agrarian cases

G.R. No. 173085 : January 19, 2011 PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK,  Petitioner , v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES , ARMANDO SIMBILLO, CHRISTIAN MARCELO, ROLANDODAVID, RICARDO BUCUD, PABLO SANTOS, AGRIFINA ENRIQUEZ, CONRADO ESPELETA, CATGERUBE CASTRO, CARLITO MERCADO and ALFREDO SUAREZ,  Respondent .

This case is about the authority of the court in an expropriation case to adjudicate ad judicate questions of ownership of the subject properties where such questions involve the determination of the validity of the issuance to the defendants of Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and Emancipation P atents (EPs), questions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The Facts and the Case

In late 2003 respondent Bases Conversion Developmen t Authority (BCDA), a government corporation, filed several expropriation actions before the various branches of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City, for acquisition of lands needed for the construction con struction of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway Project. Ten of these 1 cases were raffled to Branch 58 of the court cralaw and it is these that are the concern of the present petition. The defendants in Branch 58 cases were respondents Armando Simbillo, Christian Marcelo, Rolando David, Ricardo Bucud, Pablo Santos, Agrifina Enriquez, Con rado Espeleta, Catgerube Castro, Carlito Mercado, and Alfredo Suarez. They were the registered owners of the expropriated lands that they acquired as beneficiaries ben eficiaries of the comprehensive agrarian reform program. Another defendant was Land Bank of the Philippines, the mortgagee of the lands by virtue of o f the loans it extended for their acquisition. The lands in these cases were located in Porac and Floridablanca, Pampanga. On learning of the expropriation cases before Branch 58, petitioner Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) filed motions to intervene in all the cases with attached complaints-in-intervention, a remedy that it adopted in similar cases with the other branches. PVB alleged that the covered properties actually belonged to Belmonte Agro-Industrial Development Corp. which mortgaged the lands to PVB in 1976. PVB had since foreclosed on the mortgages and bought the same at public auction in 1982. Unfortunately, the bank had been unable to consolidate ownership in its name. 2

But, in its order of August 18, 2004, cralaw Branch 58 denied PVB's motion for intervention on the ground that the intervention amounts to a third-party complaint that is n ot allowed in expropriation cases and that tha t the intervention would delay the proceedings in the cases before it. Besides, said Branch 58, PVB h ad a pending action for annulment of the titles issued to the individual d efendants and this was pending before Branch 62 of the court. PVB filed its motion for reconsideration but Branch 58 d enied the same, prompting the bank to file a petition 3 for certiorari with certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). cralaw On January 26, 2006 the CA rendered a decision, 4 5 dismissing the petition for lack of merit. cralaw It also denied in a resolution dated June 2, 2006 cralawPVB's motion for reconsideration. Meanwhile, on April 3, 2006 Branch 58 issued separate decisions in all 10 cases before it, granting the expropriation of the subject properties. The court noted the uncertainty as to the ownership of such properties  but took no action to grant BCDA's prayer in its complaint that it determine the question of ownership of the 6 same pursuant to Section 9, Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of o f Civil Procedure. cralawredlaw The Issue Presented

The issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in holding that t hat PVB was not entitled to intervene in the expropriation cases before Branch 58 of the Angeles City RTC. The Court's Ruling

PVB maintains that in deciding the case, the RTC and the CA ignored Section 9, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes the court adjudicating the expropriation case to hear and decide conflicting claims regarding the ownership of the properties involved while the compensation for the expropriated ex propriated property is in the meantime deposited with the court. S ection 9 provides: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Uncertain ownership; ownership; confl icting claims  Sec. 9. Uncertain . - If the ownership of the property taken is uncertain, or there are conflicting claims to any part thereof, the court may order any sum or sums awarded as compensation for the property to be paid to the court for the benefit of the person adjudged in the same proceeding to be entitled thereto. But the judgment shall require the payment of the sum or sums awarded to either the defendant or the court before the plaintiff can enter upon the property, or retain it for the public use or purpose if entry has already been made.

PVB's point regarding the authority of the court in expropriation cases to hear and adjudicate conflicting claims over the ownership of the lands involved invo lved in such cases is valid. But such rule obviously cannot apply to PVB for the following reasons: chanrob1esvirtwallawlibrary 1. At the time PVB tried to intervene in the expropriation cases, its conflict with the farmer beneficiaries who held CLOAs, EPs, or TCTs emanating from such titles were alread y pending before Angeles City RTC Branch 62, a co-equal branch of the same court. Branch 58 had no authority to pre-empt Branch 62 of its power to hear and adjudicate claims that were already pending before it. 2. Of course, subsequently, after the CA dismissed PVB's petition on January 26, 2006, the latter filed a motion for reconsideration, pointing out that it had in the meantime already withdrawn the actions it filed with Branch 62 after learning from the decision of the Supreme Court in Department in Department of Agrarian Reform v. 7 Cuenca, Cuenca, cralaw that jurisdiction over cases involving the annulment of C LOAs and EPs were vested by 8 Republic Act 6657 in the DARAB. cralawredlaw PVB now points out that, since there was no longer any impediment in RTC Branch 58 taking cognizance of its motion for intervention and adjudicating the parties' conflicting claims over the expropriated properties, the CA was in error in not reconsidering its decision. But PVB's withdrawal of its actions from Branch 62 cannot give Branch 58 comfort. As PVB itself insists,  jurisdiction over the annulment of the individual defendants' CLOAs and EPs (which titles if annulled would leave PVB's titles to the lands unchallenged) lies with the DARAB. Branch 58 would still have no power to adjudicate the issues of ownership presented by the PVB's intervention. Actually, PVB's remedy was to secure an order from Branch 58 to have the proceeds of the expropriation deposited with that branch in the meantime, pending adjudication of the issues of ownership of the expropriated lands by the DARAB. Section 9 above empowers the court to order payment p ayment to itself of the proceeds of the expropriation whenever questions of ownership are yet to b e settled. There is no reason why wh y this rule should not  be applied even where the settlement of such questions is to be made by another tribunal. WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 26, 2006 and its resolution dated June 2, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP 88144. SO ORDERED.

Digested FACTS: BCDA filed several expropriation actions before the branches of the RTC of Angeles City for the acquisition acq uisition of lands needed to construct the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX). The defendants in this case are the registered owners of the expropriated lands that they acquired as beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Ten of these cases were raffled off to Branch 58 of the RTC of Angeles City. Upon learning of the expropriation cases filed, PVB filed a motion to intervene and alleged that the properties actually belonged to Belmonte Agro-Industrial Development Corp. which mortgaged the lands to PVB in 1976. PVB bought the land upon upo n foreclosure but was not able to consolidate ownership in its name. PVB's motion was denied on the ground that the intervetion amounted to a third-party complaint that is not allowed in

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

HELD:  No. Sec 9, Rule 67 of the Rules of Civil Procedure empowers the court to order payment to itself of the  proceeds of the expropriation whenever questions of ownership are yet to be settled. At the time PVB tried tried to intervene, its conflict with the farmer beneficiaries were already pending b efore another branch of RTC Angeles City. Branch 58 had no authority to pre-empt the other branch of its power to hear and adjudicate ad judicate claims before it. PVB's withdrawal of its actions in the other branch because it was found that jurisdiction lies with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) will still leave Branch 58 with no power to adjudicate the issues of ownership presented by PVB's intervention. P VB's remedy is to secure an order from Branch 58 to have the proceeds of the expropriation deposited with that branch, pending the adjudication of ownership by the DARAB.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila THIRD DIVISION REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 178895

- versus SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRIBUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N. LOPEZ AGRIxSALVADOR BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager, Petitioner,

- versus -

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the Honorable Secretary, Respondent.

G.R. No. 179071

Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. SERENO, JJ. Promulgated:

January 10, 2011 x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x [1]

Before us are two Rule 45 Petitions Petitions filed separately by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through the Office of the Solicitor General, and by the Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC). [2]

Each Petition partially assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated 30 June 2006 with respect to the application for exemption of four parcels of land - located in Mati, Davao Oriental and owned by SNLABC from Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). There is little dispute as to the facts of the case, as succinctly discussed by the Court of Appeals and adopted herein by the Court, to wit: Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 160.1161 hectares registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corporation. Said parcels of land are hereinafter described as follows: Title No. TCT No. T-12635 (Lot 1454-A & 1296)

Area 49.5706 has.

Location Bo. Limot,

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga issued a Notice of Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the aforementioned landholdings which were subsequently placed under Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO), Davao Oriental, an Application for Exemption of the lots covered by TCT No. T-12637 and T-12639 from CARP coverage. It alleged that pursuant to the case of Luz of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary said Secretary said parcels of land are exempted from coverage as the said parcels of land with a total area of 110.5455 hectares are used for grazing and habitat habitat of petitioner‘s 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads of goats and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, the MARO conducted an onsite investigation on the two parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock as enumerated. The Investigation Report datedMarch 9, 1993 stated: That there are at least 2[5] to 30 heads of cows that farrow every year and if the trend of farrowing persist (sic), then the cattle shall become overcrowded and will result to scarcity of grasses for the cattle to graze; That during the week cycle, the herds are being moved to the different adjacent lots owned by the corporation. It even reached Lot 1454-A and Lot 1296. Thereafter, the herds are returned to their respective night chute corrals which are constructed under Lot 1293-B and Lot 1298. xxx That the age of coconut trees planted in the area are already 40 to 50 years and have been affected by the recent drought that hit the locality. That the presence of livestocks (sic) have already existed in the area prior to the Supreme Court decision on LUZ FARMS vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. We were surprised however, why the management of the corporation did not apply for Commercial Farm Deferment (CFD) before, when the two years reglamentary (sic) period which the landowner was given the chance to file their application pursuant to R.A. 6657, implementing Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 1989; However, with regards to what venture comes (sic) first, coconut or livestocks (sic), majority of the farmworkers including the overseer affirmed that the coconut trees and livestocks (sic) were (sic) simultaneously and all of these were inherited by his (applicant) parent. In addition, the financial statement showed 80% of its annual income is derived from the livestocks (sic) and only 20% from the coconut industry. Cognitive thereto, we are favorably recommending for the exemption from the coverage of CARP based on LUZ FARMS as enunciated by the Supreme Court the herein Lot No. 1293-B Psd-65835 under TCT No. T-12639 except Lot No. 1298, Cad. 286 of TCT No. T-12637 which is already covered under the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Scheme and had already been valued by the Land Valuation Office, Land Bank of the Philippines. On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was cancelled and a

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

 been operating grazing lands even prior to June 15, 1988 and that the said two (2) lots form an integral part of its grazing land. The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order dated March 5, 1997 denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly shown that the same were actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising since in its application, petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. The application for exemption, however of the other two (2) parcels of land was approved. On its partial motion for reconsideration, petitioner argued that Lots 1454 -A & 1296 were taken beyond the operation of the CARP pursuant to its reclassification to a Pollutive Industrial District (Heavy Industry) per Resolution No. 39 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mati, Davao Oriental, enacted on April 7, 1992. The DAR Regional Director denied the Motion through an Order dated September 4, 1997, ratiocinating that the reclassification does not affect agricultural lands already issued a Notice of Coverage as provided in Memorandum Circular No. 54-93: Prescribing the Guidelines Governing Section 20 of R.A. 7160. Undaunted, petitioner appealed the Regional Director‘s Orders to respondent DAR. On June 10, 1998, the latter issued its assailed Order affirming the Regional Director‘s ruling on Lots 1454-A & 1296 and further declared Lots 1298 and 1293-B as covered by the CARP. Respondent ruled in this wise considering the documentary evidence presented by petitioner such as the Business Permit to engage in livestock, the certification of ownership of large cattle and the Corporate Income Tax Returns, which were issued during the effectivity of the Agrarian Reform Law thereby debunking petitioner‘s claim that it has been engaged in livestock farming since the 1960s. Respondent further ruled that the incorporation by the Lopez family on February 12, 1988 or four (4) months before the effectivity of R.A. 6657 was an attempt to evade the noble purposes of the said law. On October 17, 2002, petitioner‘s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent [3]  prompting the former to file the instant petition. petition. [4]

In the assailed Decision dated 30 June 2006, 2006,

the Court of Appeals partially granted the SNLABC

Petition and excluded the two (2) parcels of land (Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] Nos. T-12637 and T12639) located in Barrio Don Enrique Lopez (the ―Lopez lands‖) from coverage of the CARL. However, it [5]

[6]

upheld the Decisions of the Regional Director  Director  and the DAR  Secretary denying the application for exemption with respect to Lots 1454-A and 1296 (previously under TCT No. T-12635) in Barrio Limot (the ―Limot lands‖). These lots were already covered b y a new title under the name n ame of the Republic of Republic of the Philippines (RP T-16356). The DAR and SNLABC separately sought a partial reconsideration of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, but their motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied in the Court of Appeals Resolution dated 08 June 2007. 2007.

[7]

The DAR and SNLABC elevated the matter to this Court by filing separate Rule 45 Petitions (docketed [8]

as G.R. No. 178895

[9]

and 179071, 179071,

respectively), which were subsequently ordered consolidated by the Court.

The main issue for resolution by the Court is whether the Lopez and Limot lands of SNLABC can be considered grazing lands for its livestock business and are thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL under [10] the Court‘s ruling in Luz in Luz Farms v. DAR. DAR. The DAR questions the disposition of the Court of Appeals, insofar as the latter allowed the exemption of the Lopez lands, while SNLABC assails the inclusion of the Limot lands within the coverage of the CARL.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

are several recognized exceptions wherein the Court has found it appropriate to re-examine the evidence [12]

 presented.  presented. In this case, the factual findings of the DAR Regional Director, the DAR Secretary and the CA are contrary to one another with respect to the following issue: whether the Lopez lands were actually, directly and exclusively used for SNLABC‘s livestock business; business; and whether there was intent to evade coverage from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) based on the documentary evidence. On the other hand, SNLABC argues that these authorities misapprehended and overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts as regards the inclusion of the Limot lands under the CARL. These circumstances fall within the recognized exceptions and, thus, the Court is persuaded to review the facts and evidence on record in the disposition of these present Petitions. Th e Lopez Lopez lan ds of SNL AB C are actual actual ly and di r ectly bein bein g used used for li ves vestock and ar e th us exempte exempted d fr om the th e cover cover age of the t he CARL .

Briefly stated, the DAR questions the object or autoptic evidence relied upon by the DAR Regional Director in concluding that the the Lopez lands were actually, directly and exclusively being used for SNLABC‘s livestock business prior to the enactment of the CARL. [13]

In Luz In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Reform, the Court declared unconstitutional [14] the CARL provisions provisions that included lands devoted to livestock under the coverage of the CARP. The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word "agricultural" showed that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the [15] government. government. Thus, lands devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, and thus exempt from agrarian reform. reform.

[16]

Under the rules then prevailing, it was the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) who was [17]  primarily responsible for investigating the legal status, type and areas of the th e land sought to be excluded; excluded; and for ascertaining whether the area subject of the application for exemption had been devoted to livestock-raising [18]

as of 15 June 1988. 1988.

The MARO‘s authority to investigate has subsequently been replicated in the current [19]

DAR guidelines regarding lands that are actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising. raising. As the  primary official in charge of investigating the land sought to be exempted as livestock land, the MARO‘s findings on the use and nature of the land, if supported by substantial evidence on record, are to be accorded greater weight, if not finality. Verily, factual findings of administrative officials and agencies that have acquired expertise in the  performance of their official duties and the exercise of their primary jurisdiction are generally accorded not only [20]

respect but, at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. evidence. The Court generally accords great respect, if not finality, to factual findings of administrative agencies because of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. jurisdiction.

[21]

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

case. Contrary to DAR‘s claims, the lack of information as regards the initial breeders and the specific date when the cattle were first introduced in the MARO‘s Report does not conclusively demonstrate that there was no livestock-raising on the Lopez lands prior to the CARL. Although information as to these facts are significant, their non-appearance in the reports does not leave the MARO without any other means to ascertain the duration of livestock-raising on the Lopez lands, such as interviews with farm workers, the presence of livestock infrastructure, and evidence of sales of cattle –  cattle – all all of which should have formed part of the MARO‘s Investigation Report. Hence, the Court looks with favor on the expertise of the MARO in determining whether livestockraising on the Lopez lands has only been recently conducted or has been a going concern for several years already. Absent any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or bias, the findings of the MARO - as affirmed  by the DAR Regional Director - are to be accorded great probative value, owing to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties. duties. The DAR, however, insisted in its Petition

[23]

[24]

on giving greater weight to the inconsistencies appearing in

the documentary evidence presented, and noted by the DAR Secretary, in order to defeat SNLABC‘s claim of exemption over the Lopez lands. The Court is not so persuaded. In the Petition, the DAR argued that that the tax declarations covering the Lopez lands characterized them as agricultural lands and, thus, detracted from the claim that they were used for livestock purposes. The Court has since held that ―there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry‖; hence, ―tax declarations are [25]

clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land.‖ Applying the foregoing principles, the tax declarations of the Lopez lands as agricultural lands are not conclusive or final, so as to prevent their exclusion from CARP coverage as lands devoted to livestock-raising. livestock-raising. Indeed, the MARO‘s on-site on-site inspection and actual investigation showing that the Lopez lands were being used for livestock-grazing are more convincing in the determination of the nature of those lands.  Neither can the DAR in the instant instant case assail the timing of the incorporation of SNLABC and the latter‘s operation shortly before the enactment enactment of the CARL. That persons employ tactics to precipitously convert their lands from agricultural use to industrial livestock is not unheard of; they even exploit the creation of a new corporate vehicle to operate the livestock business to substantiate the deceitful conversion in the hopes of evading CARP coverage. Exemption from CARP, however, is directly a function of the land‘s usage, and not not of the identity of the entity operating it. Otherwise stated, lands actually, directly and exclusively used for [26] livestock are exempt from CARP coverage, regardless of the change of owner . In the instant case, whether SNLABC was incorporated prior to the CARL is immaterial, since the Lopez lands were already being used for livestock-grazing purposes prior to the enactment of the CARL, as found by the MARO. Although the managing entity had been changed, the business interest of raising livestock on the Lopez lands still remained without any indication that it was initiated after the effectivity of the C ARL.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

not adduce any proof to show that the coconut trees on the Lopez lands were used for agricultural business, as [28]

required by the Court in DAR in DAR v. Uy, Uy, wherein we ruled thus: It is not uncommon for an enormous landholding to be intermittently planted with trees, and this would not necessarily detract it from the purpose of livestock farming and be immediately considered as an agricultural land. It would be surprising if there were no trees on the land. Also, petitioner did not adduce any proof to show show that the coconut trees were planted  by respondent and used for agricultural business or were already existing when the land was  purchased in 1979. In the present case, the area planted with coconut trees bears an insignificant value to the area used for the cattle and other livestock-raising, including the infrastructure needed for the business. There can be no presumption, other than that the ―coconut area‖ is indeed used for shade and to augment the supply of fodder during the warm months; any other use would be only be incidental to livestock farming. The substantial quantity of livestock heads could only mean that respondent is engaged in farming for this purpose. The single conclusion gathered here is that the land is entirely devoted to livestock farming and exempted from the CARP. On the assumption that five thousand five hundred forty-eight (5,548) coconut trees were existing on the Lopez land (TCT No. T-12637), the DAR did not refute the findings of the MARO that these coconut trees were merely incidental. Given the number of livestock heads of SNLABC, it is not surprising that the areas  planted with coconut trees on the Lopez lands where forage grass grew were being used as grazing areas for the livestock. It was never sufficiently adduced that SNLABC was primarily engaged in agricultural business on the Lopez lands, specifically, coconut-harvesting. coconut-harvesting. Indeed, the substantial quantity of SNLABC‘s livestock amounting to a little over one hundred forty (140) livestock heads, if measured against the combined 110.5455 hectares of land and applying the DAR-formulated ratio, leads to no other conclusion than that the Lopez lands were exclusively devoted to livestock farming. farming.

[29]

In any case, the inconsistencies appearing in the documentation presented (albeit sufficiently explained)  pale in comparison to the positive assertion made by the MARO in its on-site, actual investigation - that the Lopez lands were being used actually, directly and exclusively for its livestock-raising business. The Court affirms the findings of the DAR Regional Director and the Court of Appeals that the Lopez lands were actually, directly and exclusively being being used for SNLABC‘s livestock business and, thus, are exempt from CARP coverage. Th e L im ot lands of SNL AB C are not actuall y and and dir ectly bein bein g use used for li ves vestock an d shou shou l d thu s be cover cover ed by the CARL .

In contrast, the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to coconut trees and rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP coverage. In the Report dated 06 April 1994, the team that conducted the inspection found that the entire Limot

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

clear import of their Letter-Affidavit Letter- Affidavit as a ―poor choice of words.‖ Unfortunately, the semantics of the declarations of SNLABC in its application for exemption are corroborated by the other attendant factual circumstances and indicate its treatment of the subject properties as n on-livestock. Verily, the MARO itself, in the Investigation Report cited by no less than SNLABC, found that the livestock were only moved to the Limot lands sporadically and were not permanently designated there. The DAR Secretary even described SNLABC‘s use of the area as a ―seasonal extension of the applicant‘s ‗grazing lands‘ during the summer.‖ Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have been actually, directly and exclusively used for SNLABC‘s livestock business, especially since these were  were  only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing areas. The said lands are more suitable -- and are in fact actually, directly and exclusively being used -- for agricultural purposes. SNLABC‘s treatment of the land for non-livestock non-livestock purposes is highlighted by its undue delay in filing the application for exemption of the Limot lands. SNLABC filed the application only on 07 February 1994, or three years after the Notice of Coverage was issued; two years after it filed the first application for the Lopez lands; and a year after the titles to the Limot lands were transferred to the Republic. The SNLABC slept on its rights and delayed asking for exemption of the Limot lands. The lands were undoubtedly being used for agricultural purposes, not for its livestock business; thus, these lands are subject to CARP coverage. Had SNLABC indeed utilized the Limot lands in conjunction with the livestock business it was conducting on the adjacent Lopez lands, there was nothing that would have prevented it from simultaneously applying for a total exemption of all the lands necessary for its livestock. The defense of SNLABC that it wanted to ―save‖ first the Lopez lands where the corrals and chutes were located, before acting to save the other properties does not help its cause. The piecemeal application for exemption of SNLABC speaks of the value or importance of the Lopez lands, compared with the Limot lands, with respect to its livestock business. If the Lopez and the Limot lands were equally significant to its operations and were actually being used for its livestock business, it would have been more reasonable for it to apply for exemption for the entire lands. Indeed, the belated filing of the application for exemption was a mere afterthought on the part of SNLABC, which wanted to increase the area of its landholdings to be exempted from CARP on the ground that these were being used for its livestock business. In any case, SNLABC admits that the title to the Limot lands has already been transferred to the [31] Republic and su bsequently awarded to SNLABC‘s farm workers. workers. This fact only demonstrates that the land is indeed being used for agricultural activities and not for livestock grazing. The confluence of these factual circumstances leads to the logical conclusion that the Limot lands were not being used for livestock grazing and, thus, do not qualify for exemption from CARP coverage. SNLABC‘s  belated filing of the application for exemption of the Limot lands was a ruse to increase its retention of its landholdings and an attempt to ―save‖ these from compulsory acquisition. WHEREFORE, the Petitions of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Salvador N. Lopez Agri-

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

ROXAS & COMPANY, INC ., Petitioner,

G.R. No. 149548 Present:

- versus -

DAMBA-NFSW and the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondents.

CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR.,  NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA, PEREZ, MENDOZA, and SERENO, JJ  SERENO, JJ .

x----------------------------------x

This resolves the Motion the Motion for Reconsideration filed Reconsideration filed on January 13, 2010 by Roxas & Co., Inc. (Roxas & Co.) and the Motion the Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed on January 29, 2010 by Damayan ng Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Roxas-National Federation of S ugar Workers (DAMBA-NFSW) and Katipunan ng mga Magbubukid sa Hacienda Roxas, Rox as, Inc. (KAMAHARI), et al., al., which both assail the Court‘s Court‘s December 4, 2009 Decision in these consolidated cases. After the above-mentioned Motions were filed, Roxas & Co. filed on April 26, 2010 a Motion a Motion to Hold in  Abeyance the Resolution the Resolution of its earlier Motion for Reconsideration. Reconsideration. Roxas & Co. moves for reconsideration on o n the following grounds: I.

…CLOA 6654, INSOFAR AS IT COVERS THE 3 PARCELS OF LAND WITH AN AGGREGATE AREA OF 103.1436 HECTARES, SHOULD BE CANCELLED IN VIEW OF THE FINAL AND EXECUTORY 02 APRIL 1996 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION EXEMPTING THE SAID PROPERTIES FROM THE COVERAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW (CARL).

II.

…CLOA 6654, INSOFAR AS IT COVERS THE REMAINING 410 HECTARES, SHOULD BE CANCELLED PURSUANT TO SECTION IV (B) (10) OF DAR MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 2, SER IES OF 1994.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

V.

…BASED ON THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY ROXAS, THE 51.5472-HECTARE 51.5472-HECTARE PROPERTIES SUBJECT OF …G.R. NO. 179650 ARE CARP-EXEMPT. HENCE, THE PREMATURE INSTALLATION BY THE DAR OF SEVERAL FARMER-BENEFICIARIES IN THE PROPERTIES IS ILLEGAL.

VI.

…THE ROXAS LANDHOLDINGS SHOULD BE DECLARED EXEMPT FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARP. A.

B.

C.

APPLYING DAR V. FRANCO…, THE ROXAS LANDHOLDINGS SHOOULD BE DECLARED CARP-EXEMPT IN VIEW OF THE PTA ENACTMENT DELINEATING SPECIFIC TOURISM AREAS. CONSISTENT WITH THE DAR EXEMPTION ORDER CITED IN THE FRANCO CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL…, THE ROXAS LANDHOLDINGS, WHICH ARE (A) LOCATED WITHIN THE PTA-IDENTIFIED TOURISM PRIORITY AREAS AND (B) INCLUDED IN THE NASUGBU TOURISM DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SHOULD BE DECLARED CARP-EXEMPT. WITH THE PTA ENACTMENT, THE ROXAS LANDHOLDINGS ARE CARP-EXEMPT FOLLOWING THE COURT‘S PRONOUNCEMENT THAT ―THE ONLY TIME [THE NATALIA AND ALLARDE CASES] MAY FIND APPLICATION IS WHEN THE PTA ACTUALLY IDENTIFIES WELL-DEFINED GEOGRAPHIC AREAS WITHIN THE ZONE [1] WITH POTENTIAL TOURISM VALUE.‖

On the other hand, DAMBA-NFSW and KAMAHARI, et al.  al.  move for partial reconsideration of the assailed Decision on the following grounds: I. THE [COURT] COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RULING TO EXEMPT FROM CARP COVERAGE THE SUBJECT NINE (9) LOTS WITH ALLEGED AREA OF 45.9771 HECTARES OF HACIENDA PALICO BASED ON NASUGBU MUNICIPAL ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 4, SERIES OF 1982, NOTWITHSTANDING

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

[COURT] COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN UPHOLDING THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE DAR SECRETARY‘[S] ORDER OF CARP EXEMPTION WITHOUT OBSERVING THE RIGHT OF THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.

Preliminarily, the Court denies Roxas & Co.‘s Motion Co.‘s Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Resolution the Resolution of its earlier  Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. Roxas & Co. asks the Court to hold its judgment on its motion for reconsideration pending the outcome of its application with the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA) for the designation of ―fourteen ‗geographic areas‘ of the Roxas Properties as [tourism enterprise zones], pursuant to …the Tourism Act.‖ It bears stressing that Roxas & Co.‘s pending application with TIEZA is totally immaterial immaterial to the resolution of the present petitions which delve mainly on the issue of whether the subject lands are exempt from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage. While the Court acknowledged the passage of the Tourism Act as another vehicle for potential tourism areas to be exempted from CARP coverage, that did not in any way pronounce as meritorious Roxas & Co.‘s subsequent application with the TIEZA to declare its properties as tourism enterprise zones. That is for the TIEZA, not this Court, to determine. Whatever decision the TIEZA renders in Roxas & Co.‘s application does not in any way affect the merits of these consolidated cases. Roxas & Co. cannot have it both ways. It must either zealously argue argue its legal position if it believes it to  be meritorious or altogether abandon it if it has reservations. Its Motion Its Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Resolution the Resolution of its earlier Motion for Reconsideration effectively coaxes the Court to wait for the outcome of its TIEZA application and ultimately delay the final resolution of these co nsolidated cases. On Roxas & Co.‘s Motion Co.‘s Motion for Reconsideration, Reconsideration, no substantial arguments were raised to warrant a reconsideration of the Decision. The Motion The Motion contains merely an amplification of the main arguments and factual matters already submitted to and pronounced without merit by the Court in its Decision. In the Court‘s

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Roxas & Co. goes on to contend that its liability to pay disturbance compensation is limited to its agricultural lessees only and not to farmer-beneficiaries, citing Republic Act No. 3844 (RA 3844), as [4]

amended, and Bacaling and Bacaling v. Muya. Muya.

Roxas & Co. is merely nitpicking on the issue. Since the DAR had initially issued CLOAs to the farmer-beneficiaries of the nine parcels of land in Hacienda in Hacienda Palico, Palico, the assailed Decision merely reiterated the original designation of the affected individuals as farmer-beneficiaries who should be entitled to disturbance compensation before the cancellation of their respective CLOAs is effected. This is in pursuance of the directive of DAR Administrative Order No. 6 (Series of 1994) which mandates the payment of disturbance compensation before Roxas & Co.‘s application for ex emption may be completely granted. As for the Motion the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of DAMBA-NFSW and KAMAHARI ,  , et al., al., the same likewise fails as it only rehashes earlier arguments which have been adequately passed upon by the Court. Notably, the main arguments raised by the Motion are evidentiary in nature that have been resolved by the DAR Secretary, whose decision on factual controversies deserve utmost respect, if not finality. Finally, the Court reiterates the explanation of the DAR Secretary why CLOA holders need not be informed of the pending application for exemption, to wit: As regards the first ground raised by [DAMBA-NSFW], it should be remembered that an application for CARP-exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, is non-adversarial or non-litigious in nature. Hence, applicant is correct in saying that nowhere in the rules is it required that occupants of a landholding should  be notified of an initiated or pending exemption application. xxxx With regard [to] the allegation that oppositors-movants are already CLOA holders of subject propert[ies] and deserve to be notified, as owners, of the initiated questioned exemption application, is of no moment. The Supreme Court in the case case of Roxas [&] Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106, held:

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

*

JOSE MENDOZA,  cralaw  Petitioner , v. NARCISO GERMINO and BENIGNO GERMINO,  Respondents.  Respondents.

Before us is the petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner petitioner Jose Mendoza to challenge the decision and the resolutioncof the Court of Appeals (CA (CA)) in CA-G.R. SP No. 48642. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts of the case, gathered from the records, are briefly summarized below. 5

On June 27, 1988, the petitioner and Aurora C. Mendozacralaw ( plaintiffs)  plaintiffs) filed a complaint with the Municipal Trial Court ( MTC   MTC ) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija against respondent Narciso Germino for forcible 6 entry.cralaw The plaintiffs claimed that they were the registered o wners of a five-hectare parcel of land in Soledad, S oledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija ( subject  subject property) property) under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34267. Sometime in 1988, respondent Narciso unlawfully entered the subject property b y means of strategy and stealth, and without their knowledge or consent. Despite the plaintiffs' repeated demands, respondent Narciso refused to vacate the 7 subject property.cralaw On August 9, 1988, respondent Narciso filed his answer, claiming, among others, that his brother, respondent Benigno Germino, was the plaintiffs' agricultural lessee and he merely helped the latter in the cultivation as a 8 member of the immediate farm household.cralaw After several postponements, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board ( DARAB),  DARAB), in view of the tenancy issue raised by respondent Narciso. Without conducting a hearing, and despite respondent Narciso's objection, the MTC issued an order on October 9 27, 1995, remanding the case to the DARAB, Cabanatuan City for further proceedings.cralaw 10

On December 14, 1995, the plaintiffscralaw filed an amended complaint with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator ( PARAD),  PARAD), impleading respondent Benigno as additional defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that Efren Bernardo was the agricultural lessee of the subject property. Respondent Benigno unlawfully entered the subject property in 1 982 or 1983 through strategy strateg y and stealth, and without their knowledge or consent. He withheld possession of the subject property up to 1987, 19 87, and appropriated for himself its produce, despite repeated demands from the plaintiffs for the return of th e property. In 1987, they discovered that respondent Benigno had transferred possession of the subject prope rty to respondent Narciso, who refused

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

 Not satisfied, the respondents filed a notice of appeal with the DARAB, arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the MTC's referral to the DARAB was void with the enactment of Republic Act ( R.A.)  R.A.) No. 14 15 6657,cralaw which repealed the rule on referral under Presidential Decree ( P.D.)  P.D.) No. 316.cralaw THE DARAB RULING

The DARAB decided the appeal on July 22, 1998. It held that it acquired jurisdiction because of the amended complaint that sufficiently alleged an agrarian dispute, not the MTC's referral of the case. Thus, it affirmed the 16 PARAD decision.cralaw The respondents elevated the case to the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of 17 Court.cralaw THE CA RULING 18

The CA decided the appeal on October 6, 2003.cralaw It found that the MTC erred in transferring the case to the DARAB since the material allegations of the c omplaint and the relief sought show a case for forcible entry, not an agrarian dispute. It noted that the subsequent filing of the amended complaint did not confer jurisdiction upon the DARAB. Thus, the CA set aside the DARAB DA RAB decision and remanded the case to the MTC for further  proceedings. 19

20

When the CA deniedcralaw the subsequent motion for reconsideration,cralaw the petitioner filed the present 21  petition.cralaw THE PETITION

The petitioner insists that the jurisdiction lies with the DARAB since the nature of the action and the allegations of the complaint show an agrarian dispute. THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents submit that R.A. No. 6657 abrogated the rule on referral previously provided in P.D. No. 316. Moreover, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure ( RRSP   RRSP ) provides that forcible entry cases can be referred to the DARAB. THE ISSUE

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

agricultural tenancy relationship must be present: (1) the parties are the lan downer and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is ag ricultural production; (5) there is personal 32 cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvest or pa yment of rental.cralaw In the present case, the petitioner, as one of the plaintiffs in the MTC, made the following allegations and prayer in the complaint:chanrobles virtual law library 3. Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a parcel of land covered by and described d escribed in Transfer Certificate of Title Numbered 34267, with an area of five (5) hectares, more or less situated at Bo. Soledad, S oledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija. x x x;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 4. That so defendant thru stealth, strategy and without the knowledge, or c onsent of administrator x x x much more of the herein plaintiffs, unlawfully entered and occupied said parcel of land;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 5. Inspite of x x x demands, defendant Germino, refused and up to the filing of this complaint, still refused to vacate the same;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 6. The continuos ( sic)  sic) and unabated occupancy of the land by the defendant would work and cause prejudice and irreparable damage and injury to the plaintiffs unless a writ of preliminary injunction is issued;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 7. This prejudice, damage or injury consist of disturbance o f property rights tantamount to deprivation of ownership or any of its attributes without due process of law, a diminution of plaintiffs' property rights or dominion over the parcel of land subject of this dispute, since they are deprived dep rived of freely entering or possessing the same;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary 8. The plaintiffs are entitled to the relief demanded or prayed for, and the whole or part of such relief/s consist

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

the case precisely to determine whether it had jurisdiction to dispose of the ejectment suit on its 34 merits.cralaw After all, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theo ries set up by the defendant in an answer or a motion to dismiss. Otherwise, jurisdiction would become depen dent almost entirely upon the whims 35 of the defendant.cralaw 36

Under the RRSP, the MTC is duty-bound to conduct a preliminary conferencecralaw and, if necessary, to receive evidence to determine if such tenancy relationship had, in fact, been shown to be the real 37 issue.cralaw The MTC may even opt to conduct a hearing on the special and affirmative defense of the 38 defendant, although under the RRSP, such a hearing is not a matter of right.cralaw If it is shown during the hearing or conference that, indeed, tenancy is the issue, the MTC should dismiss the case for lack of 39  jurisdiction.cralaw In the present case, instead of conducting a preliminary conference, the MTC immediately referred the case to 40 the DARAB. This was contrary to the rules. Besides, Section 2cralaw of P.D. No. 316, which required the referral of a land dispute case to the Department D epartment of Agrarian Reform for the preliminary determination of the 41 existence of an agricultural tenancy relationship, has indeed been repealed by Section 76cralaw of R.A. No. 6657 in 1988. Amende Amended d complain complain t did conf conf er ju ri sdiction on the DARAB 

 Neither did the amendment of the complaint confer jurisdiction on the DARAB. The plaintiffs alleged alleged in the amended complaint that the subject property was previously tilled by Efren Bernardo, and the respondents took  possession by strategy and stealth, without their knowledge and consent. In the absence of any allegation of a tenancy relationship between the parties, the action was for recovery of possession of real property that was 42 within the jurisdiction of the regular courts.cralaw The CA, therefore, committed no reversible error in setting aside the DARAB decision. While we lament the

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

G.R. No. 164195

April 5, 2011

APO FRUITS CORPORATION and HIJO PLANTATION, INC.,  Petitioners, vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,  Respondent.

We resolve Land Bank of the Philippines‘ ( LBP’s)  LBP’s) 2nd Motion for Reconsideration  of December 14, 2010 that addresses our Resolutions of October 12, 2010 and November 23, 2010. 201 0. This motion prays as well for the holding of oral arguments. We likewise resolve the Office of the Solicitor General‘s (OSG) Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Motion for Reconsideration-in-Intervention dated Februar y 15, 2011 in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines ( Republic).  Republic). The Motion for Reconsideration

The LBP submits the following arguments in support of its 2nd motion for reconsideration: a) the test of "transcendental importance" does no t apply to the present case;  b) the standard of "transcendental importance" cannot justify the negation of the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment and the abrogation of a vested right in favor of the Government that respondent LBP represents; c) the Honorable Court ignored the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission showing that  just compensation for expropriated agricultural property must be viewed in the context of social justice; justice; and d) granting arguendo that arguendo that the interest payment has factual and legal bases, only six (6%) percent interest

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

April 30, 2008; on May 16, 2008, entry of judgment followed. Despite the entry of judgment, the present  petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration that prayed as well that the case be referred referred to the Court en banc. banc. Finding merit in these motions, the Third Division referred the case to the En the En Banc for its disposition. On December 4, 2009, the Court en banc denied the petitioners‘ second motion for reconsideration. Maintaining their belief in their demand to be granted 12% interest, the petitioners persisted in filing another motion for reconsideration. In the interim, the Court promulgated its Internal Rules that regulated, amon g others, 2nd motions for reconsideration. On October 12, 2010, the Court en banc granted banc granted –   –  by  by a vote of 8 for and 4 against  – the  – the petitioner‘s motion and awarded the 12% interests the petitioners‘ prayed for, thus affirming the interests the RTC originally awarded. The Court subsequently denied the respondent‘s motion for reconsideration, giving rise to the present 2nd motion for reconsideration. It was at this point that the OSG moved for leave to intervene. b. The gove govern rn in g ru les on 2nd motion s f or r econsideration  consideration 

The basic rule governing 2nd motions for reconsideration is Section 2, Rule 52 (which applies to original actions in the Supreme Court pursuant to Section S ection 2, Rule 56) of the Rules Ru les of Court. This Rule expressly  provides: Sec. 2. Second Motion for fo r Reconsideration. No second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained. The absolute terms of this Rule is tempered by b y Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court Co urt that provides: Sec. 3. Second Motion for Reconsideration. –  Reconsideration. –  The  The Court shall not entertain en tertain a second motion for reconsideration and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Admittedly, the Court did not make any an y express prior ruling accepting or or disallowing the petitioners‘ motion as required by Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules. The Court, however, did not thereby contravene its own rule on 2nd motions for reconsideration; since 12 Members of the Court opted to entertain the motion by voting for and against it, the Court simply did not register an express vote, but instead demonstrated its compliance with the rule through the participation by no less than 12 of its 15 Members.1avvphi1 Members.1avvphi1 Viewed  Viewed in this light, the Court cannot even be claimed to have suspended the effectiveness of its rule on 2nd motions for reconsideration; it simply complied with this rule in a form other than by express and separate voting . Based on these considerations, arrived at after a le ngthy deliberation, the Court thus thus rejected Mr. Justice Abad‘s observations, and proceeded to vote on the question of whether to entertain the respondents‘ present 2nd motion for reconsideration. The vote was 9 to 2, with 9 Members voting not to entertain ent ertain the LBP‘s 2nd motion for reconsideration. By this vote, the ruling sought to be reconsidered for the second time was unequivocally un equivocally upheld; its finality –  finality –  already  already declared by the Court in its Resolution of November 23, 2010 –  2010 –  was  was reiterated. To quote the dispositive portion of the reiterated November 2 3, 2010 Resolution: On these considerations, we hereby DENY the M otion for Reconsideration with FINALITY. No further  pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course. Thus, this Court mandated a clear, unequivocal, final and emphatic finis to the present case.  Landowner’s  Landowner’s right to to just compensation: compensation: a matter matter of pu bli c in ter ter est 

In assailing our October 12, 2010 resolution, the LBP emphasizes the need to respect the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. The LBP maintains that we should not have granted the petitioners‘ motion for reconsideration in our October 12, 2010 Resolution because the ruling deleting the 12% interest had already attained finality when an Entry of Judgment was issued. The LBP argues, too, t hat the present case does not

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

clearly shows that the phrase "transcendental importance" was used only to emphasize the overriding public interest involved in this case. Thus, we said: That the issues posed by this case are of transcendental importance is not hard to discern from these discussions. A constitutional limitation, guaranteed under no less than the all-important Bill of Rights, is at stake in this case: how can compensation in an eminent domain case be "just" when the payment for the compensation for  property already taken has been unreasonably delayed? To claim, as the assailed Resolution does, that only  private interest is involved in this case is to forget forget that an expropriation involves the government as a necessary actor. It forgets, too, that under eminent domain, th e constitutional limits or standards apply to government who carries the burden of showing that these standards h ave been met. Thus, to simply dismiss the case as a private interest matter is an extremely shortsighted view that this Court should not leave uncorrected. xxxx More than the stability of our jurisprudence, the matter before us is of transcendental importance to the nation  because of the subject matter involved –  involved –  agrarian  agrarian reform, a societal objective of that the government has 4 unceasingly sought to achieve in the past half century. century.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

of P1,131,799,895.98 amounting to 81% of the total price  –  betrays  betrays the lack of good faith on the part of the government in dealing with the landowners. The sheer enormity of the difference between the two amounts cannot but lead us to conclude con clude that the LBP‘s error was grievous and amou nted to nothing less than gross  –   –  in  in this case, to properly ascertain the just co mpensation due to the negli gence gence in t he exerci exerci se of i ts duty   petitioners.

Mr. Justice Abad further argues that interest on just compensation is due only where there is delay in payment. pa yment. In the present case, the petitioners allegedly did not suffer any delay in payment since the LBP made partial  payments prior to the taking of their lands. This argument completely overlooks the definition of just compensation alread y established in jurisprudence. Apart from the requirement that compensation for expropriated land must b e fair and 6 reasonable, compensation, to be "just," must also be made without delay . In simpler terms, for the government‘s payment to be considered just compensation, the landowner must receive it in full without delay. In the present case, it is undisputed that the government took the petitioners‘ lands on December on December 9, 1996; the  petitioners only received full payment of the just compensation due on May 9, 2008. This circumstance, by itself, already confirms the unconscionable delay in the payment of just compensation.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

The LBP claims that the just compensation in this case should be determined within the context of the article on social justice found in the 1987 Constitution. In the LBP‘s opinion, when we awarded the petitioners p etitioners 12% interest by way of potential income, we removed from the taking of agricultural properties for agrarian reform its main public purpose of righting the wrong inflicted on landless farmers. By this argument, the LBP effectively attempts to make a distinction between the just compensation given to landowners whose whose properties are taken for the government‘s go vernment‘s agrarian reform program and properties taken for other public purposes. This perceived distinction, however, is misplaced and is more apparent than real. The constitutional basis for our agrarian reform program is Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates: Section 4. The State shall, by b y law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farm workers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case c ase of other farm workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and an d undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention li mits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation .

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

More to the point, under the CARL, the amount the farmers-beneficiaries must pay the LBP for their land is, for the most part, subsidized by the State and is not equivalent to the actual cost of the land that the Department of Agrarian Reform paid to the original landowners. Section 26, Chapter VII of the CARL provides: SEC. 26. Payment 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. Beneficiaries. - Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries b eneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. The payments pa yments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC: Provided, PARC: Provided, That the first five (5) annual payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross productions paid as established by the DAR . Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed ten percent (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 payment affordable. Interpreting this provision of the law, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 19 93 provides: A. As a general rule, land awarded pursuant to E.O. 229 and R.A. 6657 shall be repaid by the Agrarian Reform Beneficiary (ARB) to LANDBANK in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six (6%) percent interest per annum. The annual amortization a mortization shall start one year from date of Certificate of

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

G.R. No. 176410

Present:

- versus -

CARPIO, J., CARPIO, J., Chairperson,  NACHURA, * BERSAMIN, BERSAMIN, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated:

CONRADO O. COLARINA, Respondent.

September 1, 2010

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Before us is a petition for review on certiorari assailing certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

[4]

Disappointed with the low valuation by petitioner and the DAR, respondent filed a Complaint Complaint  before the RTC, Branch 3, Legazpi, Albay, for the judicial determination of just compensation. In refutation, petitioner filed its Answer ,

[5]

denied the material allegations in the Complaint, and alleged

that it had correctly assessed and valuated the subject properties consistent with R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1992.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

 planted to corn, peanut and cogonal. cogon al. The corn land is 13 has., peanut land is .25 has., cogonal is 15.0562 has.; the excluded portion which is mountainous and about 25% slope totals 20 has. The factor considered by Land Bank is under Formula No. 2 which is the Capitalized Net Income (CNI) x 90% and the market value per Tax declaration wherein they get the remaining 10%. The CNI was taken from the average gross production based on the field investigation report multiplied by the selling price from the Department of Agriculture municipal data, arriving at a total CNI of P10,291.67 per ha. The market value per Tax declaration was based on the third classification classification as furnished to Land Bank by the Municipal Assessor‘s office. The total MVPT as computed by Land Bank is P14,193.22, so, 10% of which is P1,419.32. After computing the CNI

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

1)

TCT No. T-86448 –  T-86448 –  carpable  carpable area –  area –  28.3062  28.3062 has. Land Use: A) Corn land Area = 13.0000 has. Value/Ha = P52,700/has (Per Appraisal Report) Computation: P52,700/ha x 13.0000 has = P685,100.00

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Based on the foregoing computation, the just compensation for 1) TCT No. T-86448 with a carpable area of 28.3062 has. is fixed at P779,446.17; 2) TCT No. T-86449 with a carpable area of 22.3267 has. is fixed at P829,111.70; and for 3) TCT No. T-86402 with a carpable area of 6.5718 has. is fixed at P18,823.38. Thus, the overall valuation of the property propert y is as follows: TCT No. T-86648

P 779,446.17

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

[11]

As pointed out by petitioner, our ruling in Land in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal  Banal 

is definitive on

the factors to be considered, and the formula utilized, for the determination of just compensation: To begin with, under Section 1 of Executive Order No. 405 (1990), the Landbank is charged ―primarily‖ with ―the determination of the land valuation and compensation for all  private lands suitable for agriculture under the Voluntary Offer to Sell or Compulsory Acquisition arrangement…‖ arrangement…‖ For its part, the DAR relies on the determination of the land valuation and compensation by the Landbank.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.