Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. History and Legal Basis being and economic security of all people should be the concern of the
PRE-SPANISH PERIOD State
Before the Spaniards came the Filipinos lived in villages or barangays Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy
ruled by chiefs or datus. ActNo.4045) -Certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships
Everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. Commonwealth Act. No.461, 1937 Specified reasons for the dismissal
of tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the
SPANISH PERIOD Department of Justice.
Rural Program Administration, created March 2,1939- purchase and
When the Spaniards came the concept of encomienda (Royal Land lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.
Grants) was introduced.
- haciendas (wealthy chinese families)
JAPANESE OCCUPATION
1st PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC peasants and workers organizations grew strength.
First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo peasants took up arms
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large Anti- Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa
estates. Hapon)
Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8, development.
1963, in line with the above-stated principles. This was substantially superseded
almost a decade later by P.D. No. 27, which was promulgated on October 21, Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and
1972, along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private
agrarian reform.
lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention
limits for landowners.
ARTICLE XII
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
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 Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of
their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods
No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an
No. 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation. expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially
the under-privileged.
Subsequently, 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
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to
be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership. 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
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands,
timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining
lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State
the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand
hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers'
purchase, homestead, or grant. organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of
the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and
development, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress other support services.
shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the public domain which may be
acquired, developed, held, or leased and the conditions therefor. 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 the public domain under lease or
ARTICLE XIII concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of
small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by
equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
Landed Estates - Should it be annotated? No. Not necessary. The law provides for that.
Old Settlements
- Can the lessor eject the tenant? - Lessee has substantial rights, you dont have to allege , you have to
support.
Yes, the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the tenant.
Unless the ground for ejectment is not enumerated in 3844, the lessee - Allegation only is not sufficient
cannot be ejected.
e. Non-payment of rental when due No, continue between lessor and members of lessees immediate farm
household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death: 1.
f. Employed a sublessee surviving spouse; 2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; 3. next
eldest descendants in the order of their age.
- Normally the grounds are last two grounds, under 3844, there is an
express provision that the lessee will allow a sublessee. Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization?
- If they are agricultural workers under RA 3844, they are under Bill Of -Fine or imprisonment
Rights, they are entitled to minimum wage law, among others.
-Damages suffered
On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was cancelled
Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008 and a new one issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP T-
16356. On February 7, 1994, petitioner through its President, Salvador N. Lopez,
Policy guidelines: Jr., executed a letter-affidavit addressed to the respondent-Secretary requesting
Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and for the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground
continuously used shall be excluded; conversely, those not ADE are that they needed the additional area for its livestock business. On March 28,
subject to CARP if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1) 1995, petitioner filed before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an
there is agricultural activity in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil, planting application for the exemption from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296
of crops, growing of trees including harvesting); (2) land is suitable for stating that it has been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15, 1988 and
agriculture and occupied and tilled by farmers. that the said two (2) lots form an integral part of its grazing land.
In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official
functions, all processes by DAR per AO No. 9 are valid. The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order
Sec. 3 (c) Agricultural land land devoted to agricultural activity & not dated March 5, 1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454-A and
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly shown that the same were actually,
directly and exclusively used for livestock raising since in its application,
Republic vs Slavador Lopez Agri-business petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. The
application for exemption, however of the other two (2) parcels of land was
Facts approved.
Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of
160.1161 hectares registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Issue:
Corporation. Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL
On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga
issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the Held:
aforementioned landholdings which were subsequently placed under In contrast, the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to
Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform coconut trees and rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP
Law). coverage.
On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform In the Report dated 06 April 1994, the team that conducted the inspection found
Office (PARO), Davao Oriental, an Application for Exemption of the lots covered that the entire Limot lands were devoted to coconuts (41.5706 hectares) and
by TCT No. T-12637 and T-12639 from CARP coverage. It alleged that pursuant rubber (8.000 hectares) and recommended the denial of the application for
to the case of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary said parcels of land are exempted exemption. 30 Verily, the Limot lands were actually, directly and exclusively
Facts: [T]he actual land utilization for livestock, swine and poultry is 258.8422
Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) was incorporated with the Securities hectares; the area which served as infrastructure is 42.0000 hectares; ten (10)
and Exchange Commission on January 8, 1960. 4 Among its pertinent secondary hectares are planted to corn and the remaining five (5) hectares are devoted to
purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; to fish culture; that the livestock population are 371 heads of cow, 20 heads of
acquire lands by purchase or lease, which may be needed for this purpose; and horses, 5,678 heads of swine and 788 heads of cocks; that the area being
to sell and otherwise dispose of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock and their applied for exclusion is far below the required or ideal area which is 563
produce when advisable and beneficial to the corporation; (2) to breed, raise, hectares for the total livestock population; that the approximate area not
Issue:
Whether or not the lands are covered under CARL
Agricultural Land (Section 3 c)
Held:
With the procedural issue disposed of, we find that petitioner's arguments fail to Natalia Realty v. DAR 1979
persuade. Its invocation of Sutton is unavailing. In Sutton, we held:
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in
In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to
the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the
in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the
for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. NATALIA properties later became the
Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the
devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA
Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage
do not fall within the definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural activity." The
raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is SC:
an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation. Lands
this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing previously converted by government agencies, other than DAR, to non-
structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL were outside the coverage of
Roxas & Co., Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999 NHA vs. Allarde, G.R. No. 106593, November 16, 1999
Facts: Facts:
This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by Lots 836 and 839, registered in the of the Republic of the Philippines, and
petitioner Roxas & Co., Inc and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas covered by the TCT No. 34624 and No. 34627, respectively, were acquired by
by the government under RA No. 6657. the Republic on April 2, 1938 from Philippine Trust Company. They form part of
Petitioner is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner with TCTs and the Tala Estate in Bagong Silang, Kalookan City, which, on April 26, 1971, was
Tax Declarations of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and reserved by Proclamation No. 843 for, among others, the housing programs of
Caylaway, all located in Nasugbu, Batangas. the National housing Authority.
Issue: According to private respondent Rufino Mateo, he had lived in the disputed lots
Whether or not the petitioners landholdings are subject to coverage under the since his birth in 1928. In 1959, he started farming and working on six-hectare
CARL, in view of the undisputed fact that petitioners landholdings have been portion of said lots, after the death of his father who had cultivated a 13 hectare
converted to non-agricultural uses by Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 which portion of the same lots.
The CA found, however, that heads of cattle were really being raised in the
landholdings of the respondents. This finding was not disputed by the DAR. In Heirs of Deleste vs Leviste
view of the finding of the CA, we cannot now hold differently, for we are bound
by the finding of fact of the CA. Verily, the insufficiency of the number of heads Facts:
of cattle found during the semestral survey did not automatically mean that the
landholdings were not devoted to the raising of livestock. We concur with the CA The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were
that there could be several reasons to explain why the number of cattle was
the owners of a parcel of agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan City,
below the ratio prescribed under DAO No. 9 at the time of the survey, including
pestilence, cattle rustling, or sale of the cattle. consisting of 34.7 hectares (subject property). Said spouses were childless, but
Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. Virgilio
Resolution No. 5, passed on March 12, 1981 by the Sangguniang Bayan of had been raised by the couple since he was two years old. Gregorio also had two
Sorsogon, Sorsogon, showed that the limits of the poblacion area of the daughters, Esperanza and Caridad, by still another woman. 3
municipality included Barangay Bibincahan, where the respondents'
landholdings were situated. When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject
property. 4 On February 16, 1954, Hilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property
There is no dispute that as early as 1981, the respondents' landholdings have to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for PhP16,000. 5 The deed of sale was notarized on
been part of the poblacion of Sorsogon, Sorsogon. Consistent with Hilario and
Natalia, holding that the respondents' landholdings were non-agricultural, and, February 17, 1954 and registered on March 2, 1954. Also, the tax declaration in
consequently, outside the coverage of the CARL, was fully warranted. In fact, the the name of Virgilio was canceled and a new tax declaration was issued in the
excerpt from the Comprehensive Development Plan of Sorsogon, Sorsogon name of Deleste. The arrears in the payment of taxes from 1952 had been
showed that Barangay Bibincahan was within the Central Business District of the updated by Deleste and from then on, he paid the taxes on the property. 6
municipality.
On May 15, 1954, Hilaria died. 7 Gregorio's brother, Juan Nanaman, was
Alangilan v. Office of President appointed as special administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses.
SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as Subsequently, Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the regular administrator
agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as
of the joint estate. 8
residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the
term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land
from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of the
Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended deceased spouses, filed before the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Lanao del
land use. It does not denote that the property has already been Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject
reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is property, docketed as Civil Case No. 698. 9 Said case went up to this Court in
not a land classification category. Indubitably, at the time of the Noel v. CA, where We rendered a Decision 10 on January 11, 1995, affirming the
effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still ruling of the CA that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late
agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang
spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2)
Likewise, it is not controverted that City Ordinance No. 1313, which was enacted WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Application for Exemption Clearance
by the City of Iligan in 1975, reclassified the subject property into a from CARP coverage filed by Roxas & Company, Inc., involving twenty-seven
commercial/residential area. (27) parcels of land, specifically described in pages 1 and 2 of this Order,[12]
being portions of TCT No. T-44664, with an aggregate area of 21.1236 hectares
However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate located [in] Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas is hereby GRANTED, subject to
to divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential the following conditions:
Decree (PD) No. 27, which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988.
1.The farmer-occupants within subject parcels of land shall be maintained in
Rom vs Roxas & co. their peaceful possession and cultivation of their respective areas of tillage until
a final determination has been made on the amount of disturbance
Facts: compensation due and entitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the
PARAD of Batangas.
On September 30, 1997, respondent sought the exemption of 27 parcels of land
located in Barangay Aga, Nasugbu, Batangas, having an aggregate area of 2.No development shall be undertaken within the subject parcels of land until
21.1236 hectares and constituting portions of the land covered by Transfer the appropriate disturbance compensation has been paid to the farmer-
Certificate of Title . occupants who are determined by the PARAD to be entitled thereto. Proof of
payment of disturbance compensation shall be submitted to this Office within
Respondent asserted that Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) covers ten (10) days from such payment; and
only agricultural land 5 which is defined under Section 3 (c) thereof as "land
devoted to agricultural activity . . . and not classified as mineral, forest, 3.The cancellation of the CLOA issued to the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject
residential, commercial or industrial land." Respondent claimed that prior to the of a separate proceeding before the PARAD of Batangas.
effectivity of the CARL on June 15, 1988, the lands subject of its application were
already re-classified as part of the Residential Cluster Area specified in Zone A ISSUE:
VII of the Nasugbu Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1982, which
zoning ordinance was approved by the Human Settlement Regulatory Whether the land is covered under CARL.
Commission (HSRC [now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)])
under HSRC Resolution No. 123, Series of 1983. Respondent cited DOJ Opinion Held:
No. 44 (1990) which provides that lands already classified by a valid zoning
Having established through said documents that the 27 parcels of land are
ordinance for commercial, industrial or residential use, which ordinance was
within the coverage of the said (Nasugbu) Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 4, the
DAR declared as well that respondent substantially complied with the
Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased, acquired Several basic premises should be made clear at the outset. Immediately prior to
ownership of the subject Doronilla property by virtue of court litigation. A little the promulgation of PD 27 in October 1972, the 1,645-hectare Doronilla
over a week later, he had OCT No. 7924 canceled and secured the issuance of property, or a large portion of it, was indisputably agricultural, some parts
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-70860 in his name. devoted to rice and/or corn production tilled by Doronilla's tenants. Doronilla, in
fact, provided concerned government agencies with a list of seventy-nine (79)
On July 22, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131 30 names he considered bona fide "planters" of his land. These planters, who
instituting the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Thereafter, may reasonably be considered tenant-farmers, had purposely, so it seems,
then DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina, in a memorandum of March 10, 1988, organized themselves into Samahang Nayon(s) so that the DAR could start
ordered the Regional Director of DAR Region IV to proceed with the OLT processing their applications under the PD 27 OLT program. CLTs were
coverage and final survey of the Doronilla property. 12 Republic Act No. (RA) eventually generated covering 73 hectares, with about 75 CLTs actually
6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) 13 of distributed to the tenant-beneficiaries. However, upon the issuance of
1988, was then enacted, and took effect on June 15, 1988 Proclamation 1637, "all activities related to the OLT were stopped."
GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC.vs RUBEN ALCAIDE On June 8, 2001, then DAR Secretary Hernani A. Braganza, issued an Order 11 in
favor of the respondent declaring that the subject properties are agricultural
Facts: land.
Petitioner Gonzalo Puyat and Sons, Inc. is the registered owner of 14 parcels of Issue:
land.
Whether or not the land is exempted.
n April 14, 1998, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) issued a Notice
of Coverage over the subject landholding informing petitioner that the subject Held:
properties were being considered for distribution under the government's
agrarian reform program. 4 Thereafter, on November 15, 1998, the As aptly found by the Office of the President, the importance of conducting an
corresponding Notice of Valuation and Acquisition 5 was issued informing ocular inspection cannot be understated, since it is one of the steps designed to
petitioner that a 37.7353-hectare portion of its property is subject to immediate comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The Office of the
acquisition and distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries and that President stressed this in its Decision, to wit:
the government is offering P7,071,988.80 as compensation for the said property.
In other words, before the MARO sends a Notice of Coverage to the landowner
concerned, he must first conduct a preliminary ocular inspection to determine
whether or not the property may be covered under CARP. The foregoing
"1.1Commencement by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) After Considering the claim of appellant that the subject land is not agricultural
determining that a landholding is coverable under the CARP, and upon because it is unoccupied and uncultivated, and no agricultural activity is being
accomplishment of the Pre-Ocular Inspection Report, the MARO shall prepare the undertaken thereon, there is a need for the DAR to ascertain whether or not the
NOC (CARP Form No. 5-1)." (NOC stands for Notice of Coverage) same may be placed under CARP coverage. 47** AcICHD
Found on the records of this case is a ready-made form Preliminary Ocular Thus, the question of whether or not petitioner's properties could be covered by
Inspection Report (undated) signed by the concerned MARO. Interestingly, the CARP has not yet been resolved. Until such determination, it follows that
however, the check box allotted for the all-important items "Land petitioner's landholdings cannot be the proper subject of acquisition and
Condition/Suitability to Agriculture" and "Land Use" was not filled up. There is no eventual distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. However, these involve
separate report on the record detailing the result of the ocular inspection factual controversies, which are clearly beyond the ambit of this Court. Verily,
conducted. These circumstances cast serious doubts on whether the MARO the review of factual matters is not the province of this Court. The Supreme
actually conducted an on-site ocular inspection of the subject land. Without an Court is not a trier of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and
ocular inspection, there is no factual basis for the MARO to declare that the substantiation of factual issues.
subject land is devoted to or suitable for agricultural purposes, more so, issue
Notice of Coverage and Notice of Acquisition.
The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot be understated. In the AGRARIAN DISPUTE [Section 3(d)]
event that a piece of land sought to be placed from CARP coverage is later found any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy,
unsuitable for agricultural purposes, the landowner concerned is entitled to, and stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture
any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL
the DAR is duty bound to issue, a certificate of exemption pursuant to DAR
and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership.
Memorandum Circular No. 34, s. of 1997, entitled "Issuance of Certificate of
tenancy relationship
Exemption for Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory
Acquisition (CA) Found Unsuitable for Agricultural Purposes."
ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS
More importantly, the need to conduct ocular inspection to determine initially
whether or not the property may be covered under the CARP is one of the steps 1) Parties (landowner & tenants)
designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The 2) Subject matter is agricultural land
CARP was not intended to take away property without due process of law 3) Consent of parties
4) Purpose is agricultural production
(Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 245.
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
[1996]). The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process 6) Sharing of harvest between parties
be observed in the taking of private property. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, 321 SCRA 106 [1999], the Supreme Court nullified the CARP acquisition All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.
ESTATE OF PASTOR M. SAMSON vs. MERCEDES R. SUSANO Moreover, the DAR Memorandum on the "Interim Guidelines on Retention by
Small Landowners" dated July 10, 1975 is explicit:
Facts:
Pastor M. Samson (Pastor) owned a 1.0138-hectare parcel of land known as Lot 5.Tenanted rice and/or corn lands seven (7) hectares or less shall not be covered
1108 of the Tala Estate Subdivision located in Bagumbong, Caloocan City. by Operation Land Transfer. The relation of the land owner and tenant-farmers in
these areas shall be leasehold . . . 53
Pastor was approached by his friend Macario Susano (Macario) who asked for
permission to occupy a portion of Lot 1108 to build a house for his family. Since However, while the disputed landholding which had an original aggregate area
Pastor was godfather to one of Macario's children, Pastor acceded to Macario's of only 1.0138 hectares is not covered by the OLT program, the same may still
request. Macario and his family occupied 620 square meters of Lot 1108 and be covered by P.D. No. 27, albeit under its Operation Land Leasehold (OLL)
devoted the rest of the land to palay cultivation. Herein respondents, Macario's program. The OLL program placed landowners and tenants of agricultural land
wife Mercedes R. Susano and their son Norberto R. Susano, insist that while no devoted to rice and corn into a leasehold relationship as of October 21, 1972. 54
Facts: Held:
The matter of rental receipts is not an issue given respondent's admission that
Respondent owns a parcel of land. Petitioner farms the land. she receives rentals from petitioner. To recall, respondent's complaint in
In Barangay Case No. 99-6, respondent complained that she lent the land to Barangay Case No. 99-6 was that the rental or the amount she receives from
petitioner in 1992 without an agreement, that what she receives in return from petitioner is not much. 14 This fact is evident on the record 15 of said case
petitioner is insignificant, and that she wants to recover the land to farm it on which is signed by respondent and was even attached as Annex "D" of her
her own. Petitioner countered that respondent cannot recover the land yet for he DARAB petition. Consequently, we are thus unable to agree with DARAB's ruling
had been farming it for a long time and that he pays rent ranging from P4,000 to that the affidavits 16 of witnesses that petitioner pays 15 cavans of palay or the
P6,000 or 15 cavans of palay per harvest. The case was not settled. 5 equivalent thereof in pesos as rent are not concrete proof to rebut the allegation
DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 06-06 Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL
(a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish
SECTION 3. Qualifications of Children-Awardees. The child of a landowner sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves (exempt);
whose landholding is subject of acquisition and distribution under the CARP may (b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt)
be awarded and given preference in the distribution of said lands if he/she (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites
meets all of the following criteria: DaCTcA and campuses including experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings
research, church sites and convents, mosque sites, communal burial grounds
3.1 Filipino citizen; and cemeteries, penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over
(exempt)
3.2 At least fifteen (15) years of age; and
CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB
3.3 Actual tillers or one directly managing the farm as of June 15, 1988 up to The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly &
the time of the conduct of field investigation of the landholding under CARP. exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus,
Direct management shall refer to the cultivation of the land through personal including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for
supervision under the system of labor administration. It shall be interpreted establishing seed and seeding research
along the lines of farm management as an actual major activity being performed The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of
by the landowner's child from which he/she derives his/her primary source of CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a
income. university in years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a school
established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for vast tract of
SECTION 4. Rights and Obligations. The children-awardees shall have the agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious.
following rights and obligations: While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del
Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly connected to
4.1 All children-awardees shall exercise diligence in the use, cultivation and the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational institution
maintenance of the land including the improvements thereon. Unauthorized sale
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required for
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative implementation of CARP)
shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. Sec. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, DAR can
request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowners
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the protests valuation, distribution of land will proceed. CLOAs are issued upon land
landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go w/
executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and issuance of CLOA.
surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
In Association of small land owners, SC did not say automatically. SC
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by conversation.
requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to summit
evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from CONFED vs. DAR
the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is Facts:
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) Petitioners CONFED, NFSP, UNIFED and PANAYFED claim that their members own
days after it is submitted for decision. or administer private agricultural lands devoted to sugarcane. They and their
predecessors-in-interest have been planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of since time immemorial. While their petition is denominated as one for
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an prohibition and mandamus, the petitioners likewise seek to nullify paragraphs
accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP (d), (e) and (f) of Section 16 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6657, otherwise known as
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. In other words, their arguments, which
the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer will be discussed shortly, are anchored on the proposition that these provisions
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR are unconstitutional.
shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
beneficiaries. They allege the following grounds in support of their petition:
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court It is the principal contention of the petitioners that, in the exercise by the State
of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. of the power of eminent domain, which in the case of RA 6657 is the acquisition
of private lands for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries, expropriation
proceedings, as prescribed in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, must be strictly
Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land complied with. The petitioners rely on the case of Visayas Refining Company v.
Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e): Camus and Paredes 7 decided by the Court in 1919. In the said case, the
"II.OPERATING PROCEDURE 4.Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).
A.The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, with the assistance of the pertinent
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall: EDATSI B.The PARO shall:
1.Update the master list of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his 1.Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs.
area of responsibility. The master list shall include such information as required
under the attached CARP Master List Form which shall include the name of the 2.Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land
landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number. in accordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and the
related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all
2.Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms. TCASIH
or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which
the landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land 3.In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular
acquisition. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms: inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection and verification
shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds 500,000 per estate.
a)CARP CA Form 1 MARO Investigation Report
4.Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with the
b)CARP CA Form 2 Summary Investigation Report of Findings and Evaluation duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the Central
Office. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a
c)CARP CA Form 3 Applicant's Information Sheet copy each of his report.
The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above- 1.Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review,
mentioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the
are true and correct. IEHTaA case folder. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly
3.Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just
and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in compensation for said 14.999 hectares the amount of P1,145,806.06 or
case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall P76,387.57 per hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent.
conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in
accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, In accordance with Section 16 of RA No. 6657, petitioner LBP deposited for the
Series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional
compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval compensation for the acquisition of the property.
the required Order of Acquisition.
Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional
4.Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative
deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, proceedings under DARAB Case No. LV-XI-0330-DN-2002 to fix the just
the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue compensation.
the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic
of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, On June 26, 2002, the DARAB rendered a decision fixing the compensation of the
shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries." property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per hectare.
AEDCHc
Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the
same was denied on September 4, 2002.
CONFED vs. DAR
Compulsory Acquisition Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial
Notice of Acquisition determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court, Regional
First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum City, docketed as DAR Case No. 78-2002, which is
beneficiaries. the subject of this petition.
Law is silent
Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition against DAR before
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
the same Special Agrarian Court docketed as DAR Case No. 79-2002, to which
Valid implementation , two notices
petitioner LBP filed its answer and moved for the dismissal of the petition for
DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9, being filed out of time.
Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series of 1993
LBP vs Trinidad
On December 12, 2002, public respondent rendered the assailed resolution (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of
ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for release to the private respondent the rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an
DARAB determined just compensation of P10,294,721.00. accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of
On December 13, 2002, petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
said order to deposit. Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR
shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
On December 17, 2002, private respondent filed a motion to cite Romeo beneficiaries.
Fernando Y. Cabanal and Atty. Isagani Cembrano, manager of petitioner LBP's
Agrarian Operations Office in Region XI and its handling lawyer, respectively, for We find the foregoing as a strained interpretation of a simple and clear enough
contempt for failure to comply with the order to deposit. provision on the procedure governing acquisition of lands under CARP, whether
under the compulsory acquisition or VOS scheme. Indeed, it would make no
After the filing of private respondent's comment to the motion for sense to mention anything about the provisional deposit in sub-paragraphs (a)
reconsideration and petitioner LBP's explanation and memorandum to the and (b) the landowner is sent a notice of valuation to which he should reply
motion for reconsideration, public respondent rendered the assailed resolution within a specified time, and in sub-paragraph (c) when the landowner accepts
dated February 17, 2003, denying petitioner LBP's motion for reconsideration. the offer of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. Sub-paragraph (d)
provides for the consequence of the landowner's rejection of the initial valuation
Petitioner LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for reconsideration which of his land, that is, the conduct of a summary administrative proceeding for a
still remains unacted upon by public respondent. preliminary determination by the DARAB through the PARAD or RARAD, during
which the LBP, landowner and other interested parties are required to submit
ISSUE: evidence to aid the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD in the valuation of the subject land.
The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional Sub-paragraph (e), on the other hand, states the precondition for the State's
compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the landowner taking of possession of the landowner's property and the cancellation of the
if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. Petitioner maintains it should be its landowner's title, thus paving the way for the eventual redistribution of the land
initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while to qualified beneficiaries: payment of the compensation (if the landowner
respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB already accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP) or deposit of the provisional
in a summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by the compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond to the offer of the
courts. DAR/LBP). Indeed, the CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the
HELD:
LBP vs Pagayatan The LBP then filed a Petition dated March 4, 2004 with the RTC docketed as
Facts: Agrarian Case No. 1390, appealing the PARAD Decision. In the Petition, the LBP
argued that because G.R. No. 108920 was pending with this Court in relation to
On October 21, 1972, the 3,682.0286-hectare Suntay Estate, consisting of the 300-hectare land subject of the instant case, the Petition for Summary
irrigated/unirrigated rice and corn lands covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Determination of Just Compensation filed before the PARAD was premature. The
No. T-31(1326) located in the Barangays of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, Sta. Lucia, LBP argued further that the PARAD could only make an award of up to PhP5
and San Nicolas in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, was subjected to the operation million only. The PARAD, therefore, could not award an amount of
of Presidential Decree No. 27, under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT), with the PhP71,634,027.30. The LBP also contended that it could not satisfy the demand
farmer-beneficiaries declared as owners of the property. However, a 300-hectare for payment of Lubrica, considering that the documents necessary for it to
portion of the land was subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform undertake a preliminary valuation of the property were still with the Department
Program (CARP) instead of the OLT. Thus, Certificates of Landownership Award of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
were issued to the farmer-beneficiaries in possession of the land. 5 Such
application of the CARP to the 300-hectare land was later the subject of a case ISSUE:
before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB), which What is the proper amount to be deposited under Section 16 of Republic Act No.
ruled that the subject land should have been the subject of OLT instead of CARP. 6657? Is it the PARAD/DARAB determined valuation or the preliminary valuation
The landowner admitted before the PARAD that said case was pending with this as determined by the DAR/LBP?
Court and docketed as G.R. No. 108920, entitled Federico Suntay v. Court of
Appeals. HELD:
The LBP posits that under Sec. 16 (e) of RA 6657, and as espoused in Land Bank
Meanwhile, the owner of the land remained unpaid for the property. Thus, of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 18 it is the purchase price offered by the
Josefina S. Lubrica, in her capacity as assignee of the owner of the property, DAR in its notice of acquisition of the land that must be deposited in an
Federico Suntay, filed a Petition for Summary Determination of Just accessible bank in the name of the landowner before taking possession of the
Compensation with the PARAD, docketed as Case No. DCN-0405-0022-2002. land, not the valuation of the PARAD.
Thereafter, the PARAD issued its Decision dated March 21, 2003, the dispositive
portion of which reads: ECSHID The Court agrees with the LBP.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: Conspicuously, there is no mention of the PARAD in the foregoing Sec. 16 (e)
when it speaks of "the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of
1.Fixing the preliminary just compensation for 431.1407 hectare property at the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act." Moreover, it
P166,150.00 per hectare or a total of P71,634,027.30. is only after the DAR has made its final determination of the initial valuation of
the land that the landowner may resort to the judicial determination of the just
2.Directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to immediately pay the aforestated compensation for the land. Clearly, therefore, it is the initial valuation made by
amount to the Petitioner. the DAR and LBP that is contained in the letter-offer to the landowner under Sec.
16 (a), said valuation of which must be deposited and released to the landowner
3.Directing the DAR to immediately comply with all applicable requirements so prior to taking possession of the property.
that the subject property may be formally distributed and turned over to the
Compensation in cash or in LBP bonds (Section 16) Petitioner DAR, however, maintained that Administrative Order No. 9 is a valid
exercise of its rule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657. 11
Land Bank v. CA Moreover, the DAR maintained that the issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit"
Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657.
permitting the opening of trust account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in
cash or in LBP bonds. ISSUE:
SC: Whether the opening of trust accounts for payment of just compensation is valid.
Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in cash or in LBP bonds;
Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be HELD:
made in any other form like a trust account; The contention is untenable. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides as follows:
There was no basis for issuance of order.
"SECTION 16.Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. . . .
Land Bank v. CA
Facts (e)Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an
DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL, Republic Act No. 6657). Aggrieved bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of
by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
and payment of compensation for their land pursuant to the provisions of RA Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. . . ."
6657, private respondents filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari and (Emphasis supplied.)
Mandamus with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. Private
respondents questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in
1992 6 and DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, 7 and sought to "LBP bonds." Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can
compel the DAR to expedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to be made in any other form. If it were the intention to include a "trust account"
finally determine the just compensation of their properties, and the Landbank to among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at
deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked," "reserved" least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly
and "deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents, and to allow them to deduced that a "trust account" is allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in
withdraw the same. Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term
"deposit."
Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 was
issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits LBP vs Honeycomb
the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or Facts:
bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the compensation for the
3.2. If the LO's residence is outside the Philippines or unknown, the MARO of 4.7. Extraterritorial service When the LO does not reside and is not found
the place where the subject landholding is located shall submit a report of such in the Philippines, or when the LO ordinarily resides within the Philippines but is
fact or failure to notify the LO through the regular mode of service to the PARO, temporarily out of the country, service may be made by publication in a
and shall request the latter to cause the publication of the NOC in a newspaper newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR
of general circulation. may order.
4.1. General rule The NOC shall be addressed to and received by the LO. 5.1. Personal Service This is made by handing a copy of the NOC to the LO
in person, or if the LO refuses to receive and sign the NOC for whatever reason,
4.2. Service upon co-owners In case of co-ownership, the NOC shall be by tendering the same to him/her.
served upon each and every co-owner, unless one is specifically authorized to
receive for the other co-owners. AHEDaI 5.2. Substituted Service If personal service of the NOC cannot be served
directly to the LO within a reasonable time, service may be made by leaving
4.3. Service upon minors or incompetents When the LO is a minor, insane copies of the NOC at the LO's:
or otherwise incompetent, service shall be made upon him personally and to his
legal guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem whose 5.2.1. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing
appointment shall be applied for by the DLR. In the case of a minor, service may therein; or
also be made on his father and/or mother. 5.2.2. office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge
thereof.
4.4. Service upon entity without juridical personality When the LOs who are 5.3. Service by Registered Mail if personal or substituted service is not
persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the practicable, service by registered mail will be made to the last known address of
name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected the LO. The registered mail envelope shall be marked "DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE
upon all the LOs by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge ONLY" and "RETURN TO SENDER" if addressee has: MOVED OUT, UNKNOWN
of the Office or place of business maintained in such name. Such service shall ADDRESS, REFUSED TO ACCEPT OR INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS.
not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due 5.4. Service by publication If any of the preceding three (3) modes of
notice, been severed before the proceeding was brought. service fails, the NOC will be published once in a newspaper of general
circulation. A "RETURN TO SENDER" stamped on the mailing envelope will serve
4.5. Service upon domestic private juridical entity When the LO is a as proof that the NOC was not received by the LO. The publication need not
corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the state the entire contents of the NOC but only the following essential particulars:
Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, in-house 5.4.1. Complete name/s of the LO/all LOs and last known address, if available;
counsel or administrator. 5.4.2. Address or location of the subject landholding (barangay,
municipality/city, province);
4.6. Service upon LO whose identity or whereabouts is unknown In any 5.4.3. The number of the Original or Transfer Certificate of Title (OCT or TCT) or
proceeding where the LO is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or latest Tax Declaration (TD) covering the subject landholding;
whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, assessed
value at the time of the taking, location (i.e., along highway) and the volume Sps. Lee, vs. Land Bank of the Philippines,
and value of its produce, like:
(a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas; Facts:
(b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment Petitioner were notified that their land holdings is covered by Gov't
and increase agricultural production; Action Scheme pursuant to CARP. They received a notice of Land valuation from
(c) available comparable sales in the area; DAR which offers P315, 307 for 3.195 hec. DAR Adjudication Board affirmed the
(d) average harvests per hectare. compensation and valuation and declared that LBP fully complied with the
criteria set forth by CARP. Petitioners sought reconsideration but was denied.
Petition for review by LBP to CA and found that the SAC made a In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the
wholesale adoption of the valuation of the appraisal company and did not lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the
consider the other factors set forth in R.A. No. 6657 even though the appraisal same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one (1)
company admitted that it did not consider as applicable the CARP valuation of year from receipt of claimfolder.
the property. Hence, this petition.
Held: ---
The above formula shall be used if all three factors are present, relevant, and Whenever the cost of operations could not be obtained or verified, an assumed
applicable. net income rate (NIR) of 20% shall be used. Landholdings planted to coconut
which are productive at the time of FI shall continue to use the assumed NIR of
A1. When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the 70 %. DAR and LBP shall continue to conduct joint industry studies to establish
formula shall be: the applicable NIR for each crop covered under CARP.
LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
0.12 = Capitalization rate
A2. When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, the
formula shall be: The Court finds that the factors required by the law and enforced by the
LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1) DAR Administrative Order were not observed by the SAC when it adopted
wholeheartedly the valuation arrived at in the appraisal report. The Court
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the In this Petition before us, LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of Livioco's
guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to property as a residential land. It maintains that it is not the State's policy to
(c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below - Thirty-five percent (35%) (v) Payment for various taxes and fees to the government: Provided, That the
cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at use of these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of
any time. the outstanding balance of the financial instrument: Provided, further, That the
PARC shall determine the percentages mentioned above;
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP
preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance (vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder
with guidelines set by the PARC; in government universities, colleges, trade schools and other institutions;
(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability; (vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
government hospitals; and
(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:
(viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.
(a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate
(10%) of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of measures to protect the economy.
issuance until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose
to forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid LBP vs Darab
correspondingly in LBP bonds; - the valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the landowners, After re-
(b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the computation upon order of PARAD, a revaluated amount was made but Los still
landowner, his successors-in-interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their found it low. Los appealed to DARAB,. Pending resolution of their appeal Los
face value for any of the following: interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation seeking the release to tem
of the amount representing the difference between the initial value.
(i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including
assets under the Assets Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by SC- the need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the amount
government financial institution in the same province or region where the lands deposited in their behalf, pending final determination of what is just
for which the bonds were paid are situated; compensation for their land
- it is a an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not allow
withdraw
DAR vs Heirs of Domingo It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the
Facts: guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to
The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a 70.3420- determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
hectare rice land situated at Macapabellag, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, covered by compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27
Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-97157. or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be
the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 2 (P.D. No. 27) was issued, expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to
rice and corn were deemed as full owners of the land they till. The land transfer Content and manner of compensation
program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently implemented by Executive Order
No. 228. Assoc. of small landowners vs Hon. Sec.
On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent
Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of
against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR. relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a
specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary
Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just compensation for kind of expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural
the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the
Republic Act No. 6657 4 (R.A. No. 6657). maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not
mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous.
The LBP and DAR disputed Domingo's valuation and claimed that the
determination of just compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D. The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option,
No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228. are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP
The award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to ensure In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 19 we affirmed the award of 12% interest on just
prompt payment. Moreover, respondents claim that the date LBP approves the compensation due to the landowner. The court decreed:
payment of the land transfer claim and deposits the proceeds in the name of the
landowner is not tantamount to actual payment because on said date, the The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum
release of the amount is conditioned on certain requirements. equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price
fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal
Note: RA 6657 12% action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who
PD 27 6% receives, and one who desires to sell, if fixed at the time of the actual taking by
the government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before
LBP vs Rivera compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the
case, the final compensation must include interest on its just value to
Facts: be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when
The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land embraced by compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. In fine,
Original Certificate of Title No. P-082, and later transferred in their names under between the taking of the property and the actual payment, legal
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-95690 that was placed under the coverage of interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as
Operation Land Transfer pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 in 1972. Only (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred.
18.8704 hectares of the total area of 20.5254 hectares were subject of the
coverage. The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interest on
the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner
After the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) directed payment, LBP approved instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September
the payment of P265,494.20, exclusive of the advance payments made in the 1969. This allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the
form of lease rental amounting to P75,415.88 but inclusive of 6% increment of property as of the time of the taking computed, being an effective forbearance,
P191,876.99 pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994. at 12% per annum should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation
and inflation of the value of the currency over time.
On 1 December 1994, the respondents instituted Civil Case No. 94-03 for
determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial
Court. Voluntary Offer for Sale (Section 19)
LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage SEC. 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. - Landowners other than banks
of Presidential Decree No. 27 7 were governed and valued in accordance with and other financial institutions who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be
the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 8 as implemented by DAR entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment.
Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1987 and other statutes and administrative
issuances; that the administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Voluntary Transfer (Section 20 and 21)
Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was
the only financing arm; that the funds that LBP would use to pay compensation SEC. 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. - Landowners of agricultural lands subject to
were public funds to be disbursed only in accordance with existing laws and acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct
regulations; that the supporting documents were not yet received by LBP; and
QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES SEC. 23. Distribution Limit. - No qualified beneficiary may own more than three
(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to (3) hectares of agricultural land.
landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless
residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
(b) regular farmworkers; Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land
(c) seasonal farmworkers; Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions
(d) other farmworkers; provided for in the Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (Sec. 24)
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate
(g) others directly working on the land;
NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital
(1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners retained areas stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified
or lands not yet due for distribution are placed under leasehold to beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the
ensure farmers security over the land they till and pre-empt their provisions of this Act: Provided, That the following condition are complied with:
displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land;
(2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim measure while (a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to
the lands owned or operated by agricultural entities await coverage dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the corporation or
under the CARP. There entities are companies mostly involved in the association shall be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants
commercial production of rubber, banana, and pineapple; chosen by the beneficiaries;
(3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the farmers (b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association, the
are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits and are also beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the board of
assured of at least a representatives at the Board of Directors, directors, or in a management or executive committee, if one exists, of the
management or executive committee to protect the rights and interest corporation or association;
of shareholders; and (c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same
(4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). This scheme provides corporate rights and features as all other shares; and
landowners of newly-established commercial plantations enough time to (d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void ab
recover their investment before such agricultural lands are covered by initio UNLESS said transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered beneficiary
CARP. The deferment period was up to 1998. Pending final land transfer, within the same corporation.
however, these corporations shall implement a production and profit-
sharing scheme in their farms. If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer
The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution
not been given much priority, as there has been greater pressure for them to approved by the PARC within the same period, the agricultural land of the
deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets. corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of
this Act.
Chapter VIII (Corporate Farms)
HLI vs PRAC
SEC. 31. Corporate Landowners. - Corporate landowners may voluntarily
transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the Republic of the BASIC Facts:
Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified beneficiaries, under THE HACIENDA COMPRISED 6,443 HAS. IN 1957 TABACALERA SOLD THE LAND
such terms and conditions consistent with this Act, as they may agree upon, TO TADECO OWNED BY THE COJUANCOS. GSIS FINANCED THE PURCHASE ON
subject to confirmation by the DAR. CONDITION THAT THE LAND WILL ULTIMATELY BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD TO
Upon certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may give THE TENANTS.
their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital
stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted to IN 1980 GOVT FILED AT RTC MANILA CASE AGAINST TADECO FOR IT TO
agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total assets, under such SURRENDER THE HACIENDA TO MAR (NOW DAR) SO THE LAND WILL BE
terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no case shall the DISTRIBUTED TO FARMERS. MANILA RTC RULED AGAINST TADECO. TADECO
compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are APPEALED TO CA. IN 1988 CA DISMISSED THE APPEAL SUBJECT TO REVIVAL IF
Following the doctrine of necessary implication, it may be stated that the NO. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUESTIONING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW
conferment of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the ARE NOT ALL COMPLIED WITH. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE: (1) THERE IS AN
agricultural land of corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY; (2) THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION IS
recall the approval of the plan. RAISED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY BY A PROPER PARTY OR ONE
WITH LOCUS STANDI; AND (3) THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY MUST BE
As public respondents aptly observe, to deny PARC such revocatory power would THE VERY LIS MOTA OF THE CASE.[32][108]
reduce it into a toothless agency of CARP, because the very same agency tasked
to ensure compliance by the corporate landowner with the approved SDP would THE FARMERS QUESTIONED THE CONSITUTIONALITY OF R.A. 6657 ONLY AFTER
be without authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance with it.[18][98] 14 YEARS SINCE THE SDP WAS DRAWN AND IMPLEMENTED. IT IS TOO LATE.
With the view We take of the case, only PARC can effect such revocation. The ALSO, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUE REGARDING THE SDP WAS NOT THE LIST
DAR Secretary, by his own authority as such, cannot plausibly do so, as the MOTA. IT WAS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SDP.
acceptance and/or approval of the SDP sought to be taken back or undone is the
act of PARC whose official composition includes, no less, the President as chair, FARM asks for the invalidation of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, insofar as it affords the
the DAR Secretary as vice-chair, and at least eleven (11) other department corporation, as a mode of CARP compliance, to resort to stock distribution, an
heads.[19][99] arrangement which, to FARM, impairs the fundamental right of farmers and
farmworkers under Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution.[33][106]
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To a more specific, but direct point, FARM argues that Sec. 31 of RA 6657
permits stock transfer in lieu of outright agricultural land transfer; in fine, there
is stock certificate ownership of the farmers or farmworkers instead of them
WHAT IS THIS DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION? owning the land, as envisaged in the Constitution. For FARM, this modality of
distribution is an anomaly to be annulled for being inconsistent with the basic
concept of agrarian reform ingrained in Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the Constitution.[34]
WHAT IS IMPLIED IN A STATUTE IS AS MUCH A PART OF IT AS THAT WHICH IS [107]
EXPRESSED.[20][94] EVERY STATUTE IS UNDERSTOOD, BY IMPLICATION, TO Reacting, HLI insists that agrarian reform is not only about transfer of land
CONTAIN ALL SUCH PROVISIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE ITS ownership to farmers and other qualified beneficiaries. It draws attention in this
OBJECT AND PURPOSE, OR TO MAKE EFFECTIVE RIGHTS, POWERS, PRIVILEGES regard to Sec. 3(a) of RA 6657 on the concept and scope of the term agrarian
OR JURISDICTION WHICH IT GRANTS, INCLUDING ALL SUCH COLLATERAL AND reform. The constitutionality of a law, HLI added, cannot, as here, be attacked
SUBSIDIARY CONSEQUENCES AS MAY BE FAIRLY AND LOGICALLY INFERRED collaterally.
FROM ITS TERMS.[21][95]FURTHER, EVERY STATUTORY GRANT OF POWER, The instant challenge on the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 and
RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE IS DEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL INCIDENTAL POWER, RIGHT OR necessarily its counterpart provision in EO 229 must fail as explained below.
PRIVILEGE When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review over, and
pass upon the constitutionality of, acts of the executive or legislative
ISSUE departments, it does so only when the following essential requirements are first
met, to wit:
(1) there is an actual case or controversy;