Agrarian Law 1 Cases Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Spouses Rosa and Pedro Costo G.R. No.

174647, Dec. 5, 2012 FACTS: Respondents spouses Rosa and Pedro Costo are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at Catamlangan, Pilar, Sorsogon with an area of 9.1936 hectares covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P6487. After the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, respondents voluntarily offered the said property to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and its implementing Rules. Out of the total area, 7.3471 hectares was deemed qualified for acquisition under the program by the DAR. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) then computed and valued the 7.3471 hectares in the amount of P104,077.01. The respondents rejected the said evaluation. This impelled petitioner to deposit the offer in the form of cash and bonds in favor of respondents as provisional compensation for the acquired property. Thereafter, respondents sought the determination of just compensation with the Provincial Adjudication Board of the DAR. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator rendered a decision in favor of respondents. The PARAD recomputed the land valuation and fixed the value of the property at P468,575.92. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but was denied. Aggrieved, pursuant to Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, petitioner filed a petition for determination of just compensation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC). On June 28, 2005, the SAC rendered a Decision finding the valuation made by the PARAD as the more realistic appraisal of the subject property Petitioner sought recourse before the CA, On July 14, 2006, the CA rendered a Decision affirming the decision of the SAC in favor of the respondents

ISSUE: Whether or not it is the LBP or the SAC who determines just compensation. RULING: The court rejected LBPs argument that its valuation of just compensation should be preferred. Any valuation of LBP in accordance with any formula should only be regarded as an initial valuation, never conclusive nor controlling. InSigre v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court has held that the determination of just compensation under P.D. 27 and Sec. 16 (d) of R.A. 6657, is not final and conclusive. If that was not the rule, LBP or another agency like DAR might impermissibly usurp the essentially judicial function of determination of just compensation. We stress that, indeed, as stated in Republic v. Court of Appeals, the determination of just compensation is the exclusive domain of the courts and that executive and legislative acts fixing just compensation are by no means conclusive or binding upon the court, but rather, at the very least, merely guiding principles. It is significant that the RTC upheld the determination of PARAD only after considering the relevant evidence of the parties. Thereby, it did not act arbitrarily. We accord the highest credence to its evaluation, therefore, considering that LBP failed to convince us that the RTC abused its discretion or ruled on the matter without evidence. We are satisfied that the RTC decided the issue of just compensation on factual grounds. We note that it relied also on the factors enumerated in Sec. 17, R.A. 6657, The Court has consistently ruled that the ascertainment of just compensation by the RTC as SAC on the basis of the landholdings nature, location, market value, assessors value, and the volume and value of the produce is valid and accords with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657. The Court has likewise ruled that in appraising just compensation. the courts must consider, in addition, all the facts regarding the condition of the landholding and its surroundings, as well as the improvements and the capabilities of the landholding. 24 Thus, the computation should be sustained.

Agrarian Law 2 Cases

Lebrudo vs. Loyola G.R. No. 181370, March 9, 2011 FACTS: Respondent Remedios Loyola (Loyola) owns a 240-square meter parcel of land located in Barangay Milagrosa, Carmona, Cavite, awarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. This lot is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) No. 20210 issued in favor of Loyola on 27 December 1990 and duly registered on 14 March 1991 under Transfer of Certificate of Title (TCT)/CLOA No. 998. On 27 June 1995, petitioner Julian S. Lebrudo (Lebrudo), now deceased and represented by his son, petitioner Reynaldo L. Lebrudo, filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of Trece Martires City, Cavite, an action for the cancellation of the TCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola and the issuance of another for the one-half portion of the lot in Lebrudos favour. Lebrudo alleged that there was a two sinumpaang salaysay for the transfer of one half portion of loyolas land. The PARAD dismissed the case without prejudice on the ground that the case was filed prematurely. On 11 March 1996, Lebrudo re-filed the same action. In a Decision dated 13 February 2002, the PARAD of Trece Martires City, Cavite decided the case in Lebrudos favor. Loyola appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). In a Decision dated 24 August 2004, the DARAB reversed the decision of the PARAD and ruled in Loyolas favor. Lebrudo filed a motion for reconsideration which the DARAB denied in a Resolution dated 12 April 2005. Lebrudo then filed a petition for review with the CA. In a Decision dated 17 August 2007, the CA affirmed the decision of the DARAB. Lebrudo filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in a Resolution dated 4 January 2008. Whether or not Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot covered by RA 6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of rights embodied in the two Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 28 December 1989 and 3 December 1992 allegedly executed by Loyola in his favor.

ISSUE:

RULING: The see no reason to disturb the findings of the CA. The main purpose of the agrarian reform law is to ensure the farmer-beneficiarys continued possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the land he tills.25 To do otherwise is to revert back to the old feudal system whereby the landowners reacquired vast tracts of land and thus circumvent the governments program of freeing the tenant-farmers from the bondage of the soil. The petition of Lebrudo lacks merit. A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws. Section 27 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700,20 which provides for the transferability of awarded lands, states: SEC. 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this ACT may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC. It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for a period of 10 years. The law enumerated four exceptions: (1) through hereditary succession; (2) to the government; (3) to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. In short, during the prohibitory 10-year period, any sale, transfer or conveyance of land reform rights is void, except as allowed by law, in order to prevent a circumvention of agrarian reform laws. In the present case, Lebrudo insists that he is entitled to one-half portion of the lot awarded to Loyola under the CARP as payment for shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from Loyolas mother, Cristina Hugo, to Loyolas name. Lebrudo used the two Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola alloting to him the one-half portion of the lot as basis for his claim. Lebrudos assertion must fail. The law expressly prohibits any sale, transfer or conveyance by farmer beneficiaries of their land reform rights within 10 years from the grant by the DAR. The law provides for four exceptions and Lebrudo does not fall under any of the exceptions.
The Court DENIED the petition , and AFFIRMED the Decision dated 17 August 2007 and Resolution dated 4 January 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 90048.

Agrarian Law 3 Cases

Agrarian Law 4 Cases

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Enrique Livioco G.R. No. 170685, Sept. 22, 2010 FACTS: Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines is the government financial institution established to aid in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as well as to act as financial intermediary of the Agrarian Reform Fund. Respondend Enrique Livioco was the owner of the sugarland located Mabalacat, Pampanga. Sometime between 1987 adn 1988, Livioco offered his sugarland to the Department of Agrarian Reform for acquisition. The voluntary-offer-to-sell form he submitted to the DAR indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an international paper mill. The DAR referred Liviocos offer to the Land Bank of the Philippines for valuation. Livioco was then promptly informed of the valuation and that the cash proportion of the claim proceeds have been kept in trust pending his submission of the ownership documentary requirements. It appears however that Livioco did not act upon the notice given to him by both government agencies. LBP issued a certivication to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga as compensation for Liviocos hectares. It was only two years later that Livioco requested for a re-evaluation of the compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it was first offered for sale. The request was denied by Regional Director Antonio Nuesa on the ground that there was already perfected sale. The DAR proceeded to take possession of Liviocos property. The DAR awarded Certificates of Land Ownership Award covering Liviocos property to 26 qualified farmer beneficiaries. Livioco filed separate complaints to cancel the CLOAs and to recover his property but the same proved futile. Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an outrageously low valuation of his property. Livioco filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation against DAR, LBP and the CLOA holders and presented a certification to proved that his dominant land use is residential. Was the compensation for respondents property determined in accordance with the law?

ISSUE:

RULING: For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. There are three important concepts in this definition : the character of the property, its price and the time of actual taking. The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property changed from agricultural to residential, because there is no allegation or proof that the property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR. It is the DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversion as to prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage. In the absence of any DAR approval for the conversion of respondents property or an actual expropriation by an LGU, it canot be said that the character or use of said property changed from agricultural to residential. Respondents property remains agricultural and should be valued as such.

Agrarian Law 5 Cases Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Sec. Of DAR G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997 FACTS: Petitioners Atlas Fertilizer Corporation,Philippine Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc. and petitionerin-intervention Archie's Fishpond, Inc. and Arsenio Al. Acuna are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. They assail Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of R.A. 6657, as well as the implementing guidelines and procedures contained in Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 issued by public respondent Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform as unconstitutional. Similarly in the case of Luz farms, Inc vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform its constitutionality has been ruled regarding the inclusion of land devoted to raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. The issue in this case is the constitutionality of the same above-mentioned provisions insofar as they include in its coverage lands devoted to the aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and prawn farms. The court based its decision on R.A no. 7881. The court ruled that the above-mentioned provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

ISSUE:

RULING: