Zurbano v.
Estrella (1989) urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their
FACTS: under a Letter of Instruction dated October 21, 1976, the President directed the then
Secretary, now Minister of Agrarian Reform, to "undertake to place under the Land transfer
Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn
lands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural
lands of more than seven hectares ill aggregate areas or lands used for residential commercial,
industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support
themselves and their families.
It is the validity of such Letter of Instruction that is assailed in this prohibition proceeding on
the ground that it is class legislation and, therefore, violative of the equal protection guarantee;
that it is "a form of tyrannical imposition by a strong and powerful state" and, as such, violative
of the due process clause; and that it would as applied to petitioners, be a taking of private
property without just compensation.
Petitioners-spouses in this prohibition proceeding alleged that they are the owners of
agricultural lands, with 6 parcels planted to coconuts and 2 parcels of riceland. It is further
alleged that said "coconut lands which are scattered in different barrios are very far from the
poblacion of Labo where petitioners reside which they could not even visit due to the unsettled
peace and order conditions," resulting in their only productive property being the ricelands. On
August 10, 1982, "petitioners received a communication from respondent Director Pejo of the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform, informing them that the processing of the land transfer had been
initiated and requiring them to submit to the Regional Office all the necessary documents
pertinent to their claim" otherwise, the farmer-beneficiaries would be issued the
corresponding emancipation patents. When they asked why a small piece of property of only
1.86 hectares of riceland should be under Presidential Decree No. 27, they were informed that
the text of the letter of Instruction No. 474 calls for the two parcels of ricelands being included
in the Land Transfer Program.
ISSUES: Whether the LOI is constitutional
HELD: YES.
The Constitution decrees no less than the emancipation of tenants, and there are safeguards
therein to assure that there be no arbitrariness or injustice in its enforcement. There are,
moreover, built-in safeguards to preclude any unlawful taking of private property.
There is no merit to the contention that Letter of Instruction No. 474 denies equal protection.
The history of land tenancy, especially in Central Luzon, is a dark spot in the social life and
history of the people.
There is no merit to the contention that the Letter of Instruction No. 474 amounts to
deprivation of property without due process of law. All that it provides is that the Secretary
then, now the Minister, of Agrarian Reform, is to take charge of Land Transfer Program
pursuant to the Presidential Decree No. 27. Landholders with tenanted rice/corn lands with
areas of seven hectares or less are included if they own other agricultural lands of more than
seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other
families. There is no departure from constitutional restraints. In language, scheme, and
framework, this Letter of Instruction reveals the plan and purpose to attain the goal envisioned
by the Constitution but with due regard to the landowners affected. There is a saving clause.
They are exempt from its operation if it be shown that from the other lands owned by them of
more than seven hectares in aggregate areas if agricultural, or other areas, whether residential,
commercial, or industrial, or lands devoted to other urban purposes, they are unable to derive
adequate income to support themselves and their families.
Neither is there any merit to the contention that there would be the taking of property for
public use without just compensation. The Constitution itself imposes the duty on the State to
emancipate the tenants from the bondage of the soil.
Castro v. CA (1980)
FACTS: Petitioners Benigno Castro, Fortunato Lagman, Ruperto Garamonte, Arsenio Torres and
Domingo Manalo started cultivating different parcels of land owned by respondent Candido
Baron and which are located at Barrio San Bartolome, Concepcion, Tarlac. Petitioners
Garamonte, Manalo and Torres started working on said landholdings in 1963 while petitioners
Castro and Lagman were employed sometime in 1969 and 1970, respectively.
Petitioners (then plaintiffs), on April 2, 1973, filed their complaint against private respondent
(then defendant) Candido Baron with the Court of Agrarian Relations, Branch III in Tarlac, Tarlac
to nullify their contracts for hired services and to affirm the existence of a tenancy relationship.
On June 21, 1973, defendant (private respondent) filed his answer with counter-claim praying
for the issuance of an interlocutory order immediately restraining the petitioners from
disturbing the peaceful possession, enjoyment and administration of defendant's landholding
and after hearing on the merits, for permanency of said injunction.
On July 15, 1975, the trial court dismissed the petitioners complaint and declared them as
more than preponderantly proven to be mere hired laborers of defendant over their respective
farm holdings under administration. It upheld the contracts of hired services being sought to
be annulled for having been voluntarily and intelligently entered into, the validity, legality and
due execution of which from both evidence had been shown to the Court's satisfaction.
The CA upheld the lower courts decision and held that:
Plaintiffs testified that they used to sign the contracts they executed 'together' at the place of
defendant and this fact is supported by the contracts they executed all dated May 15, 1972,
which they admitted to have signed. This proves that the contracts were being executed with
their full knowledge and awareness knowing they represented their agreement. There was no
evidence adduced by any or all of the herein plaintiffs that they objected to the terms and
conditions of the contracts they signed, nor of the fact that they were signing from year to year
contracts in name only, and which allegedly were never enforced because the 50-50 sharing
arrangement was followed. it is unthinkable to this Court that a landowner whose land is under
administration and mechanization would ever agree to subvert his own contracts to his
prejudice and actual loss. Evidently, defendant, who had ejected some of the plaintiffs could
not have intended them to become tenants again after they agreed in writing to be mere hired
laborers. The assertions that their written agreements were simulated, pro forma, and
ineffective, are left alone, serious charges which were aired to discredit the contracts sought
to be revoked, for the tenants having been benefitted by their contracts to remain in the
landholding as hired laborers are estopped from impugning their validity. the two-pronged
evidence of plaintiffs all but confirmed their relationship with the defendant, when they motu
propio admitted that their actual relationship was governed not only by the written contracts
of hired of services, but also by their actual practice of 50-50 share tenancy, which had been
abolished years before. The excuses for their share tenancy relationship side-by-side with the
presumption of legality of the contracts for services became lame, and inadmissible and are
hereby considered as vain efforts to show a non-existent relationship which plaintiffs have tried
hard to inject into their testimony which the court cannot accept nor consider for being wanting
in substance, truth and logic. At this point, the Court, sad to state, noticed that plaintiffs soaring
ambitions outstretched their ability to produce in court the necessary evidence material to
their cause.
In this petition, petitioners allege that they are tenants on a 50-50 sharing basis on the net
palay produce from their respective palay landholdings owned by private respondents; that
pursuant to their verbal arrangement, the landowner merely provides the land and the
expenses for seedling, while petitioners shoulder without reimbursement the expenses for
reaping and all other items for production; that such verbal agreement had been faithfully
observed by both parties up to the agricultural year 1972-73; that they were induced to sign
the written of, hired agricultural workers; that said contracts were never observed nor actually
executed into practice as they actually continued to observed their verbal tenancy agreement
earlier alleged.
Private respondent, upon the other hand, alleges that the lands subject of the action are
absolutely untenanted and are farmed by administration and mechanization; that petitioners
are not tenants, but were mere hired agricultural workers; that it is clearly provided by Pres.
Decree No. 27 that there should be a showing that the action involves tenants; that refuting
petitioners' allegation, injunctions are not proper where those affected are tenants and this
matter again requires a looking into the question of whether or not petitioners are tenants;
that the instant petition is bereft of merit since the lands involved are not embraced within
Operation Land Transfer under Pres. Decree No. 27 which only applies to tenanted lands; that
Pres. Decrees Nos. 316 and 946 apply only to ejectment and harassment cases involving
tenants; that the decrees specify and use only the terms tenant-farmer, tenant-tiller and
tenant; that Pres. Decrees Nos. 27, 316 and 946 should be applied prospectively and the same
are inapplicable to cases in the appellate courts.
ISSUE/S: Whether petitioners are tenants of private respondent on the landholdings they
have been cultivating for years
HELD: NO.
CA was correct. It must be observed that the questioned contracts were executed between
petitioners and private respondent annually, before the start of each agricultural season. In the
case of petitioner Castro, it should be noted that it took him three contracts in a span of three
successive years (1970, 1971 and 1972) before he started questioning said contracts. Inevitably,
the question that comes to mind is: What took him and the others so long'? Certainly, a person
can forget the first incident or experience, perhaps tolerate the second, but will not go through
a third time when he is well aware of the odds.
Time and again, this Court has consistently issued pronouncements upholding the validity and
effectivity of contracts. This Court finds merit in private respondent's contention that for the
lands subject of the action to come under Operation Land Transfer under Pres. Decree No. 27,
there must first be a showing that they are tenanted lands and for the action to come within
the referral provisions of Pres. Decrees Nos. 316 and 946, it must first be established that the
action involves tenants. The aforecited decrees specifically speak of "tenant-farmer",
"sharecrop or lease tenancy", "tenant", and "tenant-tiller ".
On petitioners' flimsy claim that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain their own
appeal and that this case should have been referred to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, private
respondent aptly refuted the same by insisting that Presidential Decrees Nos. 316 and 946
apply only to ejectment and harassment cases involving tenants. It must be borne in mind that
herein petitioners are found to be mere hired farm laborers and this case was instituted to seek
the nullity of subject contracts and declare petitioners as tenants and hence, This is neither an
action for ejectment nor harassment of tenants. The purpose for referral to the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform under the aforesaid decrees is to enable said ministry to determine if the case
is intended to harass tenant-farmers. Oddly enough, the case in the lower court and in the
appellate court were initiated by petitioners themselves and hence, there is no case of
harassment nor ejectment involved. On the contrary, it may even be stated that they have
intended to harass private respondent when they brought "Commander Pusa" to the lower
court and when they wrote a deceptive letter to the President during the lower court
proceedings.
Moreover, petitioners have made the fatal error of invoking the provisions of Presidential
Decrees Nos. 27, 316 and 946; for, this Court has already ruled that said decrees cannot be
applied retroactively and that they can only apply to bona fide tenants.
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. HONORABLE SECRETARY
OF AGRARIAN REFORM
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989
Facts:
(Note: Several petitions were filed but I only digested the one related with the topic in Agra)
The petitioners in this case invoke the right of retention granted by P.D. No. 27 to owners of
rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares as long as they are cultivating or intend to
cultivate the same. Their respective lands do not exceed the statutory limit but are occupied
by tenants who are actually cultivating such lands.
According to P.D. No. 316, which was promulgated in implementation of P.D. No. 27:
No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn shall be ejected or
removed from his farmholding until such time as the respective rights of the tenant- farmers
and the landowner shall have been determined in accordance with the rules and regulations
implementing P.D. No. 27.
The petitioners claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of
retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform has so far not issued the implementing
rules required under the above-quoted decree. They therefore ask the Court for a writ of
mandamus to compel the respondent to issue the said rules.
Issue: Whether or not the aforementioned PD No. 27 is constitutional.
Held: YES.
The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his powers under
martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella and we find no reason to modify
or reverse it on that issue. As for the power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. 131
and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, the same was authorized.
The argument of some of the petitioners that Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be
invalidated because they do not provide for retention limits as required by Article XIII, Section
4 of the Constitution is no longer tenable. R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such limits now in
Section 6 of the law, which in fact is one of its most controversial provisions. This section
declares:
Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain,
directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary
according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
(PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5)
hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the
following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually
tilling the land or directly managing the farm; Provided, That landowners whose lands have
been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained
by them thereunder, further, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who
still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same
areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
LUZ FARMS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, Respondent.
G.R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990
Facts:
On June 10, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, which includes the
raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. On January 2, 1989, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform promulgated the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and
Profit Sharing as embodied in Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657. Thereafter, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform promulgated its Rules and Regulations implementing Section 11 of R.A. No.
6657 (Commercial Farms).
Luz Farms, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business and together with
others in the same business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of
Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section 16(d) and 17 and Section 32 of R.A. No. 6657
otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and of the Guidelines and
Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under R.A. No. 6657 and the Rules and
Regulations Implementing Section 11 thereof.
Luz Farms questions the following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as they are made to apply to
it:
(a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock (and poultry)" in the definition of
"Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity."
(b) Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as "private agricultural lands devoted to
commercial, livestock, poultry and swine raising . . ."
(c) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing plan.
(d) Section 16(d) and 17 which vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the authority to
summarily determine the just compensation to be paid for lands covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
(e) Section 32 which spells out the production-sharing plan mentioned in Section 13
". . . (W)hereby three percent (3%) of the gross sales from the production of such lands are
distributed within sixty (60) days of the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and
other farmworkers in such lands over and above the compensation they currently receive:
Provided, That these individuals or entities realize gross sales in excess of five million pesos per
annum unless the DAR, upon proper application, determine a lower ceiling.
In the event that the individual or entity realizes a profit, an additional ten (10%) of the net
profit after tax shall be distributed to said regular and other farmworkers within ninety (90)
days of the end of the fiscal year . . ."
CONTENTION OF LUZ FARM: Luz Farms contended that it does not seek the nullification of R.A.
6657 in its entirety. In fact, it acknowledges the correctness of the decision of this Court in the
case of the Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform affirming the constitutionality of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. It, however,
argued that Congress in enacting the said law has transcended the mandate of the Constitution,
in including land devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.
CONTENTION OF DAR SECRETARY: Public respondent argued that livestock and poultry raising
is embraced in the term "agriculture" and the inclusion of such enterprise under Section 3(b)
of R.A. 6657 is proper.
Issue: Whether or not the Implementing Rules and Regulations are constitutional.
Held: NO.
The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning
of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of the
Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-
mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.
There is merit in Luz Farms' argument that the requirement in Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. 6657
directing "corporate farms" which include livestock and poultry raisers to execute and
implement "production-sharing plans" (pending final redistribution of their landholdings)
whereby they are called upon to distribute from three percent (3%) of their gross sales and ten
percent (10%) of their net profits to their workers as additional compensation is unreasonable
for being confiscatory, and therefore violative of due process.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32
of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its
coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance
therewith, are hereby DECLARED null and void for being unconstitutional.
Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB
G.R. No. 100091
Facts:
Petitioner, the CMU, is an agricultural education institution owned and run by the state located
in the town of Musuan, Bukidnon province. It started as a farm school at Marilang, Bukidnon,
in early 1910, in response to the public demand for and agricultural school in Mindanao.
In 1960s it was converted into a college with campus in Musuan, and became known as the
CMU. Primarily an agricultural university, the school was the answer to the need for training
people in order to develop the agricultural potential of the island of Mindanao.
On January 16, 1958 the late president Carlos P. Garcia, issued Proclamation No. 476,
withdrawing from sale or settlement and reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural College, a site
which would be the future campus of what is now the CMU.
In 1984, the CMU approved Resolution No. 160, a livelihood program called Kilusang Sariling
Sikap Program under which the land resources of the University were leased to its faculty and
employees. This arrangement was covered by a written contract. Under this program, the
faculty and staff combine themselves to groups of five members each, and the CMU provided
technical know-how, practical training and all kinds of assistance, to enable each group to
cultivate 4-5 hectares of land for the lowland rice project. The contract prohibits participants
and their hired workers to establish houses or live in the project area and to use the cultivated
land as a collateral for any kind of loan. It was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant
relationship existed between the CMU and the faculty and/or employees.
Among the participants in this program were Alvin Obrique, Felix Guinanao, Joven Caballero,
Nestor Pulao, Danilo Vasquez, Aronio Pelayo and other complainants. Obrique was a Physics
Instructor at the CMU while the others were employees in the lowland rice project. The other
complainants, who were not members of the faculty or non-academic staff of the CMU, were
hired workers or laborers of the participants in this program.
When petitioner Dr. Leonardo Chua became President of the CMU in July 1986, he discontinued
the agri-business project for the production of rice, corn and sugar cane known as Agri-Business
Management and Training Project, due to losses incurred while carrying on the said project.
Some CMU personnel, among whom were the complainants, were laid-off when this project
was discontinued. As Assistant Director of this agri-business project, Obrique was found guilty
of mishandling the CMU funds and was separated from service by virtue of Executive Order No.
17, the re-organization law of the CMU.
Sometime in 1986, under Dr. Chua as President, the CMU launched a self-help project called
CMU-Income Enhancement Program (CMU-IEP) to develop unutilized land resources, mobilize
and promote the spirit of self-reliance, provide socio-economic and technical training in actual
field project implementation and augment the income of the faculty and the staff.
Under the terms of a 3-party Memorandum of Agreement 2 among the CMU, the CMU-
Integrated Development Foundation (CMU-IDF) and groups of "seldas" of 5 CMU employees,
the CMU would provide the use of 4 to 5 hectares of land to a selda for one (1) calendar year.
The participants agreed not to allow their hired laborers or members of their family to establish
any house or live within the vicinity of the project area and not to use the allocated lot as
collateral for a loan. It was expressly provided that no tenant-landlord relationship would exist
as a result of the Agreement.
Initially, participation in the CMU-IEP was extended only to workers and staff members who
were still employed with the CMU and was not made available to former workers or employees.
In the middle of 1987, to cushion the impart of the discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar
cane project on the lives of its former workers, the CMU allowed them to participate in the
CMU-IEP as special participants.
The one-year contracts expired on June 30, 1988. Some contracts were renewed. Those whose
contracts were not renewed were served with notices to vacate.
The non-renewal of the contracts, the discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar can project,
the loss of jobs due to termination or separation from the service and the alleged harassment
by school authorities, all contributed to, and precipitated the filing of, the complaint.
On the basis of the above facts, the DARAB found that the private respondents were not
tenants and cannot therefore be beneficiaries under the CARP. At the same time, the DARAB
ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of suitable, compact and contiguous portions of the
CMU land and their inclusion in the CARP for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
Issue/s: Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to hear and decide Case No. 005 for
Declaration of Status of Tenants and coverage of land under CARP.
Held: Petition is meritorious.
We agree with the DARAB's finding that Obrique, et. al. are not tenants. Under the terms of the
written agreement signed by Obrique, et. al., pursuant to the livelihood program called
"Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program", it was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant
relationship existed between the CMU and the faculty and staff (participants in the project).
The CMU did not receive any share from the harvest/fruits of the land tilled by the participants.
What the CMU collected was a nominal service fee and land use participant's fee in
consideration of all the kinds of assistance given to the participants by the CMU.
In the same paragraph of their complaint, complainants claim that they are landless peasants.
This allegation requires proof and should not be accepted as factually true. Obrique is not a
landless peasant. The facts showed he was Physics Instructor at CMU holding a very responsible
position was separated from the service on account of certain irregularities he committed while
Assistant Director of the Agri-Business Project of cultivating lowland rice. Others may, at the
moment, own no land in Bukidnon but they may not necessarily be so destitute in their places
of origin. No proof whatsoever appears in the record to show that they are landless peasants.
The evidence on record establish without doubt that the complainants were originally
authorized or given permission to occupy certain areas of the CMU property for a definite
purpose to carry out certain university projects as part of the CMU's program of activities
pursuant to its avowed purpose of giving training and instruction in agricultural and other
related technologies, using the land and other resources of the institution as a laboratory for
these projects. Their entry into the land of the CMU was with the permission and written
consent of the owner, the CMU, for a limited period and for a specific purpose. After the
expiration of their privilege to occupy and cultivate the land of the CMU, their continued stay
was unauthorized and their settlement on the CMU's land was without legal authority. A person
entering upon lands of another, not claiming in good faith the right to do so by virtue of any
title of his own, or by virtue of some agreement with the owner or with one whom he believes
holds title to the land, is a squatter. Squatters cannot enter the land of another surreptitiously
or by stealth, and under the umbrella of the CARP, claim rights to said property as landless
peasants. Under Section 73 of R.A. 6657, persons guilty of committing prohibited acts of
forcible entry or illegal detainer do not qualify as beneficiaries and may not avail themselves of
the rights and benefits of agrarian reform. Any such person who knowingly and willfully violates
the above provision of the Act shall be punished with imprisonment or fine at the discretion of
the Court. Therefore, private respondents, not being tenants nor proven to be landless
peasants, cannot qualify as beneficiaries under the CARP.
It is our opinion that the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB and affirmed by the
Court of Appeals in its Decision dated August 20, 1990, is not covered by the CARP because (1)
It is not alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (2) The CMU land reservation is not
in excess of specific limits as determined by Congress; (3) It is private land registered and titled
in the name of its lawful owner, the CMU; (4) It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of
R.A. 6657 because the lands are actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for educational
purposes, and for establishing seed and seedling research and pilot production centers.
ENGRACIA VINZONS-MAGANA, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE CONRADO ESTRELLA IN HIS
CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF AGRARIAN REFORM, SALVADOR PEJO, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, and JUANA S. VDA. DE PAITAN, respondents.
FACTS:
Magana is the owner of a parcel of riceland situated in the barrio of Talisay, Camarines Norte.
The said riceland was tenanted by the late Domingo Paitan, husband of private respondent
herein, Juana Vda. de Paitan, under an agricultural leasehold agreement.
On October 20, 1977, Magana filed a petition for the termination of the leasehold agreement
allegedly due to (1) non-payment of rentals; (2) inability and failure of Domingo Paitan to do
the tilling and cultivation of the riceland due to his long illness; and (3) subleasing of the
landholding to third parties.
Presiding Judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Judge Juan Llaguno, referred the case to the
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform for certification as to whether or not it was
proper for trial in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 316, but said office failed to act upon
the request for certification, for a period of more than three years.
Instead on July 10, 1980, the riceland was placed under the Land Transfer Program by virtue of
Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 1978, which implemented Letter of Instructions No.
474, which placed all tenanted ricelands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to
landowners who own agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas under
the Land Transfer Program of the government.
A certificate of Land Transfer was finally awarded in favor of Domingo Paitan. As a consequence
thereof, the rentals were no longer paid to Magana but were deposited instead with the Land
Bank and credited as amortization payments for the riceland. Apparently aggrieved by this turn
of events, Magana took the present recourse.
ISSUE: WON the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer to Domingo Paitan is invalid and
unconstitutional.
HELD: Yes.
The issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer to Domingo Paitan without first expropriating said
property to pay petitioner landowner the full market value thereof before ceding and
transferring the land to Paitan and/or heirs, is invalid and unconstitutional as it is confiscatory
and violates the due process clause of the Constitution.
The mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmer/grantee
ownership of the land described therein. At most, the certificate merely evidences the
government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the statutory
mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land titled by him as provided under
Presidential Decree No. 27. Neither is this recognition permanent nor irrevocable. Thus, failure
on the part of the farmer/grantee to comply with his obligation to pay his lease rentals or
amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner or
agricultural lessor is a ground for forfeiture of his certificate of land transfer.
Should Magana fail to agree on the price of her land as fixed by the DAR, she can bring the
matter to the court of proper jurisdiction. Likewise, failure on the part of the farmer/grantee
to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments for a period of two (2) years is a ground for
forfeiture of his certificate of land transfer.
[G.R. No. 127876. December 17, 1999]
ROXAS & CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR
REGION IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, respondents.
This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned by petitioner and the
validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the government under Republic Act No. 6657,
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas,
namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu,
Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and is registered under Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. 985. Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectares in area, registered under TCT No. 924
.Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area and is registered under TCT Nos. T-44662, T-
44663, T-44664 and T-44665.
The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then President Corazon C. Aquino. In
February 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 promulgating a Provisional
Constitution. As head of the provisional government, the President exercised legislative power
until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution. In the exercise of this
legislative power, the President signed on July 22, 1987, Proclamation No. 131 instituting a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and Executive Order No. 229 providing the
mechanisms necessary to initially implement the program.
On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative
power from the President This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and
took effect on June 15, 1988.
Before the laws effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent DAR a voluntary
offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico
and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance
with the CARL.
Hacienda Palico
On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice entitled Invitation to Parties to
petitioner. The Invitation was addressed to Jaime Pimentel, Hda. Administrator, Hda.
Palico. MARO invited petitioner to a conference on October 6, 1989 at the DAR office in
Nasugbu to discuss the results of the DAR investigation of Hacienda Palico, which was
scheduled for compulsory acquisition this year under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
On October 25, 1989, MARO completed three (3) Investigation Reports after investigation and
ocular inspection of the Hacienda. In the first Report, the MARO found that 270 hectares under
Tax Declaration Nos. 465, 466, 468 and 470 were flat and actually occupied and cultivated by
34 tillers of sugarcane. In the second Report, MARO identified as flat approximately 339
hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0234 which also had several actual occupants and tillers of
sugarcane; while in the third Report, the MARO found approximately 75 hectares under Tax
Declaration No. 0354 as flat with 33 actual occupants and tillers also of sugarcane.
On October 27, 1989, a Summary Investigation Report was submitted and signed jointly by the
MARO, representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) and Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP), and by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). The Report
recommended that 333.0800 hectares of Hacienda Palico be subject to compulsory acquisition
at a value of P6,807,622.20. The following day, October 28, 1989, two (2) more Summary
Investigation Reports were submitted by the same officers and representatives. They
recommended that 270.0876 hectares and 75.3800 hectares be placed under compulsory
acquisition at a compensation of P8,109,739.00 and P2,188,195.47, respectively.
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR through then Department Secretary Miriam D.
Santiago sent a Notice of Acquisition to petitioner. The Notice was addressed as follows:
Roxas y Cia, Limited
Soriano Bldg., Plaza Cervantes
Manila, Metro Manila.
Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in Hacienda Palico were subject to
immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL; that based on the
DARs valuation criteria, the government was offering compensation of P3.4 million for
333.0800 hectares; that whether this offer was to be accepted or rejected, petitioner was to
inform the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) of the DAR; that in case of
petitioners rejection or failure to reply within thirty days, respondent DAR shall conduct
summary administrative proceedings with notice to petitioner to determine just compensation
for the land; that if petitioner accepts respondent DARs offer, or upon deposit of the
compensation with an accessible bank if it rejects the same, the DAR shall take immediate
possession of the land.
Almost two years later, on September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land
Valuation Manager three (3) separate Memoranda entitled Request to Open Trust Account.
Each Memoranda requested that a trust account representing the valuation of three portions
of Hacienda Palico be opened in favor of the petitioner in view of the latters rejection of its
offered value.
Meanwhile in a letter dated May 4, 1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion of
Haciendas Palico and Banilad from agricultural to non-agricultural lands under the provisions
of the CARL. On July 14, 1993, petitioner sent a letter to the DAR Regional Director reiterating
its request for conversion of the two haciendas.
Despite petitioners application for conversion, respondent DAR proceeded with the acquisition
of the two Haciendas. The LBP trust accounts as compensation for Hacienda Palico were
replaced by respondent DAR with cash and LBP bonds. On October 22, 1993, from the mother
title of TCT No. 985 of the Hacienda, respondent DAR registered Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOA) No. 6654. On October 30, 1993, CLOAs were distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
Hacienda Banilad
On August 23, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MARO of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent
a notice to petitioner addressed as follows:
Mr. Jaime Pimentel
Hacienda Administrator
Hacienda Banilad
Nasugbu, Batangas
The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to compulsory acquisition
under the CARL; that should petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes such as Voluntary
Offer to Sell or Voluntary Land Transfer, respondent DAR was willing to provide assistance
thereto
On September 18, 1989, the MARO sent an Invitation to Parties again to Pimentel inviting the
latter to attend a conference on September 21, 1989 at the MARO Office in Nasugbu to discuss
the results of the MAROs investigation over Hacienda Banilad.
On September 21, 1989, the same day the conference was held, the MARO submitted two (2)
Reports. In his first Report, he found that approximately 709 hectares of land under Tax
Declaration Nos. 0237 and 0236 were flat. On this area were discovered 162 actual occupants
and tillers of sugarcane. In the second Report, it was found that approximately 235 hectares
under Tax Declaration No. 0390 were flat, on which were 92 actual occupants and tillers of
sugarcane.
The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference. Present in the conference were
representatives of the prospective farmer beneficiaries, the BARC, the LBP, and Jaime Pimentel
on behalf of the landowner. After the meeting, on the same day, September 21, 1989, a
Summary Investigation Report was submitted jointly by the MARO, representatives of the
BARC, LBP, and the PARO. They recommended that after ocular inspection of the property,
234.6498 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0390 be subject to compulsory acquisition and
distribution by CLOA. The following day, September 22, 1989, a second Summary Investigation
was submitted by the same officers. They recommended that 737.2590 hectares under Tax
Declaration Nos. 0236 and 0237 be likewise placed under compulsory acquisition for
distribution.
On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department Secretary, sent to
petitioner two (2) separate Notices of Acquisition over Hacienda Banilad. These Notices were
sent on the same day as the Notice of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the Notice over
Hacienda Palico, however, the Notices over Hacienda Banilad were addressed to:
Roxas y Cia. Limited
7th Floor, Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. 101 Aguirre St., Leg.
Makati, Metro Manila.
Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of P15,108,995.52 for 729.4190 hectares
and P4,428,496.00 for 234.6498 hectares.
On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager a
Request to Open Trust Account in petitioners name as compensation for 234.6493 hectares of
Hacienda Banilad. A second Request to Open Trust Account was sent on November 18, 1991
over 723.4130 hectares of said Hacienda.
On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts of P4,428,496.40
and P21,234,468.78 in cash and LBP bonds had been earmarked as compensation for
petitioners land in Hacienda Banilad.
On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
Hacienda Caylaway
Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988 before
the effectivity of the CARL. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered
by four titles. On January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director for Region
IV, sent to petitioner two (2) separate Resolutions accepting petitioners voluntary offer to sell
Hacienda Caylaway. The Resolutions were addressed to:
Roxas & Company, Inc.
7th Flr. Cacho- Gonzales Bldg.
Aguirre, Legaspi Village
Makati, M. M.
On September 4, 1990, the DAR Regional Director issued two separate Memoranda to the LBP
Regional Manager requesting for the valuation of the land. On the same day, respondent DAR,
through the Regional Director, sent to petitioner a Notice of Acquisition over 241.6777 hectares
and 533.8180 hectares. Like the Resolutions of Acceptance, the Notice of Acquisition was
addressed to petitioner at its office in Makati, Metro Manila.
Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a
letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda
Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR
that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.
In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that a
reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent Secretary
also denied petitioners withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be
based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the slope of the
land is over 18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped.
Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993, petitioner
filed its application for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad. On July 14, 1993,
petitioner, through its President, Eduardo Roxas, reiterated its request to withdraw the VOS
over Hacienda Caylaway in light of the following:
1) Certification issued by Conrado I. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge, Department of Agriculture,
Region 4, 4th Floor, ATI (BA) Bldg., Diliman, Quezon City dated March 1, 1993 stating that the
lands subject of referenced titles are not feasible and economically sound for further
agricultural development.
2) Resolution No. 19 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas approving the Zoning
Ordinance reclassifying areas covered by the referenced titles to non-agricultural which was
enacted after extensive consultation with government agencies, including [the Department of
Agrarian Reform], and the requisite public hearings.
3) Resolution No. 106 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas dated March 8, 1993
approving the Zoning Ordinance enacted by the Municipality of Nasugbu.
4) Letter dated December 15, 1992 issued by Reynaldo U. Garcia of the Municipal Planning &
Development, Coordinator and Deputized Zoning Administrator addressed to Mrs. Alicia P.
Logarta advising that the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas has no objection to the conversion
of the lands subject of referenced titles to non-agricultural.
On August 24, 1993, petitioner instituted Case No. N-0017-96-46 (BA) with respondent DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOAs issued by respondent
DAR in the name of several persons.Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where
the haciendas are located, had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for
agricultural production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land
to non-agricultural.
In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved the
prejudicial question of whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence, this
question should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for
determination.
On October 29, 1993, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No. 32484. It
questioned the expropriation of its properties under the CARL and the denial of due process in
the acquisition of its landholdings.
Meanwhile, the petition for conversion of the three haciendas was denied by the MARO on
November 8, 1993.
Petitioners petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 28, 1994. Petitioner moved
for reconsideration but the motion was denied on January 17, 1997 by respondent court
ISSUE: W/N the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in
accordance with law
RULING: SC granted the petition in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three
haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure to observe due process.
SC explained the following:
MODES OF LAND ACQUISITION:
Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), provides for
two (2) modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for the
compulsory acquisition of private lands is set forth in Section 16 of R.A. 6657,
a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR
shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or
registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and
barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of
the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17,
18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.
b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the
DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner
the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of
transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other
muniments of title.
d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the
landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice. After the
expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall
decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.
e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank
designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in
LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and
shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the
redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and the farmer
beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of
Acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a
conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property
is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his
administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the
offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the
government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the
deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If
the landowner rejects the DARs offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts summary
administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The landowner, the
LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation
within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the
case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt
by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from
the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible
bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a
transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be
redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in
the regular courts for final determination of just compensation.
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Under Section 16 of
the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land, the
landowners and the beneficiaries.
However, the law is silent on how the identification process must be made. To fill in this gap,
the DAR issued on July 26, 1989 Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989, which set the
operating procedure in the identification of such lands.
OPERATING PROCEDURE:
A. MARO with the assistance of BARC shall:
1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area
of responsibility. The masterlist shall include such information as required under
the attached CARP Masterlist Form which shall include the name of the landowner,
landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number.
2. Prepare a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or
landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the
landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land
acquisition. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms:
a) CARP CA Form 1MARO Investigation Report
b) CARP CA Form 2-- Summary Investigation Report of Findings and Evaluation
c) CARP CA Form 3Applicants Information Sheet
d) CARP CA Form 4Beneficiaries Undertaking
e) CARP CA Form 5Transmittal Report to the PARO
***MARO/ BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned
forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and
correct.***
3. Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/
meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition
Folder. Invitations to the said conference/ meeting shall also be sent to the
prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC representative(s), the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and other interested parties to
discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property. He shall discuss the
MARO/ BARC investigation report and solicit the views, objection,
agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner shall
also be asked to indicate his retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall
be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an integral part
of the CACF.
4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).
B. The PARO shall:
1. Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs.
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land
in accordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and
the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO
and all the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms.
3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular
inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection and
verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds 500,000
per estate.
4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with
the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the
Central Office. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be
furnished a copy each of his report.
C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (BLAD), shall:
1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review,
evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by
the case folder. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared
and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel directly
participating in the review and final valuation.
2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized
representative, a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject
property. Serve the Notice to the landowner personally or through registered
mail within three days from its approval. The Notice shall include, among
others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just
compensation offered by DAR.
3. Should the landowner accept the DARs offered value, the BLAD shall prepare
and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However,
in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall
conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation,
in accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No.
13, Series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the DARABs decision on just
compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for
approval the required Order of Acquisition.
4. Upon the landowners receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon
deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-
response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of
Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the
name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the
DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for redistribution
to qualified beneficiaries.
DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first sprung, was
amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of
1993. The Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to the conference meeting were expanded
and amplified in said amendments.
DAR A. O. No. 9, Series of 1990 entitled Revised Rules Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural
Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to R. A. 6657,
requires that:
MARO
1. Receives the duly accomplished CARP Form Nos. 1 & 1.1 including supporting
documents.
2. Gathers basic ownership documents listed under 1.a or 1.b above and prepares
corresponding VOCF/ CACF by landowner/ landholding.
3. Notifies/ invites the landowner and representatives of the LBP, DENR, BARC
and prospective beneficiaries of the schedule of ocular inspection of the
property at least one week in advance.
4. MARO/ LAND BANK FIELD OFFICE/ BARC
a) Identify the land and landowner, and determine the suitability for
agriculture and productivity of the land and jointly prepare Field
Investigation Report (CARP Form No. 2), including the Land Use Map of the
property.
b) Interview applicants and assist them in the preparation of the
Application For Potential CARP Beneficiary (CARP Form No.
3).
c) Screen prospective farmer-beneficiaries and for those found qualified,
cause the signing of the respective Application to Purchase
and Farmers Undertaking (CARP Form No. 4).
d) Complete the Field Investigation Report based on the result of the ocular
inspection/ investigation of the property and documents
submitted. See to it that Field Investigation Report is duly
accomplished and signed by all concerned.
5. MARO
a) Assists the DENR Survey Party in the conduct of a boundary/ subdivision
survey delineating areas covered by OLT, retention, subject of
VOS, CA (by phases, if possible), infrastructures, etc.,
whichever is applicable.
b) Sends Notice of Coverage (CARP Form No. 5) to landowner concerned or
his duly authorized representative inviting him for a
conference.
c) Sends Invitation Letter (CARP Form No. 6) for a conference/ public
hearing to prospective farmer-beneficiaries, landowner,
representatives of BARC, LBP, DENR, DA, NGOs, farmers
organizations and other interested parties to discuss the
following matters:
Result of Field Investigation, Inputs to valuation, Issues
raised, Comments/ recommendations by all parties
concerned.
d) Prepares Summary of Minutes of the conference/ public hearing to be
guided by CARP Form No. 7.
e) Forwards the completed VOCF/CACF to the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Office (PARO) using CARP Form No. 8 (Transmittal Memo to
PARO).
The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad
DAR claims that it, through MARO Leopoldo C. Lejano, sent a letter of invitation entitled
Invitation to Parties dated September 29, 1989 to petitioner corporation, through Jaime
Pimentel, the administrator of Hacienda Palico. The invitation was received on the same day it
was sent as indicated by a signature and the date received at the bottom left corner of said
invitation. With regard to Hacienda Banilad, respondent DAR claims that Jaime Pimentel,
administrator also of Hacienda Banilad, was notified and sent an invitation to the
conference. Pimentel actually attended the conference on September 21, 1989 and signed the
Minutes of the meeting on behalf of petitioner corporation. The Minutes was also signed by
the representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries. No letter of invitation was
sent or conference meeting held with respect to Hacienda Caylaway because it was subject to
a Voluntary Offer to Sell to respondent DAR.
When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), sent to the
various parties the Notice of Coverage and invitation to the conference, DAR A. O. No. 12, Series
of 1989 was already in effect more than a month earlier. The Operating Procedure in DAR
Administrative Order No. 12 does not specify how notices or letters of invitation shall be sent
to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, the LBP, the farmer beneficiaries and other
interested parties. The procedure in the sending of these notices is important to comply with
the requisites of due process especially when the owner, as in this case, is a juridical
entity. Petitioner is a domestic corporation, and therefore, has a personality separate and
distinct from its shareholders, officers and employees.
The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to be sent to the landowner by
personal delivery or registered mail. Whether the landowner be a natural or juridical person
to whose address the Notice may be sent by personal delivery or registered mail, the law
does not distinguish. The DAR Administrative Orders also do not distinguish. In the
proceedings before the DAR, the distinction between natural and juridical persons in the
sending of notices may be found in the Revised Rules of Procedure of the DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB). Service of pleadings before the DARAB is governed by Section 6, Rule V of the
DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
Summonses, pleadings and notices in cases against a private domestic corporation before the
DARAB and the regular courts are served on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent
or any of its directors. These persons are those through whom the private domestic corporation
or partnership is capable of action.
Jaime Pimentel is not the president, manager, secretary, cashier or director of petitioner
corporation. Is he, as administrator of the two Haciendas, considered an agent of the
corporation?
The purpose of all rules for service of process on a corporation is to make it reasonably certain
that the corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against it. Service must
be made on a representative so integrated with the corporation as to make it a
priori supposable that he will realize his responsibilities and know what he should do with any
legal papers served on him and bring home to the corporation notice of the filing of the action.
Petitioners evidence does not show the official duties of Jaime Pimentel as administrator of
petitioners haciendas. The evidence does not indicate whether Pimentels duties is so
integrated with the corporation that he would immediately realize his responsibilities and know
what he should do with any legal papers served on him. At the time the notices were sent and
the preliminary conference conducted, petitioners principal place of business was listed in
Cervantes, Manila, and Aguirre St., Makati. Pimentel did not hold office at the principal place
of business of petitioner. Neither did he exercise his functions in Makati. He performed his
official functions and actually resided in the haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas, a place over two
hundred kilometers away from Makati.
The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway
Petitioner was also left in the dark with respect to Hacienda Caylaway, which was the subject
of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). The VOS in the instant case was made on May 6, 1988, before
the effectivity of R.A. 6657 on June 15, 1988. VOS transactions were first governed by DAR
Administrative Order No. 19, series of 1989, and under this order, all VOS filed before June 15,
1988 shall be heard and processed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Executive
Order No. 229, thus:
III. All VOS transactions which are now pending before the DAR and for which no payment has
been made shall be subject to the notice and hearing requirements provided in Administrative
Order No. 12, Series of 1989, dated 26 July 1989, Section II, Subsection A, paragraph 3.
All VOS filed before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of the CARL, shall be heard and
processed in accordance with the procedure provided for in Executive Order No. 229.
Sec. 9. Voluntary Offer to Sell. The government shall purchase all agricultural lands it deems
productive and suitable to farmer cultivation voluntarily offered for sale to it at a valuation
determined in accordance with Section 6. Such transaction shall be exempt from the payment
of capital gains tax and other taxes and fees.
Executive Order 229 does not contain the procedure for the identification of private land as set
forth in DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989. Section 5 of E.O. 229 merely reiterates the procedure
of acquisition in Section 16, R.A. 6657. In other words, the E.O. is silent as to the procedure for
the identification of the land, the notice of coverage and the preliminary conference with the
landowner, representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries.Does this mean that
these requirements may be dispensed with regard to VOS filed before June 15, 1988? The
answer is no.
First of all, the same E.O. 229, like Section 16 of the CARL, requires that the land, landowner
and beneficiaries of the land subject to agrarian reform be identified before the notice of
acquisition should be issued. Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale in 1989. The
Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles. In two separate
Resolutions both dated January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director,
formally accepted the VOS over two of these four titles. The land covered by the two titles has
an area of 855.5257 hectares, but only 648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage of
R.A. 6657. Petitioner claims it does not know where these portions are located.
Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four titles
were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied participation
therein. The results of the survey and the land valuation summary report, however, do not
indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and received by petitioner
or its duly authorized representative. To reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay down
the operating procedure, much less the notice requirements, before the VOS is accepted by
respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner, however, cannot be dispensed with. It is part of
administrative due process and is an essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to
exercise, at the very least, his right of retention guaranteed under the CARL.
G.R. No. 165547 January 24, 2007
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, as represented by its Secretary, RENE C.
VILLA, Petitioner, vs. SARANGANI AGRICULTURAL CO., INC., ACIL CORPORATION, NICASIO
ALCANTARA and TOMAS ALCANTARA, Respondents.
FACTS:
Respondents are the owners of the lands in question which have been reclassified from
agricultural into non-agricultural uses by virtue of a municipal zoning ordinance, and are
included in the comprehensive land use plan of the Municipality of Alabel.
The Province of Sarangani was created pursuant to Republic Act No. 7228 on March 16, 1992,
composed of seven (7) municipalities, namely, Alabel, Glan, Maasin, Maitum, Malapatan,
Malungon and Kiamba which were segregated from the Province of South Cotabato. Under said
Act, the Municipality of Alabel was made the capital of the new province where the capitol
building and all other national and provincial offices shall be established.
On February 14, 1997, the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel passed Resolution No. 97-08 or
"Resolution Adopting and Endorsing the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive Development Plan
(MCDP 1995-2005) of the Municipality of Alabel and Its Land Use Development Plan and Zoning
Ordinance for Adoption and Approval of the Provincial Governor, Honorable Priscilla L.
Chiongbian, Thru The Honorable Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani Province."
On January 30, 1998, pursuant to Municipal Zoning Ordinance No. 08, Series of 1997, and to
accelerate the development and urbanization of Alabel, the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel
passed Resolution No. 98-03 reclassifying lots that were located within the built-up areas,
based on the 1995-2005 Land Use Plan of the municipality, from agricultural to non-agricultural
uses.
On March 2, 1998, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Sarangani approved Resolution No. 98-018
or the "Resolution Adopting the Ten-Year Municipal Comprehensive Development Plan (MCDP
1995-2205) and the Land Use Development Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Municipality of
Alabel, Sarangani Per Resolution No. 97-08 and Municipal Ordinance No. 97-08, S. of 1997 of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Alabel." A portion of the area involving 376.5424 hectares, however,
was covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) commercial farms
deferment scheme.
The Zoning Certification issued by the office of the Municipal Planning and Development
Council (MPDC) showed that respondents properties located at Barangay Maribulan, Alabel
were among those reclassified from agricultural and pasture land to residential, commercial
institutional, light industrial and open space in the 1995-2005 land use plan of Alabel.

On July 2, 1998, respondent Sarangani Agricultural Company, Inc. (SACI) filed an application for
land use conversion of the following parcels of land with an aggregate area of 1,005 hectares
Accompanying SACIs application for conversion were the documents required under the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997.
Subsequently, a Site Inspection Report was prepared by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) Regional Office (Region XI) and was indorsed to DAR Secretary Horacio R.
Morales, Jr.
On March 16, 1999, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the Provincial Land Use
Technical Committee (PLUTC) conducted an inspection of the subject properties. In a
Memorandum dated July 9, 1999, the PLUTC recommended that SACIs application be made
subject to the following conditions: 1) presentation by SACI of its development plan; 2)
submission of the lacking documents; 3) re-survey and segregation of the property according
to use or project in coordination with the DAR Regional Office; and, 4) submission of the
resulting map indicating the technical description of the area per actual use/project attested
by the Regional Director.
Meanwhile, on March 22, 1999, members of the Sarangani Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association, Inc. (SARBAI) sent a letter-petition to the DAR Secretary oppposing the application
for land use conversion filed by SACI. SARBAI alleged that its members were merely forced to
sign the waiver of rights, considering that the commercial farm deferment period ended on
June 15, 1998. Later, an "Urgent Petition for the Denial of Land Use Conversion Application of
Banana Commercial Farm of SACI" was filed by SARBAI and was received by the PARC
Secretariat on July 14, 1999.
In the March 30, 2000 deliberation of the PLUTC, the committee agreed to recommend the
disapproval of 158.0672 hectares that had been planted with bananas and coconuts. The
committee noted that said portion of the property was still viable for agriculture, irrigated, with
Notice of Coverage, and under protest or with opposition from SARBAI. It likewise
recommended that the decision as to the rest of the area applied for conversion shall be
deferred subject to the submission of the following within a period of thirty (30) days: 1) a five-
year comprehensive development plan; 2) a survey plan signed by the Regional Technical
Director of Land Management Service and noted by the DAR Regional Director (Region XI); 3)
SACIs proof of undertaking, which will contain the package of benefits it intends to give to the
affected farm workers except those working in the banana plantation; 4) the concurrence of all
the workers who would be affected by the proposed conversion, which concurrence should be
noted by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) and acknowledged by a notary public.
On its part, SACI contended that 1) its projects were aligned to address the current and
anticipated commercial and residential needs of Sarangani province, and the removal of any
portion of its property included in its comprehensive development plan will affect the viability
of the plan; 2) the banana plantations will be transformed into a socialized housing subdivision
which will be made available to the displaced workers and the other low income earners of
Alabel; 3) the company will construct and install power generation facilities in the entire area;
4) at the time the application for land use conversion was filed, no Notice of Coverage was ever
issued by DAR, and the subsequent issuance of such notice was highly irregular because the
same may be issued only after the final resolution of the application for land use conversion;
and 5) the previous Order of Deferment cannot be a legal barrier to the filing of an application
for land use conversion.
On November 9, 2000, DAR Secretary Horacio R. Morales, Jr. denied SACIs application for land
use conversion. The pertinent portion of the Order reads:
The proponent also submitted another DA certification stating that 12 parcels of land (Lot
Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 807, 53, 10, 39 and 806) with an area of 816.7401 hectares, located at
Maribulan, Alabel, Sarangani are part of expansion for urbanizing areas. Though discussed on
several meetings, no decision was made on the application since the applicant was not able to
comply with the documentary requirements and clarify the issues raised by the Committee.
[I]n [the] 30 March 2000 Meeting of the PLUTC, the Committee deliberated again [on] the
subject application and agreed to recommend the disapproval of 158.0672 hectares area
planted to banana[s] and coconuts. The Committee noted that said portion of the property is
still viable for agriculture, irrigated, with Notice of Coverage and with protest or opposition
from SARBAI. The Committee also agreed to request the DAR to determine the metes and
bounds of the area planted to banana[s] and coconuts vis--vis areas devoted to other
enterprises. Relative to the rest of the area applied for conversion, the committee deferred its
decision subject to the submission of a 5-year comprehensive development plan, showing
among others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific lots involved and the
corresponding proposed use.
The Committee acceded to the request of SACI and deferred its recommendation to deny
conversion of that portion of the property planted to banana[s] and coconut[s] pending
submission of a manifesto or SACIs proof of undertaking that it will compensate farm workers
affected by showing, among others, the schedule of development by phase, the specific lots
involved and the corresponding proposed use [of] the conversion, concurred by the
workers/oppositors, noted by the MARO and duly notarized. The Committee also requested
SACI to submit details of the pomelo farm in Malandag being offered as a replacement farm for
the relocation of the farm workers. SACI was given a 30-day period to submit these documents.
SACI, however, failed to submit the oath of undertaking to pay disturbance compensation to
affected workers being required by the Committee and as provided under DAR Administrative
Order No. 01, Series of 1999. Instead, SACI submitted an undertaking executed by the affected
workers stating that they are amenable to the package of benefits offered by the company.
Nevertheless, those who executed the deed of undertaking did not represent the majority of
the farm workers. Out of the 95 regular banana workers only 45 and eight (8) supervisors
including four (4) workers who were not included in the workers master list of SACI executed
a deed of undertaking. As regards the 105-hectare pomelo farm, SACI failed to affirm whether
they are going to pursue their offer. Likewise, DAR Region XI reported that coverage of the
same area is on-going, and a different group of potential beneficiaries have already been
identified. Therefore, it could no longer be offered as a relocation site. Foregoing considered,
the Committee, during its 18 August 2000 Meeting, sustained its earlier recommendation to
deny the conversion of that portion of the property planted to bananas and coconuts.
With regard to the rest. of the area, the Committee deferred its decision subject to the
delineation by the SACI of the total area that they can develop within the allowed five-year
period. Likewise, the PLUTC is requesting the SACI to submit a revised five-year development
plan that will show the schedule of development by phase, by year, and the proposed use for
each parcel of land.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied
by the Court of Appeals in a Resolution, dated September 24, 2004.
Their Motion for Reconsideration of the above Order having been denied,
In a Decision dated June 30, 2003, the Office of the President through dismissed the appeal and
affirmed in toto the challenged DAR Orders. Respondents motion for reconsideration was
denied, they filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review raising substantially the same
issues.
On July 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision granting the petition
ISSUE: CA ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE JUNE 16, 1998 NOTICE OF COVERAGE WAS
ILLEGAL AS DAR ALLEGEDLY FAILED TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS.
RULING:
SC ruled that notice of coverage is not an indispensable requirement before DAR can acquire
the subject lots or commercial farms, which are covered by a deferment period under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or R.A. No 6657 upon its effectivity on June 15,
1998. The pertinent provision of the law states:
Sec. 11. Commercial Farming. Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted
to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetables and cut-flower farms, cacao, coffee and rubber
plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten
(10) years from the effectivity of this Act. In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall
begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR.
During the ten-year period, the Government shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these
lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land and the improvements thereon,
preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or associations, which shall thereafter manage
the said lands for the workers-beneficiaries. (AS amended by R.A. 7881; Rules and regulations
on the acquisition, valuation compensation and distribution of deferred commercial farms
DAR AO No. 09, s. 1998)
DAR Administrative Order No.9, Series of 1998, on the Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition,
Valuation, Compensation and Distribution of Deferred Commercial Farms applies to all
commercial farms as defined under Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657:
SEC. 2. Statement of Policies. The acquisition, valuation, compensation, distribution,
operation and management of deferred commercial farms shall be governed by the following
policies:
(a) All commercial farms whose deferment expired as of June 15, 1998 shall be subject
to immediate acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). Those whose deferments have yet to expire will be
acquired and distributed only upon expiration of their respective deferment period
as originally determined by the Department of Agrarian reform (DAR), or earlier if
the DAR determines that the purpose for which it was deferred no longer exists and
revokes its deferment;
The process of acquisition of these commercial farms by DAR is specifically provided under
Article III, Section 9 of the above administrative order, to wit:
SEC. 9. Procedure for Acquisition.The acquisition of deferred commercial farms shall be
governed by the following procedures:
(a) Voluntary Offer to Sell/Compulsory Acquisition
1) The Order of Deferment previously issued over the landholding shall
serve, upon expiration of the deferment period of the subject commercial
farm, as the Notice of Coverage, supported by the Compliance Work
Program and Summary of Exceptions (Form A) originally submitted with
the approved deferment application. However, for record purposes, the
landowner shall be served a Notice of Expiration of Deferment (Annex 2)
which shall contain a reminder of his right of retention, should he wish
to exercise the same;
2) In general, the procedure for acquisition shall follow DAR
Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1998, as amended by DAR
Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1996, entitled "Revised Rules and
Procedures governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands subject of
Voluntary offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to Republic
Act No. 6657," subject to certain modifications intended to expedite the
process as provided herein.
SC stated that it was unnecessary for petitioner to issue a notice of coverage to respondents in
order to place the properties in question under CARP coverage. Hence, the contention by
respondents that due process was not duly observed by petitioner must fail. Accordingly, the
denial of the application for conversion must be upheld.
G.R. No. 78517 February 27, 1989
GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS JULIAN, SR., PEDRO RICALDE, VICENTE RICALDE and
ROLANDO SALAMAR, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE M.
REYES, PAZ M. REYES and FE M. REYES, respondents.
Facts:
The subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of land, acquired by private
respondents' predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 141. Said lands are situated at Guilinan, Tungawan, Zamboanga del
Sur.
Private respondents herein are desirous of personally cultivating these lands, but petitioners
refuse to vacate, relying on the provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and appurtenant regulations
issued by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (DAR for short), now Department of Agrarian
Reform (MAR for short).
On June 18, 1981, private respondents (then plaintiffs), instituted a complaint against Hon.
Conrado Estrella as then Minister of Agrarian Reform, P.D. Macarambon as Regional Director
of MAR Region IX, and herein petitioners (then defendants) for the declaration of P.D. 27 and
all other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General Orders issued in connection therewith as
inapplicable to homestead lands.
Defendants filed their answer with special and affirmative defenses of July 8, 1981.
Subsequently, on July 19, 1982, plaintiffs filed an urgent motion to enjoin the defendants from
declaring the lands in litigation under Operation Land Transfer and from being issued land
transfer certificates to which the defendants filed their opposition dated August 4, 1982.
On November 5, 1982, the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch XVIII rendered its
decision dismissing the said complaint and the motion to enjoin the defendants was denied.
On January 4, 1983, plaintiffs moved to reconsider the Order of dismissal, to which defendants
filed their opposition on January 10, 1983.
Thus, on April 29, 1986, the Regional Trial Court issued the aforequoted decision prompting
defendants to move for a reconsideration but the same was denied in its Order dated June 6,
1986.
On appeal to the respondent Court of Appeals, the same was sustained in its judgment
ISSUE: W/N lands obtained through homestead patent are covered by the Agrarian Reform
under P.D. 27.
RULING: SC ruled in the negative.
SC agrees with the petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants
from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a
sweeping social legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice
precepts of the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be invoked to defeat the very
purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141. Thus,
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives
a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and
plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life's other needs. The right
of the citizens to their homes and to the things necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the
right to life itself. They have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human
beings, and the State which looks after the welfare of the people's happiness is under a duty to
safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right.
In this regard, the Philippine Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the
homesteaders' rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute.
In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides:
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources,
including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to
prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to
their ancestral lands.
Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability
of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in question,
reading,
Section 6. Retention Limits. ...
... Provided further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still
own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas
as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.'
G.R. No. 133507 February 17, 2000
EUDOSIA DAEZ AND/OR HER HEIRS, REP. BY ADRIANO D. DAEZ, petitioners, vs.THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS MACARIO SORIENTES, APOLONIO MEDIANA, ROGELIO MACATULAD and
MANUEL UMALI, respondents.
FACTS:
Eudosia Daez, now deceased, was the owner of a 4.1685-hectare Riceland which was being
cultivated by respondents MacarioSoriente, Rogelio Macatulad, ApolonioMediana and Manuel
Umali under a system of share-tenancy.
On May 31, 1981, private respondents signed an affidavit, allegedly under duress, stating that
they are not share tenants but hired laborers. Armed with such document, EudosiaDaez applied
for the exemption of said riceland from coverage of P.D. No. 27 due to non-tenancy as well as
for the cancellation of the CLTs issued to private respondents.
DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina issued an Order denying EudosiaDaez's application for
exemption upon finding that her subject land is covered under LOI No. 474, petitioner being
owner of the aforesaid agricultural lands exceeding seven (7) hectares.
DAR Secretary Leong affirmed the assailed order upon finding private respondents to be
bonafide tenants of the subject land.
Court of Appeals sustained the order of Secretary Leong. DAR issued Emancipation Patents
(EPs) to private respondents. Thereafter, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan issued the
corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs).
ISSUE: WON CA ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXEMPTION FROM
AGRARIAN REFORM COVERAGE AND THE RIGHT OF RETENTION OF LANDOWNERS IS ONLY A
MATTER OF SEMANTICS THAT AN ADVERSE DECISION IN THE FORMER WILL FORECLOSE
FURTHER ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LATTER CONSIDERING THAT THEY CONSTITUTE SEPARATE
AND DISTINCT CAUSES OF ACTION AND, THEREFORE, ENFORCEABLE SEPARATELY AND IN
SEQUEL.
HELD: Yes.
Exemption and retention in agrarian reform are two (2) distinct concepts.
P.D. No. 27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program, covers tenanted
rice or corn lands. The requisites for coverage under the OLT program are the following: (1) the
land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a system of share-crop or
lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for
exemption. If either of these requisites is absent, the land is not covered under OLT. Hence, a
landowner need not apply for retention where his ownership over the entire landholding is
intact and undisturbed.
P.D. No. 27 grants each tenant of covered lands a five (5)-hectare lot, or in case the land is
irrigated, a three (3)-hectare lot constituting a family size farm. However, said law allows a
covered landowner to retain not more than seven (7) hectares of his land if his aggregate
landholding does not exceed twenty-four (24) hectares. Otherwise, his entire landholding is
covered without him being entitled to any retention right.
Consequently, a landowner may keep his entire covered landholding if its aggregate size does
not exceed the retention limit of seven (7) hectares. In effect, his land will not be covered at all
by the OLT program although all requisites for coverage are present. LOI No. 474 clarified the
effective coverage of OLT to include tenanted rice or corn lands of seven (7) hectares or less, if
the landowner owns other agricultural lands of more than seven (7) hectares. The term "other
agricultural lands" refers to lands other than tenanted rice or corn lands from which the
landowner derives adequate income to support his family.
Thus, on one hand, exemption from coverage of OLT lies if: (1) the land is not devoted to rice
or corn crops even if it is tenanted; or (2) the land is untenanted even though it is devoted to
rice or corn crops.
On the other hand, the requisites for the exercise by the landowner of his right of retention are
the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be a system of
share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein; and (3) the size of the landholding must not
exceed twenty-four (24) hectares, or it could be more than twenty-four (24) hectares provided
that at least seven (7) hectares thereof are covered lands and more than seven (7) hectares of
it consist of "other agricultural lands".
Clearly, then, the requisites for the grant of an application for exemption from coverage of OLT
and those for the grant of an application for the exercise of a landowner's right of retention,
are different.
Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an application for retention
are one and the same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not
preclude the subsequent institution of the other. There was, thus, no procedural impediment
to the application filed by EudosiaDaez for the retention of the subject 4.1865-hectare riceland,
even after her appeal for exemption of the same land was denied in a decision that became
final and executory.
Santiago vs. Ortiz-Luis (2010)
FACTS
Spouses Juan and Amada Ortiz Luis (SPOUSES) owned 7.1 hectares of tenanted rice lands in
Nueva Ecija. Despite inclusion of the property under the OLT, the SPOUSES transferred the
property via a Deed of Absolute Sale to their children Rosario, Teresita, Simplicio and Antonio.
The children were able to secure a TCT issued under their names.
The children later filed an Application for Retention under P.D. No. 27 before the Department
of Agrarian Reform Regional Office (DARRO) but were denied on the ground that the transfer
was made after October 21, 1972 which is a clear violation of agrarian laws, rules and
regulations.
Separately, Amada applied for retention. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Rogelio M.
Chavez recommended the denial of Amadas application upon the ground that an owner of
tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain those lands if he, as of October 21, 1972, owned
more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands. It appears that Spouses Ortiz Luis owned
178.8 hectares, only 88.5 of which were placed under OLT.
In 2000, Amadas application for retention was granted. The PARO held that her failure to
exercise her retention rights under PD 27 entitled her to the benefit of retention under RA
6657. This was contested by the farmer-beneficiaries who received emancipation patents over
portions of the property, namely Santiago and Gutierrez.
Upon appeal with the DAR, Secretary Pagdanganan upheld the decision of PARO holding that
Amada was entitled to retention. His successor, Sec. Pangadaman however reversed relying on
LOI 474 stating that having established that the landowners own other agricultural lands 7
hectares, they are not entitled to retention under PD 27.
On appeal to the Office of the President (OP), the Order of PAGDANGANAN was upheld granting
Amada retention rights. This decision was upheld by the CA, with the clarification that the
farmer-beneficiaries should still be accorded their rights under RA 6657 Section 6 and DAR
Admin Order No. 05-00.
ISSUE: WON Amada is entitled to retention rights
HELD: NO. SEC. PANGADAMANS ORDER IS REINSTATED.
RATIO
The legislative standards are set forth in Section 6 of R.A. 6657, thus:
Section 6. Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own, or
retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, xxx but in no case shall
retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.xxx
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain
to the landowner. Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the
landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein
or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.
Section 6 implies that the sole requirement in the exercise of retention rights is that the area
chosen by the landowner must be compact or contiguous.
In the recent case of Heirs of Aurelio Reyes v. Garilao, however, the Court held that a
landowners retention rights under R.A. 6657 are restricted by the conditions set forth in Letter
of Instruction (LOI) No. which provided the following restrictions to the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform:
"1. You shall undertake to place under the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant
to Presidential Decree No. 27, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less
belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in
aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes
from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families.
(underscoring supplied)
DAR Memorandum Circular No. 11, Series of 1978[18] provided for the implementing
guidelines of LOI No. 474:
Tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less shall be covered by Operation
Land Transfer if those lands belong to the following landowners:
a.) Landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in
aggregate areas, whether tenanted or not, cultivated or not, and regardless of the income
derived therefrom;
b.) Landowners who own lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban
purposes from which they derive an annual gross income of at least five thousand (P5,000.00)
pesos. (underscoring supplied)
In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the
Court held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27
are entitled to new retention rights provided for by R.A. No. 6657 . . . In Heirs of Aurelio
Reyes v. Garilao, however, the Court held that the limitations under LOI No. 474 still apply to a
landowner who filed an application under R.A. 6657.
Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474 amended P.D. No. 27 by removing any right of retention
from persons who own other agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares, or lands used for
residential, commercial, industrial or other purpose from which they derive adequate income
to support themselves and their families.
Section 9 (d) of DAR Administrative Order No. 05, on which the Court of Appeals in part
anchored its ruling, is inconsistent with P.D. No. 27, as amended by LOI No. 474, insofar as it
removed the limitations to a landowners retention rights.
Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developer and Investors Corp vs DAR
GR No 103302
August 12, 1993
Facts:
Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205
hectares and 2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares, which are covered by TCT No.
31527. Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land as townsite areas
to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the
LungsodSilanganTownsite. The Natalia properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as
townsite reservation. Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into
low-cost housing subdivisions with the reservation, petitioner EDIC as developer of Natalia
applied for and was granted preliminary approval and location clearances by the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission, which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills
Subdivision.
On June 15 1988, Ra 6657 went to effect. Respondent issed a Notice of Coverage on the
undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Natalia and EDIC immediately registered its
objection to the notice of coverage and requested the cancellation of the Notice of Coverage.
Natalia and EDIC both argued that the properties ceased to be agricultural lands when they
were included in the areas reserved by Presidential Proclamation for the townsite reservation.
DAR then contended that the permits granted were not valid and binding since they did not
comply with t he implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of PD 957 (The Subdivision
and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), and that there was no valid conversion of the
properties.
Issue: Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved by the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board and its agencies prior to June 15, 1988 covered by RA 6657.
Ruling: No.
Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. And agricultural lands is referred
to as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forst, residential,
commercial or industrial land. Thus, the underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision cannot be considered as agricultural lands for this land was intended for residential
use. They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of the Presidential Proclamation No. 1637.
DAR v Sutton
G.R. No. 162070
October 19, 2005
Facts:
The case at bar involves a parcel of land in Masbate, inherited by respondents. This property
was devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. On October 26, 1987, pursuant to then-
existing agrarian reform program of the government, respondents made a voluntary offer to
sell (VOS)the land to DAR in order to avail of certain incentives.
On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian law, RA 6657, also known as the Comprehension Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, too effect, which included farms used for raising livestock, poultry,
and swine.
In the decision of Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR(1990), the Supreme Court ruled that lands
devoted to livestock and poultry are not included in the definition of agricultural land, and the
provision for the same in the CARL was deemed unconstitutional.
Responders filed a request to withdraw their VOS, as their landholding was devoted exclusively
to cattle-raising, and thus, exempted from the coverage of CARL. They reiterated the same, but
was ignored by the DAR.
On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993 which provided that only portions
of private agricultural land used for raising livestock as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from
the coverage of CARL. In determining the area of land to be excluded, the A.O. fixed the
following retention limits, viz: 1:1 animal-land ratio (i.e., 1 hectare of land per 1 head of animal
shall be retained by the landowner), and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure
for every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be excluded from the operations of the CARL.
Respondents subsequently wrote to the DAR Secretary and used the Luz Farms doctrine to
justify their exemption from CARL. DAR Secretary Garilao granted the application for
exemption, but imposed the retention limits outlined in A.O. No. 9, and ordered the rest of the
landholding to be segregated and placed under Compulsory Acquisition. Respondents moved
to reconsider, but such motion was denied.
Office of the President: The Office of the President affirmed the order of the DAR stating that
the A.O does not run counter to Luz Farms, and that it provided the guidelines to determine
whether or not a certain parcel of land is being used for cattle-raising.
CA: The Court of Appeals reversed the DAR decision, stating that it was void for being contrary
to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Convention. It stated that the intention was to exclude
livestock farms from the land reform program of the government.
Issues: W/N A.O. No. 9 is constitutional in prescribing a maximum retention limit for owners
of land devoted to livestock raising.
Held: Yes, it is unconstitutional.
Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature, i.e., the power to make
rules and regulations. They have been granted by Congress with the authority to issue rules to
regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to them. However, while administrative rules
and regulations have the force and effect of law, they are not immune from judicial review.
The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to be valid, administrative rules and
regulations must be issued by authority of a law and must not contravene the provisions of the
Constitution.
The rule-making power of an administrative agency may not be used to abridge the authority
given to it by Congress or by the Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of the
administrative agency beyond the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions
control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by administrative
agencies and the scope of their regulations.
In the case at bar, we find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution.
The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian
reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However, the
deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia,
all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising.
Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by
the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the
assailed A.O.
Milestone Farms v. Office of the President
G.R. No. 182332
February 23, 2011
Facts:
Petitioner Milestone Farms was duly incorporated with the SEC, and among its secondary
purposes are to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and other acts which
are incidental to the same.
Under the new agrarian reform law, RA 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL), the raising of livestock, poultry and swine was included under the ambit of
agricultural acts. However, the Supreme Court ruled subsequently in the case of Luz Farms v.
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, agricultural lands devoted to livestock,
poultry, and/or swine raising were excluded from the CARP.
Petitioner Milestone applied for the exemption of its property in Pinugay, Rizal from the
coverage of the CARL.
The DAR subsequently released A.O. No. 9 which set forth rules and regulations to govern the
exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP
coverage. The property applied for exemption was eventually exempted by DAR Regional
Director Dalugdug.
The Southern Pinugay Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Pinugay Farmers) represented by
one Balajadia moved for reconsideration, but was denied.
MCTC Rizal: Milestone filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against Balajadia and others, which
was granted. (Reversed in RTC, MCTC Decision reinstated in CA and became final and
executory.)
RA 6657 was eventually amended by RA 7881 wherein private agricultural lands devoted to
livestock, poultry, and swine raising were excluded from the coverage of the CARL.

DAR Secretary: Secretary Garilao exempted on 240.9776 hectares as exempted. 75.0646 was
not by applying the animal-and ratio of A.O. No. 9
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.
Office of the President: DAR Secretarys decision was upheld.
CA: The Court of Appeals found that, based on the documentary evidence presented, the
property subject of the application for exclusion had more than satisfied the animal-land and
infrastructure-animal ratios under DAR A.O. No. 9.
However, six months earlier, without knowledge of the CA, DAR Secretary Villa issued a
Conversion Order which allowed a portion of the agricultural property into a residential lot
wherein Milestone developed the same as a leisure-residential-commercial estate known as
Palo Alto leisure and Spa Complex.
Several farms filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision on such grounds. The CA
amended the exemption of the subject landholding, and declared that 162.7373 hectares of
the agricultural portion was declared as covered by the CARP.
Motion for Reconsideration denied. Hence this petition.
Issues: W/N the CA erred when it held that lands devote to livestock farming within the
meaning of the Luz Farms and Sutton doctrines are subject to DARs continuing verification
as to use,, and on the basis of such verification, may be ordered reverted to agricultural
classification and compulsory acquisition.
Held: No, the CA did not err.
According to the case of Sutton, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show
a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-
raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are
industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of agriculture or agricultural activity.
The instant case does not rest on facts parallel to those of Sutton because, in Sutton, the subject
property remained a livestock farm. Petitioners admission that, since 2001, it leased another
ranch for its own livestock is fatal to its cause.
Finally, it is established that issues of Exclusion and/or Exemption are characterized as Agrarian
Law Implementation (ALI) cases which are well within the DAR Secretarys competence and
jurisdiction, as provided for by Section 3, Rule II of the 2003 Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board Rules of Procedure.
Thus, the Supreme Court cannot, without going against the law, arbitrarily strip the DAR
Secretary of his legal mandate to exercise jurisdiction and authority over all ALI cases. To
succumb to petitioners contention that when a land is declared exempt from the CARP on the
ground that it is not agricultural as of the time the CARL took effect, the use and disposition of
that land is entirely and forever beyond DARs jurisdiction is dangerous, suggestive of self-
regulation.
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) vs Department of Education, Culture, and Sports
(DECS)
G.R. No. 158228 / 426 SCRA 217
March 23, 2004
Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Facts:
- The late Esteban Jalandoni donated 2 parcels of land (Lot Nos. 2509 and 817-D, total
aggregate area of 189.2462 hectares), both located in Negros Occidental, to
respondent. Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the name of DECS
under one TCT (No. 167175).
- On July 1985, respondent leased the same to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10
agricultural crop years, from crop year 1984-1985 to 1993-1994. The lease was
subsequently renewed to last up to crop year 2004-2005.
- On June 1993, Eugenio Alpar, along with several others, filed a petition for
Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of
Escalante. They claimed to be permanent and regular farm workers of the lands
leased by DECS.
- After investigation, officer Piosa sent a Notice of Coverage to respondent, stating
that the lands are now covered by CARP. The recommendation was approved by the
DAR Regional Director.
- Respondent sought exception from CARP coverage on the ground that all income
derived from its contract of lease were, actually, directly, and exclusively used for
educational purposes (repairs and renovations of nearby schools).
- Petitioner, on the other hand, argued that the lands subject hereof were not exempt
from CARP since they are not actually, directly, nor exclusively used as school sites
or campuses, and are in fact leased to Anglo Agricultural Corp. To be exempt from
coverage, it is the land per se, not the income derived, that must be actually,
directly, and exclusively used for educational purposes.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform: DAR Regional Director decision AFFIRMED.
- Respondent appealed the approval of the regional director to the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, who upheld the approval.
CA: DAR decision REVERSED.
Issue: Whether or not the properties are exempt from the coverage of R.A. No. 6657
(Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998).
SC: DAR Secretary decision REINSTATED. CA decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
- The general policy under CARL is to cover as much lands suitable for agriculture as
possible.
o Sec. 4: The program shall over, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as
provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
o More specifically, the following lands are covered:
All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of
forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be
undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress,
taking into account, ecological, developmental and equity
considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific
limits of the public domain;
All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits
as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture; and
All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be
raised thereon.
o Sec. 3 defined agricultural land as land devoted to agricultural activity
as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.
o Sec. 10 enumerated which lands are exempted from the CARP,
subsection C of which states:
Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, shall be exempt
from the coverage of this Act.
o The words of the law are clear and unambiguous.
- Anent the issue of whether the farmers are qualified beneficiaries, the SC ruled that
they are, contrary to the CA decision saying that they were not.
o Sec. 15 Registration of Beneficiaries: The DAR, in coordination with the
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act,
shall register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are
qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries
shall provide the following data:
Names and members of their immediate farm household;
Owners or administrators of the lands they work on and the
length of tenurial relationship;
Location and area of the land they work;
Crops planted; and
Their share in the harvest or amount of rental paid or wages
received.
o In the case at bar, the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee certified
that they were.
- The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is the bastion of social justice
of poor landless farmers, the mechanism designed to redistribute to the
underprivileged the natural right to toil the earth, and to liberate them from
oppressive tenancy. To those who seek its benefit, it is the means towards a viable
livelihood and, ultimately, a decent life. The objective of the State is no less certain:
landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote
social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and
industrialization.
Republic of the Philippines (RP), represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform vs
COURT OF APPEALS (CA) and Green City Estate & Development Corporation
G.R. No. 139592 / 342 SCRA 189
October 05, 2000
Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
Facts:
- Private respondent Green City Estate & Development Corp. owned 5 parcels of land,
with a combined area of 112.0577 hectares, located in the Municipality of Jala-Jala,
Rizal Province. It acquired these lands by purchase from one Marcela Borja vda. De
Torres. All were classified as agricultural lands.
- On June 16, 1994, petitioner DAR issued a Notice of Coverage over the same, under
compulsory acquisition pursuant to Chapter II, Sec. 7 of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657), or CARL.
o It argued that the properties are not wholly agricultural, and that they lie
mostly within the residential and forest conservation zones of Jala-Jala.
- On July 21, 1994, private respondent filed an application for exemption with the
DAR Regional Office.
DAR Regional Office: Application recommended DENIED.
- It held that private respondent failed to substantiate their allegation that the lands
are part of the municipalitys residential and forest conservation zone, and that
portions of the properties are not irrigated nor irrigable.
o Private respondent submitted a Certification of the Municipal Planning
and Development Coordinator of the Office of the Mayor of Jala-Jala, as
well as a Certification from the National Irrigation Administration.
- Private respondent filed an Amended Petition for Exemption/Exclusion from CARP
Coverage, now alleging that the properties should be exempted since it is within the
residential and forest conservation zones. It submitted certifications from the
HLURB confirming such fact, and an undertaking that it is ready and willing to pay
disturbance compensation, if any.
- It also maintained that the lands had already been classified as agricultural, based
on tax declarations. It argued that lands, once determined by law, may not be varied
or altered by the results of a mere ocular or aerial inspection.

DAR Regional Office: Application STILL DENIED.
- It ruled that:
o The land use plan of Jala-Jala was different from its land use map;
o The certification from the HLURB was not definite and specific;
o The certification from the National Irrigation Authority was not
conclusive on the DAR.
CA: DAR decision REVERSED.
- The CA created a commission composed of 3 members, tasked to conduct an ocular
inspection and survey of the lands, and found in favor of private respondent.
Issue: Whether or not the lands are exempt from CARP.
SC: Petition DENIED.
- The CA was constrained to resort to an ocular inspection of said properties through
the commission it created, considering that the opinion of the DAR conflicted with
the land use map submitted by private respondent. The survey was the judicious
and equitable solution to finally resolve the issue of land classification and
delineation.
o DAR did not object to the creation of a team of commissioners.
o In the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the
properties, the report of the commissioners deserve full faith and credit,
and no reversible error was made by the CA in relying on such report.
- The commissioners report confirmed the fact that the properties were not wholly
agricultural.
o The land apparently consisted of:
A mountainous area, with an average 28 slope containing
66.5 hectares.
A level, unirrigated area of 34 hectares, of which 5-6 hectares
are planted to palay.
A residential area of 8 hectares.
o Under Sec. 10 of R.A. 6657, all lands with 18% slope or over, except those
already developed, shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.
The fact that 66.5 hectares had an average slope of 28 slope
makes a clear case that the lands should be exempt.
- There is no law nor jurisprudence that holds that the land classification in the tax
declarations is conclusive and final, nor would proscribe any further inquiry.
o Tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of the
land.
o In this case, the ocular inspection conducted by the commission created
by the CA was given more weight than what was stated in the tax
declarations.
G.R. No. 103125 May 17, 1993
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, represented by GOV. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE and HON.
BENJAMIN V. PANGA as Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 33 at Pili, Camarines
Sur, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION), ERNESTO SAN JOAQUIN and
EFREN SAN JOAQUIN, respondents.
In this appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals in AC-G.R. SP No. 20551
entitled "Ernesto N. San Joaquin, et al., v. Hon. Benjamin V. Panga, et al.," this Court is asked to
decide whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject, to
the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the implementator of the
agrarian reform program.
On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed
Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or
expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm
for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial
government employees.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis
R.Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and
Efren N. San Joaquin.
The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price
offered for their property. In an order dated December 6, 1989, the trial court denied the
motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the
property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of P5,714.00, the amount
provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents may suffer
in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper.
In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked: (a) that Resolution No.
129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be declared null and void; (b) that the
complaints for expropriation be dismissed; and (c) that the order dated December 6, 1989 (i)
denying the motion to dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession
of the property subject of the expropriation and the order dated February 26, 1990, denying
the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside. They also asked that an order
be issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to
issue a writ of injunction.
In its answer to the petition, the Province of Camarines Sur claimed that it has the authority to
initiate the expropriation proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government Code (B.P.
Blg. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose.
Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General stated
that under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no need for the
approval by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the
right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province
of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the
plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project.

It is the submission of the Province of Camarines Sur that its exercise of the power of eminent
domain cannot be restricted by the provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A.
No. 6657), particularly Section 65 thereof, which requires the approval of the Department of
Agrarian Reform before a parcel of land can be reclassified from an agricultural to a non-
agricultural land.

The Court of Appeals, following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, held that the
Province of Camarines Sur must comply with the provision of Section 65 of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law and must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform
of the plan to expropriate the lands of the San Joaquins.

Issue: Whether or not the power of eminent domain can be curtailed by CARL

Ruling: NO.
It is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can
exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature (City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 28l US
439, 74 L.ed. 950, 50 SCt. 360). It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate, the
legislature may retain certain control or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by
the local governments (Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684).
While such delegated power may be a limited authority, it is complete within its limits.
Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly expressed,
either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations.
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government, units must first
secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from
agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation
proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the
control of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened
or constricted by implication (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS
2d. 241).