Agrarian Law Midterms Reviewer

foreign-owned plantations common in British Malaya, the Dutch East Indies, and French Indochina.
[1]

July 5 Assignment
I.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Even before the Spaniard came into these Island, the idea of private ownership of land was not
prevalent. Land was commonly owned by the community or barangay, cultivated communally or
individually by members of the barangay.
When the Spaniard came in 1521, common ownership of land slowly took the backseat, and
private property became dominant, paving the way to Encomienda system.
The encomienda was a vehicle used to collect taxes from Filipinos, who tilled the land and
surrendered part of their produce to the encomendero as tribute in the form of agricultural crops,
poultry, woven mats, etc. Towards the end of the 18th century, there was a mad scramble for
wealth thru world trade. Thus, encomienda were replaced by haciendas.
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES ON AGRARIAN REFORM
The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will free the people from poverty
through policies adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and
an improve quality of life for all.
The state shall promote a comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of the farmers
and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in
the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. (Art. XIII, Social Justice
and Human Rights, Sec. 4).
CONTEMPORANEOUS PRECEPTS AND MEASURES
In order to implement the 1987 Constitution, Congress passed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988. (R.A. NO. 6657) which was signed into law by the President of the Phillippines on June
10, 1988, and took effect on June 15, 1988. This is the main law on agrarian reform in the
Philippines today. The CARL provides that all other laws on agrarian reform not contrary or
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall have suppletory effect.
Land reform in the Philippines has long been a contentious issue rooted in the Philippines's
Spanish Colonial Period. Some efforts began during the American Colonial Period with renewed
efforts during the Commonwealth, following independence, during Martial Law and especially
following the People Power Revolution in 1986. The current law, the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program, was passed following the revolution and recently extended until 2014.
History
Much like Mexico and other Spanish colonies in the Americas, the Spanish settlement in the
Philippines revolved around the encomienda system of plantations, known as haciendas. As the
19th Century progressed, industrialization and liberalization of trade allowed these encomiendas to
expand their cash crops, establishing a strongsugar industry in the Philippines on such islands and
Panay and Negros.
American period
The United States of America took possession of the Philippines following the Spanish-American
War in 1898 and after putting down the subsequent rebellion in thePhilippine-American War. The
Second Philippine Commission, the Taft Commission, viewed economic development as one of its
top three goals.[1] In 1901 93% of the islands' land area was held by the government and William
Howard Taft, Governor-General of the Philippines, argued for a liberal policy so that a good portion
could be sold off to American investors.[1] Instead, the United States Congress, influenced by
agricultural interests that did not want competition from the Philippines, in the 1902 Land Act, set
a limit of 16 hectares of land to be sold or leased to American individuals and 1,024 hectares to
American corporations.[1] This and a downturn in the investment environment discouraged the

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

Further he U.S. Federal Government faced the problem of much of the private land being owned by
the Roman Catholic Church and controlled by Spanish clerics. The American governmentofficially
secular, hostile to continued Spanish control of much of the land of the now-American colony, and
long hostile to Catholics negotiated a settlement with the Church over its land.
The 1902 Philippine Organic Act was a constitution for the Insular Government, as the U.S. civil
administration was known. This act, among other actions, disestablished the Catholic Church as
the state religion. The United States government, in an effort to resolve the status of the friars,
negotiated with the Vatican. The church agreed to sell the friars' estates and promised gradual
substitution of Filipino and other non-Spanish priests for the friars. It refused, however, to withdraw
the religious orders from the islands immediately, partly to avoid offending Spain. In 1904 the
administration bought for $7.2 million the major part of the friars' holdings, amounting to some
166,000 hectares (410,000 acres), of which one-half was in the vicinity of Manila. The land was
eventually resold to Filipinos, some of them tenants but the majority of them estate owners. [2]
Commonwealth Period
During the American Colonial Period, tenant farmers complained about the sharecropping system,
as well as by the dramatic increase in population which added economic pressure to the tenant
farmers' families.[3] As a result, an agrarian reform program was initiated by the Commonwealth.
However, success of the program was hampered by ongoing clashes between tenants and
landowners. An example of these clashes includes one initiated by Benigno Ramos through his
Sakdalista movement,[4] which advocated tax reductions, land reforms, the breakup of the large
estates or haciendas, and the severing of American ties. The uprising, which occurred in Central
Luzon in May, 1935, claimed about a hundred lives
Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933
When the Philippine Commonwealth was established, President Manuel L. Quezon implemented
the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933.[5] The purpose of this act was to regulate the share-tenancy
contracts by establishing minimum standards.[5] Primarily, the Act provided for better tenantlandlord relationship, a 5050 sharing of the crop, regulation of interest to 10% per agricultural
year, and a safeguard against arbitrary dismissal by the landlord. [5] The major flaw of this law was
that it could be used only when the majority of municipal councils in a province petitioned for it. [5]
Since landowners usually controlled such councils, no province ever asked that the law be applied.
Therefore, Quezn ordered that the act be mandatory in all Central
Luzon provinces.[5] However, contracts were good only for one year. By simply refusing the renew
their
contract, landlords were able to eject tenants. As a result, peasant organizations agitated in vain
for a law that would make the contract automatically renewable for as long as the tenants fulfilled
their obligations.[5] In 1936, this Act was amended to get rid of its loophole, but the landlords made
its application relative and not absolute. Consequently, it was never carried out in spite of its good
intentions. In fact, by 1939, thousands of peasants in Central Luzon were being threatened with
wholesale eviction.[5] By the early 1940s, thousands of tenants in Central Luzon were ejected from
their farmlands and the rural conflict was more acute than ever. [5] Therefore, during the
Commonwealth period, agrarian problems persisted. [5] This motivated the government to
incorporate a cardinal principle on social justice in the 1935 Constitution. Dictated by the social
justice program of the government, expropriation of landed estates and other landholdings
commenced. Likewise, the National Land Settlement Administration (NSLA) began an orderly
settlement of public agricultural lands. At the outbreak of the Second World War, major settlement
areas containing more than 65,000 hectares were already established. [5]

Independence
When the Philippines gained its independence in 1946, much of the land was held by a small group
of wealthy landowners. There was much pressure on the democratically elected government to
redistribute the land. At the same time, many of the democratically elected office holders were
landowners themselves or came from land-owning families.
In 1946, shortly after his induction to Presidency, Manuel Roxas proclaimed the Rice Share Tenancy
Act of 1933 effective throughout the country. [5] However problems of land tenure continued. In fact
these became worse in certain areas.[5] Among the remedial measures enacted was Republic Act
No. 1946 likewise known as the Tenant Act which provided for a 7030 sharing arrangements and
regulated share-tenancy contracts.[5] It was passed to resolve the ongoing peasant unrest in
Central Luzon.[5]
As part of his Agrarian Reform agenda, President Elpidio Quirino issued on October 23, 1950
Executive Order No. 355 which replaced the National Land Settlement Administration with Land
Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO) which takes over the responsibilities of the
Agricultural Machinery Equipment Corporation and the Rice and Corn Production Administration. [6]
Ramon Magsaysay administration
To amplify and stabilize the functions of the Economic Development Corps (EDCOR), President
Ramon Magsaysay worked[7] for the establishment of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Administration (NARRA).[7] This body took over from the EDCOR and helped in the giving some sixty
five thousand acres to three thousand indigent families for settlement purposes. [7] Again, it
allocated some other twenty five thousand to a little more than one thousand five hundred
landless families, who subsequently became farmers. [7]
As further aid to the rural people, [7] the President Established the Agricultural Credit and
Cooperative Administration (ACCFA). The idea was for this entity to make available rural credits.
Records show that it did grant, in this wise, almost ten million dollars. This administration body
next devoted its attention to cooperative marketing. [7] Along this line of help to the rural areas,
President Magsaysay initiated in all earnestness the artesian wells campaign. A group-movement
known as the Liberty Wells Association was formed and in record time managed to raise a
considerable sum for the construction of as many artesian wells as possible. The socio-economic
value of the same could not be gainsaid and the people were profuse in their gratitude. [7] Finally,
vast irrigation projects, as well as enhancement of the Ambuklao Power plant and other similar
ones, went along way towards bringing to reality the rural improvement program advocated by
President Magsaysay.[7] President Ramn Magsaysay enacted the following laws as part of his
Agrarian Reform Program:

Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954Abolished the LASEDECO and established the National
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to resettle dissidents and landless
farmers. It was particularly aimed at rebel returnees providing home lots and farmlands in Palawan
and Mindanao.

Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) governed the relationship
between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy and leasehold system. The
law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) Created the Land Tenure Administration
(LTA) which was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of large tenanted rice and corn
lands over 200 hectares for individuals and 600 hectares for corporations.

Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing Administration)
Provided small farmers and share tenants loans with low interest rates of six to eight percent. [6]
Macapagal administration
Land Reform Code The Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) was a major Philippine land

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

reform law enacted in 1963 under President Diosdado Macapagal. [8] The code declared that it was
State policy
1.
To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine
agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development;
2.
To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional
restraints and practices;
3.
To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive to greater
productivity and higher farm incomes;
4.
To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural
wage earners;
5.
To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land
distribution; and
6.
To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a
source of genuine strength in our democratic society. and, in pursuance of those policies,
established the following 1.
An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share
tenancy systems in agriculture; 2.
A declaration of rights for agricultural labor; 3.
An
authority for the acquisition and equitable distribution of agricultural land; 4. An institution to
finance the acquisition and distribution of agricultural land; 5. A machinery to extend credit and
similar assistance to agriculture; 6. A machinery to provide marketing, management, and other
technical services to agriculture; 7. A unified administration for formulating and implementing
projects of land reform; 8.
An expanded program of land capability survey, classification, and
registration; and 9.
A judicial system to decide issues arising under this Code and other
related laws and regulations.
Marcos administration
On September 10, 1971, President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed the Code of Agrarian Reform of the
Philippines into law which established the Department of Agrarian Reform, effectively replacing the
Land Authority. In 1978, the DAR was renamed the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. On July 26, 1987,
following the People Power Revolution, the department was re-organized through Executive Order
(EO) No. 129-A.
In 1988, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law created the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program which is also known as CARP. Corazon Aquino administration President Aquino envisioned
agrarian and land reform as the centerpiece of her administration's social legislative agenda.
However, her family background and social class as a privileged daughter of a wealthy and landed
clan became a lightning rod of criticisms against her land reform agenda. On February 22, 1987,
three weeks after the resounding ratification of the 1987 Constitution, agrarian workers and
farmers marched to the historic Mendiola Street near the Malacaan Palace to demand genuine
land reform from Aquino's administration. However, the march turned violent when Marine forces
fired at farmers who tried to go beyond the designated demarcation line set by the police. As a
result, 12 farmers were killed and 19 were injured in this incident now known as the Mendiola
Massacre. This incident led some prominent members of the Aquino Cabinet to resign their
government posts.
In response to calls for agrarian reform, President Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation 131 and
Executive Order 229 on July 22, 1987, which outlined her land reform program, which included
sugar lands. In 1988, with the backing of Aquino, the new Congress of the Philippines passed
Republic Act No. 6657, more popularly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law." The
law paved the way for the redistribution of agricultural lands to tenant-farmers from landowners,
who were paid in exchange by the government
through just compensation but were also allowed to retain not more than five hectares of land. [9]
However, corporate landowners were also allowed under the law to "voluntarily divest a proportion

of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified
beneficiaries", in lieu of turning over their land to the government for redistribution. [10] Despite the
flaws in the law, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1989, declaring that the
implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) provided by the said law,
was "a revolutionary kind of expropriation."[11]
Despite the implementation of CARP, Aquino was not spared from the controversies that eventually
centered on Hacienda Luisita, a 6,453-hectare estate located in the Province of Tarlac, which she,
together with her siblings inherited from her father Jose Cojuangco (Don Pepe). [12] Critics argued
that Aquino bowed to pressure from relatives by allowing stock redistribution under Executive
Order 229. Instead of land distribution, Hacienda Luisita reorganized itself into a corporation and
distributed stock. As such, ownership of agricultural portions of the hacienda were transferred to
the corporation, which in turn, gave its shares of stocks to farmers. [12]
The arrangement remained in force until 2006, when the Department of Agrarian Reform revoked
the stock distribution scheme adopted in Hacienda Luisita, and ordered instead the redistribution
of a large portion of the property to the tenant-farmers. The Department stepped into the
controversy when in 2004, violence erupted over the retrenchment of workers in the Hacienda,
eventually leaving seven people dead.[12]
Ramos administration President Fidel V. Ramos speeded the implementation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of former President Corazon Aquino in order to meet the ten-year
time frame. However, there were constraints such as the need to firm up the database and
geographic focus, generate funding support, strengthen inter- agency cooperation, and mobilize
implementation partners, like the non-government organizations, local governments, and the
business community.[5] In 1992, thegovernment acquired and distributed 382 hectares of land with
nearly a quarter of a million farmer-beneficiaries. This constituted 41% of all land titles distributed
by theDepartment of Agrarian Reform (DAR) during the last thirty years. But by the end of 1996,
the DAR had distributed only 58.25% of the total area it was supposed to cover. From January to
December 1997, the DAR distributed 206,612 hectares. That year, since 1987, the DAR had
distributed a total of 2.66 million hectares which benefited almost 1.8 million tenant-farmers. [5]
One major problem that the Ramos administration faced was the lack of funds to support and
implement the program.[5] The Php50 million, alloted by R.A. No. 6657 to finance the CARP from
1988 to 1998, was no longer
sufficient to support the program. To address this problem, Ramos signed R.A. No. 8532 to amend
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) which further strengthened the CARP by
extending the program to another ten years. [5] Ramos signed this law on February 23, 1998 - a few
months before the end of Ramos' term.[5]
Arroyo administration On September 27, 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, signed
Executive Order No. 364, and the Department of Agrarian Reform was renamed to Department of
Land Reform. This EO also broadened the scope of the department, making it responsible for all
land reform in the country. It also placed the Philippine Commission on Urban Poor (PCUP) under its
supervision and control. Recognition of the ownership of ancestral domain by indigenous peoples
also became the responsibility of this new department, under the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).[13] On August 23, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed
Executive Order No. 456 and renamed the Department of Land Reform back to Department of
Agrarian Reform, since "the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law goes beyond just land reform but
includes the totality of all factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the
beneficiaries."[14] When President Noynoy Aquino took office, there was a renewed push to compete
the agrarian reform. The Department of Agrarian Reform adopted a goal of distributed all CARPeligible land by the end of Pres. Aquino's term in 2016. [15] As of June 2013, 694,181 hectares
remained to be distributed, according to DAR. [15] Hacienda Luisita, owned by the Cojuangco family,
which includes the late former President Corazn C. Aquino and her son, current President Aquino,

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

has been a notable case of land reform.[16]

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is the current law under which land reform is
conducted. Large land-holdings are broken up and distributed to farmers and workers on that
particular hacienda. The crops grown on such haciendas include sugar and rice. Each farmer is
giving a "certificates of land ownership award" or CLOA for their new property. [15] Under the law, a
landowner can only retain 5 hectares, regardless of the size of the hacienda. [15] Conflict can arise
between previous landowners and "beneficiaries" and between competing farmers' groups that
have conflicting claims.[15]
In December 2008, CARP expired and the following year CARPer was passed. CARPer stands for
"Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms". CARPer expires in 2014.
II.
Republic Act. No. 3844 marked the abolition of share tenancy and / or the system of share
cropping between landowner and tenant, and the automatic conversion of share tenants into
leaseholders.
Republic Act No. 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reforms) an improvement of R.A. No. 3844, this
amendatory Act featured the creation of the Department of Agrarian Reforms (DAR).
Agrarian Reform Special Fund Act (Rep. Act. No. 6390) provided for a special account and
financial support for the Agrarian Reform Program of the government.
Presidential Decree No. 2 declaring the entire nation as a land reform area.
Legislative Backdrop
Presidential Decree No. 27 decreeing the emancipation of the tenants, transferring to them
the ownership of the land they till.
Proclamation No. 131 Instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program which covers, all
public and private agricultural lands as provided in the Constitution.
Executive Order No. 228 Declaring full landownership to qualified beneficiaries covered by
Presidential Decree No. 27.
Executive Order No. 229 Providing for the mechanisms for the implementation of the
comprehensive agrarian reform program, creating the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).
Executive Order No. 129-A Modifying Executive Order No. 129, reorganizing and strengthening
the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Republic Act No. 6657 - As primary agrarian land reform measure in the country today, its
operation covers all public and private agricultural lands, including other lands of the public
domain suitable for agriculture.
III.

proceeding to medium and small landholdings under the following schedule:

1. Sec. 3(a) of RA 6657 Definition of Agrarian Reform
(a) Agrarian Reform means 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 arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or
profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow
beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.
2. Sec. 4 of RA 6657 Scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
SECTION 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 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. More specifically the following lands are covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture.
No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the
approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity
considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain. (b) All lands
of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding
paragraph; (c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products
raised or that can be raised thereon.
3. Sec. 7 of RA 6657 Priorities of CARP Coverage
SECTION 7. Priorities. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in coordination with the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution
of all agricultural
lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and
distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all
private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform; all lands foreclosed by the
government financial institutions; all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG); and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for
agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act,
with the implementation to be completed within a period of not more than four (4) years;
Phase Two: All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all arable public agricultural
lands under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops in
accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands which are to
be opened for new development and resettlement; and all private agricultural lands in excess of
fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned, to implement principally the
rights of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are the landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till, which shall be distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the
implementation to be completed within a period of not more than four (4) years.
Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings and

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

(a) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares, to begin on the fourth
(4th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within three (3) years; and
(b) Landholdings from the retention limit up to twenty-four (24) hectares, to begin on the sixth
(6th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within four (4) years; to implement
principally the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till.
The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by this program shall
be made in accordance with the above order of priority, which shall be provided in the
implementing rules to be prepared by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), taking into
consideration the following; the need to distribute land to the tillers at the earliest practicable
time; the need to enhance agricultural productivity; and the availability of funds and resources to
implement and support the program.
In any case, the PARC, upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces or region as priority land reform areas, in
which the acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands therein may be implemented
ahead of the above schedules. In effecting the transfer within these guidelines, priority must be
given to lands that are tenanted.
The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution scheme,
including the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller may
be a beneficiary of the land he does not own but is actually cultivating to the extent of the
difference between the area of the land he owns and the award ceiling of three (3) hectares.
4. Sec. 16 of RA 6657 Land Acquisition (Compulsory Acquisition)
SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition of private
lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its
notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post
the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where
the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value
in accordance with Land Acquisition the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other
pertinent provisions hereof. (b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by
personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall
inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. (c) If the landowner accepts the offer of
the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the
land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title. (d) In case of
rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to
determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested
parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from
the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted
for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no
response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an 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 the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a
Transfer 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 beneficiaries. (f) Any party

who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation.
5. Sec. 19 of RA 6657 Land Acquisition (Voluntary Offer to Sell)
SECTION 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales. Landowners, other than banks and other
financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five
percent (5%) cash payment.
IV.

Cases:

1. Assoc of Small Landowners v. Secretary

These are 3 cases consolidated questioning the constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Act. Article
XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian
reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844,
Agricultural Land Reform Code, had already been enacted by Congress on August 8, 1963. This
was substantially superseded almost a decade later by PD 27, which was promulgated on Oct 21,
1972, along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for
distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners. On July
17, 1987, Cory issued EO 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27
and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner
of their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by PP 131, instituting a comprehensive
agrarian reform program (CARP), and EO 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation.
Afterwhich is the enactment of RA 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which Cory
signed on June 10. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments,
nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsi
stent with its provisions.
In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land, the executive order also deprives the
petitioners of their property rights as protected by due process. The equal protection clause is also
violated because the
order places the burden of solving the agrarian problems on the owners only of agricultural lands.
No similar obligation is imposed on the owners of other properties. The petitioners maintain that in
declaring the beneficiaries under PD 27 to be the owners of the lands occupied by them, EO 228
ignored judicial prerogatives and so violated due process. Worse, the measure would not solve the
agrarian problem because even the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention
rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
In his comment the Sol-Gen asserted that the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the
sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be differently
treated. The Comment also suggests the possibility of Congress first distributing public agricultural
lands and scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural lands later. From this viewpoint, the
petition for prohibition would be premature. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of the
equal protection clause.
HELD: The SC ruled affirming the Sol-Gen. The argument of the small farmers that they have been
denied equal protection because of the absence of retention limits has also become academic
under Sec 6 of RA 6657. Significantly, they too have not questioned the area of such limits. There
is also the complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an
objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a particular class with
particular interests of their own. However, no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the
requisites of a valid classification have been violated.

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to
the following requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
(2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions
only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class. The Court finds that all these
requisites have been met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory. Equal
protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike both as
to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. The petitioners have not shown that they belong
to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The argument that not only landowners
but also owners of other properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land
reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners
that is clearly visible except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter.
In any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification. Its
decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its
discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights.
The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned by
petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned
by petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. The tenants were declared full owners of these lands by E.O.
No. 228 as qualified farmers under P.D. No. 27.
The petitioners are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of
separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no
private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. They contend that
President Aquino usurped legislative power when she promulgated E.O. No. 228. The said measure
is invalid also for violation of Article XIII, Section 4, of the Constitution, for failure to provide for
retention limits for small landowners. Moreover, it does not conform to Article VI, Section 25(4) and
the other requisites of a valid appropriation.
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands
intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. Obviously, there is no
need to expropriate where
the owner is willing to sell under terms also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an ordinary
deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties. It is only where the owner is unwilling to sell, or
cannot accept the price or other conditions offered by the vendee, that the power of eminent
domain will come into play to assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of the
property owner. Private rights must then yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on
the time-honored justification, as in the case of the police power, that the welfare of the people is
the supreme law.
July 19 Assignment
I.

Laws Stock Distribution Options (Sec. 31, RA 6657)

for corporate land owners to qualified beneficiaries; SDO
with
DAR
approval;

right to purchase portion of capital stock of corporation in proportion to the agri land
compensation at time of distribution cannot be reduced
voluntary offer of SDO valid if:
1.
CPA chosen by beneficiaries periodically audits corpos books 2.
At least one rep to
execom/mngt/ BOD 3. Shares acquired same with other shares of corpo 4.
Transfer of shares
void unless if made to other qualified beneficiaries of same corpo
Award of Lands to Children of Landowners (Sec. 6, RA 6657)

Land owner cannot retain more than 5 ha

3 ha of land to each qualified children:

1.
2.

At least 15 yo
Actually tilling the land/ directly managing farm
Covered by PD 27, retain lands (7 ha)
Homestead grantees, retain lands, continue cultivation

Retention Rights (Sec. 6, RA 6657)

Landowner has right to choose which area to retain If chosen land is already with a
tenant, tenant may choose (within 1 year):
1.
Be a beneficiary in a similar agri land
2.
Stay and pay rent, lose beneficiary status
Security of tenure of tenant prior to
approval of act is respected regardless of choice
Acts of landowner before Act are valid,
provided it must be registered with Reg of Deeds within 3 mos.
after effectivity Reg of Deeds to inform DAR of transaction exceeding 5 ha
Points on AO 2, Series 2003 (Application for retention under PD 27 and RA 6657) Same
requirements for retention in PD 27 and RA 6657
Compulsory acquisition or Voluntary Offer
to Sell/ Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme
File with PARO or Reg Dir; they will
direct MARO for determination
MARO checks qualifications of beneficiaries and retention
applications, notify landowners and
tenants, preside negotiations
PARO reevaluate submissions of MARO, final survey,
segregate land with DENR RD reevaluate submissions of PARO, approves or denies
application, issues certificates of retention
Exemptions and Exclusions (Sec. 10, RA 6657)

Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for
Parks

Wildlife Forest reserves

Reforestation Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds (removed by RA 7881)

Watersheds and mangroves National defense
School sites and campuses including
experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools
for educational purposes
Seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers
Church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers
appurtenant thereto Communal burial grounds and cemeteries
Penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked by the inmates
Government and private research and quarantine
centers and
All lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed
Points on AO 13, Series of 1990 (On Exemption of Lands under CARP)
Lands
actually,
directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for Park, Wildlife, Forest
reserves, Reforestation, Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, Watersheds and mangroves
exempted until reclassified by Congress Reforestation areas all included in Integrated Social
forestry program of DENR Developed land of 18% slope it depends (under ISF, public lad act
or CARP) MARO, PARO, RD, BALA to check, approve or deny applications of exemptions
Within 50 ha review by Usec of Legal Affairs Exceed 50 ha Office of Secretary
Points on AO 4, Series of 2003 (On Exemption of Lands under CARP)
DAR has authority
to approve conversion of agri lands to non-agri use, except if already classified as

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

comm, indus or resi before the act.

Conversion does not divest farmers from grant given by
PD 27
Land Classification Certification from HLURB/DENR Mines&Geosciences/DENR
Forestry/NIA/MARO
Approval :
by RD 5 ha and below by Secretary more than 5 ha; 2 or more lands/in different barangays,
more than 5 ha
Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657

Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
Points on RA 7881 (On exempting prawn farms and fishponds from CARP)

Revised definition of agri = removed prawn farms and fishponds Exemption

of
prawn
farms and fishponds except if already under CLOA from CARP
If already under CLOA:
simple and absolute majority of tenants within 1 year of effectivity to exempt; or distribution, form
assoc/coop to manage it

Removed prawn farms and fishponds from commercial farming Incentive plan, distribute
7.5% net profit to tenants at end of year, books inspected by CPA Conversion into fishpond or
prawn farms subject to BFAR approval and DENR
No conversion for lands more than 5 ha
except if feasible, certified by BFAR, approved by tenants and
DAR
Points on AO 3, series of 1995 (On exempting prawn farms and fishponds from CARP)

Application for exemption filed with DARPO

MARO/PARO
to
check
requirements,
approval/denial by RD Compliance report for profit share checked by DARPO, settling of disputes
II.
Cases:
Alita vs CA/Reyes

Alita was given land thru PD 27 and CARP but Reyes said land was given to them thru
homestead grant (CA 141), so they refused to vacate.

Which is superior, CARP/PD 27 or homestead grant? CA 141, homestead grant is superior

to CARP & PD 27, as provided in the proviso of Sec. 6, RA 6657 on
retention
rights
Natalia Realty vs. DAR

Natalia owned 3 properties placed under reservation by PD 1637. When CARP took effect,
DAR sent notice of coverage to Natalia.

Coverage of property, compliance of conversion reqs., prior approval from DAR

Property is for residential, so not covered. Requirements were complied with. Prior approval
not
needed since land was under the special law.
Milestone Farms vs. OP

Milestone operated a livestock farm which applied for exemption under CARP. They were
granted, then denied. Converted half of prop to residential & golf course. Invoked Sutton and Luz
cases.

Applicability of the cited cases, exemption on CARP Not

applicable
since
Milestone
stopped livestock farming after conversion. Not exempted.

Luz Farms vs. DAR Sec

Farms petition constitutionality of provisions on CARP incl. inclusion of livestock farming in

the definition (3c), commercial farming (11), production-sharing plan coverage (13), and
production sharing on corporate farms (32)

Constitutionality issue Not constitutional, voided on livestock farming as it is confiscatory

and violative of due process
DAR vs. Sutton

Sutton operates cattle breeding farm, made a voluntary offer to sell. CARP effected
exempting land from coverage as pronounced in Luz case, withdrew VOS. DAR ignored it, issued
AO9 on ratio and retention limit on animal-land ratio.

Constitutionality of AO 9 on max. retention limit for livestock raising Unconstitutional.

DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms. CARP prohibits conversion. No
conversion in this case.
Central Mindanao University v. DARAB

CMU agricultural school made internal arrangements with tenants and faculty for 400 ha of
land. Tenants want inclusion of lands for CARP.

Coverage of school property for CARP Not covered, as school area was intended for future
expansion of school. Lands were used as
laboratory for students.
DAR v. DECS

DECS was awarded land from hacienda. They leased it to a private corporation which leased
it to tenants. Rentals obtained by DECS are used as funds for school expenses and educational
improvements. Tenants wanted coverage with CARP.

Coverage on CARP
CARP applicable. Land must be actually used for educational
purposes, not the proceeds.
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA

Resolution made by province allowing expropriation for pilot farm and housing of govt
employees. San Joaquins opposed coverage, no just compensation.

Power of LGU to expro, approval of DAR, validity of resolution as exercise of eminent domain
power
Valid delegation of legislative power. No prior approval by DAR needed. Just
compensation not
dependent on claim by respondents, it is based on Rule 67 ROC plus evidence submitted.
Roxas & Company, Inc. v. DAMBA-NFSW

Roxas owner of 3 haciendas, VOS on one, compulsory coverage on the 2. Withdrew VOS
saying it was reclassified by SP to non-agri land, based on PP 1520 on recognizing province as
tourist zone, so they applied for conversion.

Conversion because of reclassification by virtue of PP?

No reclassification made on PP,
only recognition of value of land for tourism. Some CLOAS were made
already, settle disturbance compensation.
July 26 Assignment

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

I.
Laws
1.
Land Valuation under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to PD 27
Tenant farmer deemed owner of the family size farm as follow: a.
5 hectares if NOT irrigated b.
3 hectares if irrigated Requisite to actually issue a title: farmer shall be a FULL-PLEDGED
MEMBER of a DULY RECOGNIZED FARMERS COOPERATIVE.
Payment: TOTAL COST = LV + 6% interest rate/annum Must be paid in 15 years of 15 equal
annual amortizations GUARANTEED by the government
with their shares of stock in GO and GC corp. In case of DEFAULT, farmers cooperative shall
pay.
Title not TRANSFERRABLE except by HEREDETARY SUCCESSION or to the government.
2.
Valuation Formula under PD 27 and EO 228
LV = (AGP/hectare for 3 normal crop years x 2.5) P35 for rice field / P31 for corn field Leased
rental considered advanced payment after October 21, 1972.
In case of DISPUTE on the
amount of leased rental, the DAR and Barangay Committee on
Land Production shall resolve it in thirty (30) days. If
RESOLUTION
IS
QUESTIONED,
landowners compensation claim shall still be processed for
payment; proceeds shall be held in trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank.
3.
Determination of Just Compensation Sec. 17, RA 6657
FACTORS to be considered: a. cost of acquisition b.
current value c.
nature
d.
actual use e.
income f.
sworn valuation g. tax declarations h.
assessment
by
government assessors i. social benefits j. economic benefits k.
non-payment of taxes or loans
4.
Mode of Compensation Sec. 18, RA 6657
At the OPTION of the owner, payments may be made thru the ff: a. Cash
Above 50 hectares 25% cash + govts negotiable instrument Above 24 hectares to 50
30% cash + govts negotiable instrument 24 hectares and below 35% + govts negotiable
instrument
b.
Shares of stock c. Tax credit d. LBP Bond
10% shall mature every year from issuance upto 10th year Must be transferrable and
negotiable
5.
In Case of Landowners Rejection or Failure to Reply Sec. 16 (d) of RA 6657
1)
DAR to conduct summary admin proceedings for determination of compensation 2)
LBP
and interested parties to submit evidence of just compensation in 15 days 3) After expiration of
period, matter is deemed submitted for decision 4)
DAR to decide the case in 30 days
5)
Deposit compensation in cash or LBP bond with accessible bank 6) DAR to take possession
and request TCT in the name of the RP 7) DAR to redistribute to qualified beneficiaries
6.
Land Valuation and Landowner Compensation, Sec. IV-D of DAR AO 2, S. 2009
For lands under VOS or CA which valuation not covered by RA 9700 and RA 6657: Where:
LV
= Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income (based on land use and productivity) CS = Comparable Sales (70% of
BIR Zonal Value) MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration (based on Government assessment)
Three factors present: LV = (CNI x 60%) + (CS x 30%) + (MV x 10%)
Two factors present: LV = (CNI x 90%) + (MV x 10%) LV = (CS x 90%) + (MV x 10%)
One factor present: LV = MV x 2

If amount REJECTED: LO may still withdraw the value provided that requirements for
payment are submitted.

If LO later ACCEPTS: automatic termination of pending Just Compensation cases.

VOS with 5% additional cash payment. LESS PRODUCTIVE small portion to be valued
based on the use of the adjacent portion provided it

doesnt exceed 10% of the productive area.

18% SLOPE small portion, undeveloped and of no
use, to be valued as idle provided it doesnt exceed
10% of covered landholding. II.
Cases:
1.
Just Compensation as discussed in Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, GR. No. 78742, July 14, 1989
Just compensation the FULL AND FAIR EQUIVALENT of the property taken measured by the
owners loss. JUST conveys the idea of a real, substantial, full and ample equivalent.
Compensable taking is present when: a. Expropriator ENTERS a private property b. ENTRY
is
for more than a momentary period; and c. under warrant or color of legal authority d. PROPERTY
is devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected e.
UTILIZATION of the property is in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of its
beneficial
enjoyment.

DAR only makes PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION of just compensation unless accepted by the
parties concerned.

COURTS make the FINAL DETERMINATION if any party doesnt agree with DAR.
8)
Parties who disagree may bring matter to court

The MARKET VALUE of the land taken is the just compensation to which the owner of
condemned Board if 50M and above
property is entitled, the market value being that sum of money which a person desirous, but not
compelled to buy, and an owner, willing, but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be
given and received for such property.

REVOLUTIONARY kind of EXPROPRIATION is involved in CARP Law as it is intended for the

BENEFIT not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the
entire Filipino nation including the generations yet to come for they will be beneficiaries of a richer
and more fulfilling life and a guaranteed tomorrow through our thoughtfulness today.

The smaller the land, the bigger the PAYMENT IN MONEY, primarily because the small
landowner will be needing it more than the big landowners, who can afford a bigger balance in
bonds and other things of value.
2.
Land Bank of the Phils. v. Natividad, G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005
Doctrines:
DAR conducts preliminary determination of just compensation which may become final if
parties agree; but the courts make the final determination in case of disagreement.
Seizure of landholding takes effect only after payment of just compensation is made. RA
6657 shall govern the determination of just compensation, PD 27 and EO 228 are only suppletory.
3.
Land Bank of the Phils. vs. CA, GR No. 118712, Oct. 6, 1995
Doctrines:
Payment of just compensation in case of rejection is thru depositing cash or LBP bond only. -

2014 Bobiles-Macavinta-Villasis

AO #9 s.1990 giving another meaning to the word deposit of RA 6657 and allowing
payment in TRUST was issued with grave abuse of discretion as it amends RA 6657 which admin
agencies are not
allowed to do. In case of rejection, LO shall be allowed to withdraw the valuation amount
preliminary determined
even pending final determination as it would be an oppressive exercise of the power of eminent
domain to deprive the owner of their property without allowing them to appropriate the amount
already deposited as compensation.
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be just for LO are made to suffer both the
deprivation of his property and the long wait for the compensation putting them in misery twice.
Transfer of ownership only allowed upon full payment of just compensation
4.
Lubrica v. Land Bank of the Phils., G.R. No. 170220. November 20, 2006
Doctrine:
Invoked were the doctrines in the 2 previous cases.
Issuance: Preliminary Determination of Just Compensation per Rule XIX of the 2009 DARAB Rules
of Procedure
ROLE of Board/Adjudicator
Determine whether LBP and DAR complied with AOs and other issuances.
Who conducts Preliminary Determination of Just Compensation?
PARAD if less than 10M - RARAD if above 10M but less than 50M

In case of unavailability of those assigned, RARAD may take the place of PARAD, and the Board
may conduct such both for PARAD and RARAD.
Order by Board/Adjudicator
Upon receipt of Claim Folder:
-Board issues order to LBP, DAR, beneficiary, LO and interested parties to examine claim folder and
to present evidence, position papers and affidavits in 30 days. Set date for hearing included on
order.

If parties FAIL TO COMPLY, matter is deemed submitted for resolution. RESOLUTION copy
shall be sent to the concerned parties. Party who DISAGREES may file an original action with
SAC (Special Agrarian Court) in 15 days from
notice of decision.
NOTICE of filing an original action be sent to Board/Adjudicator precluding
the latter to issue a writ of
execution.
If resolution NOT CONTESTED, it becomes final and executory.
Sheriff
to
ENFORCE writ of execution and payment shall be made in 5 days from the time the LO
executes a deed of transfer.