BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT payments.

The objective was to identify various

AUTHORITY VS. PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN levels of ownership claims as reflected in the
REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF PAMPANGA official records of the concerned agencies.

FACTS: The BCDA filed separate Complaints for

Petitioner Bases Conversion Development Cancellation of Title against the private
Authority (BCDA) is a (GOCC). The respondents respondents, the PARO, and the Register of
are the (PARO) of Pampanga, as the government Deeds of Angeles City, Pampanga. BCDA alleged
official responsible for approving and issuing the that since the properties (subject properties) were
CLOAs involved in this case; the Register of Deeds outside those allocated to DAR, and were already
of Pampanga (Register of Deeds), as the titled in the name of the Republic of the Philippines
government official who has custody of all the then transferred to the BCDA, they could not be the
original copies of the Certificates of Title subject of subject of an award by the PARO.
this petition; and Benjamin Poy Lorenzo, Lavernie
Poy Lorenzo, Diosdado de Guzman, Rosemary The RTC, in dismissing the cases, declared that
Eng Tay Tan, Leandro de Guzman, Benjamin G. while it had jurisdiction to cancel CLOAs, questions
Lorenzo, Antonio Manalo, and Socorro de on the legality of their issuance should be
Guzman (private respondents) as the private addressed to the DARAB.
individuals who were awarded the CLOAs.
Opposing the motion, the BCDA argued that the
Pursuant to the national policy of accelerating the complaints for expropriation involve issues that are
sound and balanced conversion of the Clark and completely different from the one posed in this
Subic military reservations and their extensions the petition. Moreover, the BCDA said, it had no
BCDA was created. intention at all to mislead the RTCs of Angeles City
as it mentioned, in both complaints for
On April 3, 1993, Executive Order No. 80 was expropriation that the private respondent’s titles
issued, authorizing the establishment of the Clark were subject to pending complaints at the RTC for
Development Corporation (CDC) to act as the Cancellation of Title.
operating and implementing arm of the BCDA with
regard to the management of the Clark Special ISSUE:
Economic Zone (CSEZ). President Fidel V. Ramos Whether or not the Department of Agrarian Reform
likewise issued Proclamation No. 163, creating Adjudication Board (DARAB), has jurisdiction over
and designating the areas covered by the CSEZ as the case as ruled by the Hon. RTC Judge Philbert
those consisting of the Clark military reservations, Ituralde, or the Regional Trial Court
including the Clark Air Base proper and portions of
the Clark reverted baselands, and excluding the HELD:
areas covered by previous Presidential This case properly falls within the jurisdiction of the
Proclamations, the areas turned over to the RTC.
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), and the
areas in the reverted base lands for military use Rule II, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of
Under Section 2 of Proclamation No. 163, these Procedure of the DARAB provides:
lands were transferred to the BCDA, which shall
determine how to utilize and dispose of such lands. Section 1. Primary, Original and Appellate
Jurisdiction. ---The Agrarian Reform Adjudication
As such, the BCDA became the owner of these Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original
lands, as registered in the name of the Republic of and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all
the Philippines, and covered by Transfer agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and
Certificate of Title (TCT) matters or incidents involving the implementation
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
On March 31, 2000, CDC, the Land Registration under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order
Authority (LRA), the Bureau of Local Government Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844
Finance (BLGF), and the Department of as amended by Republic Act No. 6389,
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian
Region III, entered into a Memorandum of laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
Agreement (MOA), wherein they created a CSEZ
Technical Research Committee to conduct a Under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657 an
technical research of properties within CSEZ agrarian dispute is defined as follows:
covered by patents and certificates of title,
applications for patent and title registration, (d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy
property surveys, and tax declarations and relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over
lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers associations or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms
or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

It includes any controversy relating to

compensation of lands acquired under this Act and
other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership
from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and
other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm
operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or
lessor and lessee.

This Court agrees with the BCDA for this case to

fall within the ambit of DARABs jurisdiction, the
issue must be one that involves an agrarian
dispute, which is not attendant in the instant case.

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction is determined by

the allegations in the complaint.

The BCDAs complaints did not contain any

allegation that would, even in the slightest, imply
that the issue to be resolved in this case involved
an agrarian dispute. In the action filed by the
BCDA, the issue to be resolved was who between
the BCDA and the private respondents and their
purported predecessors-in-interest, have a valid
title over the subject properties in light of the
relevant facts and applicable laws. The case thus
involves a controversy relating to the ownership of
the subject properties, which is beyond the scope
of the phrase agrarian dispute.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

The Order/Resolution of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 58 of Angeles City dated September 24,
2002 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Said court is
ORDERED to assume jurisdiction over Civil Case
Nos. 10362, 10363, 10364, 10376, 10377, 10378,
10379, and 10380 and conduct further
proceedings in said cases.
 APO FRUITS CORP. ET AL VS COURT OF law to determine just compensation, sat on the
APPEALS, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES cases for three years, which was the reason that
AFC and HPI filed the cases before the RTC. The
FACTS: RTC’s finding is to be sustained as it based it’s
Petitioners voluntarily offered to sell their lands to ruling on evidence. DAR was given chance to
the government under Republic Act 6657, support its ruling on why the purchase price should
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian be at a lower amount but DAR failed to present
Reform Law (CARL). Government took petitioners’ such evidence. To allow the taking of landowners’
lands on December 9, 1996. Land Bank valued the properties, and to leave them empty-handed while
properties atP165,484.47 per hectare, but AFC- government withholds compensation is
HPI rejected the offer of that amount. undoubtedly oppressive.

Consequently, on instruction of the Department of The concept of just compensation embraces not
Agrarian Reform (DAR), Land Bank deposited for only the correct determination of the amount to be
AFC and HPI P26,409,549.86 and paid to the owners of the land, but also the
P45,481,706.76, respectively, or a total of payment of the land within a reasonable time from
P71,891,256.62. Upon revaluation of the its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation
expropriated properties, Land Bank eventually cannot be considered “just” inasmuch as the
made additional deposits, placing the total amount property owner is being made to suffer the
paid at P411,769,168.32 (P71,891,256.62 + consequences of being immediately deprived of
P339,877,911.70), an increase of nearly five his land while being made to wait for a decade or
times. Both petitioners withdrew the amounts. Still, more before actually receiving the amount
they filed separate complaints for just necessary to cope with his loss.
compensation with the DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB), where it was dismissed, after three Just compensation is defined as the full and fair
years, for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners filed a equivalent of the property taken from its owner by
case with the RTC for the proper determination of the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed
just compensation. by this Court that the measure is not the taker’s
gain but the owner’s loss. The word “just” is used
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners fixing the to intensify the meaning of the word
valuation of petitioners’ properties at “compensation” to convey the idea that the
P103.33/sq.m with 12% interest plus attorney’s equivalent to be rendered for the property to be
fees. Respondents appealed to the Third Division taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample.
of the Supreme Court where the RTC ruling was
upheld. Upon motion for reconsideration, the Third The power of expropriation is by no means
Division deleted the award of interest and absolute (as indeed no power is absolute). The
attorney’s fees and entry of judgment was issued. limitation is found in the constitutional injunction
The just compensation of which was only settled that “private property shall not be taken for public
on May 9, 2008. use without just compensation” and in the
abundant jurisprudence that has evolved from the
Petitioners filed a second motion for interpretation of this principle. Basically, the
reconsideration with respect to denial of award of requirements for a proper exercise of the power
legal interest and attorney’s fees and a motion to are:
refer the second motion to the Court En Banc and
was granted accordingly, restoring in toto the ruling (1) public use and
of the RTC.
(2) just compensation.
Respondent filed their second motion for
reconsideration as well for holding of oral Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657
arguments with the Motion for Leave to Intervene (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) provides:
and to admit for Reconsideration in-Intervention by
the Office of the Solicitor General in behalf of the SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction. – The Special
Republic of the Philippines. Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination
ISSUE: of just compensation to landowners, and the
Whether or not there was just compensation prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act.
The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings
HELD: No. AFC’s and HPI’s land were taken in before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless
1996 without just compensation. DARAB, an modified by this Act
agency of the DAR which was commissioned by
Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, which is
particularly relevant, providing as it does the
guideposts for the determination of just
compensation, reads, as follows:

Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. – In

determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations,
and the assessment made by government
assessors shall be considered. The social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and
the farm-workers and by the Government to the
property as well as the non-payment of taxes or
loans secured from any government financing
institution on the said land shall be considered as
additional factors to determine its valuation.

Note should be taken that in said Appraisal Report,

permanent improvements on AFC’s and HPI’s
lands have been introduced and found existing,
e.g., all weather-road network, airstrip, pier,
irrigation system, packing houses, among others,
wherein substantial amount of capital funding have
been invested in putting them up.

The agricultural properties of AFC and HPI are just

a stone’s throw from the residential and/or
industrial sections of Tagum City, a fact DAR
should never ignore. The market value of the
property (plus the consequential damages less
consequential benefits) is determined by such
factors as the value of like properties, its actual or
potential use, its size, shape and location.
Therefore, AFC and HPI is entitled to the amount
of just compensation (Php 1.38 billion) as
computed with 12% interest per annum plus
attorney’s fees amounting to 10% of the just
compensation or P138 million.