AGRARIAN NOTES (copied from ppt slides)

FOCUS ON: Just Compensation, Agrarian Dispute, Land Acquisition, Retention Limits

AGRARIAN DISPUTE
 any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, stewardship) over lands devoted to
agriculture
 any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL and other terms and conditions of
transfer of ownership.
 “tenancy relationship”
ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES
landowner
1) Parties
tenants
2) Subject matter is agricultural land
3) Consent of parties
4) Purpose is agricultural production
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
6) Sharing of harvest between parties
 All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.

Isidro v. CA
 Private resp is owner of land;
 Sister of priv resp allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon demand
 Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro;
 RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural and so agrarian;
SC:
 Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of complaint
 Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is
shown, the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
 Case involving agri land does not automatically make such case agrarian
 Six requisites not present;
 No contract to cultivate;
 Petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of land

SUPLICO v. CA
 Suplico is a lessee of rice land
 Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the land while Suplico will provide the farm implements and
thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans from the palay by way of rental
 years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the property
 So private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR
 Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of contractual relationship
 Trial court declared private respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.
 SC found no reasons to disturb findings
i. 1. private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a farmhouse just like what a farm tenant
normally would
ii. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding and harvesting.
iii. Management was left entirely to private respondent
iv. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.

2. MONSANTO v. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing

 Sps. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of coconuts owned by petitioner.
 They were acquitted but required Zerna to return P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto did not
consent to harvest of coconut.
Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra sale. This falls under DARAB
 There is Agrarian dispute:
1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts
2. private respondents were overseers at time of taking by virtue of Agreement .
 tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing, expressly or impliedly
- here there was agreement which contradicts petitioner’s contention that private respondents are mere
overseers. Being overseers does not foreclose their being tenants.
3. Petitioner allowed respondent to plant coconut, etc.
4. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent
5. Petitioner is claiming the amount of P1,100 as balance from proceeds of copra sale.
6. Private respondents contend that this P1,100 is their compensation pursuant to tenurial arrangements.
 7. Since this amount is intertwined with the resolution of agra dispute, CA correctly ruled that DARAB has
jurisdiction.
8. RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it acted beyond when it ruled that agri tenancy between parties.
This belongs to DARAB.

BEJASA v. CA
 FACTS:
• Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to Malabanan.
• Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it, with all the expenses shouldered by
Malabanan.
• Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give any consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or
a shared harvest
 ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas
 SC:
Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There was no proof that Malabanan
and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay on the land .
There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question.
Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case
 No proof of sharing in harvest
- while Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasa’s word was presented to prove this. Besides testimony was
suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owner’s share,
yet at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner.
- landowners never gave consent
citing Chico vs. CA , 284 534 – “self serving statement are inadequate, proof must be adhered”
-even assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove
tenancy . Consideration should be harvest sharing.

VALENCIA v. CA
FACTS:
• Valencia, owner of land, leased the property for five (5)years to Fr. Andres Flores under a civil law lease
concept;
• lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land without Valencia’s written consent.
• During the period of his lease, private respondents were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia
• After lease, Valencia demanded vacate but refused;
• Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they filed application with DAR;
• CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.
 ISSUE: Tenancy/Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the
land subject matter of the lease agreement?
 SC:
• An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not make the case an agrarian dispute.
The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure.
• A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. With respect to the lease agreement between Valencia and Fr.
Flores, the lessee did not have any authority to sublease Valencia's property due to the prohibition in their
lease agreement
• R.A. No. 3844, as amended, does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the
consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so specifically authorized;
• A different interpretation would create a perverse and absurd situation where a person who wants to be a
tenant, and taking advantage of this perceived ambiguity in the law, asks a third person to become a civil law
lessee of the landowner. Incredibly, this tenant would technically have a better right over the property than the
landowner himself

ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership)

 Facts:
 Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land
 Unknown to Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to investigation report that Almuete was
unknown and waived his rights; Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for
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.
 Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property.
SC:
This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so, beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute
No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent.
RTC was competent to try the case.
PASONG BAYABAS v. CA: “no evidence”
 Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as approved by DAR.
 Petitioners, claimed actual tillers of land, filed complaint for damages alleging surreptitious conversion; priv
resp denied cultivation; waiver of rights was executed by some
SC: no tenancy
 no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants; waiver of rights constitutes abandonment
 no substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord
 No possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner.
 Cultivation / possession not proven
 As to the remaining twenty and more other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown that their
cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been by authority of a valid contract
of agricultural tenancy.
 On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of them have simply occupied the premises in suit
without any specific area of tillage being primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives

ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA: “tenancy is not presumed”

 Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent
 Petitioner is claiming tenancy
 DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed
SC: Tenancy is not presumed.
No evidence to prove consent of parties and sharing of harvest
 SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to prove the existence of the following elements: (a)
the consent of the parties and (b) the sharing of harvests

HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA
FACTS:
 Jugalbot was issued EP;
 EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery
possession; on appeal, DARAB upheld but CA reversed
SC: Absence of tenancy relationship.
 taking of property violated due process (CA was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due
process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party); no
ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of
Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property;
 By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a
violation of due process
 no concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except for their self-serving statements
 Independent evidence, aside from self-serving statements, is needed.
 plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and migrated to US and returned only in 1998,
wife and daughter were residents of California
 Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning ordinance
Coverage
 Section 4:
 All alienable and disposable public lands
 All private lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture
Schedule of implementation – Sec. 5
 “The distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from effectivity
hereof.”
 Sec. 63: “The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon approval hereof
shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No.
299. xxx.”
 RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: “The amount needed to implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded
from the Agrarian Reform Fund.”
 RA 9700, Sec. 21:
“The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of
funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and
other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00)”

CHAPTER 2: HOMESTEAD GRANTEES

HOMESTEAD PATENTS
 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 - citizens of Philippines
 - over 18 years old
- 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 to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of the patent. After that five-year period the
law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead, but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the
homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be
subject to the right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirs

CARL RECOGNIZES RIGHTS OF HOMESTEADERS

 expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII, Constitution
 ALITA v. CA: (1989)
 private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired 2 parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur
thru homestead patent
 petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27
SC:
 PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and transferring to them ownership of land they
till.
 However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA 141 (Public Land Act)
 Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteader’s rights and CARL also.
 Sec. 6:
xxx 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. xxx.”

PARIS VS ALFECHE (2001)

 Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of 13 hectares. She admitted that land is fully
tenanted by private respondents Alfeche,et al.
 Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original homestead grantee, she is entitled to retain
the lands to the exclusion of tenants.
SC :
 Petitioner’s contention is w/o legal basis
 PD applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands primarily devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere does it
appear that lots obtained by homestead patents are exempted from its operation.
 Under RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are provided but with condition: only for “as long as they
continue to cultivate them”.
 That parcels of land are covered by homestead will not automatically exempt them from operation of land
reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt
their lands.
 Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares which require no qualifying condition (Sec.6)
 Petitioner’s heirs are not entitled to awards of 3 hectares each since they are not actually tilling the land or
directly managing the farm.
 As compared to Alita, owner was desirous of personally cultivating the homestead, thus Court upheld right of
homestead owners.
 In this case, petitioner and heirs did not cultivate the land and have not expressed any desire to cultivate
them.

RETENTION RIGHTS
 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

LANDOWNER’S RETENTION RIGHTS

 Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs?

DAEZ v. CA
 Issuance of EPs/CLOA’s to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar landowner from retaining the area.
 In fact, EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land covered in later found to be part of landowner’s retained
area
 In this case, CLTs of private respondent were leased w/o according Daez her right of choice. So DAR
was ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec.6 of RA 6657.
  Retention by landowner: 5 hectares
 Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided:
1. at least 15 years of age; and
2. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm

DAR ADMIN ORDER NO. 2, SERIES 2003

 who may apply for retention
 Period to exercise right of retention
 Where to file
 Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of retention
 Operating produces : MARO – PARO – REG. DIRECTOR- Sec. (Appeal)
 “That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for
acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries”. (RA 9700, Sec. 3)
 “SEC. 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)

SEC 10. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS

 (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 (exempt)
 (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national 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)

EXEMPTIONS FROM COVERAGE (SEC 10)

CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB

 The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly & exclusively used and found necessary
for school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for 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 it growth of a university in years to come. By the nature of 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.

CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB

 While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del Monte), the agreement was prior to
CARL & 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 & CA have no right to substitute unless it is manifest that
CMU has no real need for land.

ATLAS FERTILIZER VS SEC

 Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms; challenged RA 6657 which
coverage lands devoted to the aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and prawn farms.
SC:
R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In
view of the foregoing, the question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become
moot and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881

SANCHEZ VS MARIN
Issue:
Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program of the government by virtue of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7881 to R.A. No.
6657
SC:
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 by expressly
exempting/excluding private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from
the coverage of the CARL.
REPUBLIC VS CA
 Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural
 DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied for exemption.
 Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created a commission to conduct ocular
inspection and survey the land. Later, based on the report submitted by the commission, the Court of Appeals
reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from CARL.
 Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered by mere ocular
inspection.
SC: there is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax declaration is conclusive; tax declaration is clearly
not sole basis of classification of land. SC gave credence to commission’s report.
 based on their report, it was found that the land use map submitted by private respondent was an appropriate
document consistent with the existing land use. It was confirmed that the lands are not wholly agricultural as
they consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope;
 The CARL has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except those already developed shall
be exempt from the coverage of CARL.

STA. ROSA
 material is exempted from CARP
 Plus 18% slope lands so exempted.

SEC 11. COMMERCIAL FARMS

Commercial farms – private agri lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms and
cacao, coffee and rubber plantations. They are subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution after 10 years from
effectivity.
 LUZ FARMS
 Sec. II which includes “private agricultural land devoted to commercial livestock, poultry & swine raising” in
definition of “commercial farms” is invalid.
• Adm. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural land used for cattle raising
from CARP.
 Citing Luz Farms case
 private agricultural land or portions thereof actually, exclusively &directly used for cattle raising as of
15 June 1988 shall be excluded.
 exclusion shall be granted only upon proof of AED prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized for
such purpose up to application
 Any act to change or convert ; w/ intent to avoid CARP, shall be invalid
 Only the grazing area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising
shall be considered for exclusion
 A.O #9, S of 1998 – allows commercial farms certain options, subject to approval of DAR & workers: (aside
from voluntary & compulsory coverage)
CLOAs are issued - joint venture
in name of cooperative - grower ship agreement
of workers - lease – back
- direct payment

DAR VS SUTTON (LAND DEVOTED TO COW AND CALF BREEDING)

 Lands under VOS before CARP
 After CARP & Luz Farms case, Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS
 DAR issued A.O #9 (1993) which provide that only portions of land used for raising of livestock, poultry &
swine shall be excluded.
 DAR partially exempted portion but ordered acquisition the rest.
SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock , swine/poultry raising do not fall under “agriculture” &
“agricultural activity”

ADMIN ORDER NO. 7 (2008) (GUIDELINES PER SUTTON CASE, LIVESTOCK RAISING)
 Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 & continuously devoted shall be excluded.
 Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided agri activity land is suitable for agriculture presently tilled by
farmers

CHAPTER 3: IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL AND LABOR RELATION

 WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED FARMERS?
 Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16)
 Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec.20)
 Non-land transfer schemer –stock distribution option(SDO)
 - production & profit sharing
(PPS)- Sec. 13/32)
- leasehold operation(Sec.12)
 Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within the retained areas and areas not yet
acquired
 Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect
- farmer-beneficiary
- leaseholds in retained area
 Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title & 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 AO 02-06
 Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6 requisites)
 Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at term nor by sale . In case of alienation,
purchaser/transferee shall be subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor.
 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
 AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee.

CHAPTER 4: REGISTRATION
 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
 AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee.

LAND ACQUISITION AND REDISTRIBUTION

 Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas and the root cause of peasant unrest.
 In order to hasten the implementation of the program, the Department of Agrarian Reform has made
compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same end, the law provides for the steps
in acquiring private lands through administrative instead of judicial proceedings. This procedure is allowed
provided the requirements of due process as to notice and hearing are complied with.
 Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands including facilities
and improvements necessary for agricultural production, as may be appropriate, for distribution to qualified
beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation.
 The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands coverable
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Along the various phases of the CARP
proceedings, the process stalls because of Land Owner (LO) resistance, most of whom invoke the ground of
lack of notice or non-observance of due process in attacking the proceedings.

CHAPTER 5: LAND ACQUISITION

 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 count
(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)
 Sec. (e): Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, can request RD to cancel title &
transfer it to Republic of Phil.
 So even if landowners protests valuation, distribution of land will proceed.
 CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition : so cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go
w/ issuance of CLOA.
 In Association of small land owners, SC did not say “automatically”
 SC said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past conversation.

CONFED VS DAR
 Compulsory Acquisition
 Notice of Acquisition
 First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries.
 Law is silent
 Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
 Valid implementation , two notices
 DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR
A.O No.1, Series of 1993
QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same
barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land;
(2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their
parents.
(3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
(4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their lands are
disqualified to become beneficiaries under the Program.
(5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as
productive as possible.
(6) 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.
(8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. (Sec. 23)

AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
 Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall
contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds
concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (Sec. 24)

ISSUANCE OF CARP BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE

 When certificate issued. – Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the rights and responsibilities of the
beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be
completed within 180 days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the lands
by the beneficiary shall be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOA), which shall contain the restrictions, and conditions provided by law and which shall be
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.

In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued pending the fulfillment of certain legal
and administrative requirements. Examples of these are:
(a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform” (G.R. No. 76742, 14,July 1989.) that title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the
State only upon full payment of compensation to their respective landowners;
(b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being awarded through the EP or CLOA.
 Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the identified beneficiaries may already be in
possession of the land but still have no EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, the DAR shall first issue a
CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the would-be beneficiaries, an intermediate document to
evidence that they have been identified and have qualified as agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP.
Moreover, aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the identified beneficiary to be awarded the land or
portion thereof, the CBC issued shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP.

PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES
(1) Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to the following rules:
(a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the
PARC.
(b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the value of the annual gross production as
established by the DAR.
(c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% of the annual gross production and
the failure to produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiary’s fault, the LBP may reduce the interest rate or
reduce the principal obligation to make the repayment affordable.
(2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this
mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three(3) annual amortization. The LBP
shall advice the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other
qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from
becoming a beneficiary under the Act. (Sec. 26.)

TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS

(1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary
succession, or to the government, or to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years.
However, the children of 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 Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM) shall, in turn, be given the due notice thereof by the BARC.
(2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with
prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such
transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself.

NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES

(1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners’ retained areas or lands not yet due for distribution
are placed under leasehold to ensure farmers’ security over the land they till and pre-empt their displacement
while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land;
(1) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim measure while the lands owned or operated by
agricultural entities await coverage under the CARP. There entities are companies mostly involved in the
commercial production of rubber, banana, and pineapple;
(3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the farmers are entitled to dividends and other
financial benefits and are also assured of at least a representatives at the Board of Directors, management or
executive committee to protect the rights and interest of shareholders; and
(4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). – This scheme provides corporate landowners of newly-established
commercial plantations enough time to recover their investment before such agricultural lands are covered by
CARP. The deferment period was up to 1998. Pending final land transfer, however, these corporations shall
implement a production and profit-sharing scheme in their farms.
The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has not been given much priority,
as there has been greater pressure for them to deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets.

LAND ACQUISITION
 Roxas case: CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given chance to validate proceedings.
Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of law
 Assoc. of Small Landowners:
Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private agricultural lands and ascertainment of
just compensation)
 Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides 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”
Sec. 16, RA 6657
The title of the section states: “Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.”
Section 6, RA 9700
The title was amended: "SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands."

CONFED VS DAR
 Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land,
the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process must be
made.
 Identification process in Sec. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap (AO #12, s. 989)
Notice of Coverage:
 Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his
retention right;
 Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors
of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent
matters.
 Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the
other representatives may be present.
Notice of Acquisition:
  The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just
compensation offered by DAR.
 Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD)
shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of rejection
or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to
determine just compensation.
 Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit
to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
 Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the
designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent
Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of
the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the
land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.

CONFED VS DAR: RA 6657: REVOLUTIONARY KIND OF EXPROPRIATION

 affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long in excess of max retention
limits;
 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, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner;
 does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future;
 Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers of
lands that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams and deliverance
 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,“ in Association of Small Landowners 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.
 On “just compensation”, judicial determination 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, court can review.
Section 16 (f) clearly provides:
“(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation”

Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court?

 Rules of Court, including Rule 67 thereof, is not completely disregarded in the implementation of RA 6657
since the Special Agrarian Courts, in resolving petitions for the determination of just compensation, are
enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.
 Section 58 of RA 6657, like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, provides for the appointment of commissioners by
the Special Agrarian Courts.
 Sec. 58: “may”; “motu proprio or instance of party”
 Rule 67: “shall”

LAND BANK VS CA
 Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR permitting the opening of trust account by
LBP, in lieu of depositing in cash or in LBP bonds.
SC:
 Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in “cash” or in “LBP bonds”;
 Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form like a trust
account;
 There was no basis for issuance of order.

SANTOS VS LBP
 Santos v. LBP :
Facts:
RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, to be made in cash and bonds. According to petitioner, said order illegally amended the judgment
rendered which directs payment of compensation to be made "in the manner provided in RA 6657.
SC:
Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation “in the manner provided by RA 6657” is not
illegally amended but is merely clarified by an order issued during execution proc that such amount shall be
paid in cash and bonds.
CHAPTER 6: COMPENSATION

Sec. 7, 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 government
assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation 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."

LBP VS 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 P6,912.50 per hectare, which is based on the DAR valuation of
the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s", does not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the
property taken from respondents;
 CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00 would have been a valid exercise of this
judicial function, had it followed the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No. 6657. However, the appellate
court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the commissioner as basis for determining just
compensation, namely: (a) P109,000.00 per hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated rice land in
the Municipality of Villaverde; and (b) P60.00 per square meter 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.
 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)
Where:
LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and applicable.
Note:
1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;
RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.
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.
 Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, assessed value at the time of the taking,
location (i.e., along highway) and the volume and value of its produce, like:
  (a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas;
 (b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment and increase agricultural production;
 (c) available comparable sales in the area;
 (d) average harvests per hectare.
 The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from
the issuance dates of the emancipation patents.
 Why? 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 to respondents.
 Petitioner’s argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending determination by DAR is specious.
 To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is to violate the
elementary rule that payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable period from the taking of
property;
 Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be
paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without
prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the
consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before
actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss

SPS. LEE VS LBP

 If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid .
(Note that in this case, there was admission that valuation was not based on factors under CARL: a
representative of the company admitted that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable).
 Case remanded.

LBP VS HEIRS OF CRUZ

 If valuation is not based on any evidence, it is w/o basis, so determination be remanded.
 In this case, decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence, so case was remanded.
Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for determination of JC may be filed?
 No:
(a) because DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the pendency of protest;
(b) Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has orig and exclusive jurisdiction.

CONTENT AND MANNER (SEC 18)

 Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits or LBP bonds.
 Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash?
No, because “revolutionary kind”.

PARTIES INVOLVED (SEC 18)

Land Bank v. CA:
The parties are DAR, landowner and LBP. The law does not mention the participation of farmer-beneficiary.
So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing proper compensation.

VOLUNTARY OFFER (SEC 19)

 Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash payment if LO voluntarily offers land for sale.

VOLUNTARY TRANSFER (SEC 20, 21)

How is VLT made?
Sec. 20 – LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for direct transfer to qualified beneficiaries but subject to
guidelines (i.e., all notices for VLT be submitted to DAR within 1st year of implementation of CARP, terms and
conditions shall not be less favorable to transferee).
Sec. 21 – direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under terms mutually agreed and which shall be
binding upon registration and approval by DAR.
 Sec. 44 (2) – provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC the adoption of direct payment scheme. So,
AO #2, s. 1995 was issued:
 Beneficiaries are determined by DAR;
 Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area which the govt would otherwise acquire;
 CLOA’s should bear proper annotations.

LAND ACQUSITION AND REDISTRIBUTION

QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
Sec. 8, RA 9700
"SEC. 22-A. Order of Priority. — A landholding of a landowner shall be distributed first to qualified beneficiaries under
Section 22, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that same landholding up to a maximum of three (3) hectares each. Only
when these beneficiaries have all received three (3) hectares each, shall the remaining portion of the landholding, if
any, be distributed to other beneficiaries under Section 22, subparagraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g).”

DAR VS 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.
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.

AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
Sec. 9, RA 9700
SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence
from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and
their actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not more than
one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land ownership award, and other titles
issued under any agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one (1) year
from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the conditions, limitations and
qualifications of this Act, the property registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation patents
or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought under the operation of the torrens system, are
conferred with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system, as
provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732.
Sec. 9, RA 9700
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 Land Bank of the Philippines (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.
Sec. 9, RA 9700
• "Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act 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, certificates of land ownership award,
and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction
of the Secretary of the DAR.”

TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS

Sec. 12, RA 9700

"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 PARCCOM, as herein
provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.
xxx”