Section 24

Award to Beneficiaries
1) If the transfer of ownership to the beneficiaries is not automatic
2) When does the DAR issue a Certificate of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA)?
3) When is the CLOA considered to be indefeasible?
4) What happens if the CLOA is cancelled?
5) What are the grounds for cancellation of CLOAs?
6) When will the rights and obligations of beneficiaries commence?
7) What are the obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries?
Role of the Special Agrarian Courts
in land valuation and penal
provisions
Section 56
Special Agrarian Court
Section 57
Special Jurisdiction
Philippine Veterans Bank v. CA, 2000
Issue: Whether the petitioner’s contention on the jurisdiction on the DARAB is correct.

Held: No. There is nothing contradictory between the provision of Sec.50 granting the DAR primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian reform matters" and exclusive original
jurisdiction over "all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform," which includes the
determination of questions of just compensation, and the provision of Sec.57 granting Regional Trial
Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over (1) all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions of criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657. Land
Bank of the Philippines is charged with the preliminary determination of the value of lands placed
under land reform program and the compensation to be paid for their taking. Rule XIII, Sec11 of the
DARAB Rules of Procedure provides: 80 Land Valuation Determination and Payment of Just
Compensation. — The decision of the Adjudicator on land valuation and preliminary determination
and payment of just compensation shall not be appealable to the Board but shall be brought
directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for
reconsideration.
Land Bank v. Martinez, 2007
Issue: Whether the PARAD’s decision is valid
Held: Yes. The Court reiterates its ruling in this case that the agrarian reform adjudicator’s decision
on land valuation attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules. The
petition for the fixing of just compensation should therefore, following the law and settled
jurisprudence, be filed with the SAC within the said period. As already explained in the assailed
decision, is based on the doctrines laid down in Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, the
PARAD’s decision had already attained finality because of Land Bank’s failure to file the petition for
the fixing of just compensation within the 15-day period. While a petition for the fixing of just
compensation with the SAC is not an appeal from the agrarian reform adjudicator’s decision but an
original action, the same has to be filed within the 15-day period stated in the DARAB Rules;
otherwise, the adjudicator’s decision will attain finality.
Land Bank vs. Cruz, 2008
Issue: Whether respondents’ landholding was acquired under P.D. No. 27

Held: No. The Court explained that while under P.D. No. 27 tenant farmers are already deemed
owners of the land they till, they are still required to pay the cost of the land before the title is
transferred to them and that pending the payment of just compensation, actual title to the
tenanted land remains with the landowner. The process should now be completed under R.A. No.
6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 applying only suppletorily.
Land Bank v. Court of Appeals, 1999
Issue: Whether an ordinary appeal is the proper way to appeal decisions of Special Agrarian Courts

Held: No. The Court ruled that a petition for review is the correct mode of appeal from decisions of
Special Agrarian Courts. The Court recognized that Land Bank had no authoritative guideline on how
to appeal decisions of Special Agrarian Courts considering the seemingly conflicting provisions of
Section 60 and 61 of RA 6657. Land Bank cannot be blamed for availing of the wrong mode. In
accordance with our constitutional power to review rules of procedure of special courts, the Court
declared that a petition for review as the proper mode of appeal from judgments of Special
Agrarian Courts, is a rule of procedure which affects substantive rights. It would be unjust to apply a
new doctrine to a pending case involving a party who already invoked a contrary view and who
acted in good faith thereon prior to the issuance of said doctrine. The said doctrine shall apply only
to cases appealed after the finality of this Resolution.
Section 58
Appointment of Commissioners
 Section 59
Orders of the Special Agrarian Courts
Section 60
Appeals
Land Bank v. De Leon, 2002
Issue: Whether the review of decisions of the SAC shall be covered by the CA

Held: YES. The failure to mention Special Agrarian Courts in Section 1 of Rule 43 of the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be construed to mean that a petition for review is not permissible
for decisions of the said special courts. In fact, the said Rule is not relevant to determine whether a
petition for review is the proper mode of appeal from decisions of Regional Trial Courts in agrarian
cases, that is, when they act as Special Agrarian Courts. Section 1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure merely mentions the Court of Tax Appeals and the other different quasi-
judicial agencies without exclusivity in its phraseology. Such omission cannot be construed to justify
the contention that a petition for review is prohibited for decisions on special agrarian cases
inasmuch as the category is for quasi-judicial agencies and tax courts to which the Regional Trial
Courts do not properly belong. Although Supreme Court Circular No. 1-91 (precursor to Rule 43 of
the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure) included the decisions of Special Agrarian Courts in the
enumeration requiring petition for review, its non-inclusion later on in Rule 43 merely signifies that
it was inappropriately classified as a quasi-judicial agency.