Agra Midterms - Based on Pointers

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform(G.R. No. 78742, En Banc, 14 July 1989) "What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner. . ."

C.

- J. Isagani Cruz [W]e do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands wherever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner. Its purpose does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos. Generations yet to come are as involved in this program as we are today, although hopefully only as beneficiaries of a richer and more fulfilling life we will guarantee to them tomorrow through our thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no less than the Constitution itself that 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 but can now become the key at last to their deliverance.

I. 

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

RA 3844

Abolished share tenancy relationship and provided for the expropriation of certain agricultural lands for resale to qualified beneficiaries.

A. Security of Tenure Section 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided. B. Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of

Grounds to Dispossess (SEC 36) 

Failure to substantially comply with terms and conditions unless by fortuitous events.



Planting of crops or use land for other purpose than that agreed



Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land



Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage



Does not pay rental when dueo



SC: willfull and deliberate AND must have lasted at least 2 years (PD 816)

Employed a sublessee

Sta Ana vs. Sps. Carpo: It is a fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that for non-payment of lease rentals to warrant the dispossession and ejectment of a tenant, the same must be made in a willful and deliberate manner (Cabero v. Caturna, et al., CA). For a valid ouster or ejectment of a farmer-tenant, the willful and deliberate intent not to pay lease rentals and/or share can be ascertained when there is a determination of will not to do a certain act. Considering the circumstances obtaining in this case, it cannot be concluded that the defendants-appellants deliberately failed or refused to pay their lease rentals. It was not the fault of defendants-appellants herein that the rentals did not reach the plaintiffs-appellees because the latter choose to lend a deaf ear to the notices sent to them. Clearly, therefore plaintiffs-appellees failed to show by substantial evidence that the defendants-appellants deliberately failed or refused to pay their lease rentals. It has been held that the mere failure of a tenant to pay the landowner’s share does not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former when there is lack of deliberate intent on the part of the tenant to pay (Roxas y Cia v. Cabatuando, 1 SCRA 1106). Natividad vs Mariano: In the present petition, we do not find the respondents’ alleged non-payment of the lease rentals sufficient to warrant their dispossession of the subject property. The respondents’ alleged non-payment did not last for the required two-year period. To reiterate our discussion above, the respondents’ rental payments were not yet due and the respondents were not in default at the time Ernesto filed the petition for ejectment as Ernesto failed to prove his alleged prior verbal demands. Additionally, assuming arguendo that the respondents failed to pay the lease rentals, we do not consider the failure to be deliberate or willful. The receipts on record show that the

ARYAN

REVOLUTIONARY KIND OF EXPROPRIATION

D. Period of Redemption In its disquisition, the DARAB held that absence of written notice to the tenant of the sale, as well as to the DAR, is indispensable, particularly in view of Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, which mandates that the 180-day period must be reckoned from the notice in writing upon registration of the sale. Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, otherwise known as the Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines, provides:

Sec. 12. Lessee’s right of redemption. – In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale. (emphasis supplied) Po vs Tambal: The admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioners’ contention that Dampal must be considered to have had constructive knowledge thereof fails in light of the express requirement for notice to be in writing.

III. CARL, as amended 1. Agricultural activity vis-à-vis raising of livestock Luz Farms vs. DAR: The main issue in this petition is the constitutionality of Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), insofar as the said law includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith. SC: Sec 3(b) is unconstitutional. Industrial, commercial and residential lands are not covered by the CARL. While Sec 4 of RA 6657 provides that the CARL shall cover all public and private agricultural lands, the term “agri lands” does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial.

Lands devoted to raising livestock, poultry have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, lands and thus exempt from agrarian reform. The raising of livestock, swine and is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in form of industrial fixed assests. DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. 2. Definition of agricultural land Alangilan v. Office of President: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land use. It does not denote that the property has already been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is not a land classification category. Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the landholding had already been earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance. 3. Agrarian Dispute 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 were not present. There was no contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of land. 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. There was no proof of sharing in harvest. While Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasa’s word

ARYAN

respondents had paid the lease rentals for the years 1988-1998. To be deliberate or willful, the non-payment of lease rentals must be absolute, i.e., marked by complete absence of any payment. This cannot be said of the respondents’ case. Hence, without any deliberate and willful refusal to pay lease rentals for two years, the respondents’ ejectment from the subject property, based on this ground, is baseless and unjustified.

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. NICORP MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. LEONIDA DE LEON Facts: On August 26, 2004, respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Region IVProvince of Cavite, praying that petitioners Salvador R. Lim and/or NICORP Management and Development Corporation (NICORP) be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land located in Barangay Mambog III, Bacoor, Cavite, registered under TCT No. T72669 in the name of Leoncia De Leon and Susana De Leon Loppacher (De Leon sisters), who were likewise impleaded as partiesdefendants in the suit. Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land since time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of the owners, who were her sisters-in-law; that sometime in 2004, petitioners circulated rumors that they have purchased the property from the De Leon sisters; that petitioners ignored respondent's requests to show proof of their alleged ownership; that on August 12, 2004, petitioners entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice planted on the land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy equipment; that the incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist Order 5 but to no avail. Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over the land; restore the land to its original condition and not to convert the same to non-agricultural use; that any act of disposition of the land to any other person be declared null and void because as a tenant, she allegedly had a right of pre-emption or redemption over the land. Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). He alleged that respondent is a septuagenarian who is no longer physically capable of tilling the land; that the MARO issued a certification 7 that the land had no registered tenant; that respondent could not be regarded as a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired through inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy 8

was executed by the De Leon sisters when they sold the property to him. DTIaCS Moreover, Lim claimed that respondent and her family surreptitiously entered the subject land and planted a few crops to pass themselves off as cultivators thereof; that respondent tried to negotiate with petitioner Lim for the sale of the land to her, as the latter was interested in entering into a joint venture with another residential developer, which shows that respondent has sufficient resources and cannot be a beneficiary under the CARP; that the land is no longer classified as agricultural and could not thus be covered by the CARP. Per certification issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Bacoor, Cavite, the land is classified as residential pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Issue: Whether or not the land is exempted. Held: In the instant case, there is no substantial evidence to support the appellate court's conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on the subject property. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth elements cited above. It was not shown that the De Leon sisters consented to a tenancy relationship with respondent who was their sister-in-law; or that the De Leon sisters received any share in the harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a tenancy relationship. The affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a portion of the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her sisters-in-law. The affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or details of the alleged harvest sharing; it merely stated that the affiants have known respondent to be the cultivator of the land since time immemorial. It cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest sharing. That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without opposition, does not mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly recognized the existence of a leasehold relation with respondent. Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant. Finally, the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate Sections 65 33 and 73 34 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. There was no illegal conversion of the land because Sec. 65 applies only to lands which were covered by the CARP, i.e., those lands beyond the five-hectare retention limit allowed to landowners under the law, which were distributed to farmers-beneficiaries. In the instant case, it was not shown that the subject land was covered by the CARP. Neither was it shown that the sale was made to circumvent the application of R.A. 6657 or aimed at dispossessing tenants of the land that they till. 4. HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec.6) HOMESTEAD PATENT  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.

ARYAN

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. Moreover, 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.

CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec.6,)  expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII, Constitution 5. SECTION 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. “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) 6. Award to Child of Landowner Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or 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. 7. Exemption from Coverage Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL (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) 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.  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. 8. Ways in distributing lands to qualified beneficiaries under CARL The law designated that land acquisition and distribution are to be done in a period of ten years following the effectivity of the law. Phase one covers rice and corn lands under the Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all privately-owned lands voluntarily offered by the landowners for land reform; all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions; all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG); and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture (RA 6657). Phase two covers all alienable and disposable public agricultural lands, all arable public agricultural under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases that are cultivated and planted to crops in accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands in excess of fifty hectares. Phase three includes private agricultural landholdings above 24 hectares up to 50 hectares; and landholdings from the retention limit up to 24 hectares. 9. Jurisdiction in identification and selection of beneficiaries The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution scheme, including the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller may be a beneficiary of the land he does not own but is actually cultivating to the extent of the difference between the area of the land he owns and the award ceiling of three (3) hectares. 10. Jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract Beneficiaries who are found to have violated the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and other existing agrarian laws and issuances shall be delisted from the masterlist of qualified beneficiaries and the IDs issued in their favor rescinded and cancelled by the DAR through the PARO. In addition to the cancellation of IDs, the cancellation of registered leasehold contracts or EPs/CLOAs, by the DAR Adjudication Board pursuant to Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994, entitled, "Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs), and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and for other Causes", shall also be undertaken.

ARYAN

who are qualified - citizens of Philippines over 18 years old & not an 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. 

12.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. SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed: (a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof. (b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title. (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. LBP v Heirs of Trinidad: Facts: Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land situated in Sampao, Kapalong, Davao del Norte with an approximate area of 37.1010 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49200, 14.999 hectares of which was covered by RA No.

6657 through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Private respondent offered to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) the price of P2,000,000.00 per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just compensation for said 14.999 hectares the amount of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 per hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent. In accordance with Section 16 of RA No. 6657, petitioner LBP deposited for the account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional compensation for the acquisition of the property. Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative proceedings under DARAB Case No. LV-XI-0330-DN2002 to fix the just compensation. On June 26, 2002, the DARAB rendered a decision fixing the compensation of the property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per hectare. Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied on September 4, 2002. Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum City, docketed as DAR Case No. 78-2002, which is the subject of this petition. Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition against DAR before the same Special Agrarian Court docketed as DAR Case No. 79-2002, to which petitioner LBP filed its answer and moved for the dismissal of the petition for being filed out of time. Private respondent filed a Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of P10,294,721.00 in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling in "Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, Pedro L. Yap, Et Al., G.R. No. 118712, October 6, 1995". EAIcCS Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the deposit should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount of P1,145,806.06 and not P10,294,721.00 as determined by the DARAB. On December 12, 2002, public respondent rendered the assailed resolution ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for release to the private respondent the DARAB determined just compensation of P10,294,721.00. On December 13, 2002, petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order to deposit. On December 17, 2002, private respondent filed a motion to cite Romeo Fernando Y. Cabanal and Atty. Isagani Cembrano, manager of

ARYAN

11. Jurisdiction to cancel CLOA The DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall have jurisdiction in the matter of cancellation of registered EPs/CLOAs, other similar titles and leasehold contracts and disqualification of ARBs. Orders issued by the DARAB, Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) and Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), shall be final and executory. Copies shall be furnished the DARPO for purposes of the rescinding and cancellation of IDs.

After the filing of private respondent's comment to the motion for reconsideration and petitioner LBP's explanation and memorandum to the motion for reconsideration, public respondent rendered the assailed resolution dated February 17, 2003, denying petitioner LBP's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner LBP filed a motion to admit a second motion for reconsideration which still remains unacted upon by public respondent. ISSUE: The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the landowner if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. Petitioner maintains it should be its initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by the courts. HELD: Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 reads: (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.

DAR/LBP) or deposit of the provisional compensation (if the landowner rejects or fails to respond to the offer of the DAR/LBP). Indeed, the CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank.

13. Just 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. Assoc. of Small Landowners v Sec of Dar We do not deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous.

(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.

The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option, are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, other properties or assets, tax credits, and other things of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation.

We find the foregoing as a strained interpretation of a simple and clear enough provision on the procedure governing acquisition of lands under CARP, whether under the compulsory acquisition or VOS scheme. Indeed, it would make no sense to mention anything about the provisional deposit in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) — the landowner is sent a notice of valuation to which he should reply within a specified time, and in sub-paragraph (c) — when the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR/LBP as compensation for his land. Sub-paragraph (d) provides for the consequence of the landowner's rejection of the initial valuation of his land, that is, the conduct of a summary administrative proceeding for a preliminary determination by the DARAB through the PARAD or RARAD, during which the LBP, landowner and other interested parties are required to submit evidence to aid the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD in the valuation of the subject land. Subparagraph (e), on the other hand, states the precondition for the State's taking of possession of the landowner's property and the cancellation of the landowner's title, thus paving the way for the eventual redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries: payment of the compensation (if the landowner already accepts the offer of the

LBP v Dumlao  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

Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always required to be made fully in money.

ARYAN

petitioner LBP's Agrarian Operations Office in Region XI and its handling lawyer, respectively, for contempt for failure to comply with the order to deposit.

LBP v Livioco Facts: Respondent Enrique Livioco (Livioco) was the owner of 30.6329 hectares of sugarland 6 located in Dapdap, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Sometime between 1987 and 1988, 7 Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per square meter, for a total of P9,189,870.00. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form 8 he submitted to the DAR indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an international paper mill. The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. Following Section 17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 17, series of 1989, 11 as amended by Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1991, 12 the LBP set the price at P3.21 per square meter or a total of P827,943.48 for 26 hectares. Livioco was then promptly informed of the valuation 14 and that the cash portion of the claim proceeds have been "kept in trust pending [his] submission of the [ownership documentary] requirements." 15 It appears however that Livioco did not act upon the notice given to him by both government agencies. On September 20, 1991, LBP issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827,943.48 as compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares. It was only two years later 17 that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it was first offered for sale. 18 The request was denied by Regional Director Antonio Nuesa on the ground that there was already a perfected sale.

Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco finally filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation against DAR, LBP, and the CLOA holders. In this Petition before us, LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of Livioco's property as a residential land. It maintains that it is not the State's policy to purchase residential land. Since the property was acquired under the CARP, it had to be valued as an agricultural land. Issue Was the compensation for respondent's property determined in accordance with law? HELD: For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. 68 There are three important concepts in this definition — the character of the property, its price, and the time of actual taking. The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property has changed from agricultural to residential, because there is no allegation or proof that the property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR. It is the DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions 73 so as to prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. Even reclassification 74 and plans for expropriation 75 by local government units (LGUs) will not ipso facto convert an agricultural property to residential, industrial or commercial. Thus, in the absence of any DAR approval for the conversion of respondent's property or an actual expropriation by an LGU, it cannot be said that the character or use of said property changed from agricultural to residential. Respondent's property remains agricultural and should be valued as such. Hence, the CA and the trial court had no legal basis for considering the subject property's value as residential. Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property (which the lower courts found to be preponderant) could, at most, refer to the potential use of the property. While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property, 76 it should never control the determination of just compensation (which appears to be what the lower courts have erroneously done). The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking, not its potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, not the ultimate in determining just compensation." 77 The proper approach should have been to value respondent's property as an agricultural land, which value may be adjusted in light of the improvements in the Municipality of Mabalacat. Valuing the property as a residential land (as the lower courts have done) is not the correct approach, for reasons explained above. It would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform, which is to free the tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil without delivering them to the new oppression of exorbitant land valuations. Note that in lands acquired under RA 6657, it is the farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the

ARYAN

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.

LBP v Nable Heirs of Lorenzo v LBP Petitioner are owners of land; first valuation was rejected but upon recomputation and order of RRAD, the revaluation was accepted by owners LBP filed MR but denied, LBP filed an opposition for determination of JC with the RTC -Petitioner submit that LBP has no legal personality -SEC 18, clearly states there should be a consensus among -LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedingsund4r RA 6657 and thus has the legal personality to question the determination. DAR v Heirs of Domingo Facts: The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a 70.3420-hectare rice land situated at Macapabellag, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-97157. On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 2 (P.D. No. 27) was issued, pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private agricultural lands devoted to rice and corn were deemed as full owners of the land they till. The land transfer program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently implemented by Executive Order No. 228. On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Guimba, Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and DAR. Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just compensation for the subject land should be computed using the parameters set forth under Republic Act No. 6657 4 (R.A. No. 6657). The LBP and DAR disputed Domingo's valuation and claimed that the determination of just compensation should be governed by the provisions of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228. ISSUE: Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation of just compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken by the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228. HELD: Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process, the just compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.

xxx xxx xxx It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample. Heirs of Deleste v LBP 14. Beneficiaries SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — 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. Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents: and Provided, further, That actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program. A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC. 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 this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries. Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain. 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 PCPCI (DAR vs. Polo Coconut Plantation Co., In., et al., G.R. 168787, September 3, 2008). 15. Prohibition on transfer by beneficiary (Section 27) SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. —Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries 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 Barangay Agrarian Reform

ARYAN

valuations paid to the former land owners (LBP merely advances the payment). 78 If the farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands valued as residential lands (the valuation for which is substantially higher than the valuation for agricultural lands), it is not unlikely that such farmers, unable to keep up with payment amortizations, will be forced to give up their landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to sell the property to other parties. This may just bring the State right back to the starting line where the landless remain landless and the rich acquire more landholdings from desperate farmers.

ARYAN

Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC. 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. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph. In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the land.