SECTION 48. Legal Assistance.

— The BARC or any member thereof may, whenever necessary in the

exercise of any of its functions hereunder, seek the legal assistance of the DAR and the provincial, city, or
municipal government.

Social Justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice
in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. It means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated
to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a
proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through
the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of
salus populi est suprema lex. (Calalang vs. Williams)

ARTICLE XIII

AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM

Section 4. 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. To this end, the State shall
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall
further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
Primary Objective Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
The primary objective of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is to break-up the agricultural lands
and transform them into economic-size farms to be owned by the farmers themselves. The expected
outcome of this law is to uplift the farmer’s socio-economic status by providing an opportunity to till
their own lands which can be a source of income for their basic needs and payment for the land.
Principles and Policies of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

Aside from the adoption of the above section of the Constitution, this law asserts the following
principles and policies for the State in enacting this law:

a. Pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) wherein the “welfare of the landless
farmers and farmworkers” must be given the highest consideration. This program aims the following:

i. to promote social justice,

ii. to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization, and

iii. establishment of owner cultivatorship of economic-size farm as basis of Philippine agriculture.

b. More equitable distribution and ownership of land with the following considerations:

i. rights of landowners to just compensation,

ii. retention rights of landowners, and

iii. ecological needs of the nation.

c. Recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers and landowners, as well as cooperatives and other
independent farmers’ organizations, to participate in the planning, organization, and management of
the program.

d. Provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate
financial production, marketing and other support services.

e. Apply the principles of agrarian reform, or stewardship in the utilization of other natural
resources including the lands of the public domain, under lease or concession, suitable to agriculture
which is subject to:

i. prior rights,

ii. homestead rights of small settlers, and

iii. rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.

f. For fishermen, marine and fishing resources:

i. protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential
use of communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore,

ii. provide support through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production
and marketing assistance and other services,

iii. protect, develop and conserve such resources, and

iv. fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing
resources

g. Guided by the principles that land has a social function and land ownership has a social
responsibility.

i. agricultural landowners have the obligation to cultivate lands to make it productive, and

ii. incentives to landowners.

h. Lease undeveloped lands of the public domain to qualified entities for the development of
capital intensive farms, and traditional and pioneering crops especially those for exports.

Additional Principles and Policies of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, as amended

The law was amended and the following additional principles and policies were included:

a. Promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and
agrarian reform through the following:
i. competitive industries in domestic and foreign markets that make full and efficient use of
human and natural resources, and

ii. conversion of agricultural lands into industrial, commercial or residential lands.

b. promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and
agrarian reform with the following considerations:

i. take into account tiller’s rights and national food security

ii. protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

c. As much as practicable, the implementation of the program shall be community-based. The

farmers shall have greater control of farmgate prices, and easier access to credit.

d. The rights of rural women to own and control land which shall be independent of their male
relatives and of their civil status.

i. as qualified beneficiaries,

ii. receive a just share of the fruits thereof, and

iii. to be represented in advisory or appropriate decision-making bodies.

Industrialization is Needed in Achieving the Expected Outcome of the Law

The State recognizes that there is not enough agricultural land to be divided and distributed to each
farmer and regular farmworker. To uplift the lives and economic status of the farmer and his/her
children can only be achieved through simultaneous industrialization aimed at developing a self-reliant
and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in
accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the
public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights
of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.

The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be
distributed to them in the manner provided by law.

SECTION 3. Definitions. —For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:

(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.
(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 person whether natural or juridical.

(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. MFRCI

(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.

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 agrarian
reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator
and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

(e) Idle or Abandoned Land refers to any agricultural land not cultivated, tilled or developed to
produce any crop nor devoted to any specific economic purpose continuously for a period of three (3)
years immediately prior to the receipt of notice of acquisition by the government as provided under
this Act, but does not include land that has become permanently or regularly devoted to non-
agricultural purposes. It does not include land which has become unproductive by reason of force
majeure or any other fortuitous event, provided that prior to such event, such land was previously used
for agricultural or other economic purpose.

(f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the production of
agricultural crops, either by himself, or primarily with the assistance of his immediate farm household,
whether the land is owned by him, or by another person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement
or arrangement with the owner thereof.

(g) Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as an employee or laborer in an
agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly,
monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence
of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially
equivalent and regular farm employment.

(h) Regular Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an agricultural
enterprise or farm.

(i) Seasonal Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent
basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or a non-permanent laborer, such as
"dumaan", "sacada", and the like.

(j) Other Farmworker is a farmworker who does not fall under paragraphs

(g), (h) and (i).

(k) Cooperatives shall refer to organizations composed primarily of small agricultural producers, farmers,
farmworkers, or other agrarian reform beneficiaries who voluntarily organize themselves for the
purpose of pooling land, human, technological, financial or other economic resources, and operated on
the principle of one member, one vote. A juridical person may be a member of a cooperative, with the
same rights and duties as a natural person.

SECTION 11. Commercial Farming. — Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising, and aquaculture including saltbeds, fishponds and
prawn ponds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and cacao, coffee and rubber
plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after (10) years from
the effectivity of the Act. In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first year of
commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the
government shall initiate the steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just
compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives
or associations, which shall hereafter manage the said lands for the worker-beneficiaries. If the DAR
determines that the purposes for which this deferment is granted no longer exist, such areas shall
automatically be subject to redistribution. The provisions of Section 32 of the Act, with regard to
production-and incomesharing, shall apply to commercial farms.

Daez v CA

Facts:

Eudosia Daez was the owner of a 4.1685-hectare riceland in Barangay Lawa, Meycauayan, Bulacan
which was being cultivated by respondents Macario Soriente, Rogelio Macatulad, Apolonio Mediana
and Manuel Umali under a system of share-tenancy. The said land was subjected to the Operation
Land Transfer Program under Presidential Decree No. 27 as amended by Letter of Instruction Armed
with an affidavit, allegedly signed under duress by the respondents, stating that they are not share
tenants but hired laborers, Eudosia Daez applied for the exemption of said riceland from coverage of
P.D. No. 27 due to non-tenancy as well as for the cancellation of the CLTs issued to private
respondents. The application of the petitioner was denied. Exemption of the 4.1685 riceland from
coverage by P.D. No. 27 having been finally denied her, Eudosia Daez next filed an application for
retention of the same riceland, this time under R.A. No. 6657. The DAR Regional Director allowed
Daez to retain the subject land but the DAR Secretary reversed that decision. She appealed to the
Office of the President which ruled in her favour. Respondents appealed to the CA which reversed
the decision of the Office of the President.

Issue
:
Whether or not the denial of application for exemption under PD 27 would bar an application for
retention under RA 6657

Held:
The requisites for the grant of an application for exemption from coverage of OLT and those for the
grant of an application for the exercise of a landowner’s right of retention are different. Hence, it is
incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an application for retention are one and the
same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent
institution of the other. There was, thus, no procedural impediment to the application filed by
Eudosia Daez for the retention of the subject 4.1865-hectare riceland, even after her appeal for
exemption of the same land was denied in a decision that became final and executory.
Republic v. Court of Appeals

342 SCRA 189

FACTS:

Green City Estate & Development Corp. is the owner of a parcel of land located in Jala-Jala, Rizal with a
total area of 112 hectares. Under the tax declaration, the land is classified as agricultural. Hence, the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) subjected the land to compulsory acquisition under the agrarian
reform law.

Thereafter, Green City Estate & Development Corp. filed an application for exemption from agrarian
reform on the found that the land is non-agricultural because it is within the residential and forest
conservation zones of the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala. The DAR denied the application for
exemption on the basis of the classification embodied in the tax declaration.

ISSUE:

Was the DAR correct in denying the application for exemption on the mere fact that the tax declaration
classified the land as agricultural?

HELD:

The DAR was not correct in denying the application for exemption by the mere fact that the tax
declaration classified the land as agricultural. There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land
classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe further
inquiry.

Furthermore, the tax declarations are not clearly the sole basis of the classification of a land. In fact, DAR
Administrative Order No. 6 lists other documents, aside from tax declarations, that must be submitted
when applying for exemption from CARP.

Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR

Facts: On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines, which includes,
among others, the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.

Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business, avers that it would be
adversely affected by the enforcement of sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of the said law. Hence,
it prayed that the said law be declared unconstitutional. The mentioned sections of the law provides,
among others, the product-sharing plan, including those engaged in livestock and poultry business.

Luz Farms further argued that livestock or poultry raising is not similar with crop or tree farming. That
the land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and represents no more than 5% of the total
investments of commercial livestock and poultry raisers. That the land is incidental but not the principal
factor or consideration in their industry. Hence, it argued that it should not be included in the coverage
of RA 6657 which covers “agricultural lands”.

Issue: Whether or not certain provisions of RA 6657 is unconstitutional for including in its definition of
“Agriculture” the livestock and poultyr industry?

Ruling: The Court held YES.

Looking into the transcript of the Constitutional Commission on the meaning of the word “agriculture”,
it showed that the framers never intended to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of
the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the government.

Further, Commissioner Tadeo pointed out that the reason why they used the term “farmworkers” rather
than “agricultural workers” in the said law is because “agricultural workers” includes the livestock and
poultry industry, hence, since they do not intend to include the latter, they used “farmworkers” to have
distinction.

Hence, there is merit on the petitioner’s argument that the product-sharing plan applied to “corporate
farms” in the contested provisions is unreasonable for being consficatory and violative of the due
process of law.

CHAPTER VI

Compensation

SECTION 17. Determination of Just Compensation. —In determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the current value of the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors
shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers
and by the Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any
government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine
its valuation.

SECTION 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. —The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such
amounts as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP, in accordance with the
criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally
determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land.

The compensation shall be paid on one of the following modes, at the option of the landowner:

(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions;

(a) For lands above — Twenty-five percent fifty (50) hectares, insofar (25%) cash, the balance to as the
excess hectarage is be paid in government concerned. financial instruments negotiable at any time.

(b) For lands above — Thirty percent (30%) cash, twenty-four (24) hectares the balance to be paid in and
up to fifty (50) hectares. government financial instruments negotiable at any time.
(c) For lands twenty-four — Thirty-five percent (35%) (24) hectares and below. cash, the balance to be
paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time.

(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred shares, physical
assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set by the PARC;

(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability;

(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:

(a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent (10%) of the face value of
the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That
should the landowner choose to forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid
correspondingly in LBP bonds;

(b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner, his successors in
interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face value, for any of the following:

(i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including assets under the Asset
Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by government financial institutions in the same
province or region where the lands for which the bonds were paid are situated;

(ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of governmentowned or -controlled corporations or shares of stocks

owned by the government in private corporations;

(iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused persons, or performance
bonds;

(iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the proceeds of the loans shall
be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a small-and medium-scale industry, in the same
province or region as the land for which the bonds are paid;

(v) Payment for various taxes and fees to government; Provided, That the use of these bonds for these
purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the outstanding balance of the financial instruments:
Provided, further, That the PARC shall determine the percentage mentioned above;

(vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government
universities, colleges, trade schools, and other institutions;

(vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government hospitals; and
(viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.

In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate measures to protect the economy.

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.

Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution 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
the valuation set forth in Section 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
monuments 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.

(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.

Two notices are required for valid implementation

For a valid implementation of the agrarian reform program, two (2) notices to the landowner are
required, namely:
(a) Notice of Coverage pursuant to DAR Administrative No. 12, series of 1989; and

(b) Notice of Acquisition pursuant to Section 16 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. (Sta.
Rosa Development v. CA, 367 SCRA 175)

The first notice is in compliance with administrative due process, considering that implementation of the
agrarian reform law is an exercise of police power of eminent domain.

Land Acquisition procedure should be strictly construed

Since land acquisition under the agrarian reform law is an extraordinary method of expropriation, it
must be strictly construed. Hence, the failure of the DAR or any of its agencies to comply with the
proper procedure for expropriation, i.e., when no Notice of Coverage was issued, it should be treated as
a violation of constitutional due process and should be deemed arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.

Opening of trust account does not constitute payment

Opening of a trust account does not constitute payment because the law requires just compensation to
be paid in cash and LBP bonds and not by trust account.

When title or ownership of the land is transferred to the State

Title and ownership over the land will be transferred to the Republic of the Philippines only upon full
payment of the just compensation. Until the just compensation is finally determined and fully paid, the
title and ownership remains with the landowner. This is so even if the DAR has deposited the offered
price with the LBP. The mere fact, therefore, that the DAR has deposited the offered price does not
warrant the cancellation of the owner’s title.

Sta. Rosa Development Corp. v. CA

Facts: SRDC is the registered owner of two parcels of land in Cabuyao, Laguna. According to them, these
lands are watersheds which provide clean and potable water to the Canlubang community. They were
alleging that the private respondents usurped its rights over the property thereby destroying the
ecosystem. SRDC sought ejectment against respondents.

Private respondents filed a case for compulsory acquisition of the SRDC Property in DAR. Land was
therefore inspected by the Municipal and Agrarian Reform Officer and declared that land must be
placed under compulsory acquisition. Petitioner filed an objection on the ground that the area is not
appropriate for agricultural purposes. Furthermore, the area is rugged in terrain with slopes 18% and
above which falls under the exception in compulsory acquisition of CARL. Private respondents answered
stating that the slope of the land is 5-10% and that it is suitable and economically viable for agricultural
purposes. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer Durante Ubeda forwarded his endorsement of the
compulsory acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago sent
two notices of acquisition to petitioner, stating that petitioners landholdings had been placed under
CARP. SRRDC filed a protest. DAR Secretary Benjamin Leong issued a memorandum directing the Land
Bank of the Philippines to open a trust account in favor of SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55. According to
DARAB, SRRDC landholdings shall be immediately transferred to the name of the Republic of the
Philippines and distribute the same to the farmer-beneficiaries.

Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of DARAB.

Issue: Whether or not DAR and other accountable agencies were able to follow the appropriate
procedures in compulsory acquisition.

Held: No. DAR and the other agencies did not follow the proper procedures:

SC noted that the payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the procedural
requirement. The law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by trust account as was done by DAR.

Section 16 of CARL states that: “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.”

The Court directs DARAB to conduct a reevaluation and determination of the nature of the land involved
to resolve the issue of its coverage in the CARL.

Roxas & Co. v. CA

Facts: Before CARL, petitioner filed VOS to sell Hacienda Caylaway. Later on, two other haciendas (Palico
and Banilad) were placed under compulsory acquisition by DAR. Notice entitled ‘Invitation to Parties’
were sent. It was addressed to the Hacienda Administrator Jaime Pimentel. Petitioner withdrew VOS
when Hacienda Caylaway was reclassified from agricultural to non-agricultural. Consequently, petition
of conversion for the three haciendas was denied by DAR.

Issue: Whether DAR followed the guidelines in the acquisition of the land.

Held: No. DAR issued CLOAs without just compensation to petitioner. Trust deposit accounts does not
constitute payment under the law.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. Failure of DAR to comply with due process does not give power to SC to nullify CLOAs.

Petition was granted in part. Acquisition proceedings were nullified. Case remanded to DAR for proper
acquisition proceeding and determination of the application of conversion.
 ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LAND OWNERS
vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: a. A petition alleging the
constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657. Subjects of the
petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants.
Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD
27. The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the
legislature’s power. b. A petition by landowners and sugar planters in
Victoria’s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229.
Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of
P50Billion. c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR
under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. d. A petition invoking the
right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding
seven hectares.

Issue: Whether or not RA 6657 is constitutional.

Held: RA 6657 is a valid exercise of police power. The carrying out of the
regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever
lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is
definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of
just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title
and the physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing
to the owner in favor of the farmer. A statute may be sustained under the
police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful subject and the
method. Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid.
SECTION 74. Penalties. — Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this Act shall
be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not more than three (3) years or a fine
of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than fifteen thousand pesos
(P15,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a corporation or association, the
officer responsible therefor shall be criminally liable.