Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Law

R.A. 6657, as amended

Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

Section 2C

Submitted to:
Atty. Irvin Joseph M. Fabella

Submitted by:

Coverage – TUGUINAYO, Ryan Joshua S.

Registration – ABUNDO, Ella Marie C.
Land Acquisition – PENERA, Louise Cleindale L.
Compensation – MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B.
Land Redistribution – MONTEMAYOR, Jolina N.
Corporate Farms – LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G.
Program Implementation – YUZON, Edson A.
Administrative Adjudication – BONGOLAN, Nicolo B.
Judicial Review – ALCANTARA, Carl Matthew R.
--------------------COVERAGE------------------- Q: What are the exceptions to the
retention limit?
Q: What are the lands covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform A: The following are the exemptions to the
Program? retention limit:

A: All private and public agricultural lands 1. Landowners whose lands have been
including other lands of public domain. covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
(Section 4) shall be allowed to keep the areas
originally retained by them thereunder:
Specifically, these lands are the following: Provided further, that original homestead
grantees or their direct compulsory heirs
a. All alienable and disposable lands who still own the original homestead at the
of the public domain devoted to or time of the approval of this law shall retain
suitable for agriculture. No same areas as long as they continue to
reclassification of forest or mineral cultivate said homestead. (Section 6)
lands to agricultural lands shall be
undertaken after the approval of Q: Are lands held by multinational
this Act until Congress, taking into corporations covered by the
account ecological, developmental Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
and equity considerations, shall Program?
have determined by law, the
specific limits of the public domain. A: Yes. Specifically, these are the
following:
b. All lands of the public domain in
excess of the specific limits as a. All lands of public domain leased,
determined by Congress in the held or possessed by multinational
preceding paragraph; corporations or associations; and

c. All other lands owned by the b. Other lands owned by the

Government devoted to or suitable government or by government-
for agriculture; and owned or controlled corporations,
devoted to existing and operational
d. All private lands devoted to or agri-business or agro-industrial
suitable for agriculture regardless enterprises operated by
of the agricultural products raised multinational corporations.
or that can be raised thereon.
Q: What are ancestral lands?
Q: How many years should the
implementation of the Act be? A: It shall include but is not limited to:
lands in the actual, continuous, and open
A: Distribution of the lands acquired shall possession and occupation of the
be implemented immediately and community and its members. (Section 9)
completed within 10 years from the
effectivity thereof. (Section 5) Q: Are ancestral lands covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Q: What is the limit on retaining Program?
agricultural lands under the law?
A: Yes. However, RA 6657 respects the
A: 5 hectares. Agricultural lands which are rights and protection of Indigenous
5 hectares and below are not covered Cultural Communities and Indigenous
except those landholdings submitted for People (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral lands
voluntary offer to sell before July 1, 2009. to ensure their economic, social and
(Section 6) cultural well-being. (Section 9)
Thus, the implementation of the Act with 3. All lands with eighteen percent
respect to ancestral lands may be (18%) slope and over, except
suspended by the Presidential Agrarian those already developed.
Reform Council (PARC) when it is
contrary to the protection of the rights of 4. Private lands actually, directly and
the ICCs/IPs. exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds. (Section 10, RA
Q: What are commercial farms? 7881)

A: Commercial farms are private

agricultural lands devoted to commercial ------------------REGISTRATION----------------
livestock, poultry and swine raising, and
aquaculture including saltbeds, fishponds Q: Who shall register?
and prawn ponds, fruit farms, orchards,
vegetable and cut-flower farms, and A: All persons, natural or juridical,
cacao, coffee and rubber plantations. including government entities, that own or
(Section 11) claim to own agricultural lands, whether in
their names or in the name of others,
Q: Are commercial farms covered except those who have already registered
under CARP? pursuant to Executive Order No. 229.

A: Yes. They are subject to immediate Q: How do landowners register under

compulsory acquisition and distribution CARP?
after 10 years from the effectivity of RA
6657. (Section 11) A: Landowners must file a sworn
statement stating the following: 
Q: Which lands are exempted from the
coverage of the law? a) Description and area of the
property; 
A: The following are exempted from the b) Average gross income from the
coverage of CARP: last 3 years 
c) Names of all tenants and
1. Lands actually, directly and farmworkers; 
exclusively d) Crops planted and area covered of
2. used and found to be necessary each plant; 
for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, e) Terms of mortgages, lease, and
reforestation, fish sanctuaries and management contracts subsisting;
breeding grounds, watersheds, and 
and mangroves, national defense, f) Latest declared market value of
school sites and campuses the land 
including experimental farm
stations operated by public or Q: How do beneficiaries register under
private schools for educational CARP?
purposes, seeds and seedlings
research and pilot production A: The DAR in coordination with the
centers, church sites and convents Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
appurtenant thereto, mosque sites (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall
and Islamic centers appurtenant register all agricultural lessees, tenants
thereto, communal burial grounds and farmworkers who are qualified to be
and cemeteries, penal colonies beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential
and penal farms actually worked beneficiaries with the assistance of the
by the inmates, government and BARC and the DAR shall provide the
private research and quarantine following data: 
centers;
 a) names and members of their municipality in the following order of
immediate farm household;  priority:
b) owners or administrators of the
lands they work on and the length 1. Agricultural lessees and share
of tenurial relationship;  tenants;
c) location and area of the land they 2. Regular farm workers;
work;  3. Seasonal farm workers;
d) crops planted; and e. their share in 4. Commercial farm workers
the harvest or amount of rental (employed as of June 15, 1988)
paid or wages received.  5. Other farmworkers;
6. Actual tillers or occupants of public
A copy of the registry or list of all potential lands;
CARP beneficiaries in the barangay shall 7. Collective or Cooperatives of the
be posted in the barangay hall, school or Above Beneficiaries; and
other public buildings in the barangay 8. Others Directly Working on the
where it shall be open to inspection by the Land.
public at all reasonable hours. (Section
15, RA 6657)  Q: How is land for acquisition
identified?
Q: What are the qualifications to be a
beneficiary under CARP? A: AR A.O. No 7, series of 2011, Sec. 5
A: To be a beneficiary, one must possess provides that:
the following qualifications:
1. The Provincial Office of DAR
1. Must be landless (owns land less provides the Municipal Office of
than 3 hectares);  DAR a list of landholdings to be
2. Must be a Filipino citizen;  chosen from.
3. Must be a permanent resident of
the barangay or municipality where 2. The municipal officer, along with a
the landholding is located;  barangay committee member,
4. Must be at least 15 years of age at shall identify the qualified
the time of identification, beneficiaries.
screening, and selection of farmer-
beneficiaries; and  3. Said officer issues a notice of
5. Must be willing, able and equipped coverage on landowner’s property.
with the aptitude to cultivate and
make the land productive. 4. The Provincial officer will conduct
a land survey, followed by a field
investigation by the municipal
--------------LAND ACQUISITION------------- barangay and landbank officers.

Q: What is the mode of land 5. Land Bank of the Philippines will

acquisition? identify the value of the covered
landholding.
A: Sec. 16 of the law uses a compulsory
acquisition wherein the government Q: Who are disqualified to become
acquires private agricultural lands to be beneficiaries?
distributed to CARP beneficiaries.
A: The following tenants, lessees, or farm
Q: Who are the beneficiaries of CARP? workers who are disqualified from being a
beneficiary for CARP are those who:
A: They are the landless residents of the
same barangay or, in the absence thereof, 1. Who do not meet the
landless residents of the same qualifications;
 2. Have waived their right for such in
exchange for compensation; A: Yes. Land acquisition under the subject
3. Failed to pay three annual law is an extraordinary method of
amortizations expropriation. Failure to comply with the
4. Have failed to exercise right of proper procedure should be treated as a
redemption/repurchase within two violation of constitutional due process and
years, resulting to foreclosure of should be tainted with grave abuse of
mortgage; discretion.
5. Have refused to pay three annual
amortizations for land acquired Q: What are the two notices required
through voluntary land transfer or for validity of Implementation?
direct payment scheme, resulting
to repossession; A: For a valid implementation, the
6. Have been dismissed for a cause; following notices are required:
7. Have retired or resigned;
8. Have misused the land and Notice of Coverage under DAR A.O. No.
financial support provided; 7, series of 2011; and
9. Have misrepresented facts to Notice of Acquisition.
qualify for the program;
10. Sold, disposed, or abandoned Q: When does land ownership transfer
lands awarded by government, to the State?
11. Have converted agricultural lands
to nonagricultural lands without A: It shall transfer to the State upon full
approval of DAR, payment of just compensation.
12. Have been guilty of forcible entry
or unlawful detainer over the
property; ----------------COMPENSATION----------------
13. Have violated reform laws;
14. Are landowners and children, in Q: How is just compensation
connection with foreclosed determined?
landholdings;
15. Are landowners who have A: The cost of acquisition of the land, the
voluntarily offered landholdings for current value of like properties, its nature,
CARP; and actual use and income, the sworn
16. Are managerial farm works. valuation by the owner, the tax
declarations, and the assessment made
Q: How does DAR acquire land for by government assessors shall be
distribution? considered. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and
A: The procedure is as follows: the farmworkers and by the Government
to the property as well as the non-
1. Identification of land, landowner, payment of taxes or loans secured from
and beneficiary; any government financing institution on
2. Notice to the landowner and the the said land shall be considered as
price offer; additional factors to determine its
3. Acceptance or rejection of valuation. (Section 17)
landowner of the offered price;
4. Taking of immediate possession of Q: Who shall compensate the
the land upon payment; landowner in such amounts as may be
5. Issuance of Transfer Certificate of agreed upon by the landowner and the
Title to the State; and DAR and the LBP?
6. Distribution.
A: The LBP shall compensate the
Q: Should the procedure of land landowner in such amounts as may be
acquisition be strictly construed? agreed upon by the landowner and the
DAR and the LBP, in accordance with the for direct transfer of their lands to
criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17 qualified beneficiaries?
and other pertinent provisions hereof, or
as may be finally determined by the court, A: Under Section 20, Article VI of the law:
as the just compensation for the land.
(Section 18) a) All notices for voluntary land
transfer must be submitted to the
Q. What are the modes for paying just DAR within the first year of the
compensation? implementation of the CARP.
Negotiations between the
A: At the option of the landowner, such landowners and qualified
may be in cash payment subject to certain beneficiaries covering any
terms and conditions, shares of stock in voluntary land transfer which
government-owned or controlled remain unresolved after one (1)
corporations, LBP preferred shares, year shall not be recognized and
physical assets or other qualified such land shall instead be
investments in accordance with guidelines acquired by the government and
set by the PARC, tax credits which can be transferred pursuant to this Act.
used against any tax liability, or LBP
bonds subject to certain features. b) The terms and conditions of such
transfer shall not be less favorable
The terms and conditions for cash to the transferee than those of the
payment mode are the following: government’s standing offer to
purchase from the landowner and
a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, to resell to the beneficiaries, if
insofar as the excess hectarage is such offers have been made and
concerned, twenty-five percent are fully known to both parties.
(25%) cash, the balance to be paid
in government financial c) The voluntary agreement shall
instruments negotiable at any time. include sanctions for non-
b) For lands above twenty-four (24) compliance by either party and
hectares and up to fifty (50) shall be duly recorded and its
hectares, Thirty percent (30%) implementation monitored by the
cash, the balance to be paid in DAR.
government financial instruments
negotiable at any time. Q: What is the payment of
c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares compensation to be given by
and below, thirty-five percent beneficiaries under voluntary land
(35%) cash, the balance to be paid transfer?
in government financial
instruments negotiable at any time. A: Direct payments in cash or in kind may
be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the
Q: What if it’s the landowner/s who landowner under terms to be mutually
voluntarily offer their land for sale? agreed upon by both parties, which shall
be binding upon them, upon registration
A: Landowners, other than banks and with and approval by the DAR. Said
other financial institutions, who voluntarily approval shall be considered given, unless
offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to notice of disapproval is received by the
an additional five percent (5%) cash farmer-beneficiary within thirty (30) days
payment. (Section 19) from the date of registration.

Q: What are the guidelines for In the event they cannot agree on the
landowners of agricultural lands who price of land, the procedure for
entered into a voluntary arrangement compulsory acquisition as provided in
Section 16 shall apply. The LBP shall
extend financing to the beneficiaries for
purposes of acquiring the land. (Section According to DAR Administrative Order
21) No. 2, the following are also disqualified:

b) Those who do not meet the basic

------------LAND REDISTRIBUTION---------- qualifications;

Beneficiaries
c) Those who have waived their right
Q: Who are qualified as beneficiaries? to become an agrarian reform
beneficiary in exchange for
A: Section 22 provides that: compensation, provided that the
waiver has not been questioned in
The person must be a landless the proper government entity;
resident of the same barangay, or d) Those who have not paid an
if there is none, landless residents aggregate of three annual
of the same municipality. amortizations;
e) Those who have failed to exercise
Q: Who is a landless resident? the right of redemption/ repurchase
within two years resulting in the
A: A person who owns less than three foreclosure of mortgage by the
hectares of agricultural land. Land Bank of the Philippines of a
previously awarded land;
Q: What are the qualifications to be an f) Those who refused to pay three
agrarian reform beneficiary? annual amortizations for land
acquired through voluntary land
A: The basic qualification under Section transfer or direct payment scheme,
22 is the beneficiary’s willingness, resulting in the possession by the
aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make landowner;
the land as productive as possible. g) Those who have been dismissed
for cause;
In 2009, the Department of Agriculture h) Those who have obtained
(DAR) issued DAR Administrative Order substantially equivalent
No. 2 (2009), the following requisites must employment;
concur: i) Those who have retired or
voluntarily resigned from their
a) Filipino citizen; employment;
b) Resident of the barangay or j) Those who have misused the land
municipality where landholding is or diverted the financial support
located; service extended by the
c) At least 15 years old at the time of government;
the identification, screening and k) Those who have misinterpreted
selection; and material facts in their basic
d) Willing, able, and equipped with qualifications;
aptitude to cultivate and make the l) Those who have sold, disposed, or
land productive. abandoned the land awarded to
them by the government;
Q: Who are disqualified to become m) Those who have converted
beneficiaries? agricultural lands to non-
agricultural lands to non-
A: agricultural use without prior
a) Beneficiaries under Presidential approval of the Department of
Decree (PD) No. 27 who have Agrarian Reform;
culpably sold, disposed of, or n) Those who have been finally
abandoned their land. adjudged guilty of forcible entry or
 unlawful detainer over the 8) Others directly working on the
property; and land.
o) Those who have violated agrarian
reform laws and regulations. If it is not economically feasible to divide
the excess land to numbers 4-6, the
Q: Can farm workers working in criteria shall be observed:
commercial farms be qualified as
beneficiaries? (a) willingness, aptitude and ability to
cultivate and make the land
A: Yes Provided that the farm worker is productive
already employed as of June 15, 1988 in (b) physical capacity; and
the landholding covered by the CARP. (c) length of service

Q: Can managerial farmers or those With the basic qualification set, priority
farmers holding supervisory positions must be given to farm workers who
be qualified as beneficiaries? continuously worked on the subject
landholding. Other farm workers will be
A: No.However, this is the general put to the wait list.
rule.The exception is when they were
already selected and qualified as Q: Are there limitations to distributing
beneficiaries even before they were the land?
promoted to a managerial or supervisory
position. A: Yes. A qualified owner may not own
more than 3 hectares of agricultural land.
Q: What is the order of priority in the
distribution to qualified beneficiaries? Collective Ownership

A: The following are the qualified Q: Do the beneficiaries have the option
beneficiaries on order of priority: to have a collective ownership?

1) Qualified children of the A: Yes, but as a general rule, an individual

landowners under Section 6 title shall be awarded to an individual
provided that the actual titlers in farmer-beneficiary. Beneficiaries may opt
the landholdings shall not be for a collective ownership and they can
ejected or removed therefrom. request for an issuance of collective
2) Agricultural lessees and share ownership of titles. Provided that the total
tenants; area that may be awarded to them shall
3) Regular farmworkers; not exceed the total number of co-owners
a. The landholding shall be or members of the cooperative or
up to the maximum of three collective organization multiplied by the
hectares each. award limit except in meritorious cases
If the particular landholding is not enough determined by the PARC.
to meet the three hectares, the area to be
awarded will be based on the actual size Q: What are the conditions for the
of tillage by each lessee or tenant. issuance of collective titles?

If there are excess landholdings, then the A:

following below will be entitled: 1. The current farm management
system of the land covered by
4) Seasonal farmworkers; CARP will not be appropriate for
5) Other farmworkers; individual farming of farm parcels;
6) Actual tillers or occupants of public 2. The farm labor system is
lands; specialized, where the
7) Collectives or cooperatives of the farmworkers are organized by
above beneficiaries; and functions and not by specific
 parcels such as spraying, weeding, A: It is the basis for the issuance of an
packing and other similar original or transfer certificate of title under
functions; the name of the farmer-beneficiary.
3. The potential beneficiaries are
currently not farming individual Q: Is the emancipation patents,
parcels but collectively work on certificate of land ownership award and
large contiguous areas; and other titles issued in the agrarian
4. The farm consists of multiple crops reform program indefeasible and
being farmed in an integrated imprescriptible?
manner or includes non-crop
production areas that are A: Yes. After 1 year from its registration
necessary for the viability of farm with the Office of the Registry of Deeds
operations, such as packing subject to the property registration decree
plants, storage areas, dikes, and and other pertinent laws
other similar facilities that cannot
be subdivided or assigned to Q: What is the duty of the Register of
individual farmers. Deeds?

Q: Can there be collective owners for A: Upon the certification of the Land Bank
idle, abandoned or underdeveloped of the Philippines that a necessary deposit
agricultural lands to be covered by of the full payment in cash or in kind was
CARP? made with due notice to the landowner
and the registration of the certificate of
A: Yes. However, it shall only be allowed land ownership award issued to the
if the beneficiaries opt for it and there is a beneficiaries, and to cancel the previous
clear development plan that requires titles pertaining thereto, it shall be the
collective farming or integrated farm ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to
operations. register the title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines.
Award to Beneficiaries
Q: What are the grounds for the
Q: When does the rights and cancellation of the Certificate of Land
responsibilities of the beneficiaries Ownership Award?
commence?
a) Abandonment of land;
A: From the receipt of a duly registered b) Neglect or misuse of land;
emancipation patent or certificate of land c) Failure to pay three annual
ownership award and their actual physical amortizations;
possession of the land awarded to them. d) Misuse or diversion of financial
and support services;
The award shall be completed not more e) Sale, transfer, or conveyance of
than 180 days from the date of registration the right to use the land; and
in the name of the Republic of the f) Illegal conversion of the land.
Philippines.
Q: What are the obligations of Agrarian
Q: When does the DAR issue the Reform beneficiaries?
Certificate of Land Ownership Award?
A:
A: Only upon full payment of amortization a) exercise due diligence in the use,
by the farmer-beneficiary. cultivation, and maintenance of the
land, including improvements
Q: What is the purpose of the thereon; and
Certificate of Land Ownership Award? b) pay the Land Bank thirty annual
amortizations with 6% interest per
annum.
 1. The payments for the first three
The amortization will start one year from years after the award shall be at
the date of registration of the Certificate of reduced amounts as established
Land Ownership Award. If before by the PARC. Provided, that the
registration of the Certificate, there is first 5 annual payments may not be
actual occupancy of the land, the one-year more than 5% of the value of the
prescriptive period shall be counted from annual gross production as
the constructive occupation of the land by established by DAR.
the beneficiary.
b) After the 5th year of payment:
Q: What rights does qualified 2. After the 5th year of payment, the
beneficiaries under Section 22 have? Land Bank may reduce the interest
and/or the principal obligation to
A: Usufructuary rights as soon as the make it more affordable to the
DAR takes possession of the land. Such beneficiaries if:
right shall not be diminished even if there i) If due to failure of production,
is a pending awarding of the emancipation the scheduled annual
patent or the certificate of land ownership. payments exceed 10% of the
annual gross production; and
Payment by Beneficiaries ii) The failure to produce is not
due to the beneficiary’ fault.
Q: What is the cost of the awarded land
that is payable by the beneficiaries to Q: What happens if the beneficiary
the Land Bank? failed to pay his amortizations?

A: The cost amounts to thirty annual A: After the beneficiary’s non-payment of

amortizations with 6% interest per annum. an aggregate of three annual
amortizations, the Land Bank can forfeit
Q: What is the basis for the the land to the beneficiaries. The Lan
amortization? Bank has a lien by way of mortgage on
the land awarded to the beneficiary.
A: The basis is the annual gross
production which is established by the Q: What is the effect of non-payment
Department of Agrarian Reform. The by the beneficiary aside from the land’s
maximum amortization is 5%. foreclosure?

Q: When shall payment start? A: The beneficiary will be permanently

disqualified from becoming a beneficiary.
A: The payment starts one year from:
Transferability of the Awarded Land
a) The date of registration of the
Certificate of Land Ownership Q: Can the beneficiary sell, transfer or
Award; or convey the awarded land?
b) The date of the actual occupancy,
if the occupancy took place after A: As a general rule, no. The only
the registration of the Certificate. exception is he may transfer the land
through hereditary succession or to the
Q: Does the principal obligation or the government, or to the Land Bank of the
payment by the beneficiary be modified Philippine or to other qualified
or reduced? beneficiaries through the DAR for a period
of 10 years.
A: Yes.
Q: Can the beneficiary lease the land?
a) For the first three years:
A: Yes. The provisions do not prohibit the Q: Do the children or the spouse of the
land to be leased. However, the lease beneficiary have a recourse if the
shall be limited for agricultural purposes. beneficiary sold or transferred
In the event that the lease is for non- ownership of the awarded land to the
agricultural purposes, the beneficiary shall Land Bank of the Philippine or to the
seek approval of the DAR. Government?

Q: Can the leases be made to a former A: Yes. The children or the spouse of the
landowner? transferor can repurchase the land within
two years from the date of the transfer.
A: Yes. However, the approval of the DAR
shall be obtained through the Provincial Standing Corps
Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee.
Q: What are the rights of the landowner
Q: In the event where the land has not over the standing crops unharvested at
been fully paid by the beneficiary may the DAR shall take possession of the
the rights of the land be transferred or land under Section 16?
conveyed to any heir of the beneficiary
or any other beneficiary? A: The landowner shall retain his rights
over the standing crops that were
A: Yes, provided that: unharvested and he shall be given a
a) There is a prior approval by the reasonable time to harvest the same.
DAR;
b) The land shall only be sold to any
heir of the beneficiary or to any -------------CORPORATE FARMS-------------
other beneficiary; and
c) The transferee as a condition of Q: What are corporate farms?
the transfer or sale, the heir or the
other qualified beneficiary shall A: Corporate farms are farms that are
cultivate the land himself/herself. owned or operated by corporations or
other business organizations
If there is no approval of the DAR and the
condition was not met, the land shall be Q: How to distribute corporate farms?
transferred to the Land Bank and a due
notice shall be made for the availability of A: There are two ways, directly or
the land. indirectly.

Q: What shall the Land Bank of the Generally, lands shall be distributed
Philippines do after the transfer has directly to the individual worker-
commenced in the preceding beneficiaries.
situation?
In case it is not economically feasible and
A: The Land Bank of the Philippines shall sound to divide the land, then it shall be
compensate the beneficiary in one lump owned collectively by the worker-
sum for the amounts he has already paid beneficiaries who shall form a workers’
plus the value of the improvements the cooperative or association which will deal
beneficiary made on the land. with the corporation or business
association.
Q: What does hereditary succession
mean in the CARP Law? Q: What are the transfer schemes
provided under Section 31 of RA No.
A: Hereditary succession means 6657?
succession by intestate succession or by
will to the compulsory heirs. A: Voluntary transfer and stock transfer.
Corporate landowners may voluntarily
transfer ownership over their agricultural A: At the national level, it is the
landholdings to the Republic of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council or
Philippines or to qualified beneficiaries, PARC, including an Executive Committee
subject to confirmation by the DAR. as well as a PARC Secretariat. (Secs. 41-
43)
Corporations owning agricultural lands
may give their qualified beneficiaries the At the provincial level, it is the Provincial
right to purchase such proportion of the Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
capital stock of the corporation that the or PARCCOM. (Sec. 44).
agricultural land, usually devoted to
agricultural activities, bears in relation to At the barangay level, it is the Barangay
the company’s total assets. Agrarian Reform Committee or BARC.
(Sec. 46 & E.O. 229)
Q: Discuss the Product Sharing Plan
under RA No. 6657 Q: What is the concept or principle
behind the creation of PARCCOM and
A: Pending final land transfer, individuals BARC? Explain.
or entities owning or operating agricultural
lands who realize gross sales in excess of A: Deconcentration. According to an
Php 5 million are hereby mandated to established jurisprudence, there is
execute a product-sharing plan with their deconcentration “if it involves the transfer
farmworkers or farmworkers’ organization of functions or the delegation of authority
if any, whereby 3% of the gross sales are and responsibility from the national office
given to regular and other farmworkers. to the regional and local offices.”
(Disomangcop v. Sec. of DENR, G.R. No.
In the event that the individual or entity 149848)
realizes profit, an additional 10% of the
net profit after tax shall be distributed to Q: What is the manner of
said regular and other farmworkers. implementation of CARP?

1% of the gross sales shall also be A: It shall be on a province-by-province

distributed to the managerial, supervisory, basis. (Sec. 45)
and technical group.
Q: What are the key functions of
Q: By virtue of EO No. 405, which bank BARC?
now determines the valuation and the
payment of just compensation? A: There are three: (1) alternative dispute
resolution, (2) establishment of fact i.e.
A: Land Bank of the Philippines identification of beneficiaries and (3)
assistance or coordination with other
agencies. (Sec. 47)
-------PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION------
Q: Is the BARC a mechanism for
Q: What is the nature of agrarian alternative dispute resolution?
reform program?
A: Yes, because it may facilitate
A: It is a social justice program grounded mediation and conciliation of agrarian
on the constitutional precept “land to the disputes lodged before it. (Sec. 47, para.
tiller.” (Article 13, Section 4, 1987 2)
Constitution)
Q: Does the PARC enjoy rule-making
Q: Who implements the power?
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program?
A: Yes, PARC has the power to issue f) To enforce its writs through sheriffs
rules and regulations, whether substantive or other duly deputized officers;
or procedural, to carry out the objects and and
purposes of CARP. (Sec. 49) g) To punish direct and indirect
contempt in the same manner and
Q: May the BARC seek legal assistance subject to the penalties as
from DAR as well as from the provided in the Rules of Court.
municipal, city or provincial (Sec. 50, R.A. No. 6657, as
government? amended)

A: Yes. The BARC may seek legal Whenever necessary, to direct the
assistance whenever necessary in the Philippine National Police, the Armed
exercise of its functions. (Sec. 48) Forces of the Philippines or any of their
component units, or other law
enforcement agencies to assist in the
----ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION--- enforcement and execution of their
decisions, orders, writs, and other
Q: What are the quasi-judicial powers processes. (Sec. 6, Rule II, 2009 DARAB
of the DAR? Rules of Procedure)

A: The Department of Agrarian Reform Q: Who has authority to adjudicate

(DAR) with primary jurisdiction to cases involving agrarian reform?
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and shall have exclusive original A: The following have the authority to
jurisdiction over all matters involving the adjudicate cases involving agrarian
implementation of agrarian reform. (Sec. reform:
50, R.A. No. 6657, as amended)
a) DAR Adjudication Board;
Q: To what extent is the DAR’s quasi- b) Regional Agrarian Reform
judicial powers limited? Adjudicators (RARADs); and
c) Provincial Agrarian Reform
A: These matters do not include those Adjudicators (PARADs). (Section 3
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of [b], Rule I, 2009 DARAB Rules of
the Department of Agriculture (DA) and Procedure; Sec. 13, E.O. No 129-
the Department of Environment and A, July 26, 1987)
Natural Resources. (Sec. 50, R.A. No.
6657, as amended) Q: What measures can the DARAB,
RARAD, and PARAD exercise?
Q: What are the other quasi-judicial
powers exercised by the DAR? A: They have the authority to adopt any
appropriate measure or procedure in any
A: The DAR shall also have the following given situation or matter not covered by
powers: the Rules. All such special measures or
procedures and the situations to which
a) To summon witnesses; they have been applied must be reported
b) To administer oaths; to the DARAB (Section 3 [b], Rule I, 2009
c) To take testimony; DARAB Rules of Procedure).
d) To require submission of reports;
e) To compel the production of books Q: What is the composition of the
and documents and answers to DARAB?
interrogatories and issue
subpoena, and subpoena duces A: The DARAB shall be composed of:
tecum; a) The Secretary of Agrarian Reform
as Chairman;
 b) Two Undersecretaries as may be
designated by the Secretary; ii) Those matters of such
c) The Assistant Secretary for Legal complexity and sensitivity that
Affairs; and the decision thereof would
d) Three others to be appointed by constitute an important
the President upon the precedent affecting regional
recommendation of the Secretary interest as may be
as members. (Sec. 13, E.O. No recommended by the
129-A, July 26, 1987) concerned RARAD and
approved by the Board;
Q: What is the ‘exclusive jurisdiction
on agrarian dispute’? iii) Preliminary determination of
just compensation within the
A: No court or prosecutor’s office shall jurisdictional limits as stated in
take cognizance of cases pertaining to the Rule XIX, Sec. 2 of the Rules;
implementation of the CARP except those and
provided under Section 57 of R.A. No.
6657, as amended. If there is an iv) Hear application for the
allegation from any of the parties that the issuance of a writ of
case is agrarian in nature and one of the preliminary injunction and/or
parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, temporary restraining order
the case shall be automatically referred by and such other cases which
the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR the Board may assign. (Sec. 5,
which shall determine and certify within Rule II, 2009 DARAB Rules of
fifteen (15) days from referral whether an Procedure)
agrarian dispute exists. (Sec. 50-A, R.A.
No. 6657, as amended) Q: When is the certification of the
BARC needed?
Q: What is the role of the RARAD?
What are the powers and functions A: As a rule, the DAR shall not take
exercised by the RARAD? cognizance of any agrarian dispute or
controversy without a certification from the
A: The RARAD shall be the Executive Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
Adjudicator in his Region directly (BARC) where the land involved is
responsible to the Board. As such, he located, to the effect that the dispute has
shall: been submitted to it for mediation and
conciliation without any success of
a) Exerciseadministrative supervision settlement is presented. But if no
over the PARADs and, in the certification is issued by the BARC within
absence of the PARAD concerned, thirty (30) days after a matter or issue is
their personnel, which shall submitted to it for mediation or
include, among others, the conciliation, the case or dispute may be
monitoring of cases in his Region; brought before the PARC. (Sec. 50, R.A.
b) Receive, hear, and adjudicate No. 6657)
agrarian disputes and land cases
within the Region; Q: When is the certification of the
c) He shall also hear the following BARC not needed?
cases:
A: The certification is not necessary in the
i) Those cases that cannot be following cases:
handled by the PARAD on
account of inhibition, a) Where the issue involves the
disqualification or when there is valuation of land to determine just
no PARAD designated in the compensation for its acquisition;
locality;
 b) Where one party in a public or
private corporation, partnership, A: If the BARC is unable to settle the
association or juridical person, or a dispute within thirty (30) days, it shall
public officer or employee and the return the case to the Adjudicator of origin
dispute relates to the performance with a certification of non-settlement,
of his official functions; furnishing a copy thereof to the parties.
c) Where the Secretary of the DAR (Sec. 5, Rule III, 2009 DARAB Rules of
directly refers the matter to the Procedure)
Board or Adjudicator; or
d) Upon certification of the Municipal Q: What are matters involving agrarian
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) dispute?
or, in his absence, the Senior
Agrarian Reform Program A: Specifically, such jurisdiction shall
Technologist (SARPT) or Agrarian include, but not be limited to the following
Reform Program Technologist cases:
(ARPT) of the non-existence of the
BARC or the inability of the BARC a) The rights and obligations of
to convene. persons, whether natural or
juridical, engaged in the
Q: What is the remedy if complaint or management, cultivation, and use
petition is filed without BARC of all agricultural lands covered by
certification? R.A. No. 6657, as amended, and
other related agrarian laws;
A: If the filing of the complaint or petition b) The preliminary administrative
is not accompanied by the required BARC determination of reasonable and
Certification, the same shall be referred to just compensation of lands
the BARC or DAR Technologist of the acquired under P.D. No. 27 and
barangay where the land is located, as the Comprehensive Agrarian
stated in the complaint, through the Reform Program (CARP);
MARO of the area, directing: c) Those cases involving the
annulment or rescission of lease
a) The BARC to conduct contracts or deeds of sale or their
mediation/conciliation proceedings, amendments involving lands under
by requiring the parties to submit the administration and disposition
their supporting documents and to of the DAR or Land Bank of the
return the matter to the Adjudicator Philippines, and the amendment of
with a report of the result of the titles pertaining to agricultural
proceedings, together with the lands under the administration and
complete records submitted before disposition of the DAR and LBP;
it, within thirty (30) days from as well as Eps issued under PD
receipt of the complaint or petition; 266, Homestead Patents, Free
or Patents, and miscellaneous sales
b) The SARPT or ARPT in case of patents to settlers in settlement
non-existence of the BARC or its and resettlement areas under the
inability to convene for that administration and disposition of
purpose, to refer the matter back the DAR;
to the Adjudicator within five (5) d) Those cases involving the
days from receipt thereof with a ejectment and dispossession of
certification of non-existence or tenants and/or leaseholders;
inability of the BARC to convene. e) Those cases involving the sale,
(Sec. 1, Rule III, 2009 DARAB alienation, pre-emption, and
Rules of Procedure) redemption of agricultural lands
under the coverage of the CARL,
Q: When will the BARC submit a as amended, or other agrarian
certification of non-settlement? laws;
 f) Those involving the correction, A: The DAR shall not be bound by
partition, secondary and technical rules of procedure. Instead, the
subsequent issuances such as DAR shall proceed to hear and decide all
reissuance of lost/destroyed cases, disputes or controversies in a most
owner’s duplicate copy and expeditious manner, employing all
reconstitution of Certificate of Land reasonable means to ascertain the facts of
Ownership Award (CLOAs) and every case in accordance with justice and
Emancipation Patents (Eps) which equity and the merits of the case. (Sec 50,
are registered with the Land R.A. No. 6657, as amended)
Registration Authority;
g) Those cases involving the review Q: What is the 2009 Department of
of leasehold rentals and fixing of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
disturbance compensation; (DARAB) Rules of Procedure?
h) Those cases involving the
collection of amortization A: In accordance with Section 50 of R.A.
payments, foreclosure and similar No. 6657, as amended the DAR shall
disputes concerning the functions adopt a uniform rule of procedure to
of the LBP, and payments for achieve a just, expeditious and
lands awarded under P.D. No. 27, inexpensive determination of every action
R.A. No. 3844, as amended, and or proceeding before it. Hence, pursuant
R.A. No. 6657, as amended by to the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of
R.A. No. 9700, and other related said Act, the Department of Agrarian
laws, decrees, orders, instructions, Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
rules, and regulations, as well as Rules of Procedure was adopted and
payment for residential, promulgated on September 1, 2009.
commercial, and industrial lots These Rules govern the conduct of
within the settlement and proceedings before the DARAB and its
resettlement areas under the Regional and Provincial Adjudication
administration and disposition of Offices.
the DAR;
i) Those cases involving boundary Q: How are provisions of the 2009
disputes over lands under the DARAB Rules of Procedure construed?
administration and disposition of
the DAR and the LBP, which are A: These Rules shall be liberally
transferred, distributed, and/or sold construed to carry out the objectives of the
to tenant-beneficiaries and are agrarian reform program and to promote
covered by deeds of sale, patents, just, expeditious and inexpensive
and certificates of title; adjudication and settlement of agrarian
j) Those cases previously falling cases, disputes, or controversies (Section
under the original and exclusive 2, Rule I, 2009 DARAB Rules of
jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Procedure).
Agrarian Relations under Section
12 of PD NO. 946 except those Any reasonable doubt in the interpretation
cases falling under the proper of the Rules, as well as in the
courts or other quasi-judicial interpretation of contracts and stipulations
bodies; and between the contending parties, shall be
k) Such other agrarian cases, resolved in favor of the beneficiary,
disputes, matters of concerns potential beneficiary, tenant farmer, farm-
referred to it by the Secretary of worker, agricultural lessee, farmers’
the DAR. (Sec. 1, Rule II, 2009 cooperative, association or organization.
DARAB Rules of Procedure) (Section 4, Rule I, 2009 DARAB Rules of
Procedure)
Q: What are the rules on DAR’s quasi-
judicial powers? Q: What are the other rules set by the
2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure?
A: If and when a case comes up for A: In the event that a case filed before the
adjudication wherein there is no applicable Adjudicator shall necessitate the
provision under these Rules, the determination of a prejudicial issue
procedural law and jurisprudence involving an agrarian law implementation
generally applicable to agrarian disputes case, the Adjudicator shall dismiss the
shall be applied (Section 3 [a], 2009 case without prejudice to its refiling, and,
DARAB Rules of Procedure). The for purposes of expediency, refer the
provisions of the Rules of Court, hence, same to the Office of the Secretary or his
shall not apply even in suppletory authorized representative in the locality.
character unless adopted herein or by (Sec. 4, Rule II, 2009 DARAB Rules of
resolution of the DARAB (Section 3 [c], Procedure)
2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure).
Q: What is a prejudicial issue?
Q: What is the appellate jurisdiction of
the DARAB? A: Prejudicial issue arises in a case the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent
A: The DARAB shall have exclusive of the issue involved therein, and the
appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, jurisdiction over which pertains to the
modify, alter, or affirm resolutions, orders Office of the Secretary. The prejudicial
and decisions of the Adjudicators. No issue must be determinative of the case
order of the Adjudicators on any issue, before the Board or the Adjudicator but
question, matter, or incident raised before the jurisdiction to try and resolve the
them shall be elevated to the Board until question is lodged with the Office of the
the hearing shall have been terminated Secretary. (Sec. 3, Rule II, 2009 DARAB
and the case decided on the merits. (Sec. Rules of Procedure)
2, Rule II, 2009 DARAB Rules of
Procedure) Q: When is the decision of the DAR
final?
Q: How is the annulment of judgement
of adjudicators initiated? A: Any case or controversy before the
DAR shall be decided within thirty (30)
A: Annulment of final judgement of days after it is submitted for resolution.
Adjudicators shall be initiated by filing a Only one (1) motion for reconsideration
verified complaint or petition with the shall be allowed. Any order, ruling or
Board attaching thereto certified copies of decision shall be final after the lapse of
the assailed decision and alleging therein fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
with particularity the facts and the law thereof (Section 51, R.A. No. 6657, as
relied upon for said annulment. (Sec. 3, amended).
Rule II, 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure)
The decision of the DAR shall be
Q: What are the grounds for annulment immediately executory except when a
of judgement? decision or a portion thereof involves
solely the issue of just compensation,
A: The annulment may be based only on notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of Appeals (Section 5, R.A. No. 6657 as
jurisdiction. If based on extrinsic fraud, the amended).
action must be filed within three (3) years
from its discovery; and if based on lack of Q: What are the judicial recourses on
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or decisions of the DAR?
estoppel. (Sec. 3, Rule II, 2009 DARAB
Rules of Procedure) A: From the determination of the DAR, an
aggrieved party shall have judicial
Q: When is there referral to Office of recourse. In cases referred by the
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform? municipal trial court and the prosecutor’s
office, the appeal shall be with the proper A: It shall be filed before the designated
regional trial court, and in cases referred Special Agrarian Court of the province
by the regional trial court, the appeal shall where the subject land is situated
be to the Court of Appeals. (Sec. 50-A,
R.A. No 6657, as amended) Q: What is the remedy for an aggrieved
party in a case decided by the Special
Q: What is the rule on frivolous Agrarian Court?
appeals?
A: Although not included in the list of
A: The DAR may impose reasonable those who can avail of the remedy of
penalties, including but not limited to fines review on certiorari under Rule 43 of the
or censures upon erring parties to Rules of Court, as decided in the case of
discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals Landbank v. De Leon, the same rule still
from the decisions or orders on the local applies as remedy for an aggrieved party
or provincial levels (Section 52, R.A. No. in a case decided by a SAC.
6657, as amended).

Q: What are the rights of farmer

leaders?

A: Responsible farmer leaders shall be

allowed to represent themselves, their
fellow farmers, or their organizations in
any proceedings before the DAR. 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. (Sec. 50, R.A. No. 6657, as
amended)

---------------JUDICIAL REVIEW---------------

Q: Can the DARAB take cognizance of

any case involving agrarian dispute?

A: No. The DAR cannot take cognizance

of cases which were not brought before
the BARC for mediation and conciliation
without any success of settlement and
was issued certification

Q: What is the remedy for an aggrieved

party in a case decided by the DAR?

A: Petition for review on certiorari under

Rule 43.

Q: Where to file action for

determination of just compensation
and prosecution of criminal violations
of the CARL?
Abundo, Ella Marie C Constitutionality of Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest ASLP vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform

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

G.R. No. 79310, 14 July 1989
FACTS:
On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full
land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the valuation of
still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was
followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No. 131, instituting a comprehensive
agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229, providing the mechanics for its
implementation. Subsequently, with its formal organization, the revived Congress of the
Philippines took over legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations,
including extensive public hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The
result, after almost a year of spirited debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino signed
on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments,
nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its
provisions. The cases herein have been consolidated because they involve common legal
questions, including serious challenges to the constitutionality of the several measures
mentioned above.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform is unconstitutional.
RULING: No. As for the power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O.
Nos. 228 and 229, the same was authorized under Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of
the 1987 Constitution. The said measures were issued by President Aquino before July 27,
1987, when the Congress of the Philippines was formally convened and took over legislative
power from her. They are not "midnight" enactments intended to pre-empt the legislature
because E.O. No. 228 was issued on July 17, 1987, and the other measures, i.e., Proc. No.
131 and E.O. No. 229, were both issued on July 22, 1987. Neither is it correct to say that
these measures ceased to be valid when she lost her legislative power for, like any statute,
they continue to be in force unless modified or repealed by subsequent law or declared
invalid by the courts. The fund, as mentioned in the case, is itself being questioned on the
ground that it does not conform to the requirements of a valid appropriation as specified in
the Constitution. Clearly, however, Proc. No. 131 is not an appropriation measure even if it
does provide for the creation of said fund, for that is not its principal purpose. The argument
of some of the petitioners that Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be invalidated
because they do not provide for retention limits as required by Article XIII, Section 4 of the
Constitution is no longer tenable. R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such limits now in Section
6 of the law, which in fact is one of its most controversial provisions. The argument that E.O.
No. 229 violates the constitutional requirement that a bill shall have only one subject, to be
expressed in its title, deserves only short attention. It is settled that the title of the bill does
not have to be a catalogue of its contents and will suffice if the matters embodied in the text
are relevant to each other and may be inferred from the title. The argument of the small
farmers that they have been denied equal protection because of the absence of retention
limits has also become academic under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. Significantly, they too
have not questioned the area of such limits. There is also the complaint that they should not
be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an objection also made by the sugar
Abundo, Ella Marie C Constitutionality of Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest ASLP vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform

planters on the ground that they belong to a particular class with particular interests of their
own. However, no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the requisites of a valid
classification have been violated. Lastly, in the question of whether it was a valid exercise of
the power of eminent domain, as earlier observed, the requirement for public use has
already been settled for us by the Constitution itself. No less than the 1987 Charter calls for
agrarian reform, which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their
owners, subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. That public use, as pronounced
by the fundamental law itself, must be binding on us. For the second requirement, A reading
of the Section 16(d) of the CARP law will readily show that it does not suffer from the
arbitrariness that rendered the challenged decrees constitutionally objectionable. Although
the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and other interested parties are
nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence on the real value of the property. But
more importantly, the determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by any
means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party, for Section
16(f) clearly provides: Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the
court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. The determination
made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise,
the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality the said determination in the
exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function. The Court hereby declares that the content
and manner of the just compensation provided for in Section 18 of the CARP Law is not
violative of the Constitution. It stated that it does not mind admitting that a certain degree of
pragmatism has influenced our decision on this issue, but after all the Court is not a
cloistered institution removed from the realities and demands of society or oblivious to the
need for its enhancement. Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is not
always required to be made fully in money, it finds further that the proportion of cash
payment to the other things of value constituting the total payment, as determined on the
basis of the areas of the lands expropriated, is not unduly oppressive upon the landowner. It
is noted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in money, primarily because the
small landowner will be needing it more than the big landowners, who can afford a bigger
balance in bonds and other things of value. No less importantly, the government financial
instruments making up the balance of the payment are "negotiable at any time." 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.
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. The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the
property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of
the just compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here and in
other democratic jurisdictions. Thus: Title to property which is the subject of condemnation
proceedings does not vest the condemnor until the judgment fixing just compensation is
entered and paid, but the condemnor's title relates back to the date on which the petition
under the Eminent Domain Act, or the commissioner's report under the Local Improvement
Act, is filed.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Court holds as follows:
Abundo, Ella Marie C Constitutionality of Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest ASLP vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform

1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are
SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections raised in the herein
petitions.
2. Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only
upon full payment of compensation to their respective owners.
3. All rights previously acquired by the tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27 are
retained and recognized.
4. Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights of retention under
P.D. No. 27 shall enjoy the retention rights granted by R.A. No. 6657 under
the conditions therein prescribed.
5. Subject to the above-mentioned rulings all the petitions are DISMISSED,
without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Abundo, Ella Marie C Constitutionality of Section 31 of CARL
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council

Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council;

G.R. No. 171101, 5 July 2011, 22 November 2011, and 24 April 2012
FACTS:
The Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and/or controlled by the
Jose Cojuangco, Sr. Group was able to buy the Hacienda Luisita, an agricultural-industrial-
residential land, from the Spanish owners with the assistance of the Central bank of the
Philippines in order to obtain a dollar loan from a US Bank. Also, the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) Board of Trustees extended a PhP 5.911 million loan in favor of
Tadeco to pay the peso price component of the sale. One of the conditions contained in the
approving GSIS resolution which reads as follows: That the lots comprising the Hacienda
Luisita shall be subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to the tenants,
should there be any, and whenever conditions should exist warranting such action under the
provisions of the Land Tenure Act. Then, as of March 31, 1958, Tadeco had fully paid the
purchase price for the acquisition of Hacienda Luisita and Tabacalera’s interest in CAT.
Meanwhile, like EO 229, RA 6657, under the latter’s Sec. 31, also provides two (2)
alternative modalities, i.e., land or stock transfer, pursuant to either of which the corporate
landowner can comply with CARP, but subject to well-defined conditions and timeline
requirements. Sec. 31 of RA 6657 provides: SEC. 31. Corporate Landowners.¾Corporate
landowners may voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the
Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified beneficiaries.
To comply with the CARP, from the start, the stock distribution scheme appeared to
be Tadeco’s preferred option, for, on August 23, 1988, it organized a spin-off corporation,
HLI, as vehicle to facilitate stock acquisition by the farmworkers. For this purpose, Tadeco
assigned and conveyed to HLI the agricultural land portion and other farm-related properties
of Hacienda Luisita in exchange for HLI shares of stock. Then, a SDOA was made. As may
be gleaned from the SDOA, included as part of the distribution plan are: (a) production-
sharing equivalent to three percent (3%) of gross sales from the production of the
agricultural land payable to the FWBs in cash dividends or incentive bonus; and (b)
distribution of free homelots of not more than 240 square meters each to family-
beneficiaries. The production-sharing, as the SDP indicated, is payable "irrespective of
whether [HLI] makes money or not," implying that the benefits do not partake the nature of
dividends, as the term is ordinarily understood under corporation law. Thereafter, within the
2 years after the effectivity of the CARP, the SDP based on SDOA was approved by the
DAR. For 16 years, the SDP governed the distribution scheme of the HLI in relation to the
farmworkers. Not to mention the fact that some 93% of the then farmworker-beneficiaries
(FWBs) complement of Hacienda Luisita signified in a referendum their acceptance of the
proposed HLI’s Stock Distribution Option Plan. On August 15, 1995, HLI applied for the
conversion of portions of land of the hacienda from agricultural to industrial use, pursuant to
Sec. 65 of RA 6657 which was also approved. Years after, two separate petitions, reached
the DAR. In the first, respondents who identified themselves as head of the Supervisory
Group of HLI, and 60 other supervisors sought to revoke the SDOA, alleging that HLI had
failed to give them their dividends and the one percent (1%) share in gross sales, as well as
the thirty-three percent (33%) share in the proceeds of the sale of the converted 500
hectares of land. They further claimed that their lives have not improved contrary to the
promise and rationale for the adoption of the SDOA. They also cited violations by HLI of the
SDOA’s terms. They prayed for a renegotiation of the SDOA, or, in the alternative, its
Abundo, Ella Marie C Constitutionality of Section 31 of CARL
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council

revocation. Revocation and nullification of the SDOA and the distribution of the lands in the
hacienda were the call in the second petition, styled as Petisyon. The Petisyon was filed by
AMBALA. Subsequently, a Notice of Coverage was issued against HLI. Petitioners filed a
motion for consideration but was denied. Hence, this petition. A mediation panel was made,
but still it failed to settle the dispute. Hence, this case.
ISSUE(s): Whether or not a) Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional; b) PARC has
the jurisdiction of to recall or revoke HLI’s SDP; (c) such recall or revocatory action is valid.
RULING:
a) No. Aside from the failure of the respondents to meet sll the essential
requirements before the Court may pass upon the constitutionality of a law, it also
explained the wordings of the constitution regarding agrarian reform. It reiterated
the provison which h provides that The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian
reform program founded on the right of the 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. It held that the wording
of the provision is unequivocal––the farmers and regular farmworkers have a
right TO OWN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY THE LANDS THEY TILL. The
basic law allows two (2) modes of land distribution—direct and indirect
ownership. Direct transfer to individual farmers is the most commonly used
method by DAR and widely accepted. Indirect transfer through collective
ownership of the agricultural land is the alternative to direct ownership of
agricultural land by individual farmers. The aforequoted Sec. 4 EXPRESSLY
authorizes collective ownership by farmers. No language can be found in the
1987 Constitution that disqualifies or prohibits corporations or cooperatives of
farmers from being the legal entity through which collective ownership can be
exercised. The word "collective" is defined as "indicating a number of persons or
things considered as constituting one group or aggregate,"while "collectively" is
defined as "in a collective sense or manner; in a mass or body." By using the
word "collectively," the Constitution allows for indirect ownership of land and not
just outright agricultural land transfer. This is in recognition of the fact that land
reform may become successful even if it is done through the medium of juridical
entities composed of farmers.
b) Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve
the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC.
However, contrary to petitioner HLI’s posture, PARC also has the power to
revoke the SDP which it previously approved. It may be, as urged, that RA 6657
or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do not explicitly vest the PARC
with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP. Such power or authority,
however, is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary
implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of
it as that which is expressed.
Abundo, Ella Marie C Constitutionality of Section 31 of CARL
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council

c) In our review and analysis of par. 3 of the SDOA on the mechanics and timelines
of stock distribution. It found that it violates two (2) provisions of DAO 10. Par. 3
of the SDOA. Consequently, the Court affirmed the revocation of the SDP on
Hacienda Luisita subject of PARC Resolution Nos. 2005-32-01 and 2006-34-01.
However, it held that the Court cannot close its eyes to certain "operative facts"
that had occurred in the interim. Pertinently, the "operative fact" doctrine realizes
that, in declaring a law or executive action null and void, or, by extension, no
longer without force and effect, undue harshness and resulting unfairness must
be avoided. This is as it should realistically be, since rights might have accrued in
favor of natural or juridical persons and obligations justly incurred in the
meantime. The actual existence of a statute or executive act is, prior to such a
determination, an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly
be ignored; the past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
FWBs’ economic status, their life of hardship, if that really be the case, can hardly
be attributed to HLI and its SDP and provide a valid ground for the plan’s
revocation.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. PARC Resolution
No. 2005-32-01 dated December 22, 2005 and Resolution No. 2006-34-01 dated May 3,
2006, placing the lands subject of HLI’s SDP under compulsory coverage on mandated land
acquisition scheme of the CARP, are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
original 6,296 qualified FWBs shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI. DAR
shall immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to them the
effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which the
FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their
signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed names.

Of the 6,296 FWBs, he or she who wishes to continue as an HLI stockholder is entitled to
18,804.32 HLI shares, and, in case the HLI shares already given to him or her is less than
18,804.32 shares, the HLI is ordered to issue or distribute additional shares to complete said
prescribed number of shares at no cost to the FWB within thirty (30) days from finality of this
Decision. Other FWBs who do not belong to the original 6,296 qualified beneficiaries are not
entitled to land distribution and shall remain as HLI shareholders. All salaries, benefits, 3%
production share and 3% share in the proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectare converted
land and the 80.51-hectare SCTEX lot and homelots already received by the 10,502 FWBs,
composed of 6,296 original FWBs and 4,206 non-qualified FWBs, shall be respected with no
obligation to refund or return them.

Within thirty (30) days after determining who from among the original FWBs will stay as
stockholders, DAR shall segregate from the HLI agricultural land with an area of 4,915.75
hectares subject of PARC’s SDP-approving Resolution No. 89-12-2 the following: (a) the
500-hectare lot subject of the August 14, l996 Conversion Order; (b) the 80.51-hectare lot
sold to, or acquired by, the government as part of the SCTEX complex; and (c) the
aggregate area of 6,886.5 square meters of individual lots that each FWB is entitled to under
the CARP had he or she not opted to stay in HLI as a stockholder. After the segregation
process, as indicated, is done, the remaining area shall be turned over to DAR for immediate
land distribution to the original qualified FWBs who opted not to remain as HLI stockholders.

The aforementioned area composed of 6,886.5-square meter lots allotted to the FWBs who
stayed with the corporation shall form part of the HLI assets.
Abundo, Ella Marie C Constitutionality of Section 31 of CARL
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council

HLI is directed to pay the 6,296 FWBs the consideration of PhP 500,000,000 received by it
from Luisita Realty, Inc. for the sale to the latter of 200 hectares out of the 500 hectares
covered by the August 14, 1996 Conversion Order, the consideration of PhP 750,000,000
received by its owned subsidiary, Centennary Holdings, Inc. for the sale of the remaining
300 hectares of the aforementioned 500-hectare lot to Luisita Industrial Park Corporation,
and the price of PhP 80,511,500 paid by the government through the Bases Conversion
Development Authority for the sale of the 80.51-hectare lot used for the construction of the
SCTEX road network. From the total amount of PhP 1,330,511,500 (PhP 500,000,000 +
PhP 750,000,000 + PhP 80,511,500 = PhP 1,330,511,500) shall be deducted the 3% of the
total gross sales from the production of the agricultural land and the 3% of the proceeds of
said transfers that were paid to the FWBs, the taxes and expenses relating to the transfer of
titles to the transferees, and the expenditures incurred by HLI and Centennary Holdings, Inc.
for legitimate corporate purposes. For this purpose, DAR is ordered to engage the services
of a reputable accounting firm approved by the parties to audit the books of HLI and
Centennary Holdings, Inc. to determine if the PhP 1,330,511,500 proceeds of the sale of the
three (3) aforementioned lots were used or spent for legitimate corporate purposes. Any
unspent or unused balance as determined by the audit shall be distributed to the 6,296
original FWBs.

HLI is entitled to just compensation for the agricultural land that will be transferred to DAR to
be reckoned from November 21, 1989 per PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2. DAR and LBP are
ordered to determine the compensation due to HLI.

DAR shall submit a compliance report after six (6) months from finality of this judgment. It
shall also submit, after submission of the compliance report, quarterly reports on the
execution of this judgment to be submitted within the first 15 days at the end of each quarter,
until fully implemented.

The temporary restraining order is lifted.SO ORDERED.

Abundo, Ella Marie C Applicability of P.D. 27
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C P.D. 27
Case Digest Alita vs.
CA

Alita vs. CA,

170 SCRA 706 [1989]
FACTS:
The subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of land, acquired by private
respondents' predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 141. Private respondents herein are desirous of personally
cultivating these lands, but petitioners refuse to vacate, relying on the provisions of P.D. 27
and P.D. 316 and appurtenant regulations issued by the then Ministry for the reversal of the
decision rendered by the respondent Court of Appeals**on March 3, 1987 affirming the
judgment of the court a quo rendering Presidential Decree No. 27 is inapplicable to lands
obtained thru the homestead law. Hence, this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lands obtained through homestead patent are covered by the
Agrarian Reform under P.D. 27.

RULING: No. The Court agreed with the petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the
emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of
the land they till is a sweeping social legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant
to the social justice precepts of the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be
invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or
Commonwealth Act No. 141. Thus, The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare
and protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build
a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for
the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the things
necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They have a right to live
with a certain degree of comfort as become human beings, and the State which looks after
the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this
vital right. (Patricio v. Bayog, 112 SCRA 45) In this regard, the Philippine Constitution
likewise respects the superiority of the homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants
guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution which provides: Section 6. 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 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. Additionally, it is
worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or
Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to
lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in question, reading, Section
6. Retention Limits. ... ... 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.'

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the

respondent Court of Appeals sustaining the decision of the Regional Trial Court is hereby
AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
Abundo, Ella Marie C Applicability of CARL
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest Natalia Realty vs.
DAR

Natalia Realty vs. DAR; G.R. No. 103302, 12 August 1993

FACTS:
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA) is the owner of three (3) contiguous parcels
of land located in Antipolo, Rizal. On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set
aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and
Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were
designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within
the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. Petitioner EDIC, as developer of NATALIA
properties, applied for and was granted preliminary approval and locational clearances by
the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. They were granted permits for Phase I, II
and III subdivision after complying with the requirements. The issue started when DAR
issued a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
NATALIA and EDIC immediately registered its objection to the notice of Coverage.
Meanwhile, members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA),
filed a complaint against NATALIA and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to
restrain petitioners from developing areas under cultivation by SAMBA members. The
Regional Adjudicator temporarily restrained petitioners from proceeding with the
development of the subdivision. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint but was denied.
Instead, the Regional Adjudicator issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Petitioners
NATALIA and EDIC elevated their cause to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB); however,
on 16 December 1991 the DARAB merely remanded the case to the Regional Adjudicator
for further proceedings. In the interim, NATALIA wrote respondent Secretary of Agrarian
Reform reiterating its request to set aside the Notice of Coverage. Neither respondent
Secretary nor respondent Director took action on the protest-letters, compelling petitioners to
institute this proceeding more than a year thereafter. Hence, this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not CARL is applicable to the said lands.

RULING: No. 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 lands." Based on the foregoing, it
is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any
language be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots were intended for residential use.
They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod
Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in question continued to be developed as a
low-cost housing subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be gleaned from the
fact that SAMBA members even instituted an action to restrain petitioners from continuing
with such development. The enormity of the resources needed for developing a subdivision
may have delayed its completion but this does not detract from the fact that these lands are
still residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL. Indeed, lands not devoted to
agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The
Notice of Coverage of 22 November 1990 by virtue of which undeveloped portions of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision were placed under CARL coverage is hereby SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
ALCANTARA, Carl Matthew R.                                                                                     
CARP
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C          R.A.
6657
Case Digest                                                                                 Roxas & Co. v. DAMBA-
NFSW

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC. v. DAMBA-NFSW and DAR

G.R. 149548, December 4, 2009

FACTS:
Prior to the effectivity of the CARL, on May 6, 1998, petitioner Roxas & Co. filed with
respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell one of its 3 haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas
pursuant to EO 229 while the other two were later placed under compulsory acquisition by
the DAR in accordance with CARL. Petitioner subsequently withdrew the voluntary offer to
sell of the hacienda as the Sanggunian allegedly approved the reclassification of the same
from agricultural to non-agricultural and applied with the DAR for conversion from agricultural
to other uses.

Invoking PP 1520 which declared certain areas in Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourist

zone, petitioner filed an application for conversion of its 3 haciendas from agricultural to non-
agricultural. Notwithstanding this application, the DAR issued CLOAs to farmer-beneficiaries
of the 3 haciendas. And during the pendency of this application, petitioner likewise filed an
application for exemption from the coverage of the CARP on the basis of PP 1520 and DAR
AO No. 6, Series of 1994 which states that all lands already classified as commercial,
industrial, or residential before the effectivity of CARP no longer need conversion clearance
from the DAR.

In 2003, the petitioner’s application for exemption were reopened and the DAR
subsequently granted the exemption of 6 lots. This exemption was challenged by respondent
DAMBA-NSFW but was denied by the DAR and the CA.

ISSUES:
● W/N PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu
tourism zone to non-agricultural use to exempt Roxas & Co.’s three haciendas from
CARP coverage
● W/N Nasugbu MSO No. 4, Series of 1982 exempted certain lots in one of petitioner’s
haciendas from CARP coverage
● W/N the partial and complete cancelations by the DAR of CLOA No. 6654 subject of
G.R. No. 179650 is valid

RULING:
The Court reversed the 2003 decision and 2005 resolution of the CA which declared
that PP 1520 reclassified the lands in the municipalities of Nasugbu, Batangas and
Maragondon and Ternate, Cavite to non-agricultural use as PP 1520 specified that only
certain areas which have potential tourism value are reclassified. Further, it is the DAR and
not the Court who can determine if a land is non-agricultural and exempt from the coverage
of the CARP.

The Court also denied petitioner’s application for CARP exemption due to
discrepancies in the location and identity of the parcels of lands being applied for as it was
shown that the lots in the application were not really the lots of the petitioner’s hacienda and
the petitioner’s actual lots were not included in the reclassified lands for tourism.

And the Court granted the respondent DAMBA-NSFW’s motion for reconsideration
and upheld the CLOA issued by DAR for the rest of the hacienda except for the 6 lots which
were validly cancelled. The Court also ordered the petitioner to give the disturbance
compensation to the tenants before the effectivity of the exemption.
ALCANTARA, Carl Matthew R.                                                                                     
CARP
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C                                       R.A.
7881
Case Digest                                                            Milestone Farms v. Office of the
President

Milestone Farms vs Office of the President, 

G.R. No. 182332 February 23, 2011

FACTS:

On January 8, 1960, Milestone farm was incorporated with the SEC. On June 10, 1960;
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) took effect. This includes the raising of
livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. In December 4, 1990, court ruled that
agricultural land which includes livestock, poultry and swine raising are excluded from
Comprehensive Reform Program (CARP). Milestone farm applied for exemption/exclusion of
its property.  

The department of Agrarian reform (DAR) issued an administrative order, on rules and
regulation to govern exclusion of agricultural land used for livestock, poultry and swine
raising from CARP  (DAR A.O. No. 9).  DAR’s Land Use Conversion and Exemption
Committee (LUCEC) conducted an ocular inspection on the property of the petitioner.
LUCEC recommends the exemption of petitioner followed by DAR’s order to exempt
petitioner from CARP.

Pinugay Farmers moved for reconsideration for the order issued but was denied. They filed
a letter of appeal to DAR Secretary. Petitioner filed a complaint against Pinugay Farmer
Repesenatative, Balajadia, before the MCTC which ruled in favor of the petitioner but later
reversed by the RTC. It was brought to the CA where it was held that the defendants therein
failed to timely file a motion for reconsideration, given the fact that their counsel of record
received its October 8, 1999 Decision; hence, the same became final and executory.

R.A. No. 6657 was amended by R.A. No. 7881 which states that private agricultural lands
devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising were excluded from the coverage of the
CARL. The DAR Secretary issued an Order exempting from CARP only 240.9776 hectares
of the 316.0422 hectares previously exempted by Director, and declaring 75.0646 hectares
of the property to be covered by CARP. Later, the Office of the President rendered a
decision reinstating Order declared the entire 316.0422-hectare property exempt from the
coverage of CARP.

ISSUE:

W/N the land is exempted from CARL.

RULING:

The petition was denied on the grounds that the subject land was not actually, directly, and
exclusively used for pasture. Specifically when the petitioner admitted that he leased his
ranch. His defenses regarding the said lease did not convince the Court of the exclusivity of
the pasture use of his lands. Further, the power to exempt/exclude a land from the coverage
of CARL is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and is exclusively vested upon the DAR
Secretary.
BONGOLAN, Nicolo B. Jurisdiction of the DARAB
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
Case Digest CMU v. DARAB

Central Mindanao University (CMU) v. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

Adjudication Board (DARAB), et al.
G.R. No. 100091. October 22, 1992. Campos, Jr., J.

FACTS:

CMU is an agricultural education institution owned and run by the State located in Musuan,
Bukidnon. In 1984, CMU approved Resolution No. 160, adopting a livelihood program
called Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program (KSSP) under which the land resources of the
University were leased to its faculty and the employees. Under this program, the faculty and
staff combined themselves to groups of five (5) members each, and the CMU provided
technical know-how, practical training and all kinds of assistance, to enable each group to
cultivate 4 to 5 hectares of land for the lowland rice projects. This arrangement was covered
by a contract which prohibited participants and their hired workers to establish houses or live
in the project area and to use the cultivated land as a collateral for any kind of loan. It also
expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the
faculty and/or employees. In short, this particular program was conceived as a multi-
disciplinary applied research extension and productivity program to utilize available land,
train people in modern agricultural technology and at the same time give the faculty and staff
opportunity within the confines of the CMU reservation to earn additional income to augment
their salaries.

On July 1986, the project was discontinued due to losses incurred while carrying on the said
project. Some CMU personnel, as a result, were laid-off. However, sometime later, CMU
launched a self-help project called CMU-Income Enhancement Program (CMU-IEP) to
develop unutilized land resources, mobilize and promote the spirit of self-reliance, provide
socio-economic and technical training in actual field project implementation and augment the
income of the faculty and staff. Initially, participation in the CMU-IEP was extended only to
workers and staff members who were still employed with the CMU and was not made
available to former workers or employees. But in the middle of 1987, CMU allowed the
previously laid off workers from the KSSP to participate in the CMU-IEP for a period of one
(1) calendar year. Said contracts expired on June 30, 1988 and while some were renewed,
others were not and were instead given notices to vacate.

All these led the Bukidnon Free Farmers and Agricultural Laborers Organization (BUFFALO)
to file a complaint against the CMU, before the DAR for Declaration of Status as Tenants,
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform (CARP). Before the DARAB, it held that
BUFFALO were not tenants and cannot therefore be beneficiaries under the CARP. Further,
the DARAB ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of suitable, compact and contiguous
portions of the CMU land and their inclusion in the CARP for distribution to qualified
beneficiaries. This was affirmed in the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:

i. Whether members of BUFFALO are tenants and qualify as beneficiaries under the
CARP; 
ii. Whether the DARAB has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case for Declaration of
Status of Tenants and coverage of land under the CARP.

RULING:

I. No, members of BUFFALO are not tenants and do not qualify as beneficiaries under
the CARP.
BONGOLAN, Nicolo B. Jurisdiction of the DARAB
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
Case Digest CMU v. DARAB

The allegation of being a landless tenant requires proof and should not be accepted as
factually true. Despite BUFFALO’s claim that they are landless peasants, the facts show
otherwise considering that no proof whatsoever appears in the record to show that they are
landless peasants. After the expiration of their privilege to occupy and cultivate the land of
the CMU, their continued stay was unauthorized and their settlement on the CMU’s land was
without legal authority. A person entering upon lands of another, not claiming in good faith
the right to do so by virtue of any title of his own, or by virtue of some agreement with the
owner or with one whom he believes holds title to the land, is a squatter. Squatters cannot
enter the land of another surreptitiously or by stealth, and under the CARP, claim rights to
said property as landless peasants.

II. No, DARAB has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case for Declaration of Status
of Tenants and coverage of land under the CARP.

As to the determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for use by the
CMU, the school is in the best position to resolve and answer the question and pass upon
the problem of its needs in relation to its avowed objectives for which the land was given to it
by the State. Neither the DARAB nor the Court of Appeals has the right to substitute its
judgement or discretion on this matter, unless evidentiary facts are so manifest as to show
that the CMU has no real need for the land.

Under Sections 4 and 10 of R.A. No. 6657, or the CARP, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the
DARAB is limited only to matters involving the implementation of the CARP. More
specifically, it is restricted to agrarian cases and controversies involving lands falling within
the coverage of the aforementioned program. It does not include those which are actually,
directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for, among such purposes, school
sites and campuses for setting up experimental farm stations, research and pilot production
centers, etc. Consequently, the DARAB has not power to try, hear and adjudicate the case
pending before it involving a portion of the CMU’s titled school site, as the portion of the
CMU land reservation ordered segregated is actually, directly and exclusively used and
found by the school to be necessary for its purposes.

Where the quasi-judicial body finds that the complainants/petitioners are not entitled to the
rights they are demanding, it is an erroneous interpretation of authority for that quasi-judicial
body to order private property to be awarded to future beneficiaries. The order segregating
400 hectares of the CMU land was issued on a finding that the complainants are not entitled
as beneficiaries, and on an erroneous assumption that the CMU land which is excluded or
exempted under the law is subject to the coverage of the CARP. Going beyond what was
asked by the complainants who were not entitled to the relief prayed for, constitutes a grave
abuse of discretion because it implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgement
as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.

DISPOSITION:

The evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding of grave abuse of discretion by respondents

Court of Appeals and DAR Adjudication Board. We hereby declare the decision of the
DARAB dated September 4, 1989 and the decision of the Court of Appeals date August 20,
1990, affirming the decision of the quasi-judicial body, as null and void and hereby order that
they be set aside, with costs against private respondents.
BONGOLAN, Nicolo B. Constitutionality of Secs. 3 (b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No.
6657
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary

Luz Farms v. The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR
Secretary)
G.R. No. 86889. December 4, 1990. Paras, J.

FACTS

Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business. It claims to be
adversely affected by the enforcement of Sections 3 (b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 and
of the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under R.A.
No. 6657 promulgated on January 2, 1989 and the Rules and Regulations Implementing
Section 11 thereof as promulgated by the DAR on January 9, 1989.

ISSUE

Whether Sections 3 (b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 are unconstitutional.

RULING

Yes, Sections 3 (b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 are unconstitutional.

Under Article XIII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, 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 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 rights of small landowners. The State
shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning
of the word “agricultural.” Clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of the
Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-
mandated agrarian reform program of the government. In fact, it adopted the definition of
agricultural land as defined under Section 166 of R.A. 3844, as land devoted to any growth,
including but not limited to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land. There
is simply no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform.
Hence, there is merit in Luz Farms’ argument that the requirement in Sections 13 and 32 of
R.A. No. 6657 directing “corporate farms” which include livestock and poultry raisers to
execute and implement production-sharing plans pending final redistribution of their
landholdings whereby they are called upon to distribute from three percent (3%) of their
gross sales and ten percent (10%) of their net profits to their workers as additional
compensation is unreasonable for being confiscatory, and therefore violative of due process.

DISPOSITION

The instant petition is hereby GRANTED, Sections 3 (b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657
insofar as the inclusion of the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well
as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith, are hereby
DECLARED null and void for being unconstitutional and the writ of preliminary injunction
issued is hereby MADE permanent.
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G.
Expropriation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Land Bank of the Philippines v.
CA

Josefina S. Lubrica (Josefina), et al. v. Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)

G.R. No. 170220. November 20, 2006. Ynares-Santiago, J:

FACTS:

Josefine is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural land
located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro. In 1972, a portion of the said property
was placed under the land reform program pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27
and eventually in 1988, under Executive Order No. 228. 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 which was deposited afterwards in cash and bonds in favor
of Lubrica.

Nenita Suntay-Tanedo (Nenita) and Emilio A.M. Suntay III (Emilio), for their part, inherited
from Federico Suntay a parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay, Marumbao,
Occidental Mindoro which consisted of two lots. The second lot was placed under the
coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only a portion was considered by LBP and was also valued. 

Josefine, Nenita, and Emilio (now collectively referred to as petitioners) rejected the
valuation of their properties. This led the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD) to conduct summary administrative proceedings for determination of just
compensation, which they did for the contested lands.

The LBP, which was not satisfied with said valuation by the PARAD, filed two separate
petitions for judicial determination of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court. The
petitioners, for their part, filed separate Motions to Deposit the Preliminary Valuation Under
Section 16 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 and Ad Cautelam Answer praying that the
LBP deposit the preliminary compensation determined by the PARAD. The RTC ruled in
favor for the Petitioners. The LBP then moved for reconsideration, which was denied.

At the Court of Appeals (CA), it affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It justified that there was no
law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of the final amount of just
compensation. It also noted that there was 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. However, upon motion for reconsideration by the
LBP, the CA reversed itself and ruled in favor of the bank since the determination of just
compensation done was erroneously computed.

ISSUE:

Whether the determination of just compensation is based on the value of the expropriated
property at the time of payment.

RULING:

Yes, the determination of just compensation is based on the value of the expropriated
property at the time of payment.

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
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G.
Expropriation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Land Bank of the Philippines v.
CA

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 government
financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its
valuation.

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. 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.

Considering the failure to determine just compensation for a considerable length of time, it
should be determined in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not PD. No. 227 or E.O. No.
228. This is important considering that just compensation should be the full and fair
equivalent value of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent
being real, substantial, full and ample.

DISPOSITION:

The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Amended Decision dated October 27, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals 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. Tengo, 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.
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G.
Expropriation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Land Bank of the Philippines v.
CA

Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) v. Hon. Eli G. C. Natividad, et al.

G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005. Tinga, J:

FACTS:

Jose R. Caguiat, represented by Attorneys-in-fact Jose T. Bartolome and Victorio

Mangalindan (collectively referred to as private respondents) filed a petition before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the determination of just compensation for his agricultural
lands situated in Arayat, Pampanga, which were acquired by the government pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD No. 27). The Court rendered a Decision in favor of the
petition, hence, ordering the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP to pay the
lands owned which were the subject of acquisition by the State under its land reform
program as just compensation. DAR and the LBP filed for reconsideration, which was denied
by the RTC. The LBP then filed a Petition for Relief from Order citing excusable negligence
due to their counsel’s heavy workload, which was denied by the RTC.

ISSUE:

i. Whether private respondents failed to exhaust administrative remedies when they

filed a petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court;
ii. Whether the RTC erred in declaring that P.D. No. 227 and Executive Order No. 228
(E.O. No. 228) are mere guidelines in the determination of just compensation.

RULING:

I. No, private respondents did not fail to exhaust administrative remedies when they
filed a petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court.

In fact, they did write a letter 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. However, it was unanswered prompting private
respondents to file a petition directly with the RTC. Further, 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, the second refers to judicial
proceedings. In other words, 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.
After all, the resolution of just compensation cases for the taking of lands under agrarian
reform is a judicial function.

II. No, the RTC did not err in declaring that P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228 are mere
guidelines in the determination of just compensation.

Considering the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, the just compensation should be
determined and the process concluded under the said law, and not P.D. No. 227 or E.O. No.
228. This is 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,
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G.
Expropriation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Land Bank of the Philippines v.
CA

substantial full and ample. Since the RTC arrived at the just compensation due private
respondents for their property on circumstances such as the nature of the irrigated land, its
location along the highway, market value, assessor’s value and the volume and value of its
produce, the Supreme Court ruled that the RTC ruled correctly in determining the amount of
just compensation in accordance with R.A. 6657.

DISPOSITION:

The petition is DENIED.

LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G.
Expropriation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Land Bank of the Philippines v.
CA

Land Bank of the Philippines vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 118712, 06 October 1995

FACTS:

In 1992, the TCTs of Pedro Yap were totally cancelled by the Register of Deeds of
Leyte and were transferred in the names of farmer beneficiaries collectively, based on the
request of the Department of Agrarian Reform, together with a certification from Land Bank,
that a sum of money has been earmarked for Pedro Yap for the parcels of land covered by
the two certificate of titles in the names of the listed beneficiaries.
The Heirs of Emiliano Santiago allege that they are the owners of a parcel of land in
Nueva Ecija, which is registered under the name of the late Emiliano Santiago. In 1990,
Land Bank required the beneficiaries to execute an Actual Tillers Deed of Undertaking,
without notice to the heirs of Emiliano Santiago, to pay rentals to the former for the use of
their farm lots equivalent to at least 25% of the net harvest. The DAR also directed Land
Bank to pay the landowner. Land Bank, however, claimed that it was the DAR which
required the execution of Actual Tillers Deed of Undertaking; and that Land Bank did not
collect any amount as rental.
DAR maintained that the administrative order that it issued is valid as it was an
exercise of it rule-making power. Land Bank declared that the issuance of the Certificates of
Deposits was in consonance with the three circulars issued by the Land Registration
Authority. On 20 October 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the
respondents.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the 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

RULING: 

Yes.
The ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Association of Small Landowners in
the Phil vs, Secretary of Agrarian Reform 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.
The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of compensation under Section 16 (e)
of RA 6657 and the 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 is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain.
The Court find it unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation and
final compensation for purposes of exercising the landowners’ right to appropriate the same.
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G.
Expropriation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Land Bank of the Philippines v.
CA

The landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should be
fairly and immediately compensated.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of
merit and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G. Functions of the DAR
officials 
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Heirs of Tantoco v.
CA

Spouses Joson vs Mendoza and Laquindanum

489 SCRA 590, 25 August 2005

FACTS:

Spouses Alejandro and Lourdes Joson are the registered owners of a parcel of land
in Bulacan. Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum however claimed to be the actual
and lawful tillers of land. In 1987, Spouses Joson together with Pastor Mendoza, the father
of Reynaldo, entered into a leasehold contract whereby the lessee bound himself to pay 20
cavans of palay at 46 kilograms per cavan to the lessor per cropping. Later on, Spouses
Joson filed with the PARAD a complaint to recover possession and actual cultivation of the
land in question from Pastor. This complaint was based on the allegation that Pastor has
migrated to the United States and has lived there as a lawful permanent resident. Further,
they alleged that they did not give their consent for Reynaldo or Agapito to till the land.
Pastor Mendoza together with Reynaldo and Agapito denied all the allegations and
contended that Pastor Mendoza still possess all the qualifications required of an agricultural
tenant and that he did not and had no intention to abandon his right over such land.
PARAD’s decision was in favor of Pastor Mendoza, and recognized Reynaldo
Mendoza as the new tenant. The DARAB held that although the agricultural lessee, Pastor,
has abandoned the landholding, Spouses Joson are barred from recovering possession of
the land although they are owners, pursuant to the passage of RA No. 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
DARAB. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the respondents were the lawful tenants of Spouses Joson

RULING: 

No.
Their tillage of the subject landholding was without the consent of Spouses Joson.
Nonetheless, armed with the knowledge that under the present law, even the actual
occupants or tillers may actually have the rights as “beneficiary” of the CARP, the DARAB
took the precautionary measure of preserving the status quo and defer to the DAR’s turf the
determination of the issue as to who should be the beneficiary of the landholding in question.
Spouses Joson cannot recover possession of the landholding, although they are the
owners and although Pastor Mendoza has indeed abandoned the landholding and although
Reynaldo and Agapito are not tenant-farmers on the subject lan but are mere farmworkers or
actual tillers thereon, in view of the passage of RA No. 6657 which grants to Reynaldo and
Agapito the protection of being secured in their farming activities in the landholding in
question. Reynaldo Mendoza and Agapito Laquindanum are bound to observe the status
quo on the subject land.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partlygranted and the Decision dated 27
January 2000 and the Resolution dated 05 July 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G. Functions of the DAR
officials 
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Heirs of Tantoco v.
CA

No. 47437 are hereby MODIFIED to conform to the findings and conclusions of the DARAB.
The Decision dated 21 July 1997 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
in DARAB Case No. 3414 is hereby REINSTATED. In the interest of justice, we certify this
case and its records to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for the immediate determination of
whether or not respondents are appropriate beneficiaries of the land in question and to make
a report thereon within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G. Functions of the DAR
officials 
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Heirs of Tantoco v.
CA

Heirs of Tantoco vs Court of Appeals

468 SCRA 95, 05 May 2006

FACTS:

Francisco, Marta, Zosimo, Margarita, and Pacita all surnamed Tantoco owned a
parcel of land in Cavite. 9.6455 hectares of such land was declared exempt from the
coverage of PD 27. Later on, petitioners donated 6.5218 hectares of such land to Caritas de
Manila. The DAR had been considering the land in question for compulsory acquisition
pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Francisco Tantoco Sr.wrote
to DAR declaring the productive nature and agricultural suitability of the land in dispute and
offering the same for acquisition under the Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme. The land as
offered at Php 500,000 per hectare, but they never heard a thing from DAR.
Finally, in 1993, petitioners received a notice from DAR valuing the land in question
for Php 4,826,742.35. The total land area was decreased. This offer was rejected by
petitioners and they also withdrew their voluntary offer to sell. Because of this refusal,
theDAR requested Land Bank to open a trust account in favor of petitioners. A certification
was then issued by the Land Bank Bonds Servicing Department. Php 1,834,162.10 was
placed with the Trust Department but no release of payment in cash or in bonds had been
effected.
The DAR later on issued a Certificate of Land Ownership Award over the subject
property to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association of Cavite. The certificate of title in the
name of the petitioners was later on cancelled. Upon learning that their certificate of title was
cancelled, petitioners filed an action for the reinstatement of the title in their name.
The DAR Regional Adjudicator for region 4 rendered a decision in favor of the
department of agrarian reform. The DARAB also ruled in their favor. So was the Court of
Appeals, hence this petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the DAR officials, in acquiring said property, performed their functions
properly and in accordance with the law

RULING: 
No.
The property in question can be properly subjected to CARP. It was not re-classified
nor converted from agricultural t non-agricultural use with the approval of the HLURB prior to
the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. A perusal of the records reveal
that DAR officials or its employees failed to comply strictly with the guidelines and operating
procedures provided by law in acquiring the property subject to CARP. 
There were certain inconsistencies in the manner of selection of the CARP
beneficiaries who are members of ARBA.  The assailed Certificate of Land Ownership
Award, CLOA for brevity, that was finally generated failed to show that it is duly registered
with the appropriate government and non-government agencies. Moreover, 53 names were
listed when in fact only 43 duly applied as potential beneficiaries. Among the 53 names
listed, only 29 accomplished the required application forms and 30 signed the corresponding
LAGMAY, Kriztel Mara G. Functions of the DAR
officials 
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988
Case Digest                                                                        Heirs of Tantoco v.
CA

APFUS. A re-screening is therefore imperative in order to prevent a grave miscarriage of

justice especially on the part of those who applied and were excluded in the final award for
no reason at all.
In addition, the DAR issued the transfer certificate title in the name of ARBA without
payment of just compensation and without first registering the property with the Registry of
Deeds. The act of DAR in opening a Trust Account with Land Bank in favor petitioners did
not operate to effect payment for the property in question as the law requires payment of just
compensation in cash or Land Bank of the Philippines bonds, and not by trust account.
Petitioners’ recourse in this case is to bring the matter to the Regional Trial Court acting as a
Special Agrarian Court for the adjudication of just compensation. The price or value of the
land and its character at the time of taking by the Government will be the criteria for
determining just compensation. The failure of the Department of Agrarian Reform to comply
with the requisites prescribed in law in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court
the power to nullify the CLOA that had been issued by the ARBA. The DAR must be given a
chance to correct its administrative and procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision
dated December 15, 2000 and the Resolution dated May 25, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 54970 are SET ASIDE. The case is hereby REMANDED to respondent
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for proper acquisition
proceedings in accordance with the applicable administrative procedure. No pronouncement
as to costs. SO ORDERED.
MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B. SEC. 50 of
RA6657
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Sta. Rosa Realty Devt. Corp. vs.
Amante

Sta. Rosa Realty Devt. Corp. vs. Amante

G.R. No. 112526, October 12, 2001, PARDO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the
registered owner of two parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna.
According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which provide clean potable
water to the Canlubang community, and that ninety (90) light industries are now located in
the area. Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its rights over the property, thereby
destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed a civil case with
the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, seeking an easement of a right of way to and from
Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment of
private respondents. Subsequently, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao,
Laguna separate complaints for forcible entry against respondents.

The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a notice of
coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or representatives to a conference, and it was
the consensus and recommendation of the assembly that the landholding of SRRDC be
placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner then filed with the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Office (MARO), Cabuyao, Laguna a "Protest and Objection" to the compulsory
acquisition of the property on the ground that the area was not appropriate for agricultural
purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the
occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as beneficiaries.
However, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman answered the protest
and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% but only 5-10% and that the land
is suitable and economically viable for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the
Certification of the Department of Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna.

While the injunction and ejectment cases were still in process, it appears that in August,
1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued a Notice of Coverage to
SRRDC. Then Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two (2) notices
of acquisition to petitioner, stating that petitioner’s landholdings had been placed under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition
to the Board for the latter to resolve SRRDC’s petition for exemption from CARP coverage
before any administrative valuation of their landholding could be had by the Board. On
December 19, 1991, the DARAB promulgated a decision, affirming the dismissal of the
protest of SRRDC against the compulsory coverage of the property SRRDC had filed with
the CA a petition for review of the DARAB’s decision, and it was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.

ISSUE:

Whether or not DARAB has jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of whether the SRRDC
properties are subject to CARP coverage.

RULING:

YES. The DAR’s jurisdiction under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 is two-fold. The first is
essentially executive and pertains to the enforcement and administration of the laws,
MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B. SEC. 50 of
RA6657
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Sta. Rosa Realty Devt. Corp. vs.
Amante

carrying them into practical operation and enforcing their due observance, while the second
is judicial and involves

the determination of rights and obligations of the parties. This is based on the fact that the
the power to determine whether a property is subject to CARP coverage lies with the DAR
Secretary. Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that:

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 Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR).

To be more specific, such jurisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to the following:
a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the
cultivation and use of agricultural land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian laws;

b) Cases involving the valuation of land, and determination and payment of

just compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation,
amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the functions of the Land
Bank;

c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of orders or decisions of

DAR officials other than the Secretary, lease contracts or deeds of sale or their
amendments under the administration and disposition of the DAR and LBP;

d) Cases arising from, or connected with membership or representation in

compact farms, farmers’ cooperatives and other registered farmers’ associations or
organizations, related to land covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;

e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption

and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other
agrarian laws;

f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT),

Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation Patent (EP) and the
administrative correction thereof;

g) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it

by the Secretary of the DAR.

Provided, however, that matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the
CARP and other agrarian laws and regulations, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and
cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR. Hence, to resolve the issue as to the true nature of
the parcels of land involved in the case at bar, the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a re-
evaluation of the issue.
MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B. SEC. 50 of
RA6657
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Sta. Rosa Realty Devt. Corp. vs.
Amante

DISPOSITION:

The Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals and REMANDED the case to
the DARAB for re-evaluation and determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved
to resolve the issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B. Section 32 of P.D.
1529
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Estribillo vs.
DAR
Estribillo vs. DAR
G.R. No. 159674 June 30, 2006, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

FACTS:
The two other petitioners, Emma Gonzaga and Ana Patiño, are the surviving spouses of
deceased recipients of EPs over parcels of land also located in Agusan del Sur. 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. n 1956, HMI acquired such forested area through
Sales Patent No. 2683. On 21 October 1972 PD 27 was issued mandating that tenanted rice
and corn lands be brought under OLT and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. HMI requested
that 527.8308 hectares of its landholdings be placed under the coverage of OLT. Receiving
compensation therefor, HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the
landholdings so that the same may be covered under said law.

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 PD 27 of 277.5008 hectares of its
former landholdings. 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. HMI also sought for
the cancellation of the EPs covering the disputed 277.5008 hectares which had been
awarded to petitioners. HMI filed with RARAD petitions seeking the declaration of
erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No.27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former
landholdings. 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. 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as

indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings.

RULING:

YES. 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
MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B. Section 32 of P.D.
1529
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Estribillo vs.
DAR
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. Thus, The certificate of
titlebecomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the
dateof the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Lands covered by such
titlemay no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed
toanother person, after complying with the procedure in Section 105 of Presidential Decree
No.1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree where the DAR is required
toissue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have
complied with Presidential Decree No. 27 and where the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant
to their EPs acquire the same protection accorded to other TCTs.

DISPOSITION:

The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 73902 were REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The following EPs and the corresponding TCTs issued to petitioners or to their
successors-in-interest were thereby declared VALID and SUBSISTING:
MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B. RA 3844
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Caballes vs.
DAR
Caballes vs. DAR
GR No. 78214, 5 December 1988, SARMIENTO, J.:

FACTS:

The landholding subject of the controversy, which consists of only sixty (60) square meters
was acquired by the spouses Arturo and Yolanda Caballes, the latter being the petitioner, by
virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 24, 1978 executed by Andrea Alicaba Millenes
This landholding is part of Lot No. 3109-C, which has a total area of about 500 square
meters, situated at Lawaan Talisay, Cebu. The remainder of said was subsequently sold to
the said spouses by Macario Alicaba and the other members of the Millenes family, thus
consolidating ownership over the entire property in favor of the petitioner.

Before the sale in favor of the Caballes spouses, private respondent Bienvenido Abajon
constructed his house on a portion of the said landholding, paying a monthly rental of P2.00
to the owner, Andrea Millenes. The landowner likewise allowed Abajon to plant on a portion
of the land, agreeing that the produce thereof would be shared by both on a fitfy-fifty basis.
From 1975-1977, Abajon planted corn and bananas on the landholding. In 1978, he stopped
planting corn but continued to plant bananas and camote. During those four years, he paid
the P2.00 rental for the lot occupied by his house, and delivered 50% of the produce to
Andrea Millenes. after the property was sold, the new owners, Arturo and Yolanda Caballes,
told Abajon that the poultry they intended to build would be close to his house and
pursuaded him to transfer his dwelling to the opposite or southern portion of the landholding.
Abajon offered to pay the new owners rental on the land occupied by his house, but his offer
was not accepted. Later, the new owners asked Abajon to vacate the premises, saying that
they needed the property. But Abajon refused to leave. The parties had a confrontation
before the Barangay Captain of Lawaan in Talisay, Cebu but failed to reach an agreement.
All the efforts exerted by the landowners to oust Abajon from the landholding were in vain as
the latter simply refused to budge.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Abajon is a tenant under the new owners.

RULING:

NO. The fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. Certainly, it
is not unusual for a landowner to accept some of the produce of his land from someone who
plants certain crops thereon. This is a typical and laudable provinciano trait of sharing or
patikim, a native way of expressing gratitude for favor received. This, however, does not
automatically make the tiller-sharer a tenant thereof specially when the area tilled is only 60,
or even 500, square meters and located in an urban area and in. the heart of an industrial or
commercial zone at that. Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of land has
been given its possession for the primary purpose of agricultural production.

The Supreme Court The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship, which are:

1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant;

2. The subject is agricultural land;

3. There is consent;
MEDINA, Mary Elizabeth B. RA 3844
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Caballes vs.
DAR
4. The purpose is agricultural production;

5. There is personal cultivation; and

6. There is sharing of harvests.

All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the
parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator
thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so because unless a person has
established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he
covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws. The
Supreme Court ruled that the circumstances of this case indicate that the private
respondent's status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of
benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to have a garden of some sort at its
southwestern side rather than a tenant of the said portion. Thud, Abajon is not a tenant for it
only occupied a miniscule portion of the land which cannot be interpreted as economic-
family size farm under the definition of RA 3844.

DISPOSITION:

The Order of public respondents dated November 15, 1986 was SET ASIDE and Criminal
Case No. 4003, was thereby DISMISSED. A copy of this decision was sent to the Municipal
Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu for appropriate action. This Decision was IMMEDIATELY
EXECUTORY.
MONTEMAYOR, Jolina N. Difference between a tenant and a
laborer 
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No
6657
Case Digest                                                                        Gelos vs. Court of
Appeals

Gelos vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 86186, May 8, 1992

FACTS: 

Ernesto Alzona (Alzona), herein respondent and his parents entered into a written contract
with Rafael Gelos (Gelos), herein petitioner. The Alzonas employed Gelos as a laborer of
their farmland with a daily wage of P5.00. Upon acquiring of the full ownership by Alzona, he
wrote to Gelos informing him that his services will be terminated and demanding him to
vacate from the property. However, Gelos refused, continued working and went to the Court
of Agrarian Relations to fix the agricultural lease rental on the subject property. Gelos
transferred the case to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform which he found favor. However,
Alzona filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Gelos before the Municipal Court of
Cabuyao. Alzona also filed before the Court of Agrarian Reforms for the declaration of non-
tenancy and damages against petitioner.

The Regional Trial Court ruled that Gelos is a tenant of the property. However, the Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court and ruled that Gelos was not a tenant of the
land and ordered the petitioner to surrender the property to Alzona. 
 
 
ISSUES: 

Whether or not Gelos falls under the definition of tenant under Section 5(a) of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 1199.
 
 
RULING: 

No. 

Under R.A. No. 1199, a tenant is defined as a person who or with the aid from his immediate
farm household cultivates a land that belongs or possesses by another, with the latter’s
consent, for the purpose of production. The produce is shared by the landholder  and the
tenant under the share of tenancy system or the tenant is paying the landholder a price-
certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both. In order to determine whether the
relationship exists, the following requisites must be present: 

1. The parties involved are the landowner and the tenant;

2. The subject property is an agricultural land; 
3. There must be consent;
4. The purpose is agricultural production;
5. There exists a personal cultivation; and
6. There exists a sharing of harvest or payment of the rentals.

Absent one of the requisites, the person is not considered as a tenant. In application to the
case at hand, the Court ruled that Gelos is a mere laborer. It is evidenced from their
agreement, “Kasunuduan ng Upahang Araw” which is a lease of services as determined by
the Court. The Kasunduan expressly states the intention of the parties that Gelos is not a
MONTEMAYOR, Jolina N. Difference between a tenant and a
laborer 
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No
6657
Case Digest                                                                        Gelos vs. Court of
Appeals

farm tenant but only a hired laborer. It is also clear based on the said agreement, that Alzona
intends to cultivate the land himself and no intention was given to place the land under
tenancy. 

The Court made a difference between a tenancy relationship and a relationship between a
farm employer-farm worker. The former deals with the landowner as the lessor while the
tenant as the lessee of the agricultural land and the tenant’s income is based on the
agricultural produce or harvest while the latter, the farm worker works for the farm employer
and the farm worker receives a salary even if the farm employer does not make a profit. 

The wife of the petitioner contended that Gelos is only tricked to sign the agreement
because Gelos is an illiterate. However, the Court dismissed this contention because it was
proven by Atty. Santos Pampolina, being the one who declared under his oath as a witness
because he was also the attorney and officer of the court, that he was the one who
explained the document to Gelos. The lack of notarization was pointed out by Atty.
Pampolina which the Court deemed that the absence of notarization does not affect the
validity of the agreement. 

The payment of the irrigation fees does not declare him as tenant because at the time he
paid the fees, he was deemed as the “tenant” because of the preliminary finding; therefore,
the Agrarian Reform Office fixed a provisional leasehold rental. 

Furthermore, the petitioner contends that Section 38 of R.A. No. 3844 must apply, but the
Court does not agree because it was already ruled that there is not tenancy relationship and
that Alzona already rejected Gelos’ claim that there exists a tenancy relationship by filing a
complaint for unlawful detainer. 

Lastly, the Court cannot just rule in favor of Gelos because he was considered an
underprivileged party. Justice Sempio-Dy observed that Gelos is not necessarily an
underprivileged party because he was just a lowly employee. As she described, Gelos is a
mere farmer without a house of his own. It must be remembered that social justice or any
justice shall be applied for the deserving as the Court stated. 
MONTEMAYOR, Jolina N. Definition of Tenant under R.A. No.
1199
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No
6657
Case Digest                                                                        Gabriel vs.
Pangilinan

Gabriel vs. Pangilinan

G.R. No. L-27797, August 26, 1974

FACTS: 

Trinidad Gabriel (Gabriel) filed a complaint before the Court of First Instance against
Eusebio Pangilinan (Pangilinan). Gabriel was the owner of a 169,507 square meters
fishpond at Sta. Ursula, Betis, Pampanga. Gabriel and Pangilinan entered into a contract of
lease on the said fishpond on a year to year basis. During the course of the lease, Gabriel
notified Pangilinan in 1957 her intent to terminate the contract, but Pangilinan requested that
the lease be extended to another year which Gabriel heeded. In 1958, Gabriel intended to
terminate the lease and surrender the possession of the fishpond to her on January 1, 1959,
but her demand was ignored. Pangilinan answered that the trial court has no jurisdiction at
the case at hand because there exists an agricultural leasehold tenancy relationship.
According to Pangilinan, the lease originally existed from Gabriel’s father, Potenciano
Gabriel. The latter stated that Pangilinan can lease the property as long as he wanted but
subject to the condition that Pangilinan shall convert the major portion into a fishpond and
improve the part that is already a fishpond. 

The trial court ruled in favor of Gabriel and deemed that the lease contract is not under the
Tenancy Law in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1199 but merely a civil lease. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the lower court’s ruling. 
 

ISSUES: 

Whether or not the lease entered by the parties is under R.A. No. 1199. 
 
 
RULING: 

No. 

Section 4, R.A. No. 1199 as amended by R.A. No. 2263 provides that the requisites to
determine where there exists a leasehold tenancy:

1. That the land worked by the tenant is an agricultural land;

2. That the land is susceptible of cultivation by a single person together with members of
his immediate farm household; 
3. That the land must be cultivated by the tenant either personally or with the aid of labor
available from members of his immediate farm household;
4. That the land belongs to another; and
5. That the use of the land by the tenant is for a consideration of a fixed amount in money
or in produce or in both.

Scrutinizing each requisites, the fishpond is indeed an agricultural land because the law
states that a “land in which fish is produced is classified as agricultural land.” For the second
requisite, the Court recognized that the fishpond is huge and the question to determine
whether the appellant’s family has raised the roughly 17 hectares of fishpond is not raised as
an issue. The third requisite was the determinant for this case because the Court ruled that it
MONTEMAYOR, Jolina N. Definition of Tenant under R.A. No.
1199
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No
6657
Case Digest                                                                        Gabriel vs.
Pangilinan

was proven that the tenant himself or with the aid of his immediate family did not work on the
land. It was discovered that the tenancy agreement was already severed in 1956 because
Pangilinan became ill and incapacitated. After Pangilinan became ill and incapacitated, none
of his immediate family worked in the fishpond. The term immediate farm household includes
only members of the family and other persons, related or not, who are dependent on the
tenant for the support and usually helps the tenant to operate the farm. The law that governs
the leasehold tenancy expressly states that the tant and his immediate farm household is
required to work in the land based in Section 5 of R.A. No. 1199 which defined tenant;
Section 8 which limits the relationship of people involved in the leasehold tenancy; and
Section 4 which requires the tenant and his immediate farm household to work in the land. 

In application to the case at hand, the lack of work by Pangilinan or his immediate farm
household as required by the law does not make him a tenant. Furthermore, the one who
hires other people for the purpose of cultivating the land is also considered to abandon the
land as tenant under the Sections 5 and 8 of R.A. No. 1199. It was ruled by the Court that
the lease entered by Gabriel and Pangilinan is merely a civil lease. 
MONTEMAYOR, Jolina N. Authority of the DAR in Land
Reclassification
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No
6657
Case Digest                                                                        Ros vs.
DAR

Ros vs. DAR

G.R. No. 132477, August 31, 2005

FACTS: 

Jose Luis Ros, Andoni, Xavier, Roberto, Enrique (all surnamed Aboitiz), Matthias
Mendezona, Cebu Industrial Park Developers, Inc. and FBM Aboitiz Marine, Inc. are owners/
developers of several parcels of land. The subject properties were reclassified as industrial
lands by Municipal Ordinance No. 101 by the Municipal Council of Balamban, Cebu. The
Provincial Board of Cebu adopted the Ordinance and passed resolution No. 836-95 and
Provincial Ordinance No. 95-8. The petitioners secured all necessary permits and
government certificates for the development of the reclassified lands. However, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) sent a letter to Mendezona informing him to cease
and desist from further developments of the land and that DAR disallowed the conversion of
lands to industrial use. 

The petitioners filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) asserting that the Local
Government Code specifically, Section 20 authorizes the reclassification of agricultural lands
to non-agricultural. According to the petitioners, the authority of DAR to approve the
conversion of lands is limited only from June 13, 1995 where the Agrarian Reform Law was
enacted. The petition was denied. The same petition was also denied by the Court of
Appeals. 
 
 
ISSUES: 

Whether or not the exercise of authority of the DAR in the reclassification of agricultural
lands to non-agricultural is only limited from the date of effectivity of the Agrarian Reform
Law.
 
 
RULING: 

Yes. 

The contention of the petitioners that the authority of the DAR must be limited only from the
date of effectivity of RA No. 6657 is of their disadvantage because as the Court ruled, RA
No. 6657 took effect on June 15, 1988 while the Municipal Ordinance No. 101 was passed
on March 25, 1992 and the Provincial Ordinance No. 95-8 was passed on April 3, 1995.
From the dates, it can be inferred that the parcels of land in under the authority of the DAR.

The Court ruled that agricultural lands, although already reclassified must go through the
authority of DAR which is the process of conversion. The lands only exempted are lands
already reclassified before the effectivity of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657. Administrative
Order No. 6 Series of 1994 which followed the Department of Justice (DOJ) Order No. 44,
Series of 1990 states that lands already classified before the enactment of the land, no
longer need a conversion clearance. 

As ruled in the case of Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, there is a difference between conversion
and reclassification. The former is changing the current use of an agricultural land while the
MONTEMAYOR, Jolina N. Authority of the DAR in Land
Reclassification
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No
6657
Case Digest                                                                        Ros vs.
DAR

latter refers to specifying agricultural lands to be utilized for non-agricultural uses, for
example residential, industrial, commercial that is embodied in the land use plan and subject
to the requirements and procedure for conversion. Before reclassification, the land must be
converted first. 

The Court also dismissed the contention of the petitioners regarding the alleged power of the
local governments to reclassify agricultural lands because the authority of the DAW is
covered by RA No. 6657 and the Local Government Code itself stated that noting in the
section of the Code shall be deemed to repeal or modify any provisions in RA No. 6657. 
Penera, Louise Cleindale L. Land Conversion
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest CREBA v. Sec. Agrarian
Reform

Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations, Inc. (Creba) vs. The Secretary of
Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 183409. June 18, 2010
FACTS: On 28 February 2002, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued DAR AO No. 01-02,
entitled "2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion," which further amended DAR
AO No. 07-97 and DAR AO No. 01- 99, and repealed all issuances inconsistent therewith.
DAR AO No. 01-02 covers all applications for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural
uses or to another agricultural use. On 2 August 2007, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
amended certain provisions 8 of DAR AO No. 01-02 by formulating DAR AO No. 05-07,
particularly addressing land conversion in time of exigencies and calamities. To address the
unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real estate development, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform further issued Memorandum No. 88 which, temporarily suspended the
processing and approval of all land use conversion applications.
Petitioner CREBA, a private non-stock, non-profit corporation involved in land and housing
development, building and infrastructure construction, claims that there is an actual slow
down of housing projects, which aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment and illegal
squatting problems to the substantial prejudice of petitioner and the whole nation.
ISSUE: WON DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, was made in violation of Section 65 of
Republic Act No. 6657?
RULING: No. The argument of the petitioner that DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, was
made in violation of Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, as it covers even those non-
awarded lands and reclassified lands by the LGUs or by way of Presidential Proclamations
on or after 15 June 1988 is specious.
DAR's express power over land use conversion provided for under Section 65 of Republic
Act No. 6657 is limited to cases in which agricultural lands already awarded have, after five
years, ceased 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. To suggest, however, that these are the only instances
that the DAR can require conversion clearances would open a loophole in Republic Act No.
6657 which every landowner may use to evade compliance with the agrarian reform
program. It should logically follow from the said department's express duty and function to
execute and enforce the said statute that any reclassification of a private land as a
residential, commercial or industrial property, on or after the effectivity of Republic Act No.
6657 on 15 June 1988 should first be cleared by the DAR.
Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some
other use as approved by the DAR while reclassification is the act of specifying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and
commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures
for land use conversion. In view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does
not automatically allow a landowner to change its use. He must undergo the process of
conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes.
Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact that DAR's conversion authority can only
be exercised after the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. The said date
served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification or rezoning of agricultural lands
that no longer require any DAR conversion clearance or authority. Thereafter,
Penera, Louise Cleindale L. Land Conversion
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest CREBA v. Sec. Agrarian
Reform

reclassification of agricultural lands is already subject to DAR's conversion authority.

Reclassification alone will not suffice to use the agricultural lands for other purposes.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. Costs
against petitioner.
Penera, Louise Cleindale L. “Win-win”
resolution
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Fortich v. Corona

Hon. Carlos O. Fortich, Provincial Governor of Bukidnon, Hon. Rey B. Baula,

Municipal Mayor of Sumilao, Bukidnon, NQSR Management And Development
Corporation, vs. Hon. Renato C. Corona, Deputy Executive Secretary, Hon. Ernesto D.
Garilao, Secretary of the Department Of Agrarian Reform.
G.R. No. 131457. April 24, 1998.

FACTS:
The alleged farmer-beneficiaries strikers protested the March 29, 1996 decision of the Office
of the President (OP), which approved the conversion of a 144-hectare land from agricultural
to agro-industrial institutional area. This led the OP, through then Deputy Executive
Secretary Renato C. Corona, to issue the so-called "Win-Win" Resolution on November 7,
1997, substantially modifying its earlier decision after it had already become final and
executory. The said Resolution modified the approval of the land conversion only to the
extent of 44 hectares and ordered the remaining 100 hectares to be distributed to qualified
farmer-beneficiaries.
The petitioners now seek to annul and set aside the "Win Win" Resolution and to enjoin
respondent Secretary Garilao of the Department of Agrarian Reform from implementing the
said Resolution.
ISSUE: WON the final and executory Decision dated March 29, 1996 can still be
substantially modified by the “Win-Win” Resolution.
RULING:
No. When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23, 1997 declaring the
decision of March 29, 1996 final and executory, as no one has file a motion for
reconsideration thereto, the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so
modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the President has no more
authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR
Secretary, which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution.

Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of
Court mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the
Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted
to be filed in "exceptionally meritorious cases," as provided in the second paragraph of
Section 7 of AO 18, still the said motion should not have been entertained considering that
the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the Decision of
March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-
opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29, 1996 Decision which had already
become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that
accord finality to administrative determinations.

Therefore, the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution which substantially modified the Decision of
March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is void. Such void resolution is "a lawless thing,
which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight or ignored wherever and whenever it
exhibits its head."
Penera, Louise Cleindale L. “Win-win”
resolution
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Fortich v. Corona

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged Resolution dated
November 7, 1997, issued by the O􀀿ce of the President in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, is
hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Motion For Leave To Intervene filed by alleged
farmer-beneficiaries is hereby DENIED.
Penera, Louise Cleindale L. Computation of just
compensation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Land Bank of the Phils. v. Heirs of
Cruz

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz

G.R. No.175175. September 29, 2008
FACTS:
An area of 13.5550 hectares out of 13.73020 hectares of unirrigated Riceland in Cagayan
owned by respondent heirs of Eleuterio Cruz was placed under the coverage of the
operation land transfer program under P.D. No. 27. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) pegged the value of the land at P106,935.76 based from the guidelines under P.D.
No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. Respondents rejected the valuation and filed an action for the
determination of just compensation before the Cagayan Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD). The adjudicator fixed the compensation in the amount of P80,000.00
per hectare. Petitioner asked for reconsideration and, after being denied, filed a petition
before the RTC of Tuguegarao City.
RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), affirmed the PARAD’s valuation. Such
decision was guided by factors in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 in determining just
compensation and disregarded respondents’ claim that valuation should be based on the
current market value of landholding and petitioner’s computation based on P.D. No. 27,
which was determined at the time of the taking of the property. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the computation based on P.D. No. 27 should apply?
RULING:
No. As ruled in the case of Paris v. Alfeche, the applicability of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228
in relation to R.A. No. 6657 should only be applied in suppletory if the application of the
process of agrarian reform was still incomplete. In the present case, the amount of just
compensation due to respondents had not yet been settled by the time R.A. No. 6657
became effective. The fixing of just compensation should therefore be based on the
parameters set out in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only
suppletory effect.
As ruled in LBP v. Celada, the factors enumerated under Section 17, R.A. No. 6657 had
already been translated into a basic formula by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in
their A.O. No. 6, series of 1992. Court then ruled that said computation should be
mandatorily applied in the succeeding cases. In the present case, PARAD did not adhere to
the formula prescribed by DAR. SAC meanwhile referred to the abovementioned formula as
the controlling guideline in fixing the compensation. Moreover, said formula has been
superseded by DAR A.O. No. 05, series of 1998, which also requires values for Capitalized
Net Income, Comparable Sales and Market Value, the same parameters laid down in the
prior regulation. But, SAC ruled that it was constrained to adopt the PARAD computation
since no evidence was presented by respondents on the said parameters.
DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the decision and
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93207 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Agrarian Case No. 0058 is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1,
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, which is directed to determine with dispatch the just
compensation due respondents strictly in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998.
TUGUINAYO, Ryan Joshua S. Computation of just
compensation
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law
Case Digest Vda. De Tangub vs.
CA

Vda. De Tangub vs. CA

UDK NO. 9864, Dec. 3, 1990
 
FACTS:
 
Rufina Vda. De Tangub and, her deceased husband, Andres, as tenants of a landholding,
filed with the RTC of Lanao Del Norte an agrarian case for damages by reason of unlawful
disposition against the owner spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil and the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) for causing the foreclosure and for the latter’s selling of portions of the
land. The petitioners prayed for the annulment of the mortgage and other transactions made
in relation to the subject land.
 
Judge Felipe Javier, Jr., one of the respondents, dismissed the complaint. He argued that
the jurisdiction of agrarian matters had been transferred to the Department of Agrarian
Reform. Hence, it was appealed to the CA. The petition was also denied holding that the
jurisdictional question has been already resolved by the Trial Court. 
 
Tangub, now widowed, raised the case to the Supreme Court raising the same issue that the
RTC’s dismissal and the CA’s affirming of the RTC decision are patently illegal and
unconstitutional because they deprived a poor tenant access to courts which is a violation of
R.A. 6657, P.D. 946, and BP Bilang. 129.
 
 
ISSUE/S:
 
1. Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in dismissing the case filed by Tangub?
 
 
RULING:
 
No, the RTC and CA decision was correct. The Supreme Court held that because it is a
case concerning the rights of the plaintiffs as tenants on agricultural land, it would pertain to
an agrarian matter. It is not within the special jurisdiction of the trial court acting as a Special
Agrarian Court but is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform, or more particularly the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
 
 
DISPOSITION:
 
The petition is DISMISSED. The CA decision is AFFIRMED with pronouncements to cost.
TUGUINAYO, Ryan Joshua S. Jurisdiction of Agrarian
Cases
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No. 6657
Case Digest SSS vs. DAR

DAR vs. Cuenca

GR No. 154112, 23 September 2004
 
FACTS:
 
Roberto J. Cuenca is the owner of Lot No. 816-A in Brgy. Haguimit, La Carlota City. On Sep.
21, 1999, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of La Carlota City, Noe Fortunado, issued a
“Notice of Coverage” to Cuenca placing the latter’s land under the compulsory coverage of
RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The notice includes
Land Bank of the Philippines’ determination of the value of the land pursuant to E.O. 405. 
 
On September 29, 1999, Cuenca filed a complaint against Fortunado and LBP for the
annulment of notice and the declaration of unconstitutionality of E.O. 405. He argued that
the implementation of CARP to his land is not anymore with authority of law because such
would have been completed on June 1988 to June 1992. On January 12, 2000, Judge
Combong, Jr. issued a TRO directing Fortunado and LBP to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of Coverage. Fortunado then filed a motion for reconsideration but
was denied. On February 16, 2000, Judge Combong, Jr. issued a writ of preliminary
injunction ordering Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of Coverage and the LBP from determining the value of the subject
land.
 
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) filed with the CA a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. It contended that by virtue of Sections 55 and 68 of the Law, all lower courts are
barred if not prohibited by law to issue orders of injunction against the DAR in the
implementation of the Notice of Coverage and that the nature and subject matter is purely
agrarian in character and therefore the court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
 
The CA ruled that the lower court has jurisdiction over the case and consequently, they have
the power to issue the writ of preliminary injunction. It also held that the case was not purely
agrarian and that the court is not prevented from exercising the power to restrain or prohibit
administrative acts.
 
 
ISSUE/S:
 
1. Whether or not the CA erred by not taking the issues as an agrarian matter within the
jurisdiction of DAR and not with the trial court?
2. Whether or not the CA abused its discretion in sustaining the writ of injunction and
violated Sections 55 and 68 of R.A. 6657?
 
 
RULING:
 
Yes, the CA erred in holding that the RTC has jurisdiction. DAR has jurisdiction over
agrarian matters. The Supreme Court did not agree with Cuenca’s contention that his
complaint assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 405 is purely a legal issue and is under the
RTC jurisdiction. The complaint involves his request to exclude his land from the coverage of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program which is indeed a matter under the jurisdiction
of DAR. All controversies on the implementation of CARP, even those which raise questions
on legality or constitutionality, fall under the jurisdiction of DAR. It was held in the case of
Vda de Tangub vs CA that in case of doubt, the courts should refrain from resolving a
TUGUINAYO, Ryan Joshua S. Jurisdiction of Agrarian
Cases
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No. 6657
Case Digest SSS vs. DAR

controversy involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative

agencies even if the questions involved are also judicial in character.
 
Yes, the CA abused its discretion in holding that the RTC has authority to issue the
injuction. Since RTC was declared to have no jurisdiction over the case, it follows that it
also has no authority to issue the writ of preliminary injunction.
 
 
DISPOSITION:
 
The petition of DAR is GRANTED and the CA resolution is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
The RTC ORDER is ANNULLED and the Injunction is VOIDED.
TUGUINAYO, Ryan Joshua S. Jurisdiction of Agrarian
Cases
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No. 6657
Case Digest Vda. De Tangub vs. CA

Vda. De Tangub vs. CA

UDK NO. 9864, Dec. 3, 1990
 
FACTS:
 
Rufina Vda. De Tangub and, her deceased husband, Andres, as tenants of a landholding,
filed with the RTC of Lanao Del Norte an agrarian case for damages by reason of unlawful
disposition against the owner spouses Domingo and Eugenia Martil and the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) for causing the foreclosure and for the latter’s selling of portions of the
land. The petitioners prayed for the annulment of the mortgage and other transactions made
in relation to the subject land.
 
Judge Felipe Javier, Jr., one of the respondents, dismissed the complaint. He argued that
the jurisdiction of agrarian matters had been transferred to the Department of Agrarian
Reform. Hence, it was appealed to the CA. The petition was also denied holding that the
jurisdictional question has been already resolved by the Trial Court. 
 
Tangub, now widowed, raised the case to the Supreme Court raising the same issue that the
RTC’s dismissal and the CA’s affirming of the RTC decision are patently illegal and
unconstitutional because they deprived a poor tenant access to courts which is a violation of
R.A. 6657, P.D. 946, and BP Bilang. 129.
 
 
ISSUE/S:
 
1. Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in dismissing the case filed by Tangub?
 
 
RULING:
 
No, the RTC and CA decision was correct. The Supreme Court held that because it is a
case concerning the rights of the plaintiffs as tenants on agricultural land, it would pertain to
an agrarian matter. It is not within the special jurisdiction of the trial court acting as a Special
Agrarian Court but is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform, or more particularly the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board.
 
 
DISPOSITION:
 
The petition is DISMISSED. The CA decision is AFFIRMED with pronouncements to cost.
TUGUINAYO, Ryan Joshua S. Jurisdiction of Agrarian
Cases
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C R.A. No. 6657
Case Digest Islanders Carp vs. Lapanday

Islanders CARP Beneficiaries vs. Lapanday

G.R. No. 159089, May 3, 2006
 
FACTS:
 
On March 9, 1993, Ramon Cajegas entered in a Joint Production Agreement for Islanders
Carp-Farmer Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative with Lapanday Agricultural and
Development Corporation. After three years, Manuel Asta, the chairman of Islanders Carp-
Farmer Beneficiaries filed to the RTC a declaration of nullity, mandamus, damages, with
praye for preliminary injuction against Lapanday. 
 
Lapanday filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB) has the primary, exclusive, and original jurisdiction and that the
petitioner failed to comply with the compulsory mediation and conciliation proceedings at the
barangay level and for the unauthorized institution of the complaint in behalf of Islanders
CARP.
 
On February 25, 1997, the DARAB decided the case in favor of Lapanday declaring the Joint
Production Agreement as valid and binding and ordering Islanders CARP to account for the
proceeds of the produce and to comply with the terms of contract.
 
The Court of Appeals held that the issue fell squarely within the jurisdiction of DARAB and
therefore RTC correctly dismissed the complaint filed by the Islanders CARP.
 
 
ISSUE/S:
 
1. Whether or not CA erred in affirming the dismissal of RTC because it has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter?
 
 
RULING:
 
An agrarian dispute "refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture. Such
disputes include those concerning farm workers' associations or representations of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of
such tenurial arrangements. Also included is any controversy relating to the terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farm workers, 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."  It is clear that this
definition is broad enough to include disputes arising from any tenurial arrangement beyond
that in the traditional landowner-tenant or lessor-lessee relationship.
Jurisdiction over the present controversy lies with the DARAB. As the RTC had correctly
dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it was superfluous for the trial court
and the CA for that matter to have ruled further on the issue of the validity of the agreement.
 
DISPOSITION:
The Petition is DENIED with costs against Petitioner.
YUZON, Edson A. Definition of Agrarian Dispute /
Jurisdiction
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Agrarian Reform Law
Case Digest Ramos vs. Stateland Investment
Corporation

 Ramos vs. Stateland Investment Corporation 

G.R. No. 161973, November 11, 2005

FACTS:

Stateland Investment Corporation (SIC) bought a property as the highest bidder in a public
action. Upon inspection, SIC found that there stood a two-storey house occupied by the
Ramos family in the portion of the property. Consequently, SIC employed security guards
and fenced the lots to prevent squatters. Fearing that they would be evicted, Francisco
Ramos filed a complaint before the Department of Agrarian Reform Provincial Adjudication
Board for the maintenance of their peaceful possession of the landholding. The Provincial
Adjudicator, however, dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Francisco then appealed to
the DAR Adjudication Board docketed as DARAB Case No. 4471. Meanwhile, SIC filed a
case for ejectment against Ramos with the MTC. In his defense, Ramos cites lack of
jurisdiction of the MTC since he has been a tenant on the landholding since 1974. SIC
argues that it had purchased the five parcels of land, including the two-storey concrete
house, and that despite oral and written demands Ramos refused to leave.On the other
hand, Francisco admitted that SIC was the owner of the house and the landholding, but
interposed as defense that he had been a tenant on the land since 1974, and that the house
was assigned to him by the ARC as his residence. SIC then filed a case for ejectment
against Francisco.

ISSUE:

a. Does the MTC have jurisdiction?

b. What is an agrarian dispute?
c. Do Agrarian Reform Laws apply in the case?

RULING:

a. Yes, because the action in the MTC was one for unlawful detainer or Francisco's eviction
from the two-storey house and not from the landholding. In this case, the MTC anchored its
claim on its purchase of the five parcels of land and asserted that it had the right of
possession over such house as well. According to the Supreme Court, “when a tenancy is
merely averred as a special and affirmative defense to a complaint for unlawful detainer, the
MTC does not automatically lose its jurisdiction over the said action. The MTC is duty-bound
to conduct a preliminary conference and, if necessary, to receive evidence to determine if
such tenancy relationship had, in fact, been shown to be the real issue. The MTC may even
opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative defense of the defendant, although
under the Rules on Summary Procedure, such a hearing is not a matter of right. If it is shown
during the hearing or conference that, indeed, tenancy is the issue, the MTC should dismiss
the case for lack of jurisdiction.”
b. An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating the tenurial arrangement, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including
disputes concerning farmworking association or representation of persons in negotiating,
fixing, maintaining, changing and seeking to arrange terms and conditions of such tenurial
arrangement. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
under R.A. No. 6657 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.
YUZON, Edson A. Definition of Agrarian Dispute /
Jurisdiction
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Agrarian Reform Law
Case Digest Ramos vs. Stateland Investment
Corporation
c. No, the issue of whether the Francisco was the owner of the portion of the house occupied
by him and his family or was merely allowed by the former owner of the land to reside
therein is an issue which may be resolved by the application of general civil laws. In this
case, the issues of whether the Francisco was a bona fide tenant or agricultural lessee and
whether he had a right to redeem the landholding under the CARL are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB on appeal. The res in the PARAD and the DARAB
were the five parcels of land; in contrast, the res subject of the action in the MTC was the
two-storey house occupied by Francisco and his family. The sole issue in the MTC was who
between Francisco and the SIC had the right to the material or physical possession of the
house. Unfortunately, the issue was neither raised nor resolved by the PARAD or the
DARAB on appeal.

DISPOSITION:

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. 

YUZON, Edson A.             Definition of Tenant
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Agrarian Reform Law
Case Digest Heirs of Magpily vs. De
Jesus

Heirs of Magpily vs. De Jesus

474 SCRA 366, November 11, 2005

FACTS:

Nazaria Tope was a tenant of a 10,000 square meter lot with fruit bearing trees which was
owned by Rafael Magpily. Upon Nazaria’s request, her nephew, Herminigildo de Jesus, was
allowed to a construct a house covering a portion of the land and to occupy the same.
Unfortunately, their relationship went sour so Rafael decided to evict Herminigildo but the
latter refused. Hence, Rafael filed an ejectment suit against him. In his defense, Herminigildo
contended that he is a bonafide agricultural tenant of Rafael for 15 years. According to him,
his ascendants were the former tenants of the owner. When her aunt died, he cultivated the
land and had share in its produce. He cites lack of jurisdiction of the court because the the
matter involves tenancy dispute, the exclusive jurisdiction of which belongs to DARAB. The
MTC ruled in favor of Rafael stating that Herminigildo failed to establish a tenancy
relationship. The RTC affirmed. On appeal, the CA reversed. According to the CA, the case
involves an agrarian dispute since Rafael allowed Herminigildo to cultivate, harvest and
share in the produce of the land.

ISSUE:

a. Is there an agricultural tenancy relationship between Rafael and Herminigildo? 

b. Who is a tenant? 
c. Does the MTC have jurisdiction?

RULING:

a. None. The Supreme Court held that Herminigildo failed to discharge the burden of proving
that he was an agricultural tenant of Magpily and that the instant case involves an agrarian
dispute cognizable by the DARAB. In this case, “the sworn statements merely attested to the
fact that Herminigildo became a worker in the coconut plantation of Rafael following the
death of her aunt who was the former tenant of the land. Nowhere in the said statements
was it mentioned why and how Herminigildo became an agricultural tenant nor the intent of
of the owner to institute him as his tenant nor of the landowner’s purpose to embark on
agricultural production. It does not prove that he is an agricultural tenant, but only a
caretaker of the land.” 
b. The tenants are persons who, in themselves and with the aid available from within their
immediate farm households, cultivate the land belonging to or possessed by another, with
the latter’s consent; for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder
under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable
in produce or money or both under the leasehold tenancy system.
c. Yes, because the case involves the gratuitous occupation of another’s property which
became unlawful by virtue of the owner’s withdrawal of consent or tolerance to such
occupation.

DISPOSITION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 7, 2005 Decision and the April 18,
2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 69601,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE
YUZON, Edson A.   Period of Appeal /OGCC as LBP’s
Counsel
Agrarian Law & Social Legislation / 2C Agrarian Reform Law
Case Digest LBP vs.
Martinez

Land Bank of the Philippines v. Martinez

G.R. No. 169008, August 14, 2007

FACTS:

Raymunda Martinez was the owner of a 62.5369-hectare land. Unfortunately, DAR

compulsory acquired the land pursuant to CARL. Accordingly, Land Bank offered
P1,995,485.60 as compensation to which Raymunda rejected since she considered it as
inadequate and unjust. Hence, DARAB, through PARAD, conducted summary administrative
proceedings for the determination of the compensation. The PARAD eventually found some
inconsistencies in the figures and factors used by LBP in its computation. PARAD then
increased the compensation to P12, 179, 492. LBP thru its Legal Department filed an
agrarian case for the fixing of just compensation before the RTC acting as Special Agrarian
Court. Raymunda, however, contended that the decisions of the DARAB become final after
the lapse of 15 days from their receipt.  Meanwhile, Raymunda, still asserting the finality of
PARAD’s decision, filed before the PARAD a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution,
which was eventually granted. Eventually, PARAD denied LBP’s motion for reconsideration
and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution.

ISSUE:

a. May LBP Legal Department appear on behalf of LBP?

b. Should the PARAD issue the writ of execution?

RULING:

a. No, because nothing in the LBP charter that expressly authorizes the said Legal
Department to appear in behalf of LBP in any court or quasi-judicial proceeding. It should be
the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel. According to the Supreme Court, “years of
wrong practice do not make a statutory right “
b. Yes, because under the DARAB Rules of Procedure, the decision shall not be appealable
to the Board but shall be brought directly to the RTC acting as SAC within 15 days from
receipt of the notice thereof. In this case, LBP’s petition was filed 26 days after its receipt of
the PARAD’s decision or way beyond the reglementary period. 

DISPOSITION:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 83276 is AFFIRMED.