Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (AFMA)

The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of 1997 (Republic Act 8435) was passed by the
Senate and the House of Representatives on December 15, 1997 and December 16, 1997, respectively.
It was signed into law by then President Fidel V. Ramos on December 22, 1997.
What are the main objectives of AFMA?
a) To modernize the agricultural and fishery sectors by transforming these sectors from a resource-
based to a technology-based industry;

b) To enhance profits and incomes in the agricultural and fishery sectors, particularly of the small
farmers and fisherfolk by ensuring equitable access to assets, resources and services, and promoting
higher-value crops, value-added processing, agribusiness activities, and agro-industrialization;

c) To ensure the accessibility, availability and stability of food supply at all times;

d) To encourage horizontal and vertical integration, consolidation and expansion of agricultural and
fishery activities, groups, functions and other services through the organization of cooperatives,
farmers’ and fisherfolk’s associations, corporations, nucleus estates, and consolidated farms and to
enable these entities to benefit from economies of scale, afford them a stronger negotiating position,
and enable them to pursue more focused, efficient and appropriate research and development
efforts;

e) To promote people empowerment by strengthening people’s organizations, cooperatives and NGO’s,

and by establishing and improving mechanisms and processes for their participation in government
decision-making and implementation;

f) To pursue a market-driven approach to enhance the comparative advantage of our agricultural and
fishery sectors in the world market;

g) To induce the agricultural and fishery sectors to continuously ascend the value-added ladder by
subjecting their traditional or new products to further processing in order to minimize the marketing
of raw, unfinished or unprocessed products;

h) To adopt policies that will promote industry dispersal and rural industrialization by providing
incentives to local and foreign investors for them to establish industries that have backward linkages
to the country’s agricultural and fishery resource bases;

i) To provide social and economic adjustment measures that increase productivity and improve market
efficiency while ensuring the protection and preservation of the environment and equity for small
farmers and fisherfolk; and

j) To improve the quality of life of all sectors.

What are the trade and fiscal incentives provided under AFMA?
Section 109 of RA 8435 provides that all enterprises engaged in agriculture and fishery duly certified by
the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Board of
Investments (BOI) shall, for five (5) years, be exempted from the payment of tariff duties on all types of
imported agricultural and fishery inputs, equipment and machinery including, among others, fertilizers,
insecticides, tractors, hybrid seed, farm implements and machinery, packaging machinery and materials,
and fishing equipment and parts thereof, provided that the imported agriculture and fishery input, and/or
equipment shall be for the exclusive use of the importing enterprise.

Who are eligible for exemption from the payment of import duties of agricultural and fishery Inputs,
equipment and machinery as provided for under Section 109 of Republic Act 8435?
a) Agricultural sectors;
b) Cooperatives;
c) Farmers and fisherfolk;
d) Farmers and fisherfolk organizations and associations;
e) Fishery enterprises;
f) Fishery sectors; and
g) Import consolidators.

When is the effectivity and the implementation period of the duty exemption on agricultural and fishery
inputs?
Section 109 of RA 8435 stated that all enterprises engaged in agriculture and fishery as duly certified by
the Department of Agriculture in consultation with the Department of Finance and the Board of
Investment, shall for five (5) years after the effectivity of the Act, or until February 8, 2003, be exempted
from paying the tariff duties on imports of all types of agriculture and fishery inputs.

By virtue of R.A. 9281, enacted on March 30, 2004, the duty-free privilege was extended until December
31, 2015.

EO 376 was issued on October 22, 2004 providing the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9281. The
EO limits the product coverage and prescribes the requirement of a Certificate of Eligibility or
Accreditation to accompany the duty-exempted importation.

What was the role of the Tariff Commission in the AFMA?

a) The Commission actively participated in the preparation of the IRR of the AFMA, particularly in the
preparation and review of the product lists in consultation with concerned government agencies and the
private sector.
b) The Commission conducted public hearings on January 25, 1999, December 14, 2000, June 28, 2001,
January 21, 2003 and June 29, 2004 to provide interested parties the opportunity to be heard and submit
position papers.

Conversion vs Reclassification
Ros, et al. vs DAR, et al.
G.R. No. 132477, August 31, 2005FACTS:
Petitioners are the owners/developers of several parcels of land. By virtue of a Municipal Ordinance, these
lands were reclassified as industrial lands. As part of their preparation for the development of the subject
lands as an industrial park, petitioners secured all the necessary permits and appropriate government
certifications. However, the DAR disallowed the conversion of the subject lands for industrial use and
directed the petitioners to cease and desist from further developments on the land. Petitioners filed with
the RTC a Complaint for Injunction with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction. However, the RTC, ruling that it is the DAR which has jurisdiction, dismissed the
complaint. When the case was brought to the SC, it was referred to the CA. However, the CA affirmed the
dismissal of the case. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the DAR has the primary jurisdiction over the case.
After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion, jurisdiction
over which is vested in the DAR. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to approve or
disapprove applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-
agricultural uses, pursuant to Section 4(i) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987. Section 65 of R.A.
No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, likewise empowers the
DAR to authorize under certain conditions, the reclassification or conversion of agricultural lands. It being
settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the DAR, the complaint for injunction was
correctly dismissed by the trial and appellate courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The
doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction
has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform cases,
jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more specifically, in the Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).

Sec. 4 of RA 6657 vs Sec. 20 of RA 7160

Sec. 4 of RA 6657 tells us which lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, thus:
Section 4. Scope.-The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover; regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable
for agriculture. (Emphasis supplied.)
However, in 1991, RA 7160 or the Local Government Code was passed into law, granting local government
units the power to reclassify land. Being a later law, RA 7160 shall govern in case of conflict between it
and RA 6657, as to the issue of reclassification. Title I, Chapter 2, Sec. 20 of RA 7160 states:
SEC. 20. Reclassification of Lands.--(a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the
sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural
lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the
land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the
Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for
residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned: Provided,
That such reclassification shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at
the time of the passage of the ordinance:
(1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%);
(2) For component cities and first to third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and
(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further, That agricultural lands
distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to [RA 6657], otherwise known as "The
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law", shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion
of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act.
Memorandum Circular No. (MC) 54

Pursuant to RA 7160, then President Fidel Ramos issued Memorandum Circular No. (MC) 54 on June 8,
1993, providing the guidelines in the implementation of the above Sec. 20 of the Local Government Code,
as follows:

SECTION 1. Scope and Limitations.-(a) Cities and municipalities with comprehensive land use plans
reviewed and approved in accordance with EO 72 (1993), may authorize the reclassification of
agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses and provide for the manner of their utilization or
disposition, subject to the limitations and other conditions prescribed in this Order.

(b) Agricultural lands may be reclassified in the following cases:

(1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes
as determined by the Department of Agriculture (DA), in accordance with the standards
and guidelines prescribed for the purpose; or (2) where the land shall have substantially
greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes as determined
by the sanggunian concerned, the city/municipality concerned should notify the DA,
HLRB, DTI, DOT and other concerned agencies on the proposed reclassification of
agricultural lands furnishing them copies of the report of the local development council
including the draft ordinance on the matter for their comments, proposals and
recommendations within seven (7) days upon receipt.

(c) However, such reclassification shall be limited to a maximum of the percentage of the total
agricultural land of a city or municipality at the time of the passage of the ordinance as follows:
 (1) For highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%);

(2) For component cities and first to third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and

(3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%).

(d) In addition, the following types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by the said
reclassification:

(1) Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries subject to Section 65 of RA 6557;

(2) Agricultural lands already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under
CARP.

(3) Agricultural lands identified under AO 20, s. of 1992, as non-negotiable for conversion as
follows:

(i) All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production;

(ii) All irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but
within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by DA and National Irrigation
Administration (NIA); and

(iii) All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with form funding
commitments at the time of the application for land conversion or reclassification.

Alarcon v CA

A tenancy relationship, once established, entitles the tenant to a security of tenure.12 He can only be
ejected from the agricultural landholding on grounds provided by law. This is clearly stated in Section 7 of
RA 3844, which provides:

SEC. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation. – The agricultural leasehold relation once
established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the
landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled
to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by
the Court for causes herein provided.

Section 36 provides the different grounds and manner by which a tenant can be lawfully ejected or
dispossessed of his landholding. One of them is the reclassification of the landholding from agricultural to
non-agricultural. For purposes of this petition, the pertinent provision of said Section 36 reads:

SEC. 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. – Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period
or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and
possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in
a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
 1. The landholding is declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National
Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban
purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation
equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five
preceding calendar years; x x x.

It is clear that a tenant can be lawfully ejected only if there is a court authorization in a judgment that is
final and executory and after a hearing where the reclassification of the landholding was duly determined.
If the court authorizes the ejectment, the tenant who is dispossessed of his tenancy is entitled to
disturbance compensation.

Section 3713 of RA 3844 expressly imposes on the landowner or agricultural lessor the burden of proof to
show the existence of the grounds enumerated in Section 36 thereof. It is settled that one who alleges a
fact has the burden of proving it.14 This implies that the action which resulted in the tenant’s dispossession
was commenced by the landowner, who therefore has the burden of proof to show the existence of any
of the grounds for the ejectment of the tenant.
Applying the above doctrine:
In the case at bar, there is no final order of conversion. The subject landholding was merely reclassified.
Conversion is different from reclassification. Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece
of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform.16
Reclassification, on the other hand, is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to
the requirements and procedure for land use conversion.17 Accordingly, a mere reclassification of
agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment
of the tenants. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural
land for other purposes.
Camsur v CA
Province of Camarines Sur vs CA
May 17, 1993

FACTS: Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Cam Sur passed Res. 129 authorizing the Prov. Gov. To
purchase/expropriate property to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-agricultural crops and
housing project for the government employees. By virtue of the resolution, Cam Sur filed 2 cases for
expropriation against private respondents (San Joaquins).

RTC: denied motion to dismiss on the ground of inadequacy of price of San Joaquins.
CA: San Joaquins raised issue of a) declaring the resolution null and void, b) complaint for expropriation
de dismissed. CA asked Sol Gen to give comment.
SolGen: under the LGC, no need for approval by the OP of the exercise of the SP of the right to eminent
domin. However, approval of DAR must first be secured (since this involves appropriation of agricultural
lands).
CA: set aside order of RTC (without however disposing of the issues raised. The SC said that the CA
assumed that the resolution is valid and the expropriation is for a public use).

Issues:
1) WON the resolution is null and void. Corollary to this issue is WON the expropriation is for a public use.
2) WON the exercise of the power of eminent domain in this case is restricted by the CAR Law?

Held/ratio:
1) The expropriation is for a public purpose, hence the resolution is authorized and valid.
SC explained that there had been a shift from the old to the new concept of “public
purpose:. Old concept is that the property must actually be used by the general public. The new
concept, on the other hand, means public advantage, convenience or benefit, which tends to
contribute to the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community.
In this case, the proposed pilot development center would inure to the direct benefit and
advantage of the CamSur peeps. (How?) invaluable info and tech on agriculture, fishery, and
cottage industry, enhance livelihood of farmers and fishermen, etc.

2) No, (citing Ardana vs Reyes, SC here said that the implication of the Ardana case is that) the power
of expropriation is superior to the power to distribute lands under the land reform program.
Old LGC does not intimate in the least that LGUs must first secure approval of the Dept of
Land Reform for conversion of agri to non-agri use. Likewise, no provision in the CAR Law
subjecting expropriation by LGUs to the control of DAR.
Moreover, Sec 65 of CAR Law is not in point because it is applicable only to lands
previously placed under the agrarian reform program. This is limited only to applications for
reclassification submitted by land owners or tenant beneficiaries.
Statutes conferring power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be
broadened or constricted by implication.
Fortich v Corona
The subject of the controversy is an agricultural land in Sumilao, Bukidnon, measuring 144 hectares. The
municipality of Sumilao wanted to convert this into an agro-industrial land. In its Order dated March 29,
1996, Office of the President acceded to this conversion, and converted the whole 144 hectares to agro-
industrial land in order to attract investors. This order became final and executory. Feeling aggrieve,
farmers commenced a hunger-strike in protest of this ruling. The OP wanted to appease the farmers,
hence, they issued a new resolution. They said that only 44 hectares will be converted into agro-industrial
land and that the remaining 100 hectares will be distributed to the farmers.
The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but there was “no result” because the justices voted
2-2 in resolving such MR. Now, the respondents wanted to refer the case to the Supreme Court en banc.
The Supreme Court said that the resolution of the MR cannot be referred to the Court en banc.
It based its reasoning on Article 8, Sec. 4 (3) of the Constitution. From that certain paragraph, the Court
differentiated CASES from MATTERS. CASES are to be DECIDED, while MATTERS are to be RESOLVED. An
example of a MATTER is a motion for reconsideration, such as the one in this case. Only CASES which do
not obtain the required number of votes are required to be elevated en banc.
On the other hand, as regards MATTERS, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie
in the voting does not leave the case undecided. If there is a tie in resolving a matter, the earlier decision
of the Court is upheld.
Issue: W/N 144-hectare land was validly converted by the local government? YES
In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres,
issued a Decision in OP Case No. 96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the DAR Secretarys decision,
application of NQSRMDC/BAIDA is APPROVED.
After a careful evaluation of the petition vis--vis the grounds upon which the denial thereof by Secretary
Garilao was based, we find that the instant application for conversion by the Municipality of Sumilao,
Bukidnon is impressed with merit. To be sure, converting the land in question from agricultural to agro-
industrial would open great opportunities for employment and bring about real development in the
area towards a sustained economic growth of the municipality. On the other hand, distributing the land
to would-be beneficiaries (who are not even tenants, as there are none) does not guarantee such
benefits.
Nevertheless, on the issue that the land is considered a prime agricultural land with irrigation facility it
maybe appropriate to mention that, as claimed by petitioner, while it is true that there is, indeed, an
irrigation facility in the area, the same merely passes thru the property (as a right of way) to provide
water to the ricelands located on the lower portion thereof. The land itself, subject of the instant
petition, is not irrigated as the same was, for several years, planted with pineapple by the Philippine
Packing Corporation.
On the issue that the land has long been covered by a Notice of Compulsory Acquisition (NCA) and that
the existing policy on withdrawal or lifting on areas covered by NCA is not applicable, suffice it to state
that the said NCA was declared null and void by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) as early as March 1, 1992
On this score, we take special notice of the fact that the Quisumbing family has already contributed
substantially to the land reform program of the government, as follows: 300 hectares of rice land in Nueva
Ecija in the 70s and another 400 hectares in the nearby Municipality of Impasugong, Bukidnon, ten (10)
years ago, for which they have not received just compensation up to this time.
Neither can the assertion that there is no clear and tangible compensation package arrangements for the
beneficiaries hold water as, in the first place, there are no beneficiaries to speak about, for the land is not
tenanted as already stated.
Nor can procedural lapses in the manner of identifying/reclassifying the subject property for agro-
industrial purposes be allowed to defeat the very purpose of the law granting autonomy to local
government units in the management of their local affairs. 20 of R.A. No. 7160 grants local government
units autonomy in their local affairs including the power to convert portions of their agricultural lands and
provide for the manner of their utilization and disposition to enable them to attain their fullest
development as self-reliant communities.
RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700 (Sec. 24)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9700 (August 7, 2009):
AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP), EXTENDING THE
ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL LANDS, INSTITUTING NECESSARY REFORMS,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE, KNOWN
AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS
THEREFOR
SECTION 24. Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows: SEIDAC "SEC. 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. — The following are prohibited: "(a) The
ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of agricultural lands
in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or juridical, except those
under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries; "(b) The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons
who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the
Agrarian Reform Program; "(c) Any conversion by any landowner of his/her agricultural land into any non-
agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his/her landholdings and to dispossess
his/her bonafide tenant farmers; "(d) The malicious and willful prevention or obstruction by any person,
association or entity of the implementation of the CARP; "(e) The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of
the nature of lands outside of urban centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity
of this Act, except after final completion of the appropriate conversion under Section 65 of Republic Act
No. 6657, as amended. The date of the registration of the deed of conveyance in the Register of Deeds
with respect to titled lands and the date of the issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the
property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall be conclusive for the purpose of
this Act; "(f) The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary
right over the land he/she acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions
of this Act; acHETI "(g) The unjustified, willful, and malicious act by a responsible officer or officers of the
government through the following: "(1) The denial of notice and/or reply to landowners; "(2) The
deprivation of retention rights; "(3) The undue or inordinate delay in the preparation of claim folders; or
"(4) Any undue delay, refusal or failure in the payment of just compensation; "(h) The undue delay or
unjustified failure of the DAR, the LBP, the PARC, the PARCCOM, and any concerned government agency
or any government official or employee to submit the required report, data and/or other official
document involving the implementation of the provisions of this Act, as required by the parties or the
government, including the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Philippines as well as their
respective committees, and the congressional oversight committee created herein; "(i) The undue delay
in the compliance with the obligation to certify or attest and/or falsification of the certification or
attestation as required under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended; and "(j) Any other culpable
neglect or willful violations of the provisions of this Act. TCaEIc "In the case of government officials and
employees, a conviction under this Act is without prejudice to any civil case and/or appropriate
administrative proceedings under civil service law, rules and regulations. "Any person convicted under
this Act shall not be entitled to any benefit provided for in any agrarian reform law or program."
PD1529 – found in the case of Estribillo
Heirs of Grino v CA (PD 27 vs Sec. 6 of CARL)
PD 27: "decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil transferring to them the
ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and mechanism therefor"
Sec. 6 of CARL: “but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed 5 hectares. Three (3) hectares
may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at
least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm:
Provided, that landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed
to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder”
Facts:
-Juan Griño (deceased) was the owner of a parcel of a 9.35-hectare tenanted agricultural land in Iloilo.
-Griño was also the owner of another 50-hectare untenanted coconut land in Iloilo which he mortgaged
to Development Bank of the Phils (DBP).
-In 1972 President Marcos issued PD 27, "decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the
soil transferring to them the ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and mechanism
therefor."
-Griño's 9.35-hectare property was covered by the PD, thus titles to such were issued in favor of his
tenants Marianito Gulmatico, Ludovico Hubero, Rodolfo Hubero, Placida Catahay and Roberto Gula.
-Griño filed for the cancellation of the titles contending that they were issued to the tenants without giving
him an opportunity to be heard, that the land was sentimental to him and was the only rice plantation he
had in the municipality.
-In lieu of the titles to the 9.35-hectare property, he offered EACH tenant 7 hectares from the 50-hectare
land he owned.
-However, in 1985, said 50-hectare land was subsequently ceded to DBP via dacion en pago to settle
Griño's obligation.
-Griño died and was survived by his 7 children. 3yrs later, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
took effect.
ISSUE: W/N the Court may still take cognizance of the present petition.
RULING: NO. Petition DISMISSED.
Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for lost appeal. The proper remedy for petitioners to challenge
the CA’s decision and resolution was to file a petition for review on certiorari 15 days after they received
a copy of the appellate court’s resolution denying their motion for reconsideration. They, however, filed
the present petition for certiorari 2 months beyond the reglementary period.
Technicality aside, the petition just the same fails. As the CA ruled, petitioners are guilty of laches in their
attempt to resurrect the retention issue 7 and a half years after its denial was decreed and came to finality.
The DAR cannot be faulted if no substitution of parties took place when Griño died, it being the duty of
the heirs to attend to the estate of the deceased, which duty includes notification to adjudicating tribunals
the fact of death of the litigant. Moreover, these issues raised by petitioners, were as the CA observed,
never raised in the proceedings below nor in petitioners’ petition for review before said court.
Estribillo v DAR
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. Indeed,
such EPs and CLOAs are, in themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in
registration proceedings.

Facts: Private respondent Hacienda Maria Inc. 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
Agrarian Reform Program. 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 RARAD petitions seeking the
declaration of erroneous coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 of 277.5008 hectares of its former
landholdings. HMI claimed that said area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was
untenanted, and that no compensation was paid therefor. RARAD rendered a decision declaring as void
the TCTs and EPs awarded to petitioners because the land covered was not devoted to rice and corn, and
neither was there any established tenancy relations between HMI and petitioners. Petitioners appealed
to the DARAB which affirmed the RARAD Decision. On appeal to the CA, the same was dismissed.
Petitioners contended that the EPs became indefeasible after the expiration of one year from their
registration. Issue: Whether or not EPs have become indefeasible one year after their issuance
Held: After complying with the procedure in Section 105 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise
known as the Property Registration Decree where the DAR is required 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. Lands covered by such title may
no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to another person.
Deleste v LBP
Facts:
The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of
agricultural land located in Tambo, Iligan City. Said spouses were childless, but Gregorio had a son named
Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman.
When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject property and sold the subject
property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste)
On May 15, 1954, Hilaria died. Gregorio’s brother, Juan Nanaman, was appointed as special administrator
of the estate of the deceased spouses. Subsequently, Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the regular
administrator of the joint estate. Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased
spouses, filed an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject property. The decision
stated that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and
that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste. As a result,
Deleste, who died in 1992, and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the
subject property, each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it.
Thereafter, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn
lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries.
Thus, the subject property was placed under the said program.
However, only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the
landowners. Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property
under the coverage of the agrarian reform program; hence, their right to due process of law was violated.
Eventually, on February 12, 1984, DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of private
respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject property.
Issues:
1. WHETHER PETITIONERS LAND IS COVERED BY AGRARIAN REFORM GIVEN THAT THE CITY
OF ILIGAN PASSED CITY ORDINANCE NO. 1313 RECLASSIFYING THE AREA INTO A STRICTLY
RESIDENTIAL AREA IN 1975.
2. WHETHER THE LAN] THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY AND PARTIALLY EXPROPRIATED BY A
CITY GOVERNMENT MAY STILL BE SUBJECTED TO AGRARIAN REFORM.
RULING: (insert Dispositive portion here; e.g. Petition DENIED / x is GUILTY)
 Since the subject property had been reclassified as residential/commercial land with the
enactment of City Ordinance No. 1313 in 1975, it can no longer be considered as an agricultural
land within the ambit of RA 6657.
 In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it was
only in 1984 that private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an
inchoate right over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements.
Considering that the local zoning ordinance was enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by
the HSRC in 1978, private respondents still had no vested rights to speak of during this period, as
it was only in 1984 that private respondents were issued the CLTs and were deemed owners.

 The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since reclassification had taken
place twenty-six (26) years prior to their issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued prior to
reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is
outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.