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale. In Naval v. CA, this Court held:
Applying the law, we held in Bautista v. Fule that the registration of an instrument involving unregistered
land in the Registry of Deeds creates constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently
deal with the same property.63 x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration is "to notify other persons not parties to a
contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered into."64 There was, therefore, no
reason for DAR to feign ignorance of the transfer of ownership over the subject property.
Moreover, that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste, and not to the Nanamans, is bolstered by
the fact that the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the
name of Deleste.65 Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless "good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for
no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least,
constructive possession."66
Petitioners’ right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when the DAR failed to notify them that it is
subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
On this note, We take exception to our ruling in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA,67 where, despite a finding that
there was a violation of due process in the implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform
program when the petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and investigation to be conducted
by the DAR before acquiring the property, thereby effectively depriving petitioner the opportunity to at
least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired,68 this Court nonetheless
ruled that such violation does not give the Court the power to nullify the certificates of land ownership
award (CLOAs) already issued to the farmer-beneficiaries, since the DAR must be given the chance to
correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.
Manifesting her disagreement that this Court cannot nullify illegally issued CLOAs and should first ask the
DAR to reverse and correct itself, Justice Ynares-Santiago, in her Concurring and Dissenting Opinion,69
stated that "[i]f the acts of DAR are patently illegal and the rights of Roxas & Co. violated, the wrong
decisions of DAR should be reversed and set aside. It follows that the fruits of the wrongful acts, in this
case the illegally issued CLOAs, must be declared null and void." She also noted that "[i]f CLOAs can
under the DAR’s own order be cancelled administratively, with more reason can the courts, especially
the Supreme Court, do so when the matter is clearly in issue."
In the same vein, if the illegality in the issuance of the CLTs is patent, the Court must immediately take
action and declare the issuance as null and void. There being no question that the CLTs in the instant
case were "improperly issued, for which reason, their cancellation is warranted."70 The same holds true
with respect to the EPs and certificates of title issued by virtue of the void CLTs, as there can be no valid
transfer of title should the CLTs on which they were grounded are void.71 Cancellation of the EPs and
OCTs are clearly warranted in the instant case since, aside from the violation of petitioners’ right to due
process of law, the subject property is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
Issue of Validity of EPs Not Barred by Res Judicata
The LBP maintains that the issue of the EPs’ validity has already been settled by this Court in Heirs of
Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,72 where We held that the EPs and OCTs issued in
2001 had already become indefeasible and incontrovertible by the time the petitioners therein instituted
the case in 2005; hence, their issuance may no longer be reviewed.73
In effect, the LBP raises the defense of res judicata in order to preclude a "relitigation" of the issue
concerning the validity of the EPs issued to private respondents.
Notably, the doctrine of res judicata has two aspects, namely: (1) "bar by prior judgment,"74 wherein
the judgment in a prior case bars the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim, demand, or
cause of action;75 and (2) "conclusiveness of judgment,"76 which precludes relitigation of a particular
fact or issue in another action between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action.77
Citing Agustin v. Delos Santos,78 this Court, in Spouses Antonio v. Sayman,79 expounded on the
difference between the two aspects of res judicata:
The principle of res judicata is applicable by way of (1) "bar by prior judgment" and (2) "conclusiveness
of judgment." This Court had occasion to explain the difference between these two aspects of res
judicata as follows:
There is "bar by prior judgment" when, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered and
the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.
Otherwise put, the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the merits concludes
the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies, and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit
involving the same cause of action before the same or other tribunal.
But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of causes of action,
the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and
determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as
"conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or
necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is
rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated
between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of
the two actions is the same. (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
To be sure, conclusiveness of judgment merits application "when a fact or question has been squarely
put in issue, judicially passed upon, and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent
jurisdiction."80 Elucidating further on this second aspect of res judicata, the Court, in Spouses Antonio,
stated:
x x x The fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that action (and persons
in privity with them or their successors-in-interest), and continues to bind them while the judgment or
order remains standing and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the
conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future or other action between the
same parties or their privies and successors-in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent
jurisdiction, either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the identities of parties and
issues are required for the operation of the principle of conclusiveness of judgment.81 (Citations
omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Applying the above statement of the Court to the case at bar, We find that LBP’s contention that this
Court’s ruling in Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy that the EPs and OCTs issued in 2001 had already become
indefeasible and incontrovertible precludes a "relitigation" of the issue concerning the validity of the EPs
issued to private respondents does not hold water.
In the first place, there is no identity of parties in Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy and the instant case.
Arguably, the respondents in these two cases are similar. However, the petitioners are totally different. In
Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy, the petitioners are the more than 120 individuals who claim to be
descendants of Fulgencio Nanaman, Gregorio’s brother, and who collectively assert their right to a share
in Gregorio’s estate, arguing that they were deprived of their inheritance by virtue of the improper
issuance of the EPs to private respondents without notice to them. On the other hand, in the instant
case, petitioners are the heirs of Deleste who seek nullification of the EPs issued to private respondents
on grounds of violation of due process of law, disregard of landowner’s right of retention, improvident
issuance of EPs and OCTs, and non-coverage of the agrarian reform program, among others. Evidently,
there is even no privity among the petitioners in these two cases.
And in the second place, the issues are also dissimilar. In Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy, the issue was
whether the filing of a petition for prohibition was the proper remedy for the petitioners therein,
considering that the EPs and OCTs had already been issued in 2001, four (4) years prior to the filing of
said petition in 2005. In the instant case, however, the issue is whether the EPs and OCTs issued in favor
of private respondents are void, thus warranting their cancellation.
In addition, the factual circumstances in these two cases are different such that the necessity of applying
the rule on indefeasibility of title in one is wanting in the other. In Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy, the
petition for prohibition was filed by the petitioners therein in 2005, notwithstanding the fact that the EPs
and OCTs had already been issued in 2001. For that reason, apart from making a ruling that
"[p]rohibition, as a rule, does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli," it becomes
incumbent upon this Court to hold that:
x x x Considering that such EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, they had become indefeasible and
incontrovertible by the time petitioners instituted CA-G.R. SP No. 00365 in 2005, and may no longer be
judicially reviewed.82 (Emphasis supplied.)
On the contrary, in the instant case, the petition for nullification of private respondents’ EPs and OCTs
was filed on February 28, 2002. Taking into account that the EPs and OCTs were issued on August 1, 2001
and October 1, 2001, respectively, the filing of the petition was well within the prescribed one year
period, thus, barring the defense of indefeasibility and incontrovertibility. Even if the petition was filed
before the DARAB, and not the Regional Trial Court as mandated by Sec. 32 of the Property Registration
Decree,83 this should necessarily have the same effect, considering that DARAB’s jurisdiction extends to
cases involving the cancellation of CLOAs, EPs, and even of certificates of title issued by virtue of a void
EP. As this Court held in Gabriel v. Jamias:84
It is well-settled that the DAR, through its adjudication arm, i.e., the DARAB and its regional and
provincial adjudication boards, exercises quasi-judicial functions and jurisdiction on all matters
pertaining to an agrarian dispute or controversy and the implementation of agrarian reform laws.
Pertinently, it is provided in the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure that the DARAB has primary and
exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and related
agrarian reform laws. Such jurisdiction shall extend to cases involving the issuance, correction and
cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents which are
registered with the Land Registration Authority.
This Court has had the occasion to rule that the mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put
the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents may
be cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. Section 12 (g) of P.D. No. 946 (issued
on June 17, 1976) vested the then Court of Agrarian Relations with jurisdiction over cases involving the
cancellation of emancipation patents issued under P.D. No. 266. Exclusive jurisdiction over such cases
was later lodged with the DARAB under Section 1 of Rule II of the DARAB Rules of Procedure.
For sure, the jurisdiction of the DARAB cannot be deemed to disappear the moment a certificate of title
is issued, for, such certificates are not modes of transfer of property but merely evidence of such
transfer, and there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLOA, on which it was grounded, be void.
The same holds true in the case of a certificate of title issued by virtue of a void emancipation patent.
From the foregoing, it is therefore undeniable that it is the DARAB and not the regular courts which has
jurisdiction herein, this notwithstanding the issuance of Torrens titles in the names of the petitioners.
For, it is a fact that the petitioners’ Torrens titles emanated from the emancipation patents previously
issued to them by virtue of being the farmer-beneficiaries identified by the DAR under the OLT of the
government. The DAR ruling that the said emancipation patents were erroneously issued for failing to
consider the valid retention rights of respondents had already attained finality. Considering that the
action filed by respondents with the DARAB was precisely to annul the emancipation patents issued to
the petitioners, the case squarely, therefore, falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. x x x (Citations
omitted; emphasis supplied.)
Inevitably, this leads to no other conclusion than that Our ruling in Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy
concerning the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of the EPs and OCTs issued in 2001 does not bar Us
from making a finding in the instant case that the EPs and OCTs issued to private respondents are,
indeed, void.
With the foregoing disquisition, it becomes unnecessary to dwell on the other issues raised by the
parties.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the CA’s October 28, 2004
and September 13, 2005 Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 85471. The Emancipation Patents and Original
Certificates of Title covering the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, issued in favor of private
respondents are hereby declared NULL and VOID.
The DAR is ordered to CANCEL the aforementioned Emancipation Patents and Original Certificates of
Title erroneously issued in favor of private respondents.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 72-73. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by
Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
2 Id. at 75-78. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices
Arturo G. Tayag and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
3 Id. at 126-127.
4 Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 175049, November 27, 2008, 572
SCRA 185, 192.
5 Rollo, p. 127.
6 Id. at 153-154.
7 Id. at 127.
8 Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, supra note 4, at 193.
9 Rollo, p. 127.
10 Noel v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 59550 and 60636, January 11, 1995, 240 SCRA 78.
11 Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, supra note 4, at 193.
12 Rollo, pp. 154-155; Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, supra note 4, at 193-
194.
13 Id. at 155.
14 Id. at 127.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 155.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 156.
19 Id. at 990, 263-292.
20 Id. at 156; supra note 4, at 195.
21 Id. at 128.
22 Id. at 152-163.
23 Id. at 133.
24 Id. at 634-635.
25 Id. at 126-141.
26 Id. at 102-103.
27 Id. at 822-823.
28 Id. at 824-861.
29 Id. at 862-881.
30 Id. at 959-960.
31 Id. at 991-992. Original in lowercase.
32 Id. at 72.
33 Id. at 87.
34 Id. at 99-163.
35 G.R. No. 176511, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 192, 206; citing Spouses Lanaria v. Planta, G.R. No.
172891, November 22, 2007, 538 SCRA 79.
36 Rule 3, Sec. 3(d) reads: "When a petition does not have the complete annexes or the required
number of copies, the Chief of the Judicial Records Division shall require the petitioner to complete the
annexes or file the necessary number of copies of the petition before docketing the case. Pleadings
improperly filed in court shall be returned to the sender by the Chief of the Judicial Records Division."
37 Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 139131, September 27, 2002, 390 SCRA 124, 130.
38 G.R. No. 127536, February 19, 2002, 377 SCRA 282, 296-297.
39 Id. at 298; citing Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz, G.R. No. 140436, July 18, 2000, 336 SCRA 113.
40 G.R. No. 164340, November 28, 2008, 572 SCRA 463, 477.
41 Rollo, pp. 1010-1014.
42 Id. at 135.
43 Sta. Ana v. Spouses Carpo, supra note 40, at 480; citing DAR v. Abdulwahid, G.R. No. 163285, February
27, 2008, 547 SCRA 30, 40.
44 G.R. Nos. 167401 & 167407, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 185, 207
45 G.R. Nos. 142359 & 142980, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 109, 134-135.
46 Id. at 135.
47 Under Sec. 18 of PD 1396, the Human Settlements Commission established pursuant to PD 933 was
renamed as the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission and was made the regulatory arm of the
Ministry of Human Settlements. PD 1396 was issued on June 2, 1978.
48 Rollo, p. 340.
49 Id. at 341.
50 G.R. Nos. 131481 & 131624, March 16, 2011.
51 Rollo, pp. 1078-1081, 1098-1101; 1207-1216.
52 G.R. Nos. 132073 & 132361, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 378, 391-393.
53 G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 390-391.
54 Del Castillo v. Orciga, G.R. No. 153850, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 498, 506.
55 Id. at 505-506.
56 Id. at 506.
57 Rollo, p. 976.
58 No. L-28609, January 17, 1974, 55 SCRA 26.

59 Rollo, pp. 1080, 1102.
60 Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 106, 134.
61 G.R. No. 170346, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 202, 210-213.
62 G.R. No. 164846, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 97, 104.
63 G.R. No. 167412, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 102, 111.
64 Gutierrez v. Mendoza-Plaza, G.R. No. 185477, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 807, 817.
65 Rollo, p. 153.
66 Republic v. Spouses Kalaw, G.R. No. 155138, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 401, 413.
67 Supra note 60.
68 Heirs of Jugalbot v. CA, supra note 61, at 212.
69 Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA, supra note 60, at 158-177.
70 See Justice Melo’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA, supra note 60, at 155-
158.
71 Gabriel v. Jamias, G.R. No. 156482, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 443, 457; citing Hermoso v. C.L.
Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 140319, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 556, 562.
72 Supra note 4.
73 Rollo, pp. 1216-1220.
74 In Re: Petition for Probate of Last Will & Testament of Basilio Santiago, G.R. No. 179859, August 9,
2010, 627 SCRA 351, 362.
75 Linzag v. CA, G.R. No. 122181, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 304, 319.
76 In Re: Petition for Probate of Last Will & Testament of Basilio Santiago, supra note 74, at 362.
77 Linzag v. CA, supra note 75.
78 G.R. No. 168139, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 576, 585.
79 G.R. No. 149624, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480.
80 Id.
81 Id. at 480-481.
82 Heirs of Sofia Nanaman Lonoy v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, supra note 4, at 207-208.
83 Sec. 32 of the Property Registration Decree provides:
Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. — The decree of registration shall
not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely
affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject, however, to the
right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in
the proper Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of
registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser
for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the
phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed
to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said
period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become
incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy
by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.
84 G.R. No. 156482, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 443, 456-458.


Custom Search
THIRD DIVISION
January 20, 2016
G.R. No.176549
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON CITY & PABLO MENDOZA, Petitioners,
vs.
ROMEO C. CARRIEDO, Respondent.
DECISION
JARDELEZA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 5,
20062 and Resolution dated January 10, 20073 in CA-G.R. SP No. 88935. The Decision and Resolution
reversed the Order dated February 22, 20054 issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform-Central
Office (DAR-CO) in Administrative Case No. A-9999-03-CV-008-03 which directed that a 5.0001 hectare
piece of agricultural land (land) be placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program pursuant
to Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
The Facts
The land originally formed part of the agricultural land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
17680,5 which in turn, formed part of the total of 73.3157 hectares of agricultural land owned by Roman
De Jesus (Roman).6
On May 23, 1972, petitioner Pablo Mendoza (Mendoza) became the tenant of the land by virtue of a
Contrato King Pamamuisan7 executed between him and Roman. Pursuant to the Contrato, Mendoza has
been paying twenty-five (25) piculs of sugar every crop year as lease rental to Roman. It was later
changed to Two Thousand Pesos (P2, 000.00) per crop year, the land being no longer devoted to
sugarcane.8
On November 7, 1979, Roman died leaving the entire 73.3157 hectares to his surviving wife Alberta
Constales (Alberta), and their two sons Mario De Jesus (Mario) and Antonio De Jesus (Antonio).9 On
August 23, 1984, Antonio executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Waiver of Right10 which
made Alberta and Mario co-owners in equal proportion of the agricultural land left by Roman.11
On June 26, 1986, Mario sold12 approximately 70.4788 hectares to respondent Romeo C. Carriedo
(Carriedo), covered by the following titles and tax declarations, to wit:
1. TCT No. 35055
2. (Tax Declaration) TD No. 48354
3. TCT No. 17681
4. TCT No. 56897
5. TCT No. 17680
The area sold to Carriedo included the land tenanted by Mendoza (forming part of the area covered by
TCT No. 17680). Mendoza alleged that the sale took place without his knowledge and consent.
In June of 1990, Carriedo sold all of these landholdings to the Peoples’ Livelihood Foundation, Inc. (PLFI)
represented by its president, Bernabe Buscayno.13 All the lands, except that covered by TCT No. 17680,
were subjected to Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme and were awarded to agrarian
reform beneficiaries in 1997.14
The parties to this case were involved in three cases concerning the land, to wit:
The Ejectment Case (DARAB Case No. 163-T-90 | CAG.R. SP No. 44521 | G.R. No. 143416)
On October 1, 1990, Carriedo filed a Complaint for Ejectment and Collection of Unpaid Rentals against
Mendoza before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) of Tarlac docketed as
DARAB Case No. 163-T-90. He subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on October 30, 1990.15
In a Decision dated June 4, 1992,16 the PARAD ruled that Mendoza had knowledge of the sale, hence, he
could not deny the fact nor assail the validity of the conveyance. Mendoza violated Section 2 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816,17 Section 50 of RA No. 119918 and Section 36 of RA No. 3844,19 and
thus, the PARAD declared the leasehold contract terminated, and ordered Mendoza to vacate the
premises.20
Mendoza filed an appeal with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).1âwphi1
In a Decision dated February 8, 1996,21 the DARAB affirmed the PARAD Decision in toto. The DARAB
ruled that ownership of the land belongs to Carriedo. That the deed of sale was unregistered did not
affect Carriedo’s title to the land. By virtue of his ownership, Carriedo was subrogated to the rights and
obligation of the former landowner, Roman.22
Mendoza then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The case was docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 44521. In a Decision dated September 7, 1998,23 the CA affirmed the DARAB decision in
toto. The CA ruled that Mendoza’s reliance on Section 6 of RA No. 6657 as ground to nullify the sale
between De Jesus and Carriedo was misplaced, the section being limited to retention limits. It reiterated
that registration was not a condition for the validity of the contract of sale between the parties.24
Mendoza’s Motions for Reconsideration and New Trial were subsequently denied.25
Mendoza thus filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 143416. In a
Resolution dated August 9, 2000,26 this Court denied the petition for failure to comply with the
requirements under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. An Entry of Judgment was issued on October 25,
2000.27 In effect, the Decision of the CA was affirmed, and the following issues were settled with finality:
1) Carriedo is the absolute owner of the five (5) hectare land;
2) Mendoza had knowledge of the sale between Carriedo and Mario De Jesus, hence he is bound by the
sale; and
3) Due to his failure and refusal to pay the lease rentals, the tenancy relationship between Carriedo and
Mendoza had been terminated.
Meanwhile, on October 5, 1999, the landholding covered by TCT No. 17680 with an area of 12.1065
hectares was divided into sub-lots. 7.1065 hectares was transferred to Bernabe Buscayno et al. through a
Deed of Transfer28 under PD No. 27.29 Eventually, TCT No. 17680 was partially cancelled, and in lieu
thereof, emancipation patents (EPs) were issued to Bernabe, Rod and Juanito, all surnamed Buscayno.
These lots were identified as Lots C, D and E covered by TCT Nos. 44384 to 44386 issued on September
10, 1999.30 Lots A and B, consisting of approximately 5.0001 hectares and which is the land being
occupied by Mendoza, were registered in the name of Carriedo and covered by TCT No. 34428131 and
TCT No. 344282.32
The Redemption Case (DARAB III-T-1476-97 | CA-G.R. SP No. 88936)
On July 21, 1997, Mendoza filed a Petition for Redemption33 with the PARAD. In an Order dated January
15, 2001,34 the PARAD dismissed his petition on the grounds of litis pendentia and lack of the required
certification against forum-shopping. It dismissed the petition so that the pending appeal of DARAB Case
No. 163-T-90 (the ejectment case discussed above) with the CA can run its full course, since its outcome
partakes of a prejudicial question determinative of the tenability of Mendoza’s right to redeem the land
under tenancy.35
Mendoza appealed to the DARAB which reversed the PARAD Order in a Decision dated November 12,
2003.36 The DARAB granted Mendoza redemption rights over the land. It ruled that at the time Carriedo
filed his complaint for ejectment on October 1, 1990, he was no longer the owner of the land, having
sold the land to PLFI in June of 1990. Hence, the cause of action pertains to PLFI and not to him.37 It also
ruled that Mendoza was not notified of the sale of the land to Carriedo and of the latter’s subsequent
sale of it to PLFI. The absence of the mandatory requirement of notice did not stop the running of the
180 day-period within which Mendoza could exercise his right of redemption.38 Carriedo’s Motion for
Reconsideration was subsequently denied.39
Carriedo filed a Petition for Review with the CA. In a Decision dated December 29, 2006,40 the CA
reversed the DARAB Decision. It ruled that Carriedo’s ownership of the land had been conclusively
established and even affirmed by this Court. Mendoza was not able to substantiate his claim that
Carriedo was no longer the owner of the land at the time the latter filed his complaint for ejectment. It
held that the DARAB erred when it ruled that Mendoza was not guilty of forum-shopping.41 Mendoza
did not appeal the decision of the CA.
The Coverage Case (ADM Case No. A-9999-03-CV-008-03 | CA-G.R. SP No. 88935)
On February 26, 2002, Mendoza, his daughter Corazon Mendoza (Corazon) and Orlando Gomez
(Orlando) filed a Petition for Coverage42 of the land under RA No. 6657. They claimed that they had
been in physical and material possession of the land as tenants since 1956, and made the land
productive.43 They prayed (1) that an order be issued placing the land under Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP); and (2) that the DAR, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) and the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Tarlac City be ordered to proceed with the acquisition and
distribution of the land in their favor.44 The petition was granted by the Regional Director (RD) in an
Order dated October 2, 2002,45 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition for coverage under CARP filed by Pablo
Mendoza, et al[.], is given due course. Accordingly, the MARO and PARO are hereby directed to place
within the ambit of RA 6657 the landholding registered in the name of Romeo Carriedo covered and
embraced by TCT Nos. 334281 and 334282, with an aggregate area of 45,000 and 5,001 square meters,
respectively, and to distribute the same to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
SO ORDERED.46
On October 23, 2002, Carriedo filed a Protest with Motion to Reconsider the Order dated October 2,
2002 and to Lift Coverage47 on the ground that he was denied his constitutional right to due process. He
alleged that he was not notified of the filing of the Petition for Coverage, and became aware of the same
only upon receipt of the challenged Order.
On October 24, 2002, Carriedo received a copy of a Notice of Coverage dated October 21, 200248 from
MARO Maximo E. Santiago informing him that the land had been placed under the coverage of the
CARP.49 On December 16, 2002, the RD denied Carriedo’s protest in an Order dated December 5,
2002.50 Carriedo filed an appeal to the DAR-CO.
In an Order dated February 22, 2005,51 the DAR-CO, through Secretary Rene C. Villa, affirmed the Order
of the RD granting coverage. The DAR-CO ruled that Carriedo was no longer allowed to retain the land
due to his violation of the provisions of RA No. 6657. His act of disposing his agricultural landholdings
was tantamount to the exercise of his retention right, or an act amounting to a valid waiver of such right
in accordance with applicable laws and jurisprudence.52 However, it did not rule whether Mendoza was
qualified to be a farmer-beneficiary of the land. The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Consequently, the Order dated 2 October 2002 of the Regional Director of DAR III, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.53
Carriedo filed a Petition for Review54 with the CA assailing the DAR-CO Order. The appeal was docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 88935. In a Decision dated October 5, 2006, the CA reversed the DAR-CO, and declared
the land as Carriedo’s retained area. The CA ruled that the right of retention is a constitutionally-
guaranteed right, subject to certain qualifications specified by the legislature.55 It serves to mitigate the
effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant by
implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the
landowner.56 It held that Carriedo did not commit any of the acts which would constitute waiver of his
retention rights found under Section 6 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, S.2003.57 The dispositive
portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and pursuant to applicable law and jurisprudence on the matter, the
present Petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Order of the Department of Agrarian
Reform-Central Office, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City (dated February 22, 2005) is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered—DECLARING the subject landholding as the
Petitioner’s retained area. No pronouncements as to costs.
SO ORDERED.58
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners maintain that the CA committed a reversible error in declaring the land as Carriedo’s retained
area.59
They claim that Paragraph 4, Section 6 of RA No. 6657 prohibits any sale, disposition, lease, management
contract or transfer of possession of private lands upon effectivity of the law.60 Thus, Regional Director
Renato Herrera correctly observed that Carriedo’s act of disposing his agricultural property would be
tantamount to his exercise of retention under the law. By violating the law, Carriedo could no longer
retain what was left of his property. "To rule otherwise would be a roundabout way of rewarding a
landowner who has violated the explicit provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law."61
They also assert that Carriedo waived his right to retain for failure or neglect for an unreasonable length
of time to do that which he may have done earlier by exercising due diligence, warranting a presumption
that he abandoned his right or declined to assert it.62 Petitioners claim that Carriedo has not filed an
Application for Retention over the subject land over a considerable passage of time since the same was
acquired for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries.63
Lastly, they argue that Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) already generated in favor of his
co-petitioners Corazon Mendoza and Rolando Gomez cannot be set aside. CLOAs under RA No. 6657 are
enrolled in the Torrens system of registration which makes them indefeasible as certificates of title
issued in registration proceedings.64
The Issue
The sole issue for our consideration is whether Carriedo has the right to retain the land.
Our Ruling
We rule in the affirmative. Carriedo did not waive his right of retention over the land.1âwphi1
The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes landowner retention rights under Article XIII, Section 4, to
wit:
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers
and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the
case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further
provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. (Emphasis supplied.)
RA No. 6657 implements this directive, thus:
Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain,
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil
fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no
case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
xxx
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the
landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is
tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in
the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to
remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a
beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he
loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this
option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for
retention. In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the
approval of this Act shall be respected. xxx (Emphasis supplied.)
In Danan v. Court of Appeals,65 we explained the rationale for the grant of the right of retention under
agrarian reform laws such as RA No. 6657 and its predecessor PD No. 27, to wit:
The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the
legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the
landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to
perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not
supposed to anymore leave the landowner's dominion, thus sparing the government from the
inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless
process. For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and does not exceed the
retention ceiling of five (5) hectares, a landowner's choice of the area to be retained must prevail. xxx66
To interpret Section 6 of RA No. 6657, DAR issued Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003 (DAR AO
02-03). Section 6 of DAR AO 02-03 provides for the instances when a landowner is deemed to have
waived his right of retention, to wit:
Section 6. Waiver of the Right of Retention. – The landowner waives his right to retain by committing any
of the following act or omission:
6.1 Failure to manifest an intention to exercise his right to retain within sixty (60) calendar days from
receipt of notice of CARP coverage.
6.2 Failure to state such intention upon offer to sell or application under the [Voluntary Land Transfer
(VLT)]/[Direct Payment Scheme (DPS)] scheme.
6.3 Execution of any document stating that he expressly waives his right to retain. The MARO and/or
PARO and/or Regional Director shall attest to the due execution of such document.
6.4 Execution of a Landowner Tenant Production Agreement and Farmer’s Undertaking (LTPA-FU) or
Application to Purchase and Farmer’s Undertaking (APFU) covering subject property.
6.5 Entering into a VLT/DPS or [Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS)] but failing to manifest an intention to
exercise his right to retain upon filing of the application for VLT/DPS or VOS.
6.6 Execution and submission of any document indicating that he is consenting to the CARP coverage of
his entire landholding.
6.7 Performing any act constituting estoppel by laches which is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable
length of time to do that which he may have done earlier by exercising due diligence, warranting a
presumption that he abandoned his right or declined to assert it.
Petitioners cannot rely on the RD’s Order dated October 2, 2002 which granted Mendoza’s petition for
coverage on the ground that Carriedo violated paragraph 4 Section 667 of RA No. 6657 for disposing of
his agricultural land, consequently losing his right of retention. At the time when the Order was
rendered, up to the time when it was affirmed by the DAR-CO in its Order dated February 22, 2005, the
applicable law is Section 6 of DAR 02-03. Section 6 clearly shows that the disposition of agricultural land
is not an act constituting waiver of the right of retention.
Thus, as correctly held by the CA, Carriedo "[n]ever committed any of the acts or omissions above-stated
(DAR AO 02-03). Not even the sale made by the herein petitioner in favor of PLFI can be considered as a
waiver of his right of retention. Likewise, the Records of the present case is bereft of any showing that
the herein petitioner expressly waived (in writing) his right of retention as required under sub-section
6.3, section 6, DAR Administrative Order No. 02-S.2003."68
Petitioners claim that Carriedo’s alleged failure to exercise his right of retention after a long period of
time constituted a waiver of his retention rights, as envisioned in Item 6.7 of DAR AO 02-03.
We disagree.
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it
either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.69 Where a party sleeps on his rights and allows laches
to set in, the same is fatal to his case.70
Section 4 of DAR AO 02-03 provides:
Section 4. Period to Exercise Right of Retention under RA 6657
4.1 The landowner may exercise his right of retention at any time before receipt of notice of coverage.
4.2 Under the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) scheme, the landowner shall exercise his right of retention
within sixty (60) days from receipt of notice of coverage.
4.3 Under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and the Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT)/Direct Payment
Scheme (DPS), the landowner shall exercise his right of retention simultaneously at the time of offer for
sale or transfer.
The foregoing rules give Carriedo any time before receipt of the notice of coverage to exercise his right of
retention, or if under compulsory acquisition (as in this case), within sixty (60) days from receipt of the
notice of coverage. The validity of the notice of coverage is the very subject of the controversy before
this court. Thus, the period within which Carriedo should exercise his right of retention cannot
commence until final resolution of this case.
Even assuming that the period within which Carriedo could exercise his right of retention has
commenced, Carriedo cannot be said to have neglected to assert his right of retention over the land. The
records show that per Legal Report dated December 13, 199971 prepared by Legal Officer Ariel Reyes,
Carriedo filed an application for retention which was even contested by Pablo Mendoza’s son,
Fernando.72 Though Carriedo subsequently withdrew his application, his act of filing an application for
retention belies the allegation that he abandoned his right of retention or declined to assert it.
In their Memorandum73 however, petitioners, for the first time, invoke estoppel, citing DAR
Administrative Order No. 05 Series of 200674 (DAR AO 05-06) to support their argument that Carriedo
waived his right of retention.75 DAR AO 05-06 provides for the rules and regulations governing the
acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands subject of conveyances under Sections 6, 7076 and 73
(a)77 of RA No. 6657. Petitioners particularly cite Item no. 4 of the Statement of Policies of DAR AO 05-
06, to wit:
II. Statement of Policies
4. Where the transfer/sale involves more than the five (5) hectares retention area, the transfer is
considered violative of Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657.
In case of multiple or series of transfers/sales, the first five (5) hectares sold/conveyed without DAR
clearance and the corresponding titles issued by the Register of Deeds (ROD) in the name of the
transferee shall, under the principle of estoppel, be considered valid and shall be treated as the
transferor/s’ retained area but in no case shall the transferee exceed the five-hectare landholding ceiling
pursuant to Sections 6, 70 and 73(a) of R.A. No. 6657. Insofar as the excess area is concerned, the same
shall likewise be covered considering that the transferor has no right of disposition since CARP coverage
has been vested as of 15 June 1988. Any landholding still registered in the name of the landowner after
earlier dispositions totaling an aggregate of five (5) hectares can no longer be part of his retention area
and therefore shall be covered under CARP. (Emphasis supplied.)
Citing this provision, petitioners argue that Carriedo lost his right of retention over the land because he
had already sold or disposed, after the effectivity of RA No. 6657, more than fifty (50) hectares of land in
favor of another.78
In his Memorandum,79 Carriedo maintains that petitioners cannot invoke any administrative regulation
to defeat his right of retention. He argues that "administrative regulation must be in harmony with the
provisions of law otherwise the latter prevails."80
We cannot sustain petitioners' argument. Their reliance on DAR AO 05-06 is misplaced. As will be seen
below, nowhere in the relevant provisions of RA No. 6657 does it indicate that a multiple or series of
transfers/sales of land would result in the loss of retention rights. Neither do they provide that the
multiple or series of transfers or sales amounts to the waiver of such right.
The relevant portion of Section 6 of RA No. 6657 referred to in Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 provides:
Section 6. Retention Limits. – Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain,
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as the commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and
soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in
no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. xxx
void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with
transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 70 of RA No. 6657, also referred to in Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 partly provides:
The sale or disposition of agricultural lands retained by a landowner as a consequence of Section 6

hereof shall be valid as long as the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof
inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceilings provided for in this Act. Any
sale or disposition of agricultural lands after the effectivity of this Act found to be contrary to the
provisions hereof shall be null and void. xxx (Emphasis supplied.)
Finally, Section 73 (a) of RA No. 6657 as referred to in Item No. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 provides,
Section 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. – The following are prohibited:
juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries; xxx
Sections 6 and 70 are clear in stating that any sale and disposition of agricultural lands in violation of the
RA No. 6657 shall be null and void. Under the facts of this case, the reasonable reading of these three
provisions in relation to the constitutional right of retention should be that the consequence of nullity
pertains to the area/s which were sold, or owned by the transferee, in excess of the 5-hectare land
ceiling. Thus, the CA was correct in declaring that the land is Carriedo’s retained area.81
Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 attempts to defeat the above reading by providing that, under the principle
of estoppel, the sale of the first five hectares is valid. But, it hastens to add that the first five hectares
sold corresponds to the transferor/s’ retained area. Thus, since the sale of the first five hectares is valid,
therefore, the landowner loses the five hectares because it happens to be, at the same time, the
retained area limit. In reality, Item No. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 operates as a forfeiture provision in the guise
of estoppel. It punishes the landowner who sells in excess of five hectares. Forfeitures, however, partake
of a criminal penalty.82
In Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc.,83 this Court said that for an administrative
regulation to have the force of a penal law, (1) the violation of the administrative regulation must be
made a crime by the delegating statute itself; and (2) the penalty for such violation must be provided by
the statute itself.84
Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of RA No. 6657 clearly do not provide that a sale or disposition of land in excess
of 5 hectares results in a forfeiture of the five hectare retention area. Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06
imposes a penalty where none was provided by law.
As this Court also held in People v. Maceren,85 to wit:
The reason is that the Fisheries law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not
banned under the law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Natural Resources and
the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. In other words, Administrative Order Nos. 84
and 84-1, in penalizing electro fishing, are devoid of any legal basis.
Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have
been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law.86
The repugnancy between the law and Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 is apparent by a simple comparison of
their texts. The conflict undermines the statutorily-guaranteed right of the landowner to choose the land
he shall retain, and DAR AO 05-06, in effect, amends RA No. 6657.
In Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De Los Angeles (RMBSA) v. Home Development Mutual
Fund (HDMF),87 this Court was confronted with the issue of the validity of the amendments to the rules
and regulations implementing PD No. 1752.88 In that case, PD No. 1752 (as amended by RA No. 7742)
exempted RMBSA from the Pag-Ibig Fund coverage for the period January 1 to December 31, 1995. In
September 1995, however, the HDMF Board of Trustees issued a board resolution amending and
modifying the rules and regulations implementing RA No. 7742. As amended, the rules now required
that for a company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of fund coverage, it must have a plan
providing for both provident/retirement and housing benefits superior to those provided in the Pag-Ibig
Fund. In ruling against the amendment and modification of the rules, this Court held that—
In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of the HDMF required in Section 1, Rule VII of the 1995
Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742 that employers should have both
provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in order to qualify for exemption from
the Fund, it effectively amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And when the Board subsequently
abolished that exemption through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. Such
amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid, as they are not within the delegated
power of the Board. The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule-making power, issue a regulation not
consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant or
modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can
repeal or amend the law.89 (Citations omitted; underscoring supplied.)
Laws, as well as the issuances promulgated to implement them, enjoy the presumption of validity.90
However, administrative regulations that alter or amend the statute or enlarge or impair its scope are
void, and courts not only may, but it is their obligation to strike down such regulations.91 Thus, in this
case, because Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 is patently null and void, the presumption of validity cannot
be accorded to it. The invalidity of this provision constrains us to strike it down for being ultra vires.
In Conte v. Commission on Audit,92 the sole issue of whether the Commission on Audit (COA) acted in
grave abuse of discretion when it disallowed in audit therein petitioners' claim of financial assistance
under Social Security System (SSS) Resolution No. 56 was presented before this Court. The COA
disallowed the claims because the financial assistance under the challenged resolution is similar to a
separate retirement plan which results in the increase of benefits beyond what is allowed under existing
laws. This Court, sitting en banc, upheld the findings of the COA, and invalidated SSS Resolution No. 56
for being ultra vires, to wit:
xxx Said Sec. 28 (b) as amended by RA 4968 in no uncertain terms bars the creation of any insurance or
retirement plan — other than the GSIS — for government officers and employees, in order to prevent
the undue and [iniquitous] proliferation of such plans. It is beyond cavil that Res. 56 contravenes the said
provision of law and is therefore invalid, void and of no effect. xxx
We are not unmindful of the laudable purposes for promulgating Res. 56, and the positive results it must
have had xxx. But it is simply beyond dispute that the SSS had no authority to maintain and implement
such retirement plan, particularly in the face of the statutory prohibition. The SSS cannot, in the guise of
rule-making, legislate or amend laws or worse, render them nugatory.
It is doctrinal that in case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must
prevail. A rule or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling
statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. The rule-making power of a public administrative
body is a delegated legislative power, which it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by the
Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond the scope intended. xxx Though well-settled
is the rule that retirement laws are liberally interpreted in favor of the retiree, nevertheless, there is
really nothing to interpret in either RA 4968 or Res. 56, and correspondingly, the absence of any doubt as
to the ultra-vires nature and illegality of the disputed resolution constrains us to rule against
petitioners.93 (Citations omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law for administrative
regulations cannot extend the law or amend a legislative enactment.94 Administrative issuances must
not override, but must remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement. They are
intended to carry out, not to supplant or modify the law.95 Administrative or executive acts, orders and
regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.96
Administrative regulations issued by a Department Head in conformity with law have the force of law.97
As he exercises the rule-making power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is a requisite that he
should not transcend the bounds demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power; otherwise,
he would be improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the
lawmaking body.98
If the implementing rules and regulations are issued in excess of the rule-making authority of the
administrative agency, they are without binding effect upon the courts. At best, the same may be treated
as administrative interpretations of the law and as such, they may be set aside by the Supreme Court in
the final determination of what the law means.99
While this Court is mindful of the DAR’s commitment to the implementation of agrarian reform, it must
be conceded that departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by
statute.100 Neither the high dignity of the office nor the righteousness of the motive then is an
acceptable substitute; otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth.101
As a necessary consequence of the invalidity of Item no. 4 of DAR AO 05-06 for being ultra vires, we hold
that Carriedo did not waive his right to retain the land, nor can he be considered to be in estoppel.
Finally, petitioners cannot argue that the CLOAs allegedly granted in favor of his co-petitioners Corazon
and Orlando cannot be set aside. They claim that CLOAs under RA No. 6657 are enrolled in the Torrens
system of registration which makes them indefeasible as certificates of title issued in registration
proceedings.102 Even as these allegedly issued CLOAs are not in the records, we hold that CLOAs are not
equivalent to a Torrens certificate of title, and thus are not indefeasible.
CLOAs and EPs are similar in nature to a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) in ordinary land registration
proceedings. CLTs, and in turn the CLOAs and EPs, are issued merely as preparatory steps for the
eventual issuance of a certificate of title. They do not possess the indefeasibility of certificates of title.
Justice Oswald D. Agcaoili, in Property Registration Decree and Related Laws (Land Titles and Deeds),103
notes, to wit:
Under PD No. 27, beneficiaries arc issued certificates of land transfers (ClTs) to entitle them to possess
lands. Thereafter, they are issued emancipation patents (EPs) after compliance with all necessary
conditions. Such EPs, upon their presentation to the Register of Deeds, shall be the basis for the issuance
of the corresponding transfer certificates of title (TCTs) in favor of the corresponding beneficiaries.
Under RA No. 6657, the procedure has been simplified. Only certificates of land ownership award
(CLOAs) are issued, in lieu of EPs, after compliance with all prerequisites. Upon presentation of the
CLOAs to the Register of Deeds, TCTs are issued to the designated beneficiaries. CLTs are no longer
issued.
The issuance of EPs or CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar the landowner from retaining the
area covered thereby. Under AO No. 2, series of 1994, an EP or CLOA may be cancelled if the land
covered is later found to be part of the landowner's retained area. (Citations omitted; underscoring
supplied.)
The issue, however, involving the issuance, recall or cancellation of EPs or CLOAs, is lodged with the
DAR,104 which has the primary jurisdiction over the matter.105
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision
of the Court of Appeals dated October 5, 2006 is AFFIRMED. Item no. 4 of DAR Administrative Order No.
05, Series of 2006 is hereby declared INVALID, VOID and OF NO EFFECT for being ultra vires.
SO ORDERED.
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ*
Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's attestation, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY:
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
Third Division
February 17, 2016
Footnotes
* Designated as Regular Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2311 dated January 14,
2016.
1 Rollo, pp. 14-22.
Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Ramon
M. Bato, Jr. concurring, id. at 164-179.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Ramon
M. Bato, Jr. concurring, id. at 28-29.
4 CA rollo, pp. 56-61.
5 Comprising a total of 12.1065 hectares. DAR-CO Records, pp. 537-539.
6 CA rollo, p. 57.
7 Id. at 73-74.
8 Rollo, p. 165.
9 Id. at 166.
10 Id.; DAR-CO Records (A-9999-03-CV-008-03), pp. 500-503.
11 Rollo, p. 166.
12 CA rollo, pp. 75-78.
13 DAR-CO Records (A-9999-03-CV-008-03), pp. 493-495.
14 Id. at 571-572; rollo, p. 166.
15 CA rollo, pp. 69-72.
16 Id. at 62-75.
17 Providing That Tenant-farmers/Agricultural Lessees Shall Pay the Leasehold Rentals When They Fall
Due and Providing Penalties Therefor (1975). Section 2 of PD No. 816 reads:
Section 2. That any agricultural lessee of a rice or corn land under Presidential Decree No. 27 who
deliberately refuses and/or continues to refuse to pay the rentals or amortization payments when they
fall due for a period of two (2) years shall, upon hearing and final judgment, forfeit the Certificate of
Land Transfer issued in his favor, if his farmholding is already covered by such Certificate of Land Transfer,
and his farmholding.
18 Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines. Section 50 of RA No. 1199 reads:
Section 50. Causes for the Dispossession of a Tenant. — Any of the following shall be a sufficient cause
for the dispossession of a tenant from his holdings:
(a) The bona fide intention of the landholder to cultivate the land himself personally or through the
employment of farm machinery and implements: Provided, however, That should the landholder not
cultivate the land himself or should fail to employ mechanical farm implements for a period of one year
after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the land and
damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossession: Provided, further, That the land-
holder shall, at least one year but not more than two years prior to the date of his petition to dispossess
the tenant under this subsection, file notice with the court and shall inform the tenant in wiring in a
language or dialect known to the latter of his intention to cultivate the land himself, either personally or
through the employment of mechanical implements, together with a certification of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources that the land is suited for mechanization: Provided, further, That the
dispossessed tenant and the members of his immediate household shall be preferred in the employment
of necessary laborers under the new set-up.
(b) When the current tenant violates or fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the
contract or any of the provisions of this Act: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply
when the tenant has substantially complied with the contract or with the provisions of this Act.
(c) The tenant's failure to pay the agreed rental or to deliver the landholder's share: Provided, however,
That this shall not apply when the tenant's failure is caused by a fortuitous event or force majeure.
(d) When the tenant uses the land for a purpose other than that specified by agreement of the parties.
(e) When a share-tenant fails to follow those proven farm practices which will contribute towards the
proper care of the land and increased agricultural production.
(f) When the tenant through negligence permits serious injury to the land which will impair its
productive capacity.
(g) Conviction by a competent court of a tenant or any member of his immediate family or farm
household of a crime against the landholder or a member of his immediate family.
19 Agricultural Land Reform Code. Section 36 of RA No. 3844 reads:
Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period
or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of
his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is
final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will personally cultivate the
landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or school
site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to his rights
under Sections twenty-five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural
lessor, is not more than five hectares, in which case instead of disturbance compensation the lessee may
be entitled to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment proceedings are filed
against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years
or fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it
shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession of
the land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossessions.
(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the
contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force
majeure;
(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than what had been
previously agreed upon;
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as determined under paragraph 3 of
Section twenty-nine;
(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed
or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee;
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-
payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a
fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to
pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or
(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of
Section twenty-seven.
20 Rollo, p. 75.
21 Id. at 76-83.
22 Id. at 79-80.
23 Id. at 89-95.
24 Id. at 92-93.
25 CA rollo, p. 113.
26 Rollo, pp. 96-97.
27 Id. at 98.

29 Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil, Transferring to Them the
Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor (1972).
31 Id. at 511.
32 Id. at 510.
33 Rollo, pp. 84-87.
34 Id. at 99-104.
35 Id. at 101.
36 Id. at 105-116.
37 Id. at 112-113.
38 Id. at 113-114.
39 Id. at 121.
40 Penned by Associate Justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and
Normandie B. Pizarro concurring, id.. at 118-127.
41 Id. at 123-126.
42 CA rollo, pp. 127-130.
43 Id. at 128.
44 Id. at 130.
45 Id. at 48-51.
46 Id. at 50.
47 Id. at 150-170.
48 Id. at 171.
49 Id. at 26.
50 Id. at 27, 52-54.
51 Id. at 56-61.
52 Id. at 59-60.
53 Id. at 61.
54 Id. at 11-47.
55 Rollo, p. 170-171.
56 Id. at 171.
57 Id. at 173-175; 2003 Rules and Procedure Governing Landowner Retention Rights.
58 Rollo, pp. 177-176.
59 Id. at 17.
60 Id. at 18.
61 Id.
62 Rollo, pp. 19-20.
63 Id. at 20.
64 Id. at 21.
65 G.R. No. 132759, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 113.

66 Id. at 128 citing Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 856.
67 Paragraph 4, Section 6 of RA No. 6657 provides:
void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with
transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
68 Rollo, p. 140.
69 Olizon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107075, September 1, 1994, 236 SCRA 148, 157-158.
70 Periquet, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 69996, December 5, 1994, 238 SCRA 697.
71 DARAB Records (A-9999-03-CV-008-03), pp. 445-448.
72 Id. at 448.
73 Rollo, pp. 237-251.
74 Guidelines on the Acquisition and Distribution of Agricultural lands Subject of Conveyance Under
Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of RA No. 6657.
75 Rollo, pp. 241-245.

76 Section 70 of RA No. 6657 reads:
Section 70. Disposition of Private Agricultural Lands. — The sale or disposition of agricultural lands
retained by a landowner as a consequence of Section 6 hereof shall be valid as long as the total
landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not
exceed the landholding ceilings provided for in this Act. Any sale or disposition of agricultural lands after
the effectivity of this Act found to be contrary to the provisions hereof shall be null and void. Transferees
of agricultural lands shall furnish the appropriate Register of Deeds and the [Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC)] an affidavit attesting that his total landholdings as a result of the said acquisition do
not exceed the landholding ceiling. The Register of Deeds shall not register the transfer of any
agricultural land without the submission of this sworn statement together with proof of service of a copy
thereof to the BARC.
77 Section 73 (a) of RA No. 6657 reads:
Section 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. –The following are prohibited:
juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries;
xxx
78 Rollo, p. 245.
79 Id. at 214-236.
80 Id. at 227, citing Philippine Petroleum Corp., v. Municipality of Pililla, Rizal, G.R. No. 90776, June 3,
1991, 198 SCRA 82.
81 Rollo, pp. 142-143.
82 See Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr., G.R. No. L-19052, December 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 1059, 1064:
Such forfeiture has been held, however, to partake the nature of a penalty.
"In a strict signification, a forfeiture is a divestiture of property without compensation, in consequence of

a default or an offense, and the term is used in such a sense in this article. A forfeiture, as thus defined,
is imposed by way of punishment, not by the mere convention of the parties, but by the lawmaking
power, to insure a prescribed course of conduct. It is a method deemed necessary by the legislature to
restrain the commission of an offense and to aid in the prevention of such an offense. The effect of such
a forfeiture is to transfer the title to the specific thing from the owner to the sovereign power. (23 Am.
Jur. 599)
In Black’s Law Dictionary, a ‘forfeiture’ is defined to the ‘the incurring of a liability to pay a definite sum
of money as the consequence of violating the provisions of some statute or refusal to comply with some
requirement of law.’ It may be said to be a penalty imposed for misconduct or breach of duty." (Com. Vs.
French, 114 S.W. 255)
83 G.R. No. 159149, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 638.
84 Id. at 649.
85 G.R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA 450.
86 Id. at 456.
87 G.R. No. 131082, June 19, 2000, 333 SCRA 777.

88 Amending the Act Creating the Home Development Mutual Fund (1980).
89 Supra note 88 at 786.
90 Dasmariñas Water District v. Monterey Foods Corporation, G.R. No. 175550, September 17, 2008, 565
SCRA 624 citing Tan v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., G.R. No. 148420, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 115, 123-
124, citing Walter E. Olsen & Co. v. Aldanese and Trinidad, 43 Phil. 259 (1922) and San Miguel Brewer,
Inc. v. Magno, G.R. No. L-21879, September 29, 1967, 21 SCRA 292.
91 California Assn. of Psychology Providers v. Rank, 51 Cal 3d 1, 270 Cal Rptr 796, 793 P2 2 (1980) citing
Dyna-med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1388-1389 (1987) and Hittle v.
Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement Assn., 39 Cal.3d 374, 387 (1985).
92 G.R. No. 116422, November 4, 1996, 264 SCRA 19.
93 Id. at 30-31.
94 Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118712 & 118745, October 6, 1995, 249
SCRA 149.
95 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108358, January 20, 1995, 240 SCRA
368.
96 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 7.
97 Valerio v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, G.R. No. L-18587, April 23, 1963, 7 SCRA
719.
98 People v. Maceren, supra note 86 at 459.

99 Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople, G.R. No. L-58870, December 18, 1987, 156 SCRA 629, 658.
100 Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. Santiago, G.R. Nos. L-29236 & L-29247, August 21,
1974, 58 SCRA 493, 498.
101 Villegas v. Subido, G.R. No. L-26534, November 28, 1969, 30 SCRA 498, 511.
102 Rollo, p. 21.
103 2011 ED., p. 758.
104 Aninao v. Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 160420, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 526.
105 Bagongahasa v. Romualdez, G.R. No. 179844, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA 338.


AGL Cases

Transféré par

Informations du document

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

AGL Cases

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Today is Monday, June 10, 2019 home

Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines

Third Regular Session

Republic Act No. 9700 August 7, 2009

"More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:

"SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands."

"The conditions for the issuance of collective titles are as follows:

"(a) Land surveys and titling;

"(b) Socialized terms on agricultural credit facilities;

"Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:

"(g) Gratuitous financial assistance from legitimate sources; and

"(h) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated.

"(1) The denial of notice and/or reply to landowners;

"(2) The deprivation of retention rights;

"(3) The undue or inordinate delay in the preparation of claim folders; or

Section 26. Congressional Oversight Committee. - A Congressional Oversight Committee on Agrarian

Speaker of the House of Representatives

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE

President of the Senate

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP

(Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES

Approved: August 7, 2009

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

President of the Philippines

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Today is Monday, June 10, 2019 home

Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines

Republic Act No. 6657 June 10, 1988

AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE

Improvement of Tenurial and Labor Relations

(a) the description and area of the property;

(c) the names of all tenants and farmworkers therein;

(a) names and members of their immediate farm household;

(c) location and area of the land they work;

(d) crops planted; and

(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions;

(c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below.

(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:

(ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or -controlled corporations or shares of stocks

(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;

(b) regular farmworkers;

(c) seasonal farmworkers;

(d) other farmworkers;

(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;

(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and

(g) others directly working on the land.

In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual worker-beneficiaries.

Section 33. Payment of Shares of Cooperative or Association. — Shares of a cooperative or association

1) Irrigation facilities, especially second crop or dry season irrigation facilities;

3) Government subsidies for the use of irrigation facilities;

4) Price support and guarantee for all agricultural produce;

7) Assigning sufficient numbers of agricultural extension workers to farmers' organizations;

9) Development of cooperative management skills through intensive training;

(a) Land surveys and titling;

(b) Liberalized terms on credit facilities and production loans;

(a) Investment information financial and counseling assistance;

Special Areas of Concern

(d) Assist qualified beneficiaries in obtaining credit from lending institutions;

(e) Assist in the initial determination of the value of the land;

(g) Coordinate the delivery of support services to beneficiaries; and

(h) Perform such other functions as may be assigned by the DAR.

Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following: