Revolutionary Kind of Expropriation

Assn of Small Landowners vs Secretary

SC: However, we do not deal here with the traditional exercise of

the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary
expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited
area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a
specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is
a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The expropriation
before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found
and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the
maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of
expropriation 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, from all levels of our society. Its purpose
does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes
beyond in time to the foreseeable future which it hopes to
secure and edify with the vision and the sacrifice of the present
generation of Filipinos.

Confed vs DAR
Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657,
however, the chief limitations on the exercise of the power of
eminent domain, namely: (1) public use; and (2) payment of just
compensation, are embodied therein as well as in the
Constitution. With respect to "public use," the Court declared that
the requirement of public use had already been settled by the
Constitution itself as it "calls for agrarian reform, which is the
reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their
owners, subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. The
purposes specified in P.D. No. 27, 47 Proc. No. 131 48 and RA No.
6657 are only an elaboration of the constitutional injunction that
the State adopt the necessary measures 'to encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands to enable
farmers who are landless to own directly or collectively the lands
they till.' That public use, as pronounced by the fundamental law
itself, must be binding on us."
On the other hand, judicial determination of just compensation is
expressly prescribed in Section 57 of RA 6657, as it vests on the
Special Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners. It bears stressing that the determination of just

compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of

Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only.

RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code

AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD SYSTEM

Terms used under RA 3844: Agricultural Lessor and Agricultural

Lessee, Landowners, Farmers (either Farmworker, Regular
Farmworker, Seasonal Farmworker and Other Farmworker; if
qualified by DAR are already called Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries), Before (under share-tenancy laws): Landlord
and Tenant.

a juridical tie between the lessor and lessee

replaces all existing share tenancy systems in

agriculture

Why leasehold?
(a) Protects tenurial and economic status

RA 3844 is still applicable, as RA 6657 only repealed Sec 35

(Exemption from Leasehold of Other Kinds of Land) of the
Code.

(b) Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and

management

(c) Assures continuity of relations

Before, all agrarian reform cases are tried under the Court of Agrarian
Relations (CAR), but now has been abolished and replaced by:

(d) In case lessor sells or alienates the legal

possession, transferee shall be subrogated to the
rights and substituted to the obligations of lessor

PARAD - Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator

RARAD - Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator

1) Abandonment of the landholding w/o the knowledge of the

agricultural lessor

DARAB - Dept of Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Board?

Department
implementing
DAR - Agrarian
Law
Implementation,
including:
Identification of
ARBs, Issuance of
IDs to ARBs,
Support services
etc
Hierarchy:
Sec of DAR

Regional Offices

Bodies
performing quasijudicial functions
(pursuant to
delegation of fns)
PARAD, RARAD,
DARAB
Re: rights of
farmers,
repudiation of
contracts

2) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural

lessee, written notice of which shall be served 3 months in
advance

Courts with
jurisdiction to try
and hear Agra
reform cases
Regular courts,
only with respect
to 2 instances:
(1) Just
compe
nsation
(2) Crimin
al
prosec
ution

EXTINGUISHMENT OF RELATION (SEC 8)

3) Absence of the persons under Sec 9 to succeed to the

lessee, in the event of death or permanent incapacity of
the lessee
GR in Land Titles: One does not need to look beyond
the four corners of the Title.

X: In dealing with agricultural lands, one must investigate if

there are tenants because if there are, the buyer of the land is
bound by the leasehold system.

(A)

SECURITY OF TENURE (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.

(B)

SEC 9

Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death

or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of death or permanent
incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the
leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the
person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by
the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or
permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving
spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c)
the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their
age: Provided, That in case the death or permanent incapacity of
the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such
choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year:
Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to
exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority
shall be in accordance with the order herein established. In case
of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the
leasehold shall bind his legal heirs.

(C)

GROUNDS TO DISPOSSESS (Sec 36) - are exclusive,

no other grounds can be admitted besides these (different
from Civil Law grounds)

1) Failure to substantially comply with the terms and

conditions unless by fortuitous event

2) Planting of crops or use of land for other purpose than

that agreed

3) Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land

4) Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage
5) Does not pay rental when due (see below)
6) Employed a sublessee

(D)

NON-PAYMENT
DISPOSSESS

OF

RENTAL

AS

GROUND

TO

Sta Ana vs Carpo

Landowner has burden of proof that a ground to dispossess

exists. Respondents failed to discharge such burden. The
agricultural tenant's failure to pay the lease rentals must be
willful and deliberate in order to warrant hid dispossession
of the land that he tills. In instant case, there was an intention
to pay on the part of Sta Ana.
Deliberate - characterized by or results from slow, careful,
thorough calculation and consideration of the effects and
consequences.
Willful - one governed by will w/o yielding to reason or w/o
regard to reason.

Natividad vs Mariano

Petition for relief from judgment (review of a final and

executory judgment, within 6 months from its promulgation;
ground among others: excusable neglect). Respondents were
paying, but to the previous owners. Lessor Natividad did not
inform lessee he is the new owner.
Since there was no proof of demand of Natividad, reckon
demand from the time of filing the petition for ejectment. PD
816 (1975) provides that the deliberate and continued
refusal to pay should be for a period of 2 years.

Atty's note: Apply the (1) willful and deliberate

and (2) for 2 yrs requirements only if the land is
covered under PD 27 (1972; involves only rice and
corn lands). Otherwise (or when it is covered under
present laws- RA 3844 (1963), apply only
requirement (1). In PD 27, there are 2 titles to be
given to tenants: Cert of Land Transfer (CLT) and
Emancipation Patent (EP). CLT - When tenant has
not fully paid the annual amortization to the govt,
but the law deemed the tenant as the owner
already. EP- if tenant has already fully paid.

(E) PERIOD OF REDEMPTION

Sec 12 (as amended by RA 6389)

Lessee's Right of Redemption - In case the landholding is

sold to a third person without the knowledge of the
agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem
the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided,
That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed: Provided,
further, That where these are two or more agricultural lessees,
each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the
extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of
redemption under this Section may be exercised within 180
days from notice in writing which shall be served by the
vendee on all lessees affected and the DAR upon the
registration of the sale and shall have priority over any
other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be
the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale.

Po vs Dampal

Farm lots in Bukidnon, foreclosed by the bank for nonpayment of loan with petitioner as highest bidder. Previous
owner and tenant filed a civil case against the bank for
annulment of mortgage. Meanwhile, tenant-respondent filed a
complaint for legal redemption with DARAB.
Regional Adjudicator disallowed redemption because of
prescription and that the requirement of notice was complied
since the tenant was considered to have knowledge due to the
civil case. DARAB Central Ofc reversed on the lack of notice of
sale to tenant to DAR. The admitted lack of notice on Dampal
and the DAR tolled the running of the prescriptive period.
Petitioner's
contention
that
Dampal
must
be
considered to have had constructive knowledge fails in
the light of the express requirement for notice in
writing.

RA 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform

Law of 1988,
(A)

AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY VIS-A-VIS RAISING OF

LIVESTOCK

Sec 3(b)

Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural

Activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish,
including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm
activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction
with such farming operations done by persons whether natural
or juridical.

Luz Farms vs Sec of DAR (1990)

After this case, the "raising of livestock, poultry or fish"

included in the definition of Agriculture was deleted (through
RA 7881). SC: It is unconstitutional as this is an industrial
activity and not agricultural (as a great portion of the
investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed
assets such as animal housing, structure and facilities etc).
The use of land is incidental and not the principal factor. The
raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or
tree farming.

Republic vs Lopez

LOPEZ LANDS
MARO found several heads of
cattle, carabaos, horses,
goats and pigs, some of which
were covered by several
certificates of ownership.
There were likewise structures
used for livestock business.
The existence of the cattle
prior to the enactment of
CARL (Jun 15, 1988) was
positively affirmed by the
farm workers and overseer EXEMPTED from CARP
coverage.

LIMOT LANDS
The entire land was made of
coconuts and rubber, and it
was actually, directly and
exclusively used for
agricultural activities - NOT
EXEMPTED.

For every cattle, there is only a specific area for grazing lands, and
another for erection of infrastructures. Such land is exempted.
However, if there is excess agri land, then that should be covered
under CARP. SC: There is no law or jurisprudence that holds
that land classification embodied in the tax declaration is
conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry.

(B)

DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND (SEC 3(C))

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.

It should not be classified as mineral or forest by

DENR and its predecessor agencies, not is it
classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as
approved by HLURB and its preceding competent
authorities for residential, commercial or industrial
use.

Requisites for an Agricultural land to be so under

CAR:

(a)

Classification
enactment of CARL

must

be

made

before

(b)

A Presidential Proclamation must not

have been issued classifying the land otherwise
(during Marcos' time only because he had
legislative powers)

Natalia Realty vs DAR (1993)

The Natalia properties are situated within the areas

proclaimed (by virtue of Pres Procalamtion in 1979) as
townsite reservation, which later was part of the Antipolo
Hills Subd. The lots were intended for residential use and so
they ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the
reservation. Lands previously converted by govt agencies,
other than DAR, to non-agri uses prior to effectivity of CARL
were outside the coverage of said law.

Alangilan vs Ofc of the President (2010)

If it is only a reservation it is not considered as a

classification.
Reservation is not actual use but still for future use. It still
remained to be Agri land. Atty's note: But, WON there was
actual use or mere reservation for future use is irrelevant,
because what matters is its classification. Reservation is not
classification. Classification can be made through PP (during
Marcos' time) but now through Congress's Acts.

Classification of "Agri land" in the Tax Dec <

in the zoning ordinance

(C)

AGRARIAN DISPUTE (SEC 3(D))

Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial

arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to
arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

Isidro vs CA

Unlawful detainer case filed in regular court. Dismissed by

lower court because of tenancy. Jurisdiction over the subject
matter is determined from the allegations of the complaint.
The court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy
relationship and only after hearing that if tenancy is shown,
the court should dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. A case
involving agricultural land does not automatically make such
case agrarian. Not all agri lands are covered under CARP.

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands

acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer
of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other
DISMISSAL OF CASE
agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in
the entire case would be dismissed,
The
proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner
including the claims and counterclaims.
and tenant, or lessor and lessee

If there is an allegation that the case is agrarian in

nature AND if one of the parties is a farmer/
farmworker/ tenant, the case shall be automatically
referred by the judge to the DAR to determine WON
it is an agrarian dispute. (Sec 19, RA 9700) Prove
first that the defendant is a farmer. But said law is
silent on what happens upon finding of an agrarian
dispute, so judicial discretion comes in (court may
dismiss case).
One who alleges the existence of tenancy
relationship has the burden of proving such. All 6
requisites must concur, otherwise, one is not
deemed a tenant:

DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
The defendant would want this, because
he is interested in the grant of hi
counterclaim for damages.

Bejasa vs CA

No tenancy relationship. There was no proof of sharing in

harvest, nor was there sufficient proof that the landowners
gave their consent. Bejasa, a sublessee, was the only one who
testified. It was even inconsistent. SC: Self-serving
statements are inadequate, proof must be adhered; to
prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other
similar evidence must be presented.
Atty's Note: Kinsay buang2 mn pud na landowner
muissue ug receipt?

Almuete vs Andres

(a)

Parties - tenants and landowner

(b)

Subject matter is agricultural land

(c)

Consent of parties

(d)

Purpose is agricultural production

(e)

Personal cultivation by tenant

Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown

to him, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to an
investigation report that Almuete was unknown ans that he
waived his rights. Andres also represented that Almuete sold
the property to Masiglat for a radiophone set, and that
Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600. Almuete filed an
action for recovery of possession and reconveyance before
trial court.

(f)

Sharing of harvest between parties

Issue: Who between the two awardees has a better right?

SC: This is a controversy relating to ownership of farmland so
it is beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of
landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and
respondent.

Nicorp Mgmt vs De Leon

There was no substantial evidence supporting the tenancy

relationship. Absence of requirement nos. 3 & 6. Consent that of the landowner. So even if there is only a civil law lease,
and it is the civil law lessee that consented to the installation
of tenants cultivating on the land, the reqmt of consent is not
complied. A letter was also important because it caused the
CA to find a tenancy relationship. CA: "Kasama" = tenanct. SC:
Not necessarily. One who alleges has the burden of proof (thru
sufficient evidence).

Heirs of Quilo vs DBP

Lack of reqmt nos. 3 & 6. DAR Notice of conference and

affidavits confirmed that Quilo had occupied and had been
planting on the land. Mere cultivation does not
automatically make the relationship a tenancy
relationship. Farmer is not equal to tenant. Tiller is not equal
to tenant. Affidavit that they gave share to landowner = selfserving statement. One cannot prove something not alleged in
the complaint.

4 civil actions one can bring for ejectment:

1) Unlawful detainer

2) Forcible entry
3) Accion publiciana
4) Accion reinvidictoria

Davao New Town vs Sps Saliga

3 grounds to extinguish tenancy relationship: (See Sec 8, RA

3844)

1) Abandonment
2) Voluntary surrender
3) Acdg to Sec 9 (+ additional ground)
SC: Tenancy relationship (established under RA 3844)
was terminated with the reclassification of the
property as non-agri land in 1982.

Atty's Note: This is an additional ground, not provided above.

Respondents are not de jure tenants, so they are to entitled to
benefits.

Reyes vs Heirs of Floro

Flow of ownership: Bautista Zenaida (but not true and lawful

owner, only forged the doc) Heirs of Floro Sun Industrial.
Pcs of evidence presented by Reyes: (1) MARO certification
says Reyes is an agricultural lessee. (2) Pagpapatunay from
Bautista.
SC: The MARO cert is just preliminary and does not
bind the court as conclusive evidence that Reyes is a
lessee. Cert by admin agencies are merely provisional.
There was no proof also of cultivation, besides a picture of a
hut erected on the land. Sec 10 about continuity of
relations assumes that there is a tenancy relationship
existing. So that provision is inapplicable in instant case. The
pagpapatunay has Iittle evidentiary value w/o corroborative
evidence.
Atty's Note: It was not notarized (it still is a private doc- so
the person executing the doc should be presented as witness).
Bautista was not presented as witness.

HOMESTEAD PATENT (Section 6, who can claim EXEMPTION)

A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands

of public domain for agricultural purposes
conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.

Filed at CENRO where land being applied is located.

Who are qualified:

1) Citizens of the Philippines

2) Over 18 years old
3) Not owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art. XII,
Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)

Designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots

of the state to land-destitute citizens for their home
and cultivation. Pursuant thereto, the State
prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
homestead (CA 141, Sec. 116) within five (5) years
after the grant of the patent. After said period, the

law impliedly permits the alienation of the

homestead, subject to the right of repurchase by
the homesteader, his widow or heirs (CA 141, Sec.
117).

SEC. 6
xxx Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their
direct compulsory heirs who shall own the original homestead at the
time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as
they continue to cultivate said homestead. xxx
(1) RETENTION LIMIT OF LANDOWNER (SECTION 6), WHAT
IS NOT COVERED (SECTION 6-A), HOW MANY HECTARES
ARE NOT COVERED

Retention by landowner: 5 hectares

Retention Rights

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be

compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: provided,
however, that in case the area selected for retention by the
landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose
whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or
another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In
case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall
be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a
beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a
beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a
leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant
must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the
time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.

NCC:
Conjugal - total is 5;
Capital/paraphernal - not more than 5 each but not exceed 10
FC (Aug. 3, 1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2 S. 2003:
Capital/paraphernal - not to exceed 5 provided with judicial
separation
Absolute (presumed) - total not to exceed 5
Section 6. Retention Limits. - Except as otherwise provided in
this Act, no person may own or retain directly or indirectly, any
public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary
according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as
commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as
determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Code (PARC)
created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the
landowner exceed five (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 the landowners whose lands have been
covered by PD. No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas
originally retained by them thereunder: provided, further, that
original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who
still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this
Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to
cultivate said homestead.

"Section 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits - Provincial, city

and municipal government units acquiring private agricultural
lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used
for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and
bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local
government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or
squares, consistent with the approved local comprehensive land
use plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit
under this Section
xxx." (RA 9700, Sec. 4)

(2)AWARD TO CHILD OF LANDOWNER

3 hectares provided:

1) at least 15 years of age; and

2) Actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm.
"DIRECT MANAGEMENT" shall refer to the cultivation of the land
thru personal supervision under the system of labor
administration. It shall be interpreted along the lines of farm
management as an actual major activity being performed by the
landowner's child from which he/she derives his/her primary
source of income. (A.O. No. 06, s.2006)

(3)EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE (SECTION 10, CENTRAL

(4)WAYS

MINDANAO V DARAB)

IN
DISTRIBUTING
BENEFICIARIES UNDER CARL

(1)

Compulsory Acquisition (Sec. 16)

(2)

Voluntary Offer to Sell / Voluntary Land Transfer

(Sec. 20)

(3)

Non-Land Transfer Schemes

Exemptions and Exclusions (SEC. 10)

(a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,

reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves (exempt);

(b)Private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds

Central Mindanao
purposes)

DARAB

(educational

The subject lands are exempted because they are actually,

directly and exclusively used and found necessary for school
site and campus, including experimental farm stations for
educational purposes and establishing seed and seeding
research.
The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land
area of CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant
factor in the growth of a university in the years to come. By
the nature of the CMU, which is a school established to
promote agriculture & industry, the need for vast tract of
agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious.

(c) Leasehold Operation (Sec. 12)

Sec 12 of RA 6657 mandates DAR to determine

and fix the lease rentals within the retained areas
and areas not yet acquired.

Sec. 6 of RA 6657 recognizes the right of farmers

to elect either of the following:

as farmer-beneficiary, or

leasehold in retained area

Sec 67 of RA 6657 directs RD to register, free from

payment of all fees and charges, patents, title and
documents required for implementation of CARP.

Pursuant to DAR's mandate to protect the rights &

improve tenurial & economic status of farmers in
tenanted lands, DAR issued A.O. No. 02-06
s.2006.

Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (6

requisites: note 6th req: there is consideration given
to the lessor either in a form of share of the harvest
or payment of fixed amount in money or produce or
both).

Leasehold relation shall neither be extinguished by

expiration at term nor by sale. In case of alienation,
purchaser or transferee shall be subrogated to the
rights/obligations of lessor.

While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.

(now Del Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL and was
directly connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as
educational institution.
As to determination of when and what lands are found to be
necessary for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve
& answer the question. DARAB and CA have no right to
substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has no real need for
land.

QUALIFIED

(b)Production and Profit Sharing (PPS) (Secs. 13/32)

(c) Lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national

TO

(a) Stock Distribution Option (SDO)

(exempt);
defense, school sites and campuses including
experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings
research, church sites and convents, mosque sites,
communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal
colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and
over (exempt).

LANDS

(5) JURISDICTION IN IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF

BENEFICIARIES JURISDICTION LIES WITH:
DARAB (under it are RARAD and
PARAD)
Re: Chapter 3, Improvement of Tenurial and
Labor Relations
rights,
obligations,
possible
extinguishment/
continuity
of
relationship

Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate

Secretary of DAR (under him
theOwnership
PARO,
of are
Land
Award (CLOA), which shall contain the
RARO, MARO in descending restrictions
order)
and conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be
Re: Chapter 4, Registration recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on
the Certificate of
selection of ARB, disqualification
ofTitle. (Sec. 24)
ARB
Sec. 9, RA 9700

(6)JURISDICTION TO CANCEL LEASEHOLD CONTRACT

A.O. No. 02-06

DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract.

The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of

average normal harvest during 3 agri years.

A.O. No. 02-06 states, among

obligations of lessor/lessee.

(7)JURISDICTION TO CANCEL CLOA

others,

the

rights

It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register

the title of the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines,
after the LBP has certified that the necessary deposit in the
name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in
bond with due notice to the landowner and the registration of the
certificate of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries,
and to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto.

"Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based

on Section 22 of RA No. 6657, as amended, shall have
usufructuary rights over the awarded land as soon as the
DAR takes possession of such land, and such right shall not be
diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation
patent or the certificate of land ownership award."

"All cases involving the cancellation of registered

emancipation patents (EPs), certificates of land ownership
award (CLOAs), and other titles issued under any agrarian
reform program are within the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR."

and

(8)COMPULSORY

ACQUISITION
(PROCEDURE
SECTION 16, LBP V HEIRS OF TRINIDAD)

(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding

UNDER

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.

Sec. 16, RA 6657

The title of the section states: "Procedure for acquisition of
Private Lands."

Sec. 6, RA 9700
The title was amended: "Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition
and Distribution of Private Lands."

(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the
matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation.

Procedure (Sec. 16)

(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 the valuation set forth in Secs. 17, 18 and
other pertinent provisions hereof.

Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land

Take note of sec. 16 (d) & (e):

(1) Practice of having no deed of transfer or
conveyance
(2) Titles are cancelled w/o owner's copy
surrendered (In Torren's System, if there is
refusal in involuntary dealings, remedy is file
petition in court)

(b)Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written

notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the
landowners, 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 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 by 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.

(3) RD titles are cancelled while owner's copy is

subsisting

Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes & fees of land transfer)

Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents

required for implementation of CARP)
LBP v Heirs of Trinidad
ISSUE: What is the correct amount of provisional
compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in
the name of the landowner if the latter rejects the
DAR/LBP's offer?
Petitioner maintains it should be its initial valuation of
the land subject of VOS (offer of LBP was
P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 / hectare);
Respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by

the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary administrative

proceeding pending final determination by the courts
(DARAB fixed P10,294,721 or P686,319.36 / hectare).
CA, upholding DARAB, reasoned out:
Sec. 16(a) refers to an "offer" of the DAR to pay a
corresponding value of the land. Facts of the case show
that P1,145,806.06 was the offered price which was
rejected by the private respondent.
In cases of rejection of the offer, Section 16(d) states
that
there
shall
be
summary
administrative
proceedings to determine the compensation for the
land. Hence, the proceedings before the DARAB,
through the RARAD for Region XI as in this case.
Note that in Secs. 16(a) to (d), or, during the offer until
its rejection, there was no reference to a deposit of the
compensation.

of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a

basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to the
final decision of the proper court. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by
the Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of
taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution
on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to
determine its valuation."
Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value,
assessed value at the time of taking, location (i.e., along highway)
and the volume and value of its produce, like:

(a) prevailing market value in the area and adjacent areas;

(b)presence and availability of an irrigation system to
augment and increase

(c) agricultural production;

(d)available comparable sales in the area; (d) average
harvests per hectare.

(9)JUST

COMPENSATION
(Preliminary
Determination,
Assoc of Small Landowners v Sec of Dar, LBP v Dumlao,
LBP v Livioco, LBP v Nable, Heirs of Lorenzo v LBP, DAR
v Heirs of Domingo, Heirs of Deleste v LBP)

Meaning :

"full and fair equivalent of property taken from owner by

expropriation" (Assoc of Small Landowners v Sec of DAR)

The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word

"compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be
rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, ample."

RA 9700
"Sec. 17 Determination of Just Compensation - In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of
the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its
nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner,
the tax declarations, the assessment made by the government
assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation

LBP v Dumlao
FACTS:
Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27;
Determination of just compensation remained pending with
DAR, so they filed complaint with RTC for determination.
SC:
If just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA
No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law,
although property was acquired under PD No. 27;
The determination made by the trial court, which relied solely
on the formula prescribed by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, is
grossly erroneous. The amount of P6,192.50 per hectare,
which is based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the
time of their taking in the 1970's", does not come close to a
full and fair equivalent of the property taken from
respondents;
It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be

given to the owner cannot be assumed and must be

determined with certainty.
Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through
AO No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by AO No. 11, Series of
1994:
Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory
Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the
claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x
0.1)
Land Value
LV
=
Capitalized Net Income
CNI
=
Comparable Sales
CS
=
Market Value per Tax
MV
=
Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are
present, relevant and applicable.

CA's act of setting just compensation @ P109,000 would have

been a valid exercise of judicial function, had it followed the
mandatory formula prescribed by RA No. 6657. However CA
merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the
commissioner as basis for determining just compensation
namely: (a) P109,000 per hectare as the market value of first
class unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde; and
(b) P60 per sq. m. as the zonal value of the land in other
barangays in Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because it
does not adhere to the formula provided by RA No. 6657.
The date of taking of the subject land for purpose of
computing just compensation should be reckoned from the
issuance dates of the emancipation patents (EP).
Reason: EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the
issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the
grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that
the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the
landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to
the landowner.
However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the
trial court should determine the date of issuance of these
emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date of taking
and proceed to compute the just compensation due the
respondent.
NOTES:
1) PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;
RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just
compensation.
Factors (Sec. 17)

Cost of acquisition

Current value of like properties

Nature, Actual use & Income

Sworn valuation by owner

Tax declaration

Assessment made by Government Assessors

2) RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation

has not been determined at the time of passage of RA 6657
applies because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory
effect.

LBP vs Livioco
FACTS:
To prove that his property is now residential, Livioco
presented a Certification from the Office of the
Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of
the Municipality of Mabalacat that, as per zoning
ordinance, Livioco's land is located in an area where
the dominant land use is residential. He also presented
certifications from the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory
Board
(HLURB),
the
Mt.
Pinatubo
Commission, and the National Housing Authority (NHA)
that his property is suitable for a resettlement area or
for socialized housing. None of these plans pushed
through.
Livioco then presented evidence to prove the value of
his property as of 2002. According to his sworn
valuation, his property has a market value of
P700/sq.m. He also presented the BIR zonal value for
residential lands in Dadap, as ranging from P150 P200/ sq.m. He then presented Franklin Olay (Olay),
chief appraiser of the Rural Bank of Mabalacat, who
testified and certified that he valued the property at
P800/sq.m., whether or not the property is residential.
Olay explained that he arrived at the said value by
asking the buyers of adjacent residential properties as
to the prevailing selling price in the area. There was
also a certification from the Pinatubo Project
Management Office that Livioco's property was valued
at P300/sq.m.
RTC as Special Agrarian Court
landowner and ruled in his favor.

(SAC)

found

for

SC:
The lower courts have erred in ruling that the character
or use of the property has changed from agricultural to
residential, because there is no allegation or proof that
the property was approved for conversion to other uses
by DAR. It is the DAR that is mandated by law to
evaluate and to approve land use conversions so as to
prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform
coverage. Even reclassification and plans for

expropriation by LGUs will not ipso facto convert an

agricultural property to residential, industrial or
commercial. Thus, in the absence of any DAR approval
for the conversion of respondent's property or an
actual expropriation by an LGU, it cannot be said that
the character or use of said property changed from
agricultural to residential. Respondent's property
remains agricultural and should be valued as such.
Hence, the CA and the trial court had no legal basis for
considering the subject property's value as residential.
Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as
residential property (which the lower courts found to be
preponderant) could, at most, refer to the potential use
of the property. While the potential use of an
expropriated property is sometimes considered in
cases where there is a great improvement in the
general vicinity of the expropriated property, it should
never control the determination of just compensation
(which appears to be what the lower courts have
erroneously done). The potential use of the property
should not be the principal criterion for determining
just compensation for this will be contrary to the wellsettled doctrine that the fair market value of an
expropriated property is determined by its character
and its price at the time of taking, not its potential
uses. If at all, the potential use of the property or its
"adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, not
the ultimate in determining just compensation".

Question: Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case

for determination of just compensation may be filed?
Answer: No. (a) Because DAR may continue to alienate the
lots during the pendency of the protest; (b) Sec 57 of RA 6657
states that SAC has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
LBP v Nable
SC:
Court finds nothing objectionable or irregular in the use by the
RTC of the assailed the farming experience and the thumb
method of conversion tests. Such tests are not inconsistent or
incompatible with the factors listed in Section 17 of RA 6657.

Although Section 17 of RA 6657 has not explicitly mentioned

the farming experience and the thumb method of conversion
as methods in the determination of just compensation, LBP
cannot deny that such methods were directly relevant to the
factors listed in Section 17, particularly those on the nature,
actual use and income of the landholding.

Heirs of Lorenzo v LBP

FACTS:
Petitioners are owners of land; first valuation was rejected but
upon re-computation and order of RARAD, the re-valuation was
accepted by owners. LBP filed MR but denied; LBP filed a
petition for determination of just compensation with the RTC.
Petitioners submit that LBP has no legal personality and has
no cause of action to institute the agrarian case before the
SAC. They argue that LBP cannot on its own, separate and
independent of DAR, file an original action for determination of
just compensation against the RARAD and petitioners,
because it is a usurpation of the exclusive authority of DAR to
initiate and prosecute expropriation proceedings. Petitioners
thus insist that in land acquisition cases, the only real partiesin-interest are the landowners and the government, the latter
acting through the DAR.
SC:
Section 18 clearly states that there should be a consensus
among the landowner, the DAR, and the LBP on the amount of
just compensation. Therefore LBP is not merely a nominal
party in the determination of just compensation. RA 6657
directs LBP to pay the DAR's land valuation only if the
landowner, the DAR and LBP agree on the amount of just
compensation.
DAR proceedings are but preliminary and become final only
when the parties have all agreed to the amount of just
compensation fixed by the DAR. However, should a party
disagree with the amount fixed by DAR, then the jurisdiction of
the SAC may be invoked for the purpose.
LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedings
under RA 6657, and thus, has the legal personality to question
the determination of just compensation, independent of DAR.
Once an expropriation proceeding for the acquisition of private
agricultural lands is commenced by the DAR, the
indispensable role of LBP begins, which clearly shows that
there would never be a judicial determination of just
compensation
absent
respondent
LBP's
participation.
Logically, it follows that respondent is an indispensable party
in an action for the determination of just compensation in

cases arising from agrarian reform program; as such, it can

file an appeal independently of DAR.

DAR v Heirs of Domingo

FACTS:
Subject parcels of land were taken by government under PD
27.
DAR claimed that compensation should be based on PD 27 in
relation to EO 228. The property was taken under PD 27, thus
just compensation should be computed based on the price in
1972.
SC:
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just
compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and
EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just
compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
compensation should be determined in accordance with RA
6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative
considering that just compensation should be the full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full
and ample.

Heirs of Deleste v LBP

Cancellation of EPs and OCTs were declared warranted for
violation of due process.
FACTS:
Spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin
(Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of agricultural land
located in Tambo, Iligan City, consisting of 34.7 hectares
(subject property). Said spouses were childless, but Gregorio
had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another
woman. Virgilio had been raised by the couple since he was
two years old. Gregorio also had two daughters, Esperanza
and Caridad, by still another woman.
When Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered
the subject property. On February 16, 1954, they sold the
subject property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste) for P16,000. The
deed of sale was notarized on February 17, 1954 and
registered on March 2 of the same year. Also, the tax

declaration in the name of Virgilio was cancelled and a new

one was issued in the name of Deleste. The arrears in the
payment of taxes from 1952 had been updated by Deleste
and from then on, he paid the taxes on the property. 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 DAR as
the landowners. Concomitantly, the notices and processes
relative to the coverage were sent to these heirs.
Thereafter, EPs and titles were issued in favor of respondents.
Thus, heirs of Deleste filed a petition before DARAB to nullify
the EPs and titles.
Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is
subjecting the said property under the coverage of the
agrarian reform program; hence, their right to due process of
law was violated.
SC:
We agree with petitioners. The importance of actual notice in
subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program
cannot be underrated, as non-compliance with it trods
roughshod with the essential requirements of administrative
due process of law.
But it was incumbent upon DAR to notify Deleste, being the
landowner of the subject property. It should be noted that the
deed of sale executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was
registered on March 2, 1954, and such registration serves as
a constructive notice to the whole world that the subject
property was already owned by Deleste by virtue of the said
deed of sale.
Moreover, that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste,
and not to the Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax
declaration in the name of Virgilio was already canceled and a
new one issued in Deleste's name. Although tax declarations
or real property tax payments are not conclusive evidence for
ownership, they are nonetheless "good indicia of possession in
the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be
paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least,
constructive possession."

Petitioner's right to due process of law was indeed violated

when the DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the
said property under the coverage of the agrarian reform
program.
(On the issue of EPs and titles)
In the same vein, if the illegality in the issuance of the CLTs is
patent, the court must immediately take action and declare
the issuance as null and void. There being no question that
the CLTs in the instant case were "improperly issued, for which
reason, their cancellation is warranted." The same holds true
with respect to the EPs and certificates of title issued by virtue
of the void CLTs, as there can be no valid transfer of title
should the CLTs on which they were grounded are void.
Cancellation of the EPs and OCTs are clearly warranted in the
instant case since, aside from the violation of petitioners' right
to due process of law, the subject property is outside the
coverage of the agrarian reform program.

(10)

BENEFICIARIES (DAR V POLO COCONUT)

DAR v Polo Coconut

Challenged before SC is CA's ruling against DAR and CA held that
beneficiaries were not qualified beneficiaries as they were not
tenants of the lands of Polo Coconut.
SC:
This provision (Section 22) enumerates who are qualified
beneficiaries of the CARP. Determining whether or not one is
eligible
to
receive
land
involves
the
administrative
implementation of the program. For this reason, only the DAR
Secretary can identify and select CARP beneficiaries. Thus, courts
cannot substitute their judgment unless there is a clear showing
of grave abuse of discretion.
Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to
tenants of the landowners. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to
have committed grave abuse of
discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not
tenants of Polo Coconut.

LEGAL RULES:

1) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given

preference in the distribution of the land of their parents.
2) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or
removed therefrom.

3) Beneficiaries under PD 27 who have culpably sold, disposed

of, or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become
beneficiaries under the Program.

4) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness,

aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as
productive as possible.

5) If, due to the landowner's retention rights or to the number of

tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough
land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be
granted ownership of other lands available for distribution
under the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
6) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares
of agricultural land. (Sec. 23)

(11)
27)

PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER BY BENEFICIARY (SECTION

"Sec. 27 Transferability of Awarded Lands - Lands acquired

by beneficiaries under this Act or other agrarian reform laws
shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through
hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to
other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a period of ten
(10) years: Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of
the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the
government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of
the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the BARC
of the barangay where the land is situated. The PARCOM, as
herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the
BARC.
xxx"