AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY.
CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
REVOLUTIONARY KIND OF EXPROPRIATION
REVOLUTIONARY KIND OF EXPROPRIATION
All private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long
as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners.
Take note: This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific
property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its
owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.
What is the purpose?
It is intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small
segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of
our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner.
CONFED v. DAR
Petitioners claim that they own private agricultural lands devoted to
sugarcane. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been planting
sugarcane on their lands allegedly since time immemorial.
They contend that in the exercise by the State of the power of eminent
domain, which in the case of RA 6657 is the acquisition of private lands for
distribution to farmer-beneficiaries, expropriation proceedings, as prescribed
in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, must be strictly complied with.
Under RA 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural
lands: compulsory and voluntary. The DAR has made compulsory acquisition
the priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Under Section 16 of the
CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land,
the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the
identification process must be made. To fill in this gap, the DAR issued on
July 26, 1989 Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989, which set the
operating procedure in the identification of such lands.
Two chief limitations in the exercise of eminent domain
1. Taking must be for public use
2. Payment of just compensation
SC: In this case, there is no more need to prove public use because this has
been settled in the Constitution when it called for Agrarian Reform. So there
is only one limitation remaining: just compensation.
RA 3844: AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE
SECURITY OF TENURE
SECURITY OF TENURE
Section 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation
The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the
agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such
leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected unless authorized
by the Court for cause herein provided.
In other words. The landowner cannot just dispossess, remove or eject a
tenant or lessee from the land without authorized cause.
Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization
a) Fine or imprisonment
b) Damages suffered
c) Attorney’s fees
d) Remuneration for last income
LEASEHOLD SURVIVES EVEN AFTER DEATH
Leasehold relation not extinguished by death or incapacity
Section 9 – In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee
to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural
lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen
by the agricultural lessor within 1 month from such death or permanent
incapacity, from among the following:
a) Surviving spouse
b) Eldest direct descendant by consanguinity
c) The next eldest descendant/s in the order of their age
Provided, that in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural
lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at
the end of that agricultural year:
1|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
Provided further, that in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his
choice within periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with
the order herein established.
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the
leasehold shall bind his legal heirs.
PERIOD OF REDEMPTION
PERIOD OF REDEMPTION
Section 12. Lessee’s right of Redemption
In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of
the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at
a reasonable price and consideration. Provided, that the entire landholding
sold must be redeemed. Provided further, that where there are 2 or more
agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to the said preferential right only
to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption
may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall
have priority over any other right of legal redemption.
General rule:
The agricultural lessee shall have the right to redeem the landholding within
2 years from registration of the sale, provided:
 The entire landholding sold must be redeemed
 Where there are 2 or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitle
only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him.
Po v. Dampal
Ruling: Sec. 12. Lessees right of redemption. In case the landholding is sold
to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter
shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and
consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural
lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent
of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this
Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days (180 days) from
notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected
and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale,
and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The
redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the
sale.
The admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus tolled the
running of the prescriptive period. Petitioner’s contention that Dampal must
be considered to have had constructive knowledge thereof fails in light of
the express requirement for notice to be in writing.
GROUNDS TO DISPOSSESS
GROUNDS TO DISPOSSESS
1. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement
2. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that
agreed upon
3. Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land
4. Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage
5. Non-payment of rental when due
One of the important grounds is this non-payment of the rental
when due. Going back to the relationship, LO provides the land,
and the lessee provides the labor and when there is production
they are supposed to divide the produce. The produce there to be
given by the lessee to the LO is the rental. The rental is FIXED by
law. The rental shall not exceed 25% of the average normal
harvest. D pwede patas.an. Nganu man? Maalkansi ang lessee.
Kung magsabot sila ug 50-50, unsaon pagka.uplift sa economic
status sa lessee?! Pwede paubsan? Pwede.
6. Employed a sublessee
Take note: Under the current law, CARL, there is no provision on ejectment.
So which one will you consult? This law (RA 3844). There is no provision
under CARL regarding the rights and obligations, you have to consult this
law. That’s why this one is still very applicable with respect to leasehold.
Sta. Ana v. Carpo
Ruling: Section 37 – the burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful
case for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee rest upon the agricultural
lessor. Good faith was clearly demonstrated by Marciano and
petitioner when, because respondents refused to accept the proffered
payment, they even went to the point of seeking government intervention in
order to address their problems with respondents. Absent such deliberate
and willful refusal to pay lease rentals, petitioner's ejectment from the subject
land is not justified.
AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
Natividad v. Mariano
Ruling: The agricultural lessee's failure to pay the lease rentals, in order to
warrant his dispossession of the landholding, must be willful and deliberate
and must have lasted for at least two (2) years. Mere failure of an agricultural
lessee to pay the agricultural lessor's share does not necessarily give the
latter the right to eject the former absent a deliberate intent on the part of
the agricultural lessee to pay.
The respondents’ alleged non-payment did not last for the required two-year
period. The rental payments were not yet due and the respondents were not
in default at the time Ernesto filed the petition for ejectment as Ernesto failed
to prove his alleged prior verbal demands. Additionally, assuming arguendo
that the respondents failed to pay the lease rentals, we do not consider the
failure to be deliberate or willful. The receipts on record show that the
respondents had paid the lease rentals for the years 1988-1998.
To be deliberate or willful, the non-payment of lease rentals must be
absolute, i.e., marked by complete absence of any payment. This cannot be
said of the respondents’ case. Hence, without any deliberate and willful
refusal to pay lease rentals for two years, the respondents’ ejectment from
the subject property, based on this ground, is baseless and unjustified.
RECLASS OF LAND AS GROUND TO EXTINGIUISH LEASEHOLD
RECLASSIFICATION AS GROUND TO EXTINGUISH LEASEHOLD
Santos v. CA
Land was reclassified to residential lands. Consequently, the juridical tie
between petitioners and respondent was severed, for no tenurial relationship
can exist on a land that is no longer agricultural.
Section 36 provides the different grounds and manner by which a tenant can
be lawfully ejected or dispossessed of his landholding. One of them is the
reclassification of the landholding from agricultural to non-agricultural.
However, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not automatically
allow a landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment of the
tenants. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted
to use the agricultural land for other purposes.
Conversion – The act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural
land into some other use as approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Reclassification – The act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be
utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial,
as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure
for land use conversion.
RA 6657: COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY VIS-A-VIS RAISING OF LIVESTOCK
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY
Section 3 (b)
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.
Luz Farms v. DAR
Ruling: Sec 3 (b) was declared unconstitutional (“raising of livestock, poultry
and swine) – use of land is incidental and not the principal factor. Raising of
livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. Hence,
lands devoted to livestock are not to be covered under CARP.
It is an industrial, not agricultural activity. Great portion of the investment in
this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal
housing
structures and facilities, drainage, waters and blowers, feed mill with
grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive
warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment
like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds,
deep wells, elevated water tanks, pump houses, sprayers, and other
technological appurtenances.
Take note: Livestock and poultry do not sprout from the land.
Republic v. Lopez
Facts: Petitioner, pursuant to the Luz Farms case, filed with the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) an application for exemption of his lots from
coverage of the CARL because the said parcels of land are used for grazing
and habitat of petitioner's 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads
2|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
of goats and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
Ruling: Limot lands were not directly, actually and exclusively used for
livestock raising. Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have been
actually, directly and exclusively used for SNLABC's livestock business,
especially since these were only intermittently and secondarily used as
grazing areas. The said lands are more suitable — and are in fact actually,
directly and exclusively being used — for agricultural purposes.
DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
AGRICULTURAL LAND
Section 3 (c)
Refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
Alangilan v. Office of the President
Petitioner insists on exemption of the Alangilan landholding from CARP
coverage. It argues that the subject landholding had already been converted
into non-agricultural use long before the advent of the CARP. The passage
of the 1982 Ordinance, classifying the property as reserved for residential, it
asserts, effectively transformed the land into non-agricultural use, and thus,
outside the ambit of the CARL.
The term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land use. It
does not denote that the property has already been reclassified
as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is not a land
classification category.
Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject
landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact that
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994,
reclassifying the landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the landholding had
already been earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then
there would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance.
AGRARIAN DISPUTE
AGRARIAN DISPUTE
1. Any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture
2. Any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under
CARL and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership.
Essential requisites of leasehold relationship: PSC-PPS
1) Parties (landowner & tenants)
2) Subject matter is agricultural land
3) Consent of parties
4) Purpose is agricultural production
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
6) Sharing of harvest between parties
Take note:
All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.
Hence, no agrarian dispute.
SIR: When you read the cases involving agrarian dispute take note that
“parties” are related to “consent” because I think they are inseparable.
Another issue is this “subject matter is agricultural land”.
Isidro v. CA
Facts: Private respondent is owner of land. Sister of private respondent
allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon
demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro. RTC
dismissed because land is agricultural and so agrarian.
Ruling: Jurisdiction over subject matter is determined from the allegations
in the complaint. Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy
relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is shown, the court should
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Case involving agricultural land does not
automatically make such case agrarian. Six requisites were not present.
There was no contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim
that he was paying rent for use of land.
Bejasa v. CA
Facts: Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to
Malabanan. Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it,
with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas continued to stay
on the land and did not give any consideration for its use, be it in the form
of rent or a shared harvest
Issue: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas.
AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
Ruling: Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the
parties. There was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the
harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land.
There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be
the tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of tenancy were met
in this case. There was no proof of sharing in harvest.
Almuete v. Andres
Facts: Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown to
Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to investigation report
that Almuete was unknown and waived his rights. Andres also represented
that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone set and that
Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600. Almuete filed an action for
recovery of possession and reconveyance before trial court. Issue is who
between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property.
Issue: Whether there is agrarian dispute
Ruling: NO. This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so it is
beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant
was alleged between petitioners and respondent. RTC was competent to try
the case.
Nicorp Devt v. De Leon
Facts: Respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) praying that petitioners be ordered to
respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land in the name of the De Leon
sisters.
Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land
since time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of the owners, who
were her sisters-in-law and that petitioners entered the land and uprooted
and destroyed the rice planted on the land and graded portions of the land
with the use of heavy equipment; that the incident was reported to the
Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist
Order 5 but to no avail.
Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy
rights over the land; restore the land to its original condition and not to
convert the same to non-agricultural use; that any act of disposition of the
land to any other person be declared null and void because as a tenant, she
allegedly had a right of pre-emption or redemption over the land.
Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). He alleged that
respondent is no longer physically capable of tilling the land; that the MARO
issued a certification that the land had no registered tenant; that respondent
could not be regarded as a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns
and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired
through inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy was executed by the
De Leon sisters when they sold the property to him.
Moreover, Lim claimed that respondent and her family surreptitiously entered
the subject land and planted a few crops to pass themselves off as cultivators
thereof; that respondent tried to negotiate with petitioner Lim for the sale of
the land to her, as the latter was interested in entering into a joint venture
with another residential developer, which shows that respondent has
sufficient resources and cannot be a beneficiary under the CARP; that the
land is no longer classified as agricultural and could not thus be covered by
the CARP. Per certification issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator of Bacoor, Cavite, the land is classified as
residential pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan approved by the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Issue: Whether there is agrarian dispute.
Held: No. There is no substantial evidence to support that respondent is a
bona fide tenant on the subject property. Respondent failed to prove the
third and sixth elements cited above. It was not shown that the De Leon
sisters consented to a tenancy relationship or that the De Leon sisters
received any share in the harvests of the land from respondent or that the
latter delivered a proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners
pursuant to a tenancy relationship.
The affidavits merely stated that the De Leon sisters have known respondent
to be the cultivator of the land since time immemorial. It cannot therefore be
deemed as evidence of harvest sharing. That respondent was allowed to
cultivate the property without opposition, does not mean that the De Leon
sisters impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold relation with
respondent. Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not ipso
facto make one a de jure tenant.
Heirs of Quilo v. DBP
Ruling: Notice of conference and the affidavits only showed that Quinto filed
a complaint against the spouses Oliveros regarding the land he was
cultivating. The affidavits confirmed merely that Quinto had been planting on
3|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
the land. Documents no way confirmed that his presence on the land was
based on a tenancy relationship that the spouses Oliveros had agreed to.
Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically
establish a leasehold relation or make one a tenant. The affidavit only stated
that Quilo had given his share of the harvest to the spouses (the details fell
short)
Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other evidence to show
that there were sharing of harvest and that there was an agreed system of
sharing between them. Deposit cannot prove the existence of a sharing
agreement. It must be showed that the deposit is made in relation to
tenancy.
Reyes v. Heirs of Floro
Ruling: Certification from Bautista has little evidentiary value, without any
corroborative evidence. The certification was not even presented as a
witness. Similarly, Reyes was not included as a legitimate and properly
registered agricultural tenant in the supposed Deed of Absolute sale with
Agricultural Tenants Conformity which Bautista executed in favor of Zenaida.
Zenaida was convicted of falsification of public document.
What is the value of a notarized document?
Before a document is received by the court, they will look into the question
of admissibility. If notarized, there is no need to present a witness, since
there is a presumption. If not notarized, you need a witness to testify on the
document.
Davao New Town v. Spouses Saliga
Issue: At the core of the controversy is the questioned reclassification of the
property to non-agricultural uses. This issue is intertwined with and on which
depends the resolution of the issue concerning the claimed agricultural
leasehold relationship.
Ruling: No tenancy relationship exists between DNTDC and the respondents
for the tenancy relationship between the ceased when the property was
reclassified.
Court outlined the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship, all of which
must concur for the relationship to exist.
1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant
2. The subject is agricultural land
3. There is consent
4. The purpose is agricultural production
5. There is personal cultivation
6. There is sharing of harvests
The absence of any of these requisites does not make an occupant a
cultivator, or a planter, a de jure tenant. Consequently, a person who is not
a de jure tenant is not entitled to security of tenure nor covered by the land
reform program of the government under any existing tenancy laws.
In this case, we hold that no tenancy relationship exists between DNTDC, as
the owner of the property, and the respondents, as the purported tenants;
the second essential requisite as outlined above – the subject is agricultural
land – is lacking. To recall, the property had already been reclassified as non-
agricultural land. Accordingly, the respondents are not de jure tenants and
are, therefore, not entitled to the benefits granted to agricultural lessees
under the provisions of P.D. No. 27, in relation to R.A. No. 6657.
HOMESTEAD PATENT
HOMESTEAD PATENT
A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for
agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.
Where do you file the application?
Before the CENRO where the land being applied is located.
Who are qualified?
Citizens of Philippines over 18 years old and not an owner of more than 12
hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
WHO CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION
Section 6. Retention Limits. – In no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed 5 hectares. 3 hectares may be awarded to each child of the
landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least 15
years of age and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing
the farm. Provided, 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.
AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
Qualifications under Sec 6 in order to retain the homestead:
1. Original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
2. Who still own the homestead
3. As long as they continue to cultivate (most important)
RETENTION LIMIT OF LANDOWNER
WHAT IS NOT COVERED?
Section 6. Retention Limits – Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no
person may own or retain 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), but in no
case shall retention by the landowner exceed 5 hectares. 3 hectares
may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the
following qualifications: (1) that he is at least 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.
HOW MANY HECTARES ARE NOT COVERED?
Section 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.
AWARD TO CHILD OF LANDOWNER
AWARD TO CHILD OF LANDOWNER
Three 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
(2) That he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm
Take note: The word used by law with respect to the children or child of
the landowner is NOT retention but AWARD.
Meaning: For a child to be awarded by the government with 3 hectares, he
has to comply with these qualifications
Who normally examines the qualifications?
MARO. And with due respect with MAROs, it is also possible that it is in the
appreciation of these qualifications that corruption can come in, with or
without consideration.
EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE
EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE
Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusion from coverage of CARL
1. Lands ADE (actually, directly and exclusively) used for parks, wildlife,
forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watershed and mangroves.
2. Private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds
3. Lands ADE used and found necessary for national defense, school
sites and campuses including experimental farm stations, seeds and
seedlings research, church sites and convents, mosque sites,
communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and farms
and all lands with 18% slope and over.
Take note: Lands with 18% slope or over is exempt because of
possible soil erosion
Central Mindanao v. DARAB
Ruling: The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly
& exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus, including
experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for establishing
seed and seeding research
The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of CMU to
its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a university in
years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a school established to
promote agriculture & industry, the need for vast tract of agriculture land for
future programs of expansion is obvious.
4|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del Monte),
the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly connected to the purpose &
objectives of CMU as educational institution
As to determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for
use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve & answer the question.
DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has
no real need for land.
Take note:
 One part used for school and campus site
 Another part not used, part is leased to Del Monte Phil. Packing Co.
 Central Mindanao is an agricultural school
 Supreme Court did not use the phrase “found to be necessary”, but
impliedly it was referring to it. Because even if that portion of land
was not used, if it was found to be necessary for future expansion, it
is to be exempted from coverage.
LAND DISTRIBUTION TO QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
1. Compulsory acquisition (sec 16)
2. Voluntary offer to sell or voluntary land transfer (sec 20)
3. Non-land transfer schemes
a. Stock distribution option (SDO)
b. Production and profit sharing (PPS)
c. Leasehold operation (sec 12)
What are the two aspects of land transfer schemes?
1. Voluntary – The landowner will volunteer to convey the land to the
government, agree on the price and then execute the deed of
conveyance
2. Compulsory – If the landowner refuses the notice of acquisition
and notice of coverage. Gov. will have to expropriate. This time is a
different expropriation.
IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF BENEFICIARIES
Who has jurisdiction in the identification/selection of beneficiaries?
It is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries. Jurisdiction lies with
the Office of the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of classification of
landholdings for coverage (whether the subject property is a private or
government owned land), and identification of qualified beneficiaries.
LEASEHOLD CONTRACT
Who executes a leasehold contract?
The agricultural lessor and lessee.
Who has jurisdiction to cancel a leasehold contract?
DARAB. (Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board). It exercises quasi-
judicial powers. With respect to quasi-judicial powers, leasehold contract
involves rights, obligations and others terms of the contract
Take note: Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by mere
expiration of the term of period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale,
alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the land. In case the
agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the
landholding, purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights
and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor.
JURISDICTION TO ISSUE/CANCEL CLOA
Certificate of Land Ownership Award
CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded
to the beneficiary by DAR
Who has jurisdiction to issue, correct or cancel CLOAs?
The DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and
cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation
of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not
agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not
the DARAB.
AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
What is compulsory acquisition?
The mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands including facilities and
improvements necessary for agricultural production, as may be appropriate,
for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation.
What is the rationale?
Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas and the
root cause of peasant unrest. In order to hasten the implementation of the
program, the DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land
acquisition. To the same end, the law provides for the steps in acquiring
private lands through administrative instead of judicial proceedings. This
procedure is allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice
and hearing are complied with.
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 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 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 of the land by
requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to summit
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 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.
Who shall be notified?
The landowner is sent a notice of acquisition which shall contain the
offer/valuation by the DAR. Notice is done either through personal delivery
or registered mail, and posting in a conspicuous place in the municipal
building or barangay hall.
NOTICE OF COVERAGE AND ACQUISITION
Notice of Coverage:
 Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and
that he is entitled to exercise his retention right;
 Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and
representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to
discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and
other pertinent matters.
 Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his
landholding shall be conducted where he and the other
representatives may be present.
Notice of Acquisition
 The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of
compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just compensation
offered by DAR.
 Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or
upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection
or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent
Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of
5|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the
property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take
possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
LBP v. Heirs of Trinidad
Facts: Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural
land which was covered by RA No. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer to Sell
(VOS) scheme of the CARP. He offered to the DAR the price of P2M per
hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP. Petitioner Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just compensation the amount
of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 per hectare. The offer was rejected by
private respondent. LBP deposited for the account of private respondent
P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional compensation for the
acquisition of the property.
Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional
Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative
proceedings under DARAB to fix the just compensation, where they rendered
a decision fixing the compensation of the property at P10,294,721.00 or
P686,319.36 per hectare.
Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial
determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court.
Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition against DAR
before the same Special Agrarian Court and filed a Motion for Delivery of the
Initial Valuation praying that petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB
determined amount of P10,294,721.
Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the deposit
should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount of
P1,145,806M and not P10,294,721.00 as determined by the DARAB.
Consequently, a decision was issued ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for
release to the private respondent the DARAB determined just compensation
of P10,294,721M Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the said
order to deposit.
Issue: The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional
compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the
landowner if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. Petitioner maintains it
should be its initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell
(VOS) while respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the
PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary administrative proceeding pending final
determination by the courts.
Question was on the correct amount of provisional compensation which LBP
was required to deposit.
 Is it the amount stated in par (a) which is supposed to be
contained in the notice of acquisition? or
 Is it the amount based on par (d) after the conduct of summary
proceedings?
Held: Supreme Court held that par (e) should be related to pars (a), (b) and
(c), considering that the taking of possession by the State is the next step
after DAR and LBP supplied with the notice requirements.
In effect, SC is saying that it is the offer of the LBP that will determine what
the correct amount to be deposited is and not the amount after the
determination of just compensation in a summary administrative proceeding.
Reason: If the DAR will wait for the summary administrative proceedings,
this will hamper land redistribution process.
JUST COMPENSATION
JUST COMPENSATION
What is meant by just compensation?
The full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by expropriation”
(Assoc. of Small Landowners). The word "just" is used to intensify the
meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent
to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and
ample.”
What are the factors to consider in determining just compensation?
a. The cost of acquisition of the land
b. The value of the standing crop
c. The current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and
income
d. The sworn valuation by the owner
e. Tax declarations
f. Assessment made by government assessors
g. 70% of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR
AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
Take note: 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 to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans
secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be
considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.
Preliminary determination
The determination of just compensation by the DAR during the compulsory
acquisition proceedings of Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only. Hence,
the court can review. Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring
the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation.
On “just compensation”, judicial determination is expressly prescribed in
Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original and
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners.
Association of Small Landowners v. Sec of DAR
Ruling: We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of
eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific
property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its
owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a
revolutionary kind of expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all
private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as
they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners.
Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos. The cost will be
tremendous.
The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option,
are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP
bonds, other properties or assets, tax credits, and other things of value
equivalent to the amount of just compensation.
Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private
agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation). Section 16(e) of
the CARP Law provides that: “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.
Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always required to be
made fully in money.
LBP v. Dumlao
Facts: Respondents are owners of agricultural lands covered under PD 27.
Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR, so they
filed complaint with RTC for determination.
Ruling: If just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No.
6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, although property
was acquired under PD No. 27.
The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just
compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the
emancipation patents because EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the
issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. It is
from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire
the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of
just compensation to the landowner.
Petitioner’s argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending
determination by DAR is specious.
To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in
processing is to violate the elementary rule that payment of just
compensation must be within a reasonable period from the taking of
property;
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
Principle: If an agricultural land is acquired under PD 27 but just
compensation has not been paid until RA 6657 took effect, just compensation
will be computed on the basis of the present law, NOT under PD 27.
Reason: It is inequitable that just compensation should be determined under
PD 27 because just compensation is defined as the full and ample value of
6|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
the land to be given to the LO. Under PD 27, there is only one factor in
determining just compensation (average crop harvest), while in RA6657,
there are a lot.
DAR v. Heirs of Domingo
Facts: The late Angel T. Domingo is the registered owner of a rice land. PD
27 was subsequently issued and pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of
private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn were deemed as full
owners of the land they till. The land transfer program under P.D. No. 27
was subsequently implemented by Executive Order No. 228.
On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just
compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR.
Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just compensation
for the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under
RA 6657. The LBP and DAR disputed Domingo's valuation and claimed that
the determination of just compensation should be governed by the provisions
of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
Issue: Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the
computation of just compensation may be applied to private agricultural
lands taken by the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation
to E.O. No. 228.
Ruling: 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) 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.
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.
LBP v. Livioco
Facts: Respondent Livioco was the owner of 3 sugar land. He offered his
sugar land to the DAR for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per square
meter. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form he submitted to the DAR
indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an
international paper mill.
The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. LBP set the price at
P3.21 per square meter for 26 hectares. Livioco was then promptly informed
of the valuation. However,Livioco did not act upon the notice given to him
by both government agencies. Subsequently, LBP issued a certification to the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of
P827,943.48 as compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares.
It was only two years later that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the
compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the
time it was first offered for sale. The request was denied by the Regional
Director on the ground that there was already a perfected sale.
Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was
an outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco finally filed a petition
for judicial determination of just compensation against DAR, LBP, and the
CLOA holders.
In this Petition before us, LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of
Livioco's property as a residential land. It maintains that it is not the State's
policy to purchase residential land. Since the property was acquired under
the CARP, it had to be valued as an agricultural land.
Issue: Was the compensation for respondent's properly determined?
Held: For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an
expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time
of taking. There are three important concepts in this definition — the
character of the property, its price, and the time of actual taking.
The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property has
changed from agricultural to residential, because there is no allegation or
proof that the property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR.
It is the DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use
conversions so as to prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform
coverage.
Even reclassification and plans for expropriation by LGUs will not ipso facto
convert an agricultural property to residential, industrial or commercial. Thus,
AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
in the absence of any DAR approval for the conversion of respondent's
property or an actual expropriation by an LGU, it cannot be said that the
character or use of said property changed from agricultural to residential.
Respondent's property remains agricultural and should be valued as such.
Hence, the CA and the trial court had no legal basis for considering the
subject property's value as residential.
Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property could,
at most, refer to the potential use of the property. While the potential use of
an expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where there is a
great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property, it
should never control the determination of just compensation.
The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for
determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled
doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined
by its character and its price at the time of taking, not its potential uses. If
at all, the potential use of the property or its "adaptability for conversion in
the future is a factor, not the ultimate in determining just compensation."
It would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform, which is to
free the tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil without delivering
them to the new oppression of exorbitant land valuations. Note that in lands
acquired under RA 6657, it is the farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay
the valuations paid to the former land owners (LBP merely advances the
payment). If the farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as
residential lands (the valuation for which is substantially higher than the
valuation for agricultural lands), it is not unlikely that such farmers, unable
to keep up with payment amortizations, will be forced to give up their
landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to sell the property to other
parties. This may just bring the State right back to the starting line where
the landless remain landless and the rich acquire more landholdings from
desperate farmers.
Sir’s discussion: Landowner tried to prove that lot was residential not
agricultural for higher just compensation. There were several evidences
presented by owner; certification from the municipal planning office, zoning,
HLURB, etc.
SC: No clearance from DAR. No allegation or proof that there was a
conversion clearance from agricultural to residential. That means that the
land has to be valued as agricultural land, NOT residential.
DISCUSSION: Do you need conversion clearance? SIR: IMO, no more.
 You need conversion clearance for purposes of real property tax in
LGU
 Or assurance from DAR that your land is not covered under DAR
because the use is not anymore for agricultural activity
 Under sec. 17, no factor of conversion but actual use of the land
LBP v. Nable
Ruling: The Congress has thereby required that any determination of just
compensation should consider the following factors, namely: (a) the cost of
the acquisition of the land; (b) the current value of like properties; (c) the
nature, actual use and income of the land; (d) the sworn valuation by the
owner; (e) the tax declarations; (f) the assessment made by government
assessors; (g) the social and economic benefits contributed to the property
by the farmers and farmworkers and by the Government; and (h) the fact of
the non-payment of any taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the land.
Although Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 has not explicitly mentioned
the farming experience and the thumb method of conversion as methods in
the determination of just compensation, LBP cannot deny that such methods
were directly relevant to the factors listed in Section 17, particularly those on
the nature, actual use and income of the landholding.
LBP v. DAR
Facts: The valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the landowners. After
re-computation upon order of PARAD, a revaluated amount was made but
LOs still found it low. LOs appealed to DARAB. Pending resolution of their
appeal, Los interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation seeking the
release to them of the amount representing the difference between the initial
value.
Ruling: There is a need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately
the amount deposited in their behalf, pending final determination of what is
just compensation for their land.
It is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not allow withdrawal.
Also, it is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation
under Section 16 (e) and final compensation under Section 18 for the
purposes of exercising the landowners’ right to appropriate the same. The
immediate effect in other situations in the same, the landowner is deprived
of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and
immediately compensated.
7|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
SC invalidated LBP’s practice of opening trust accounts in favor of the
landowner.
In case the amount has already been deposited, even if the landowner
questions the accuracy or the validity of the amount deposited and will
thereafter file with the RTC for determination of just compensation, the LO
can withdraw the amount deposited.  Part of his right to just compensation
It should be deposited in the name of the landowner, not trust accounts
(trust accounts not expressly stated in Sec. 18)
Heirs of Deleste v. LBP
Facts: 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.
Ruling: SC agreed 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.
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
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.
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." 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.
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."
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.
GOVERNING LAW
RA 6657 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
Main governing law of Agrarian Land Reform here in the Philippines.
PAYMENT OF INTEREST
PAYMENT OF INTEREST
Apo Fruits v. CA
Facts: RT rendered judgment ordering DAR/LBP to pay interest at the rate
of 12% per annum on the above-fixed amount of fair, reasonable and just
compensation computed from the time the complaint was filed until the
finality of this decision. After this decision becomes final and executory, the
rate of 12% shall be additionally imposed on the total obligation until
payment thereof is satisfied.
Issue: Whether or not the interest was validly imposed.
Held: NO. It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to
the CA, by filing a notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in March 2003
its petition for certiorari in the CA only because the RTC did not give due
course to its appeal. Any intervening delay thereby entailed could not be
attributed to Land Bank, however, considering that assailing an erroneous
order before a higher court is a remedy afforded by law to every losing party,
who cannot thus be considered to act in bad faith or in an unreasonable
manner as to make such party guilty of unjustified delay.
The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of
Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just
compensation. It may disagree with DAR and the landowner as to the amount
of just compensation to be paid to the latter and may also disagree with them
and bring the matter to court for judicial determination. This makes LBP an
indispensable party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken
under the Agrarian Reform Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such
AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ
cases that are unfavorable to it. Having only exercised its right to appeal in
this case, LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for interest.
Interest on the just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the
payment thereof which must be sufficiently established. Given the foregoing,
we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just compensation is
not justified and should therefore be deleted.
LBP v. Rivera
Facts: The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land
that was placed under the coverage of PD 27. After DAR directed payment,
LBP approved the payment of P265,494 inclusive of 6% increment.
Consequently, the respondents instituted a civil case for determination and
payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court.
LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under the
coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 were governed and valued in
accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 and that the
administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and
Executive Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing
arm.
Ruling: The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to
be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described
to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary
course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as
between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, if fixed at the time
of the actual taking by the government. Thus, if property is taken for public
use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over
the case, the final compensation must include interest on its just value to be
computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation
is actually paid or deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of
the property and the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place
the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was
in before the taking occurred.
The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interest
on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner
instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September
1969. This allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the
property as of the time of the taking computed, being an effective
forbearance, at 12% per annum should help eliminate the issue of the
constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time.
LBP v. Gallego
Facts: Respondents are co-owners of parcels of agricultural land. DAR
placed a portion of the property under the coverage of PD27. However, teh
parties failed to agree on the amount of just compensation which prompted
respondents to file a petition before the RTC for the determination of just
compensation.
The trial court adopted the formula prescribed in PD27 in arriving at the
amount of just compensation. Also, trial court also imposed "interest in kind"
payable from 1972 to 2002 by multiplying by 1.8 the Average Gross
Production of palay of 121.6 cavans per hectare multiplied by 2.5.
Ruling: In the determination of the interest, if it is payable in kind, its value
shall be appraised at the current price of the products or goods at the time
and place of payment.
BENEFICIARIES
QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
1. 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
(g) Others directly working on the land
Take note: Previous law: there is no provision that (a) and (b)
should be prioritized. Amendment: they are prioritized of that same
landholding up to a maximum of 3 hectares each.
2. The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given
preference in the distribution of the land of their parents.
8|U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N C A R L O S
3. Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or
removed therefrom.
4. Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably
sold, disposed of, or abandoned their lands are disqualified to
become beneficiaries under the Program.
5. A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude,
and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.
Take note: Presupposing that the beneficiary has registered with the
department.
6. 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 the Act, at the option
of the beneficiaries.
7. 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.
8. No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of
agricultural land. (Sec. 23)
DAR v. Polo Coconut Plantation Co.
Facts: Beneficiaries to be awarded with the land of Polo Coconut were
questioned by Polo Coconut. According to them, the beneficiaries are not
tenants of their land, thus not qualified.
Ruling: Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to
tenants of the landowners. It is DAR who is mandated to select CARP
beneficiaries. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed grave
abuse of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants
of Polo Coconut.
PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER BY BENEFICIARY
PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER BY BENEFICIARY
Section 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands
Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold, transferred
or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or
to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years.
However, the children of the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to
repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2)
years. 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) shall, in turn, be given the 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.
General Rule:
Lands acquired by beneficiaries may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for
a period of 10 years. Hence, any sale during the 10 year prohibitory period
is void.
Exceptions:
1. Hereditary succession
2. To the government
3. To the Land Bank of the Philippines
4. Other qualified beneficiaries
Take note: Waiver of rights and interests over the landholdings is void.
RIGHT TO REPURCHASE
In case the land is sold, the children of the spouse of the transferor shall
have a right to repurchase the land from the government or the LBP within
2 years.