Reviewer Agrarian Law

 Definition of agrarian reform.

Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to
farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to
include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the
beneficiaries and all other arrangement alternative to the physical redistribution of lands,
such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of stock,
which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.
[Section 3(a) of RA 6657]

 Definition of Farmer

a. Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the
production of agricultural crops, livestock and/or fisheries either by himself/herself, or
primarily with the assistance of his/her immediate farm household, whether the land is
owned by him/her, or by another person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or
arrangement with the owner thereof [Section 3(f)].

 Definition of Farmworker

b. Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as an employee or

laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is paid
on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis. It includes an individual whose work has
ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has
not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment [Section 3(g)].

 The essential elements of an agricultural tenancy relationship are:

(1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
(2) the subject matter of the relationship is agricultural land;
(3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
(4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;
(5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
(6) consideration.

1
  Determination of Just Compensation.

In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the
standing crop, the current:
1. value of like properties,
2. its nature,
3. actual use and income,
4. the sworn valuation by the owner,
5. the tax declarations,
6. the assessment made by government assessors,
7. and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR),

translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be considered,

subject to the final decision of the proper court.
The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government 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 [Section 17].

 Beneficiaries [Section 22]

Beneficiaries, in their order of priority, are:

1. Agricultural lessees and share tenants;

2. Regular Farmworkers;

3. Seasonal farmworkers;
4. Other farmworkers;
5. Actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
6. Collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries;
7. Others directly working on the land.

 Qualifications of Beneficiries
a. Filipino Citizen;
b. Resident of the barangay or municipality where the landholding is located;
c. At least 15 years old at the time of identification, screening, and selection; and
d. Willing, able, and equipped with aptitude to cultivate and make the land
productive.

2
  Disqualifications of Beneficiaries [Section 22]

1. Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of,
or abandoned their land;

2. Beneficiaries guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to

them;

3. Beneficiaries with at least three (3) hectares of agricultural land; and

4. Beneficiaries whose land have been the subject of foreclosure by the Land Bank of the
Philippines. [Section 26]

 Grounds for cancellation of CLOA

a. Abandonment of the land;
b. Neglect or misuse of the land;
c. Failure to pay 3 annual amortization;
d. Misuse or diversion of financial and support services;
e. Sale, transfer or conveyance of the right to use the land; and
f. Illegal conversion of the land.

 Lubrica case

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C. SUNTAY,

NENITA SUNTAY TAÑEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III,

Petitioners, vs.LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,

FACTS: Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certain
parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area
of 3,682.0285 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). In 1972, a portion of
the said property with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land reform
program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972) and Executive Order No. 228 (1987).

The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which
amount was deposited in cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica. Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and
Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a parcel of agricultural land
consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing
an area of 165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 was placed under the
3
coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 hectares was considered by LBP and valued the
same at P1,512,575.05. Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office
of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary
administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation. ISSUE: WON the
determination of just compensation should be based on the value of the expropriated
properties at the time of payment. HELD: Yes. 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. The
CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to
the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by
the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title
also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.
Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in 1972, yet to date, they have not yet
received just compensation. Thus, it would certainly be inequitable to determine just
compensation based on the guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228
considering the failure to determine just compensation for a considerable length of time. That
just compensation should be determined in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No.
227 or E.O. No. 228, is important considering that just compensation should be the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being
real, substantial, full and ample.

 2-fold jurisdiction of DARAB

Executive- pertains to the enforcement and administration of the laws, carrying them
into practical operation and enforcing their due observance.
Judicial- involves the determination of rights and obligations of the parties.

A. Jurisdiction

1. The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to

determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matter involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. [Section 50]

2. DAR Adjudicator
4
A .Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)

i. Exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction

ii. Exercises functional supervision over the RARADs and PARADs

b. Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD)

i. Executive Adjudicator in his region

ii. Receives, hears and adjudicates cases which the PARAD cannot handle because the
latter is disqualified or inhibits himself or because the case is complex or sensitive

c. Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)

3. Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform

* Matter involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP and agrarian
laws and regulations shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform

"SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except
those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the
DENR. "It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall proceed
to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most expeditious manner,
employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with
justice and equity and the merits of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of
procedure to achieve a just, expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or
proceeding before it. "It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take
testimony, require submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents and
answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its
writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall likewise have the power to
punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as
provided in the Rules of Court. "Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent
themselves, their fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR:
Provided, however, That when there are two or more representatives for any individual or
group, the representatives should choose only one among themselves to represent such party
or group before any DAR proceedings. "Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals,

5
the decision of the DAR shall be immediately executory except a decision or a portion
thereof involving solely the issue of just compensation."

"SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. — No court or prosecutor's office

shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those
provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation
from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer,
farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor
to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether
an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved
party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the
prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court, and in cases
referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals. "In cases
where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform
beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing
and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under
the CARP."The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned
government agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal
standing and interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."

 Judicial Review in agrarian reform cases

1. Any decision, order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on
any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement or interpretation
of the CARL and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court
of Appeals by certiorari within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
[Section 54]
2. The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if based on
substantial evidence.
3. Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR
shall be immediately executory. [Section 50]

 Sale or transfer of awarded lands

6
Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act or other agrarian reform laws shall not be
sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or
to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a period of ten (10) years:

Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to
repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due
notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the BARC of the barangay
where the land is situated. The PARCCOM, as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due
notice thereof by the BARC.

The title of the land awarded under the agrarian reform must indicate that it is an
emancipation patent or a certificate of land ownership award and the subsequent transfer title
must also indicate that it is an emancipation patent or a certificate of land ownership award

If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be
transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to
any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the
land himself/herself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP
which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the
immediately preceding paragraph.

In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in on
lump sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of
improvements he/she has made on the land. (as amended by Section 12, RA 9700)

 Indefeasibility of titles

1. Estribillo vs. Department of Agrarian Reform G.R. No. 159674 June 30, 2006
Doctrines:
(a) Certificate of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as
TCTs issued in registration proceedings;
(b) The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the
expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the
patent;
(c) The Emancipation Patents themselves, like the Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) in Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988), are enrolled in the Torrens system of registration.

7
Facts : This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
seeking the review and reversal of the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The
petitioners are the recipients of Emancipation Patents (EPs) over parcels of land
located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur. The parcels of land in this
case, 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. HMI acquired such forested area
from the Republic of the Philippines through Sales Patent No. 2683 in 1956 by virtue
of which it was issued OCT No. P30771661. On 21 October 1972, Presidential Decree
No. 27 was issued mandating that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under
Operation Land Transfer and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. HMI, through a certain
Joaquin Colmenares, requested that 527.8308 hectares of its landholdings be placed
under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving compensation therefor,
HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the landholdings so that the
same may be covered under said law. HMI, through its representatives, actively
participated in all relevant proceedings, including the determination of the Average
Gross Production per hectare at the Barangay Committee on Land Production, and was
a signatory of an undated Landowner and Tenant Production Agreement (LTPA),
covering the 527.8308 hectares. The LTPA was submitted to the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) in 1977. In 1982, a final survey over the entire area was conducted
and approved. From 1984 to 1988, the corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the
entire 527.8308 hectares were issued to petitioners, among other persons. In December
1997, HMI filed with the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) of
CARAGA, Region XIII, 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: On 27 November 1998, after petitioners failed to submit a Position Paper,

the RARAD rendered a Decision declaring as void the TCTs and EPs awarded to
petitioners because the land covered was not devoted to rice and corn, and neither was
there any established tenancy relations between HMI and petitioners when Presidential
Decree No. 27 took effect on 21 October 1972.

DARAB: Petitioners appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board (DARAB), which affirmed the RARAD Decision.

8
CA: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Hence, this petition contending that there had been
compliance with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover,
reiterating that EPs are ordinary titles, which become indefeasible one year after the
registration.

Issue: Whether or not the transfer certificates of title issued pursuant to Emancipation
Patents acquire the same protection accorded to other Transfer Certificates of Title.

Rule: The Supreme Court granted the petitions. The resolutions of the Court of
Appeals are reversed and set aside. The EPs and the corresponding TCTs issued to
petitioners or to their successors-in-interest are declared valid and subsisting.

Procedural issue:
With the CA dismissing the petition for violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court ruled that the Petitioners have sufficiently
complied with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the
Certification Against Forum Shopping. In the case, Petitioner Samuel A. Estribillo, in
signing the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping, falls within the
phrase “plaintiff or principal party” who is required to certify under oath the matters
mentioned in Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, even
if we assume for the sake of argument that there was violation of Rule 7, Section 5 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a relaxation of such rule would be justified for two
compelling reasons:
social justice considerations and the apparent merit of the Petition

Substantial issue: YES. Certificate of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents

are as indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings. After complying with
the procedure, therefore, in Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise
known as the Property Registration Decree (where the DAR is required to issue the
corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have
complied with Presidential Decree No. 27), the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to
their EPs acquire the same protection accorded to other TCTs.
“The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration
of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, x
x x. Lands covered by such title may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral
proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another person (Ybañez v. Intermediate Appellate
Court). ”
9
The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in
Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), are
enrolled in the Torrens system of registration. The Property Registration Decree in fact
devotes Chapter IX on the subject of EPs. Indeed, such EPs and CLOAs are, in
themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in registration
proceedings

2. The ruling stated that the unreasonable delay of HMI in filing the petition for
cancellation more than 20 years and more than 10 years after the issuance of the TCTs
to the farmers is apparently motivated by its desire to receive a substantially higher
valuation and just compensation. The ruling of the Supreme Court in the above-cited
case vindicated the rights of the farmers, as represented here in the case, by Samuel
Estribillo.
Although the decision is a cause for a celebration, much is still to be done. There
remains a challenge to pressure the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) to ignore and dismiss
baseless actions for nullification and cancellation of EPs and CLOAs.
In fact 27 days after the Hacienda Maria decision, the Supreme Court enunciated the
case of Carmona vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, wherein it affirmed the cancellation of the
Emancipation Patent 18 years after its issuance to the beneficiaries. Although the facts
of the case are totally different from the hacienda Maria case, it is worth noting that
there is still a large threat for EPs and CLOAs to be cancelled and a tendency for the
Supreme Court to rule in favor of the cancellation of the said titles making it more
difficult for the farmer beneficiaries. To this end, a much larger challenge is on how to
protect the gains of the agrarian reform program.
This primer shall primarily provide the readers an overview of the agrarian laws in the
country, particularly Presidential Decree 27 (PD 27) and Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (RA 6657). This also contains a discussion on the proposed bill
(affirming the indefeasibility of EPs/CLOAs) presently pending before Congress, as
well as DAR Memorandum Circulars No. 05 and 10, series of 2004, both policy
reforms that aim at curbing the indiscriminate cancellation of EPs and CLOAs.
Further, this primer also discusses relevant concepts such as property, possession, and
nature of the Torrens system of registration.
Lastly, this primer is being published by the Alternative Law Group’s Incorporated
(ALG), a coalition of 18 non-government organizations with legal program
components that adhere to the principles and values of alternative or developmental
law. These organizations have distinct programs for developmental legal assistance
that are primarily concerned with the pursuit of public interest, respect for human
10
rights and promotion of social justice. At the heart of developmental law is the
empowerment of the poor and the marginalized through advancing a critique of law
and use of the law by the poor to enforce and protect their rights.

11
12