REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD v.

CA
G.R. No. 165155 | 13 April 2010
POLITICAL LAW – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY - ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP AND
TRANSFER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS

DOCTRINE: Rules of Procedure in agrarian cases should be liberally construed for as long as the purpose
is sufficiently met and no violation of due process takes place.

FACTS:
 Respondents, co-owners of several parcels of land primarily devoted to rice production, filed a
complaint for ejectment against petitioners for non-payment of rentals before the DARAB. They
averred that petitioners were agricultural lessees while the petitioners themselves contend that
they are farmer-beneficiaries under PD 27.
 When the complaint for ejectment was filed, the actual tillers on the land were the successors-in-
interest of two of the named defendants (Pedro and Avelino) as they had died at the time of filing,
and the same participated in the proceedings despite no formal substitution of party litigants.
 The Regional Adjudicator directed the petitioners to surrender possession of the land to the
respondents as they could only retain their status as agricultural lessees if they complied with their
statutory obligation to pay the required leasehold rentals.
 Upon appeal, the Regional Adjudicator issued, in its May 6, 2003 Order, a writ of execution against
the non-appealing defendants and deceased defendants.
 Dissatisfied, both respondents and petitioners moved for reconsideration of the order. The
respondents argued that the appeal should not have been given due course because it did not
adhere to Section 2, Rule XIII of the DARAB Rules of Procedure. On the other hand, the petitioners
included in the writ of execution contended that said Order was hastily executed.
 In its August 5, 2003 Order, the Regional Adjudicator allowed the appeal of the heirs of the two
decedents and nullified the writ of execution as regards to them.
 Respondents moved for reconsideration but was denied in the November 13, 2003 Order which
also ordered the sheriff to restore the farmholdings of the heirs of the deceased in view of the
quashal of the writ of execution.
 Thus, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with CA, arguing that both notices of appeal by the
petitioners were infirm for failure to state the grounds for appeal and for containing forged
signatures.
 CA held that the notice of appeal bearing the signatures of the deceased contained forgeries,
brushing aside the heirs’ explanations that they merely signed the decedents’ names to show
intention to appeal the decision. The said notices of appeal also failed to specifically allege the
grounds relied upon.
 Petitioners, in their petition for certiorari, claim that the stringent application of the rules denied
them substantial justice. Respondents maintain that there should be strict adherence to the
technical rules of procedure because DARAB rules frown upon dilatory appeals.

ISSUE: Whether or not the notices of appeal are mere scraps of paper for failure to state the grounds relied
upon for appeal and are null and void for containing two falsified signatures?

HELD: No. Under Section 2 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, it is provided that the rules should be
liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the agrarian reform program and to promote just,
expeditious and inexpensive settlement of agrarian cases. The defects found in the two notices of appeal
also are not of such nature that would cause a denial of the right to appeal as the defects are inconsequential.
There is nothing sacred about the forms of pleadings for the sole purpose is to facilitate the application of
justice to the claims of contending parties so pleadings and procedural rules should be construed liberally.
In a DARAB case, the notice of appeal serves only to inform the officer that rendered the appealed decision
of the timeliness of the appeal, the general reason for such appeal and to prepare the records for
transmission to DARAB. As such, the notices of appeal substantially complied with what is required under
the DARAB rules as the petitioners were appealing the decision on the grounds of questions of fact and
law. While the notices omitted to state that the decision would cause grave and irreparable injury, requiring
a literal application of the rules when its purpose has already been served is a superfluity.

The Regional Adjudicator has no power to determine if the appeal was intended for delay as such matters
are for the appellate body to determine after it has studied the appeal memorandum. This principle is
applicable to agrarian disputes by virtue of Section 8, Rule XIII of the DARAB rules. Since the Board is the
one which has the power to punish, it is also the one which has the power to decide if there has been a violation. When
an appeal is timely filed, it becomes a ministerial duty to approve the same.

FERRER v. CARGANILLO
G.R. No. 170956 | 12 May 2010
POLITICAL LAW – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY - ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP AND
TRANSFER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS

DOCTRINE: The use, enjoyment, occupation or disposition of private property is not absolute, , such as
the prohibition against subleasing an agricultural lease, for it is predicated on the social functions of
property

FACTS:
 This case involved 4 separate complaints filed by Ferrer to several different respondents, one of the
complaints alleging that Domingo Carganillo subleased the subject landholding to his brother
Sergio without her knowledge and consent and that she only knew of this act when she found
Sergio in possession and cultivation of the land.
 Domingo denied that he had mortgaged his possessory rights to Sergio, asserting that he is still in
actual, continuous, and peaceful possession of the property.
 In an investigation report, an officer of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office stated that the
cultivation and possession of the landholding was subleased by Domingo to Sergio as the former
was applying for work abroad.
 PARAD ruled that Ferrer failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is subleasing
or mortgage of the property by Domingo Carganillo. DARAB affirmed. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not subleasing an agricultural lease is prohibited?

HELD: Yes. Based on Sec. 36 of the Agricultural Reform Code, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the
enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the
Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that the lessee employed a
sub-lessee on his landholding. Sec. 24 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act also provides that it is unlawful for
a share-tenant to employ a sub-tenant to furnish labor or any phase of the work required of him. All share
tenancy was declared contrary to public law by Sec. 4 of the Agricultural Reform Code. As to the Carganillo
case, Ferrer has sufficiently proven the fact of subleasing thus Domingo and Sergio should be dispossessed
of the agricultural landholding because such is prohibited except due to illness of the agricultural lessee.
DARAB also erred in disregarding the Katulagan into evidence. The DARAB rules of procedure provide
that the Agrarian Reform Adjudicators are not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence in the
Rules of Court nor shall it apply suppletorily. As to the other respondents, however, the fact of subleasing
was not sufficiently proven.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO PUYAT and GLORIA
PUYAT
G.R. No. 175055 | 27 June 2012
POLITICAL LAW – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY - ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP AND
TRANSFER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS

DOCTRINE: Where the agrarian reform process is still incomplete at the time of effectivity of RA 6657, the
just compensation should be determined and completed under RA no. 6657, with PD 27 and EO 228 having
only suppletory effect. .

FACTS:
 Gloria and Maximo Puyat were the registered owners of a parcel of riceland consisting of 46.8731
hectares located in Cabanatuan City of which 44.3090 hectares DAR placed under Operation Land
Transfer pursuant to PD 27.
 In 1989, DAR issued emancipation patents in favor of farmer beneficiaries which were annotated
on the Puyat’s TCT, causing the partial cancellation of their title. They did not receive any
compensation for the cancellation of title.
 2 years after the DAR awarded the property to the farmer-beneficiaries, Land Bank received DAR’s
instruction to pay just compensation and made an initial valuation, but the Puyats rejected the
valuation for being low.
 Thus, the heirs of Puyat filed a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation
with the RTC, praying that their property be valued instead at P100, 000 per hectare instead of the
recommended P2, 012.50 per hectare. On the other hand, Land Bank and DAR argued that the
valuation was made in compliance with the formula provided for lands acquired under PD 27 and
EO 228, and that valuation should be made using the prevailing rates when PD 27 took effect.
 RTC ruled that the valuation of the property should be made in accordance with Section 17 of RA
6657. Based on the fact that the property could yield an average of 65 cavans per hectare, easily
accessible and serviced by telecommunication utilities, the reasonable compensation should be set
at P100, 000 per hectare. A 6% legal interest was also imposed.
 CA held that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function which cannot be unduly
restricted by requiring the courts to strictly adhere to a formula thus the courts can choose to rely
on the factors enumerated in Section 17, RA 6657 even if these factors do not appear in PD 27 or
EO 228. The 6% legal interest was also properly imposed as Puyats were deprived of property
without receiving just compensation.
 Land Bank filed a petition for review, arguing that the just compensation must be valued at the
time of taking of the property under the effectivity of PD 27, and not RA 6657. Furthermore, if PD
27 and EO 228 are to be applied, DAR AO no. 13 already provides for the 6% compounded interest
so the imposition of the legal interest is tantamount to double interest.

ISSUE/s: Whether or not lands acquired pursuant to PD 27 may be valued using the factors in Section 17
of RA 6657?

HELD: Yes. When the government takes property pursuant to PD 27 but does not pay the landowner his
just compensation until after RA 6657 has taken effect, it becomes more equitable to determine the just
compensation using RA 6657. Both the taking of Puyats’ property and the valuation for the just
compensation made by Land Bank occurred during the effectivity of RA 6657. PD 27 only applies insofar
as there gaps in RA 6657 but where the latter law is sufficient, PD 27 is superseded. Thus, Land Bank cannot
insist on the application of PD 27 as it would render Section 17 of RA 6657 on determination of just
compensation inutile. The lower courts also did not disregard the basic valuation formula in DAR AO no.
5 which implements Section 17 as it took into account the factors provided therein. While the courts should
be mindful of the formula created by DAR, it is not strictly bound to adhere to the same.

However, there was no need to remand the case as RA 9700, which added factors for the determination of
just compensation, took effect when the case was already submitted for resolution. The applicability of RA
9700 to the case was also not among the issues discussed in the parties’ memoranda. DAR AO no. 02-09
shows that lands yet to be acquired and distributed by the DAR when RA 9700 took effect shall be valued using RA
9700, while lands already acquired but unpaid when RA 9700 took effect shall be valued using Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657, as amended. . Furthermore, the implementing rules of RA 9700 authorize the valuation of lands in
accordance with the old Section 17 of RA 6657 so there was no need to remand the case as valuation can be
determined by the latter law.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO PUYAT and GLORIA

PUYAT
G.R. No. 175055 | 27 June 2012
POLITICAL LAW – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY - ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP AND
TRANSFER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS

DOCTRINE: The interest rate for delay in payments in agrarian cases at 12% per annum.

FACTS:
 Gloria and Maximo Puyat were the registered owners of a parcel of riceland consisting of 46.8731
hectares located in Cabanatuan City of which 44.3090 hectares DAR placed under Operation Land
Transfer pursuant to PD 27.
 In 1989, DAR issued emancipation patents in favor of farmer beneficiaries which were annotated
on the Puyat’s TCT, causing the partial cancellation of their title. They did not receive any
compensation for the cancellation of title.
 2 years after the DAR awarded the property to the farmer-beneficiaries, Land Bank received DAR’s
instruction to pay just compensation and made an initial valuation, but the Puyats rejected the
valuation for being low.
 Thus, the heirs of Puyat filed a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation
with the RTC, praying that their property be valued instead at P100, 000 per hectare instead of the
recommended P2, 012.50 per hectare. On the other hand, Land Bank and DAR argued that the
valuation was made in compliance with the formula provided for lands acquired under PD 27 and
EO 228, and that valuation should be made using the prevailing rates when PD 27 took effect.
 RTC ruled that the valuation of the property should be made in accordance with Section 17 of RA
6657. Based on the fact that the property could yield an average of 65 cavans per hectare, easily
accessible and serviced by telecommunication utilities, the reasonable compensation should be set
at P100, 000 per hectare. A 6% legal interest was also imposed.
 CA held that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function which cannot be unduly
restricted by requiring the courts to strictly adhere to a formula thus the courts can choose to rely
on the factors enumerated in Section 17, RA 6657 even if these factors do not appear in PD 27 or
EO 228. The 6% legal interest was also properly imposed as Puyats were deprived of property
without receiving just compensation.
 Land Bank filed a petition for review, arguing that the just compensation must be valued at the
time of taking of the property under the effectivity of PD 27, and not RA 6657. Furthermore, if PD
27 and EO 228 are to be applied, DAR AO no. 13 already provides for the 6% compounded interest
so the imposition of the legal interest is tantamount to double interest.
ISSUE/s: Whether or not it is proper to impose the 6% legal interest per annum on the unpaid just
compensation?

HELD: Yes. As to the interest rate awarded for Land Bank’s delay, the trial courts did not apply DAR AO
no. 13 so the lower courts’ imposition of the 6% interest cannot constitute a double imposition of a legal
interest. Current jurisprudence furthermore sets the interest rate for delay in payments in agrarian cases at
12% per annum but even if this is so, the heirs of Puyat did not contest the interest awarded by the lower
courts. Hence, the interest rate imposed by the lower courts should not be disturbed.

LADANO v. NERI
G.R. No. 178622 | 12 November 2012
POLITICAL LAW – NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY - ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP AND
TRANSFER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS

DOCTRINE: For a tenancy relationship, express or implied, to exist, the following requisites must be
present: (1) the parties must be landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee; (2) the subject matter is
agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there
is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of harvests between the landowner and the
tenant.

FACTS:
 Ladano filed a complaint against Neri, Soto, Espanola and Blanco before the DARAB Provincial
Adjudicator, alleging that respondents forcibly entered the 2-hectare land which he and his family
have been peaceably occupying and cultivating since 1970. He maintained that he has been a
possessor in good faith for more than 30 years and cannot be removed without being compensated
for the improvements he introduced.
 Neri countered that Ladano does not have nor did he allege a leasehold arrangement with him.
 The Provincial Adjudicator dismissed the case, ruling that the 2-hectare property, while
agricultural, is not covered by RA 6657 which only covers agricultural properties beyond 5 hectares
nor covered by PD 27 as the property was not planted with rice or corn. It was also not covered by
tenancy laws.
 DARAB held that Ladano’s 30-year occupation and cultivation of the land could not have possibly
escaped the landowner’s notice and acquiesced Ladano’s actions, thus creating an implied tenancy.
Respondents, as landowners, has the burden to prove that Ladano was a mere intruder which they
failed to discharge.
 CA held that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that a tenancy relationship exists
between Ladano and Neri as the burden, which lies with the person who is asserting the existence
of a tenancy relationship, was not sufficiently discharged by Ladano.

ISSUE/s: Whether or not Ladano is an agricultural tenant of the landholding?

HELD: No. There is no tenancy relationship between Ladano and Neri. A tenancy relationship arises
between a landholder and a tenant once they agree, expressly or impliedly, to undertake jointly the
cultivation of a land belonging to the landholder, as a result of which relationship the tenant acquires the
right to continue working on and cultivating the land. For a tenancy relationship, express or implied, to
exist, the following requisites must be present: (1) the parties must be landowner and tenant or agricultural
lessee; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent by the landowner; (4) the purpose is
agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of harvests
between the landowner and the tenant. The DARAB erroneously failed to consider that occupancy and
cultivation of agricultural land will not render one a de jure tenant. Ladano did not even allege that he is a
tenant of the landowner nor did he allege that he shared his harvests with the landowner. Anent such
factual bases, Ladano is not a tenant on the land is not entitled to security of tenure.

Generally, the DARAB has no jurisdiction over Ladano’s complaint as there existed no tenancy relationship
between the parties. A reading of the complaint, however, shows that Ladano did not claim to be a
leasehold tenant of the land and that the true nature of the case is one for forcible entry which matter is
cognizable not by DARAB but by the regular courts.

NOTES FROM TET:

1. Pls follow format strictly. Note that the font is Book Antiqua size 12 for the title of the case and
size 10 for the rest of the digest.
2. Separate digest with the border and make sure the digests are in chronological order;
3. Subject and file name should be the same: BAR SUBJECT 2018 Del Castillo Digests (Ex:
POLITICAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 2018 Del Castillo Digests) Pls use the name of
the Bar Subject as indicated in the Bar Syllabus;
4. Footnotes will be supplied containing the names of the team members of the Bar Subject for
proper giving of credit; and
5. STANDARD: If ako ba mag-bbar, ito ba gagamitin ko pang-review?