Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Agra Notes
Agra Notes
Article II Sec 10: The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.
Article XIII Sec 1: The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.
Article XIII Sec 2: The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to
create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
Article II Sec 21: The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and
agrarian reform.
Article XII Sec 1: The goals of the national economy are a more equitable
distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of
goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an
expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the under-
privileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and
1
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both
domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises Article XII Sec 3: Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest
against unfair foreign competition and trade practices. or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may
be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private
country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain
corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more
broaden the base of their ownership. than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
Article XII Sec 2: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, twelve hectares thereof, by purchase, homestead, or grant.
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, and development,
With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law,
alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be the size of lands of the public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased
under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such and the conditions therefor.
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per Article XIII Sec 4: The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own
not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a
under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable
power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant. retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters, compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
exclusively to Filipino citizens.
Article XIII Sec 5: The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers,
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall
fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons. provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and
adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development, Article XIII Sec 6: The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization
terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or
growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall promote concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small
the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution. estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.
2
AGRARIAN REFORM
Article XIII Sec 7: The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, Redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced to farmers and
especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to
fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen include the totality of tactors and support services designed to lift the economic
through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration,
conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.
from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
It is NOT confined to land distribution to landless farmers and regular
Article XIII Sec 8: The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the farmworkers; other alternatives:
proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment
creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as a) Labor administration
payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice b) Profit-sharing
c) Stock distribution
Article XVIII Sec 22: At the earliest possible time, the Government shall
expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for Reason: It is not feasible to confine it with just land distribution as there is not enough
distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program. agricultural lands that can be distributed.
AGRARIAN
Derived from the Latin word ager, which means a field.
Lexically, it means relating to land or to the ownership or division of land
AGRARIAN LAW
Basically refers to the distribution of public agricultural lands, large estates, and
regulation of the relationship between the landowner and the farmer who works
on the land.
It embraces all laws that govern and regulate the rights and relationship over the
agricultural lands between landowners, tenants, lessees or agricultural workers.
SOCIAL LEGISLATION
So broad that it covers labor laws, agrarian laws, and welfare laws.
Laws or statutes enacted pursuant to the social justice clause of the Constitution.
CHAPTER II: In these barangays, everyone regardless of status had access on the land and
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND mutually shares resources to the rest of the community. They believed in and practiced
the concept of stewardship where relationship between man and nature is important.
In 1978, when the country adopted the parliamentary form of government, the
DAR was renamed Ministry of Agrarian Reform. On July 26, 1987, the Department by Land cultivation was done commonly by kaingin system or the slash and burn
virtue of Executive Order No. 129-A was organized structurally and functionally. This E.O. method wherein land was cleared by burning the bushes before planting the crops or
expanded the powers and operations of the Department. either land was plowed and harrowed before planting. On the other hand, food
production was intended for family consumption only at first but later on neighboring
On September 27, 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, signed Executive communities where engaged in a barter trade, exchanging their goods with others. Some
Order No. 364, and the Department of Agrarian Reform was renamed to Department of even traded their agricultural products with luxury items of some foreign traders like the
Land Reform. This E.O. also broadened the scope of the Department, making it Chinese, Arabs and Europeans.
responsible for all land reform in the country. It also placed the Philippine Commission on The only recorded transaction of land sale during that time was the Maragtas Code. This
Urban Poor (PCUP) under its supervision and control. Recognition of the ownership of is the selling of the Panay Island to the ten Bornean datus in exchange for a golden
ancestral domain by indigenous peoples also became the responsibility of this new salakot and a long gold necklace. Although the Code of Luwaranwas one of the oldest
department, under the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). written laws of the Muslim society which contains provision on the lease of cultivated
lands, there was no record how the lease arrangement was practiced.
On August 23, 2005, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed Executive Order
No. 456 and renamed the Department of Land Reform back to Department of Agrarian Spanish Era (1521-1896)
Reform, since "the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law goes beyond just land reform When the Spanish came to the country in 1521, they introduced pueblo an
but includes the totality of all factors and support services designed to lift the economic agriculture system wherein the native rural communities were organized into pueblo and
status of the beneficiaries." each Christianized native family is given four to five hectares of land to cultivate, thus
there is no landless class.
At the present administration of President Benigno Simeon Noynoy Aquino III, Nonetheless, these native families are merely landholders and not legitimate
the DAR which is the lead agency for CARP implementation is bent on sustaining the landowners. By law, the land assigned to them was the property of the Spanish King
gains of agrarian reform through its three major components Land Tenure Improvement where they pay their colonial tributes to the Spanish authorities in the form of
(LTI), Program Beneficiaries Development (PBD) and Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD). agricultural products that they produce.
Together with the efforts to fight graft and corruption by the President, it is imperative to
have institutional reforms within DAR as a complement to the abovementioned DAR At the beginning of the 19th century, the Philippines as a colony of Spain
components as well as give credence, transparency and accountability at all sectors of implemented policies that would mainstream the country into the world of capitalism.
the DAR bureaucracy.hieved through agrarian reform. The economy was opened to the world market as exporter of raw materials and importer
of finished goods. The agricultural exports were mandated and hacienda system was
A. AGRARIAN HISTORY developed as a new form of ownership. More people lost their lands and were forced to
become tillers.
Pre-Colonial Times (Before 16th Century)
The Philippines, even before being colonized by different countries, already have Agricultural tenancy during that time originated when the Spanish crown
developed an organization for their communities. The land owned by these communities implemented the Laws of the Indies. The law awards vast tracts of land to the religious
is known as barangay which consists of 30-100 families which is administered by different orders in the country. Some of them are awarded to the Spanish military as reward for
chiefs. their service (also known as repartiamentos), and to the other Spaniards known as
encomienderos to manage and have the right to receive tributes from the natives tilling
the land also known as encomiendas. Because of this, the natives within these areas The result of this revolution has made the government confiscate the large
became mere tillers working for a share of crops. They did not even have any rights to landed estates, especially the friar lands and declared these lands as properties of the
the land. government.(Malolos Constitution, 1896, Article XVII)
Ideally the purpose of the encomienda system is for the encomienderos to American Era (1898-1935)
protect the natives and further introduce them into Catholic faith in exchange for tribute
Realizing that being landless was the main cause ofsocial unrest and revolt at
from the natives. But abusive encomienderos collected more tributes that became the
that time, the Americans sought to put an end to the miserable conditions of the tenant
land rentals from the natives living in the area.
tillers and small farmers by passing several land policies to widen the base of small
landholdings and distribute land ownership among the greater number of Filipino
A compras y vandalas system was practiced wherein tillers were made to
tenants and farmers.
compulsory sell at a very low price or surrender their agricultural harvests to Spanish
In connection to this, the Philippine Bill of 1902 was passed which provided regulations
authorities where encomienderos can resell it for a profit. People of the encomiendas
on the disposal of public lands wherein a private individual can own 16 hectares of land
were also required to render personal services on public and religious work and as a
while the corporate land holdings can avail of 1, 024 hectares. This also gave the rights to
household help to the encomienderos.
the Americans to own agricultural lands.
In 1865, there was a law made by the Spanish crown ordering landholders to
The Torrens system of land registration was also introduced during the American
register their landholdings but only a few were aware of this decree so they were the
colonial period. This was made to replace the registration system that was implemented
only ones who were able to register their lands. Ancestral lands were claimed and
by the Spaniards. The reason why they made a different system of registration was that
registered in other peoples names (Spanish officials, inquilinos and caciques or local
some 400,000 native farmers were without titles at the start of the American era and this
chieftains). As a result, many peasant families were driven out from the lands they have
situation was also aggravated by the absence of records of issued titles and accurate land
been cultivating for centuries or were forced to become tillers.
surveys.
In 1893, the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law was introduced that provides
The Land Registration Act of 1902 or Act No. 496 placed all private and public
the systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as ownership claims. This law was
lands under Torrens system. While the Cadastral Act or Act No. 2259 speeds up the
mainly a law on registration of properties rather than a mortgage law.
issuance of Torrens titles. This was done by surveying a municipality and presented the
result to the land registration court.
In 1894, the last Spanish Land Law promulgated in the Philippines was The
Maura Law or Royal Decree of 1894. This law states that farmers and landholders were
A program called the Homestead Program was introduced in 1903 that allowed
given one year to register their agricultural lands to avoid declaration of it as a state
an enterprising tenant to acquire a farm of at least 16 hectares to cultivate. However, the
property.
program was not implemented nationwide and was introduced only in some parts of
Mindanao and Northern Luzon, where there were available public alienable and
With the encomienda system still being used despite the different laws passed by
disposable lands.
the Spanish crown more and more tillers were abused, exploited and deprived of their
There are also other agrarian laws that were introduced during the American era like the
rights. The revolution of peasants and farmers in 1896 articulated their aspirations for
First Public Land Act or Act No. 926 which provided rules and regulations for selling and
agrarian reform and for a just society. Women also fought for freedom and played an
leasing portions of the public domain, completing defective Spanish land titles, canceling,
important role in the planning and implementing the activities of the revolutionary
and confirming Spanish concessions. Another is the Second Public Land Act of 1919 or
movements.
Act 2874 which limits the use of agricultural lands to Filipinos, Americans, and citizens of
other countries. On the other hand, the Act No. 141 amended the Second Public Act of
1919 or Act No. 2874. The revision consists of a temporary provision of equality on the
rights of American and Filipino citizens and corporations. It also compiled all pre-existing
laws relative to public lands into a single instrument. As a response to these situations, the government under the stewardship of
President Quezon realized that land reform programs should be implemented
There is also the Friar Land Act or Act No. 1120 which provided the immediately. They saw the purchase of friar lands as a possible way to solve the problem
administrative and temporary leasing and selling of friar lands to its tillers. The first of inequitable land ownership. They also saw that the Homestead program could be
legislation regulating the relationships of landlord and tenants and the first law to transformed into a massive resettlement program, if properly implemented.
legalize a 50-50 crop sharing arrangement was also introduced in the American era and is
known as the Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933 or Act No. 4054. There is also the Japanese Era
Sugarcane Tenancy Contracts Act of 1933 or Act No. 4113 which regulated the During the Japanese occupation, peasants and workers organized the HUKBALAHAP
relationship of landlord and tenants in the sugarcane fields and required tenancy (Hukbong Bayan Laban samgaHapon) on March 29, 1942 as an anti-Japanese group. They
contracts on land planted to sugarcane. took over vast tracts of land and gave the land to the people.
For them, the war was a golden opportunity for peoples initiative to push pro-poor
However, despite the different land policies passed during that time, the farmers programs. Landlords were overpowered by the peasants but unfortunately at the end of
situation did not improve at all. In fact, it further worsened the land ownership situation, the war, through the help of the military police and civilian guards, landlords were able
where there was no limit on the size of landholdings one could possess. Landholdings to retrieve their lands from the HUKBALAHAP.
were once again concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals who can afford to buy,
register, and acquire fixed titles of their properties. Therefore, more lands were placed B. EVOLUTION OF INITIATIVES ON LAND REFORM
under tenancy.
Manuel L. Quezon (1935-1944)
As a result, there were widespread peasant uprisings, headed by the armed Some of the Agrarian Reform laws were passed during the administration of Manuel L.
peasants groups known as Colorum and Sakdalistaof Luzon and Northeastern Mindanao Quezon:
respectively. These uprisings resulted to social disorder in 1920s and 1930s. Hence,
more militant peasants and workers organizations bonded together for a more collective RA 4054 or the Rice Tenancy Law
action against the abuses of landlords and unjust landownership situation. This gave - first law on crop sharing which legalized the 50-50 share between landlord and
birth to the Communist Party of the Philippines. tenant with corresponding support to tenants protecting them against abuses of
landlords. However, this law was hardly implemented because most of the
Commonwealth Years (1935-1942) municipal councils were composed of powerful hacienderos and big landlords. In
fact, only one municipality passed a resolution for its enforcement and majorities
During these years the situation of land ownership and tenancy were have petitioned its application to the Governor General.
characterized by the contrasting economic and political lifestyle between tenant and the - The 1935 Constitution provided specific provisions on social justice and
landlord. Landlords became richer and powerful while the tenants were deprived of their expropriation of landed estates for distribution to tenants as a solution to the
rights, became poorer and absentee landowners increased. They preferred to go after land ownership and tenancy problems.
new opportunities in the cities and left their farms idle to the management of
katiwalas. As a result, haciendas were poorly and unjustly managed. Commonwealth Act No. 461
- specified that dismissal of a tenant should first have the approval of Tenancy
A small plot of land cultivated by an average peasant farmer could not sustain a Division of the Department of Justice.
decent living for his family. Tenants and farmers shouldered excessive fines, unfair Commonwealth Act No. 608
taxation and usury. Systems for credit and marketing of rice were lacking thus, farmers - enacted to establish security of tenure between landlord and tenant. It
received a very low selling price. prohibited the common practice among landowners of ejecting tenants without
Consequently, peasant uprising became widespread all over the country. clear legal grounds.
Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953)
President Quezons program on land reform includes making a laid down social
In ElpidioQuirinos administrations, the Executive Order No. 355, the Land
justice program that focused on the purchased of large haciendas which were divided
Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO) was established to accelerate and
and sold to tenants. This administration was also responsible in establishing the National
expand the peasant resettlement program of the government. However, due to limited
Rice and Corn Corporation (NARICC) and assigning public defenders to assist peasants in
post-war resources, the program was not successful.
court battles for their rights to till the land.
During this period, the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) was set up to exercise
Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957)
jurisdiction over disagreements arising from agri-workers and landowner relationship. It
was also during this time that the Rice Tenancy Act (Act No. 4054) was amended. When President Magsaysay was elected as the president of the country he
realized the importance of pursuing a more honest-to-goodness land reform program. So
The Homestead Program continued through the creation of the National Land he convinced the elite controlled congress to pass several legislation to improve the land
Settlement Administration (CA No. 441) and tenancy problems were covered through CA reform situation in the county. Some of these are:
Nos. 461 and 608. R.A. No. 1199 (1954):
- Agricultural Tenancy Act basically governed the relationship between
But the implementation of land reform during Quezons administration was hindered landholders and tenant-farmers. This law helped protect the tenure rights of
because of the budget allocation for the settlement program made it impossible for the tenant tillers and enforced fair tenancy practices.
program to succeed. Also most landlords did not comply with the Rice Share Tenancy Act.
Widespread peasant uprising against abusive landlords also continued. In addition, the R.A. No. 1160 (1954):
outbreak of the World War II put a stopped to the landownership and tenancy - Free distribution of Resettlement and Rehabilitation and Agricultural land and an
interventions during this period. Act establishing the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration
(NARRA).
R.A. No. 1400 (1955):
Manuel Roxas (1946-1948)
- Land Reform Act or known as Land to the Landless Program which sought
Republic Act No. 34 improvement in land tenure and guaranteed the expropriation of all tenanted
- passed during the administration of Manuel Roxas and it enacted to establish a landed estates.
70-30 sharing arrangement between tenant and landlord. The 70% of the harvest
R.A. No. 1266 (1955)
will go to the person who shouldered the expenses for planting, harvesting and
- Expropriation of Hacienda del Rosario, situated at Valdefuente, Cabanatuan City
for the work animals. With this, it reduced the interest of landowners loans to
tenants at not more than 6%.
He implemented the Agricultural Tenancy Act by establishing the Court of
Agricultural Relations in 1955 to improve tenancy security, fix the land rentals on
President Roxas also negotiated for the purchase of 8,000 hectares of lands in
tenanted farms and to resolve the many land disputes filed by the landowners and
Batangas owned by the Ayala-Zobel family. These were sold to landless farmers.
peasant organizations.
However, due to lack of support facilities, the farmers were forced to resell their
He also created the Agricultural Tenancy Commission to administer problems arising
lands to the landowning class. This failure gave basis to doubt the real meaning of land
from tenancy. Through this Commission 28,000 hectares were issued to settlers.
reform program.
Under President Magsaysay the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administration (ACCFA) was created. This is a government agency formed to provide
warehouse facilities and assist farmers market their products and established the
organization of the Farmers Cooperatives and Marketing Associations (FACOMAs). However, the landed Congress did not provide effort to come up with a separate
bill to provide funding for its implementation. The act was piloted in the provinces of
With the passing of RA 1160 of 1954, President Magsaysay pursued the resettlement Pangasinan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, Occidental Mindoro, Camarines Sur
program through the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA). and Misamis Oriental. It acquired a total of 18,247.06 hectares or 99.29% out of the total
This law established the governments resettlement program and accelerated the free scope of 18,377.05 hectares. The programbenefited 7,466 farmerbeneficiaries. (BLAD-
distribution of agricultural lands to landless tenants and farmers. It particularly aimed to DAR OfficialRecords)
convince members of the HUKBALAHAP movement to return to a peaceful life by giving
them home lots and farmlands.
Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)
This administration also spearheaded the establishment of the Agricultural and When President Marcos assumed office, he immediately directed the massive
Industrial Bank to provide easier terms in applying for homestead and other farmland. implementation of the leasehold phase of the land reform program by signing into law
the Code of Agrarian Reforms in the Philippines or RA No. 6389 and its companion bill RA
With all the programs and bills passed under his administration, out of the targeted No. 6390. The Code of Agrarian Reforms or RA No. 6389 governed the implementation of
300 haciendas for distribution, only 41 were distributed after its 7 years of the agrarian reform in the Philippines. This law instituted the Code of Agrarian Reforms
implementation. This was due to lack of funds and inadequate support services provided and significantly amended several provisions of Agricultural Land Reform Code or RA
for these programs. 3844 of President Macapagal. It created the Department of Agrarian Reform, a separate
administrative agency for agrarian reform, replacing the Land Authority.
As a result, landlords continued to be uncooperative and critical to the program and RA 6390
landownership and tenancy problems continued. - enacted to accelerate the implementation of the of the agrarian reform program
in the fields of land acquisition and agricultural credit. Through the Code, an AR
Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961) Special Account in the General Fund was created that exclusively finance the
agrarian reform program.
There was no legislation passed in Carlos Garcias term but he continued to
implement the land reform programs of President Magsaysay. Presidential Decree No. 2
- proclaiming the entire country as a land reform area and Presidential Decree No.
27, decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of soil, transferring
DiosdadoMacapagal (1961-1965) to them the ownership of the land they till and providing the needed
It was during DiosdadoMacapagal that the Agricultural Land Reform Code or RA instruments and mechanisms. This law provided for tenanted lands devoted to
No. 3844 was enacted, more specifically on August 8, 1963. This was considered to be rice and corn to pass ownership to the tenants. It also lowered the ceilings for
the most comprehensive piece of agrarian reform legislation ever enacted in the country landholdings to 7 hectares. The law stipulated that share tenants who worked
that time. Because of this, President Diosdado Macapagal was considered as the Father from a landholding of over 7 hectares could purchase the land they tilled, while
of Agrarian Reform. share tenants on land less than 7 hectares would become leaseholders.
- This agrarian reform program was designed to uplift the farmers from poverty
RA No. 3844 was considered as such because this Act abolished share tenancy in and ignorance and to make them useful, dignified, responsible and progressive
the Philippines. It prescribed a program converting the tenant farmers to lessees and partners in nation-building. This AR program was a package of services extended
eventually into owner-cultivators. Moreover, it aimed to free tenants from the bondage to farmers in the form of credit support, infrastructure, farm extension, legal
of tenancy and gave hope to poor Filipino farmers to own the land they are tilling. Finally, assistance, electrification and development of rural institutions.
it emphasized owner-cultivator relationship and farmer independence, equity,
productivity improvement and the public distribution of land.
President Marcos Agrarian Reform Program is characterized by five major landowners. It specified the structure and functions of units that will coordinate
components and these are Land Tenure Program, Institutional Development, Physical and supervise the implementation of the program.
Development, Agricultural Development, and Human Resources. RA 6657 or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
- an act instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program to promote social
The Agrarian Reform Programs was also labeled as revolutionary by some sectors justice and Industrialization, providing the mechanism for its implementation and
because it was pursued under Martial Law and intended to make quick changes without for other purposes.
going through legislative or technical processes and another reason is that it was the only
law in the Philippines ever done in handwriting. Nevertheless, the program also posed To strengthen CARP and fast track its implementation, President Aquino issued
some limitations which includes limited scope of the program since it was only directed the following Executive Orders (EO):
for the tenanted, privately-owned rice and corn lands; there was monopoly of
businessmen in both coconut and sugar industries; foreign and local firms were allowed E.O. No. 405
to use large tracks of land for their business; and because of the declaration of Martial - gave the Land Bank of the Philippines the primary responsibility for the land
Law several farmer leaders were arrested without due process of law. valuation function in order for DAR to concentrate its efforts on the identification
of landholdings and beneficiaries, the distribution of acquired lands, and the
other sub-components of the program.
Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)
E.O. No. 406
1987 Philippine Constitution - emphasized that CARP is central to the governments efforts to hasten
- set the direction of agrarian reform in the Aquino administration. The 1987 countryside agro-industrial development and directed the implementing
Constitution affirmed that The State shall promote comprehensive rural agencies to align their respective programs and projects with CARP.
development and agrarian reform. (Article 2, Section 21) - This created CARP implementing teams from the national to the municipal levels
Proclamation 131 and gave priority to 24 strategic operating provinces where the bulk of CARP
- instituted the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) as a major workload lies.
program of the government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian E.O. No. 407
Reform Fund (ARF) in the amount of 50 billion pesos to cover the estimated cost - directed all government financing institutions (GFIs) and government owned and
of the program for the period 1987-1997. controlled corporations (GOCCs) to immediately transfer to DAR all their
EO 129 landholdings suitable for agriculture.
- reorganized the Department of Agrarian Reform and expanded in power and E.O. No. 448
operations. It is known that the record and legacy of the Aquino Administration - pursued the policy that government should lead the efforts in placing lands for
in Agrarian Reform is the Executive Summary, Planning Service, and DAR. coverage under CARP. It directed the immediate turn-over of government
EO 228 reservations, no longer needed, and that are suitable for agriculture.
- declared full ownership of the land to qualified farmer-beneficiaries covered by
PD 27. It also regulated the value of remaining rice and corn lands for coverage Some of the accomplishments achieved during the Aquino administration with
provided for the manner of payment by the farmer-beneficiaries and the mode regards to the implementation of the Agrarian Reform Programs are the grants and
of compensation to the landowners. budgetary support from official development assistance (ODA) circles poured in during
this administration. Various sectors likewise recognized agrarian reform as a worthwhile
EO 229
social investment. In terms of the tenant-tiller status, it improved particularly those
- provided the administrative processes for land registration or LISTASAKA
within landowners retained areas or on landholdings subject for coverage.
program, acquisition of private land and compensation procedures for
It is also during this administration that the present adjudication system was DAR AO No. 2 (1992)
introduced. This gave DAR the original and exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes as - consists of rules and procedures governing the distribution of cancelled or
quasi-judicial powers. expired pasture lease agreements and Timber License Agreements under EO 407.
Also, the livelihood and agro-industrial projects promoted and the program of DAR AO No. 1 (1993)
support services were intensified to help farmer beneficiaries become productive and - amendment to certain provisions of the Administrative Order No. 9 Series of
transform them into entrepreneurs. 1990, entitled Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Acquisition of
Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition
The administration received much support and active involvement in program Pursuant to RA 6657.
implementation from key stakeholders such as peoples organization, farmers
association, NGOs and from prominent landowners themselves. Joint DAR-LBP AO No. 3 (1994)
- policy guidelines and procedures governing the acquisition and distribution of
On the other hand, the administration also face challenges in the implementation of agricultural lands affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
CARP for example on land evaluation, one very specific case is the Garchitorena land
scam. There were also issues on the absence of a clear cut guideline that would answer DAR AO No. 1 (1995)
problems on land use conversion. Minimal efforts were exerted to discouraged and/or - consists of the rules and procedures governing the Acquisition and Distribution
prevent conversion of lands into other use. of all Agricultural Lands Subject of Sequestration/Acquisition by the PCGG and
APT whose ownership in Under Court Litigation.
Despite the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), the administration experienced a major
budgetary shortfall due to low remittances from the Asset Privatization Trust and the DAR AO No. 2 (1995)
Presidential Commission on Good Government. - the revised rules and procedures governing the Acquisition of Private Agricultural
The administration also experienced constant changes in DAR leadership. This led to Lands Subject of Voluntary Land Transfer or a Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS)
lack of continuity of priority, programs and projects. Pursuant to RA 6657.
Allegation on lack of political wills leadership and genuine commitment to implement the DAR AO No. 2 (1996)
program. Critics say that the President could have implemented a genuine agrarian - rules and regulations governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands subject of
reform program because of her revolutionary powers after People Power I. Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to RA 6657.
Despite all of these, there are challenges that the administration faced during It has forged alliances among countries implementing AR through the
implementation of the program. One of which is the failure in enforcing the installation International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. The department
of some farmer beneficiaries on awarded lands. Critics also say that non-physical then began aggressively to assert its place in national development planning processes to
installation of FBs has been the norm rather than the exception. raise DARs profile both in national and international fora. With this, DAR was able to
secure a seat in the annual consultative group meeting between the Philippiness
Some sectors also complained on the slowness of this administration in the economic management team and the donor community. This period also launched the
acquisition and distribution of privately owned lands. Although this administration was DAR-DA-DENR convergence initiative.
credited for having the biggest accomplishment in terms of LAD, critics say this is because
the land acquired and distributed were more on public lands and rice and corn lands. But there were also some hindrances that the administration faced like the fiscal
constraints encountered that resulted to unpaid or delayed payment of landowners
covered under the compulsory acquisition and VOS schemes.
Joseph Ejercito Estrada (1998-2001) There were also issues on inter and intra ARBs conflicts due to arguments for control
over negotiations with prospective joint venture partners, some of which became
During this administration the Magkabalikat Para sakaunlarangAgraryo
violent.
(MAGKASAKA) which was launched which is directed for the investors to bring in capital,
technology and management support while the farmers will contribute, at most, the use
of their land itself. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001 2010)
The GMA administration has adopted the BAYAN-ANIHAN concept as the
The MAGKASAKA aims to encourage investors to bring investments into the
implementing framework for CARP. Bayan means people and Anihan means harvest and
countryside and to enhance the income of the farmers through joint venture schemes
Bayanihan means working together. Applied to CARP, Bayan Anihan means a united
and contract growing schemes. The program also aims to enable the farmers to be more
people working together for the successful implementation of agrarian reform.
efficient and be globally competitive.
The Bayan-Anihan Framework has different implementing strategies namely:
This administration saw the urgency of land distribution, and believed that it can
be served if it is built on farmers capacities to pursue their own development. One of
Salin-Lupa: Accelerating land transfer and improving land tenure.
the first things this administration did was to rework performance targets by focusing
on the number of hectares of land distributed coupled with an accounting of farmer
Katarungan: Prompt and fair settlement of agrarian disputes and delivery of agrarian
beneficiaries and the specific croplands and farm systems covered. This approach sought
reform justice.
to integrate land distribution and support services. It was during this period that DAR
launched a series of land occupations by working with farmer claimants, the LGU and
Bayanihan: Better delivery by the government of appropriate support services to ARBs
government security forces.
and the mobilization of the ARBs themselves in the transformation of the agrarian reform
communities into an agrarian reform zones and into progressive farming.
To help speed up litigation, DAR also helped set up the agrarian justice fund for
farmer beneficiaries as well as DAR field workers who, due to the nature of the job, are
Kabayanihan or the Konsehong Bayan Para saAnihan: Institutionalization not only of the
named as respondents in cases filed by recalcitrant landowners. Support services took a
system of dialogue and consultation but also joint problem solving with AR stakeholders,
much more entrepreneurial approach during this administration. Sustainable rural
particularly peoples organizations, cooperatives and NGOs.
Kamalayan: Raising the awareness of DAR personnel, agrarian reform beneficiaries and 3. Fast tracking the documentation and settlement of landowner compensation for
the general public on agrarian reform and its contribution to social justice and already distributed lands;
development. 4. Synergizing and rationalizing the efforts of the CARP implementing agencies in all
Under Arroyos administration introduced the KapitBisigsaKahirapan Agrarian Reform processes of LAD;
Zones (KARZONEs) as a program strategy of the DAR in CARP Implementation. KARZONEs 5. Partnering with the civil society organizations (CSOs) in the delivery of LTI
is a partnership and convergence strategy aimed at achieving asset reform, poverty services, particularly the large-sized private agricultural lands (PAL);
reduction, food sufficiency, farm productivity, good governance, social equity and 6. Adopting a job-sharing scheme wherein under the ONE-DAR concept, provinces
empowerment of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) both in ARCs and non-ARCs. will share responsibilities (low-LAD provinces with high LAD provinces) to
minimize the need to hire new personnel; and
Other specific programs under this administration to enhance CARP were also 7. Increasing the utilization of the services of geodetic engineers to assist the
implemented like the: provincial and municipal offices in land acquisition considering the difficulty of
hiring new personnel and the demands of a post-2014 scenario.
GulayanMagsasakangAgraryo.
- intends to add income and food security to farmers and their communities. Under President Aquinos administration, the DARs Program Beneficiaries
Educational opportunities were also ushered in to farmers children and Development (PBD) priorities are geared in:
dependents through the DiosdadoMacapagal Scholar Program. 1. Undertaking convergence initiatives with rural development agencies to
complement the resources and streamline the efforts of DAR, DA and DENR;
This administration is also credited in heightening agrarian case resolution by 2. Inking public-private partnerships (PPPs) develop models of collaboration and
introducing a quota system to compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian cases and business models in AR areas with the participation of the CSOs, academe,
train farmers into paralegals. research and development institutions and LGUs;
3. Expanding official development assistance (ODA) portfolio in order to augment
incomes for PBD;
Benigno Simeon Noynoy C. Aquino III (20102016) 4. Integrating LTI and PBD on a province-to-province basis;
5. Shifting focus of low-LAD balance provinces to PBD; and
Under the governance of President Noynoy Aquino, the DAR which is the lead
6. Unlocking credit facilities for the agrarian reform beneficiaries through capacity
agency for CARP implementation is bent on sustaining the gains of agrarian reform
development for credit providers and farmer-borrowers.
through its three major components Land Tenure Improvement (LTI), Program
Beneficiaries Development (PBD) and Agrarian Justice Delivery (AJD). The following are
To speed up resolution of AR related cases, the Agrarian Justice Delivery component is
the strategic directions of the Aquino Administration for the agrarian reform program:
geared at:
1. Putting the legal framework in place to expedite the LAD process and undertake
To substantially complete asset reform as mandated by R.A. No. 9700 by:
PBD lawyering to ensure ARBs free and informed consent on agribusiness
1. Completing the land acquisition and distribution (LAD) in the Comprehensive
agreements;
Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER) or Republic Act 9700
2. Developing common templates and legal outlines in order to rationalize the DAR
balance through: Focus on large-sized private agricultural lands; Redeployment
lawyers and paralegals appreciation and decision on cases;
of competent DAR personnel to the 20 high LAD provinces; Streamline LAD
3. Improving the capabilities of DAR lawyers and legal officers; and
processes and procedures; and Enhance the database of landholdings for ease in
4. Utilizing information, communication technology (ICT) to enhance legal work.
targeting and monitoring the LAD;
2. Prioritizing the subdivision of collective Certificates of Land Ownership Awards
--- O ---- O ---- O ----
(CLOAs) involving LBP-compensable lands;
CHAPTER III. "Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to
LAND ACQUISITION each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same
particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements:
A. DOCTRINE ON STATES EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER AND EMINENT DOMAIN (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
(2) it must be germane to the purpose of the law;
POLICE POWER (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
- the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, establish (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the
State and its people. (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. CITY MAYOR, July 31, 1967) The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here
challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.
- basic purposes of police power are:
"Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must
1. To promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. The petitioner
people; (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a different
US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85 treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other properties
must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. There
2. To promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible
September 21, 1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS. except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. In any
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50 Phil. 595apprehend and confine lepers in a event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification. Its
leprosarium) decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its
discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights.
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CARL
RA 6657 is Constitutional
EMINENT DOMAIN
In the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary - right or power of a sovereign state to appropriate private property to particular
of Agrarian Reform, the Supreme Court held: uses to promote public welfare. It is an indispensable attribute of sovereignty; a
power grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the common need
"The case before us presents no knotty complication insofar as the question of and advance the general welfare.
compensable taking is concerned. To the extent that the measures under challenge - Thus, our own Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for
merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power public use without just compensation. Furthermore, the due process and equal
for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, protection clauses act as additional safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of
to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever this governmental power.
lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking
under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is Since the exercise of the power of eminent domain affects an individuals right to
imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. private property, a constitutionally-protected right necessary for the preservation and
What is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said enhancement of personal dignity and intimately connected with the rights to life and
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. liberty, the need for its circumspect operation cannot be overemphasized.
This is definitely an exercise not of the police power but of the power of eminent domain.
In City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila we said. amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court,
based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.
The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the State, or by its
authorized agents, is necessarily in derogation of private rights, and the rule in that Despite the existence of this legislative grant in favor of local governments, it is still
case is that the authority must be strictly construed. No species of property is held by the duty of the courts to determine whether the power of eminent domain is being
individuals with greater tenacity, and none is guarded by the constitution and the exercised in accordance with the delegating law. In fact, the courts have adopted a more
laws more sedulously, than the right to the freehold of inhabitants. When the censorious attitude in resolving questions involving the proper exercise of this delegated
legislature interferes with that right, and, for greater public purposes, appropriates power by local bodies, as compared to instances when it is directly exercised by the
the land of an individual without his consent, the plain meaning of the law should national legislature.
not be enlarged by doubtful interpretation. (Bensley vs. Mountainlake Water Co., 13
Cal., 306 and cases cited [73 Am. Dec. 576].) The courts have the obligation to determine whether the following requisites have been
complied with by the local government unit concerned:
The statutory power of taking property from the owner without his consent is one of 1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
the most delicate exercise of governmental authority. It is to be watched with jealous executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent
scrutiny. Important as the power may be to the government, the inviolable sanctity which domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property.
all free constitutions attach to the right of property of the citizens, constrains the strict
observance of the substantial provisions of the law which are prescribed as modes of the 2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for
exercise of the power, and to protect it from abuse. (Dillon on Municipal Corporations the benefit of the poor and the landless.
[5th Ed.], sec. 1040, and cases cited; Tenorio vs. Manila Railroad Co., 22 Phil., 411.)
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the
The power of eminent domain is essentially legislative in nature. However, such Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
power may be validly delegated to local government units, other public entities and
public utilities, although the scope of this delegated legislative power is necessarily 4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property
narrower than that of the delegating authority and may only be exercised in strict sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.
compliance with the terms of the delegating law.
Rule 67 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court reveals that expropriation proceedings are
The basis for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units
is section 19 of RA 7160 which provides that: comprised of two stages:
A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an
ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, purpose, or welfare for (1) the first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to
the benefits of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context
to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws; Provided, however, That the of the facts involved in the suit; it ends with an order, if not in a dismissal of the
power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been action, of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the
previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted; Provided, further, That property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the
the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date
filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of the filing of the complaint;
of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the
current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated; Provided, finally, That the
(2) the second phase is concerned with the determination by the court of the just Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to
compensation for the property sought to be taken; this is done by the court with the the following qualifications:
assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners.
1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and
Clearly, although the determination and award of just compensation to the 2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That
defendant is indispensable to the transfer of ownership in favor of the plaintiff, it is but landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be
the last stage of the expropriation proceedings, which cannot be arrived at without an allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further,
initial finding by the court that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the
to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint. An order of original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas
condemnation or dismissal at this stage would be final, resolving the question of whether as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
or not the plaintiff has properly and legally exercised its power of eminent domain.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
If the LGU fails to acquire a private property for public use, purpose, or welfare pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention
through purchase, LGU may expropriate said property through a resolution of the by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
sanggunian authorizing its chief executive to initiate expropriation proceedings. remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar
or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he
shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
B. PROCEDURE FOR LAND ACQUISITION: THE TRANSFER OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses
his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must
LANDS TO FARMER BENEFICIARES
exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention. In all cases, the security of tenure of the
Section 3-a Definition of Agrarian Reform farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected.
Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or
farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement,
transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of
to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status
the Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act
of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution
shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3)
of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution
months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the
of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving
of the lands they work.
agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
Section 6. Scope of the Program
Section 7. Priorities of Coverage
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in coordination with the Presidential Agrarian
indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to
Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all
factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
shall be acquired and distributed as follows:
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares.
Phase One:
Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all therein may be implemented ahead of the above schedules. In effecting the transfer
private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform; all lands foreclosed within these guidelines, priority must be given to lands that are tenanted.
by the government financial institutions; all lands acquired by the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG); and all other lands owned by the The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution
government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and scheme, including the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: Provided, That
distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be an owner-tiller may be a beneficiary of the land he does not own but is actually
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years; cultivating to the extent of the difference between the area of the land he owns and the
award ceiling of three (3) hectares.
Phase Two:
All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all arable public agricultural lands Section 8. Multinational Corporations
under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops
All lands of the public domain leased, held or possessed by multinational corporations or
in accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands
associations, and other lands owned by the government or by government-owned or
which are to be opened for new development and resettlement; and all private
controlled corporations, associations, institutions, or entities, devoted to existing and
agricultural lands in excess of fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is
operational agri-business or agro-industrial enterprises, operated by multinational
concerned, to implement principally the rights of farmers and regular farmworkers, who
corporations and associations, shall be programmed for acquisition and distribution
are the landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till, which shall be
immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed
distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be
within three (3) years.
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years.
Lands covered by the paragraph immediately preceding, under lease, management,
Phase Three:
grower or service contracts, and the like, shall be disposed of as follows:
All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings and proceeding
(a) Lease, management, grower or service contracts covering such lands covering
to medium and small landholdings under the following schedule:
an aggregate area in excess of 1,000 hectares, leased or held by foreign individuals in
(a) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares, to
excess of 500 hectares are deemed amended to conform with the limits set forth in
begin on the fourth (4th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within
Section 3 of Article XII of the Constitution.
three (3) years; and
(b) Contracts covering areas not in excess of 1,000 hectares in the case of such
(b) Landholdings from the retention limit up to twenty-four (24) hectares, to
corporations and associations, and 500 hectares, in the case of such individuals, shall be
begin on the sixth (6th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within
allowed to continue under their original terms and conditions but not beyond August 29,
four (4) years; to implement principally the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who
1992, or their valid termination, whichever comes sooner, after which, such agreements
are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till.
shall continue only when confirmed by the appropriate government agency. Such
contracts shall likewise continue even after the lands has been transferred to
The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by this
beneficiaries or awardees thereof, which transfer shall be immediately commenced
program shall be made in accordance with the above order of priority, which shall be
and implemented and completed within the period of three (3) years mentioned in the
provided in the implementing rules to be prepared by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
first paragraph hereof.
Council (PARC), taking into consideration the following; the need to distribute land to the
(c) In no case will such leases and other agreements now being
tillers at the earliest practicable time; the need to enhance agricultural productivity; and
implemented extend beyond August 29, 1992, when all lands subject hereof shall have
the availability of funds and resources to implement and support the program.
been distributed completely to qualified beneficiaries or awardees. Such agreements can
continue thereafter only under a new contract between the government or qualified
In any case, the PARC, upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform
beneficiaries or awardees, on the one hand, and said enterprises, on the other. Lands
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces or region as priority
leased, held or possessed by multinational corporations, owned by private individuals
land reform areas, in which the acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands
and private non-governmental corporations, associations, institutions and entities, determination and autonomy, the systems of land ownership, land use, and the modes of
citizens of the Philippines, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and settling land disputes of all these communities must be recognized and respected.
distribution upon the expiration of the applicable lease, management, grower or service
contract in effect as of August 29, 1987, or otherwise, upon its valid termination, Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may suspend the
whichever comes sooner, but not later than after ten (10) years following the effectivity implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying
of the Act. However during the said period of effectivity, the government shall take steps and delineating such lands: Provided, That in the autonomous regions, the respective
to acquire these lands for immediate distribution thereafter. legislatures may enact their own laws on ancestral domain subject to the provisions of
the Constitution and the principles enunciated in this Act and other national laws.
In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual workerbeneficiaries. In
case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then they shall form a Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.
workers' cooperative or association which will deal with the corporation or business
For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
association or any other proper party for the purpose of entering into a lease or growers
1) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR
agreement and for all other legitimate purposes. Until a new agreement is entered into
shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by
by and between the workers' cooperative or association and the corporation or business
personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in
association or any other proper party, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes
the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is
effect between the former and the previous landowner shall be respected by both the
located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding
workers' cooperative or association and the corporation, business, association or such
value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other
other proper party. In no case shall the implementation or application of this Act justify
pertinent provisions hereof.
or result in the reduction of status or diminution of any benefits received or enjoyed by
2) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal
the worker-beneficiaries, or in which they may have a vested right, at the time this Act
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative
becomes effective,.
shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.
3) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines
The provisions of Section 32 of this Act, with regard to production and income-sharing
(LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30)
shall apply to farms operated by multinational corporations. During the transition period,
days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government
the new owners shall be assisted in their efforts to learn modern technology in
and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
production. Enterprises which show a willingness and commitment and good-faith efforts
4) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct
to impart voluntarily such advanced technology will be given preferential treatment
summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the
where feasible.
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
In no case shall a foreign corporation, association, entity or individual enjoy any rights or
the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is
privileges better than those enjoyed by a domestic corporation, association, entity or
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30)
individual.
days after it is submitted for decision.
5) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of
Section 9. Ancestral Lands
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with
For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in
include, but not be limited to, lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession
occupation of the community and its members: Provided, That the Torrens Systems shall of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a
be respected. The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with the principles of self-
The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the the former and the previous landowner shall be respected by both the workers'
qualified beneficiaries. cooperative or association and the corporation or business association.
6) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. Corporate Landowners (Stock Distribution Option)
Corporate landowners may voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural
Section 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales.
landholdings to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to
Landowners, other than banks and other financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their qualified beneficiaries, under such terms and conditions, consistent with this Act, as they
lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment. may agree upon, subject to confirmation by the DAR. Upon certification by the DAR,
corporations owning agricultural lands may give their qualified beneficiaries the right to
Transferability of Awarded Lands (Section 27) purchase such proportion of the capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural
land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total
Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed
assets, under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no case shall
except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other
the compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are
qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the
distributed be reduced. The same principle shall be applied to associations, with respect
children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from
to their equity or participation. Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a
the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of
proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other
the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)
qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the
of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
provisions of the Act: Provided, That the following conditions are complied with:
Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by
a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to
the BARC. If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land
dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the corporation or association shall
may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the
be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries;
beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or
conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall
b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association, the
be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the
beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one:(1) representative in the board of directors,
manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph. In the event of such transfer
or in a management or executive committee, if one exists, of the corporation or
to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts
association; and
the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on
the land.
c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same
rights and features as all other shares. d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original
Land Acquisition of Corporate Farms (Sec. 29)
beneficiaries shall be void ab initio unless said transaction is in favor of a qualified and
Farms Owned or Operated by Corporations or Other Business Associations. In the case registered beneficiary within the same corporation. If within two (2) years from the
of farms owned or operated by corporations or other business associations, the following approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer envisioned above is not made or realized
rules shall be observed by the PARC: In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the or the plan for such stock distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the
individual worker-beneficiaries. In case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the
the land, then it shall be owned collectively by the workers' cooperative or association compulsory coverage of this Act. Acd
which will deal with the corporation or business association. Until a new agreement is
entered into by and between the workers' cooperative or association and the corporation
or business association, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes effect between
Section. 6 par 1- Award of Lands to Children of Landowners CHAPTER IV:
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to RETENTION, EXEMPTION AND EXCLUSION
the following qualifications:
(1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and SECTION 6. Retention Limits.
(2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or
Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to
shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain,
infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner
still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the
exceed five (5) hectares.
same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to
--- O --- O --- O ---
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 areas originally retained by them thereunder: 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.
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. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he
shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses
his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must
exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention. In all cases, the security of tenure of the
farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or
transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of
the Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act
shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3)
months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving
agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
SECTION 11. Commercial Farming.
Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, 3. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture;
poultry and swine raising, and aquaculture including saltbeds, fishponds and prawn and
ponds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and cacao, coffee and 4. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the
rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.
distribution after (10) years from the effectivity of the Act. In the case of new farms, the
ten-year period shall begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, B. EXCLUSIONS FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARL
as determined by the DAR. During the ten-year period, the government shall initiate the
steps necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land 1. Under Section 10 , excluded from the coverage of the CARL are lands actually,
and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or directly and exclusively used for:
associations, which shall hereafter manage the said lands for the worker-beneficiaries. If a. Parks;
the DAR determines that the purposes for which this deferment is granted no longer b. Wildlife;
exist, such areas shall automatically be subject to redistribution. The provisions of c. Forest reserves;
Section 32 of the Act, with regard to production-and incomesharing, shall apply to d. Reforestation;
commercial farms. e. Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds;
f. Watersheds and mangroves.
A. LAND COVERED 2. Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said
arrangement and commodity produced, ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land
LANDS as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for
acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. [Section 4] In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the
1. Agricultural land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land [Section 3(c)]. deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the
actual regular workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year
2. Agricultural activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of from the effectivity of this Act. When the workers or tenants do not agree to this
fruit trees, raising of fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other exemption, the fishponds or prawn farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker
farm activities and prac-tices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such beneficiaries or tenants who shall form a cooperative or association to manage the same.
farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical [Section 3(b)].
3. Likewise, execluded from the coverage the CARL are lands actually, directly and
Specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform exclusively used and found to be necessary for:
Program: a. National defense;
1. All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for b. School sites and campuses including experimental farm stations
agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands operated by public or private schools for educational purposes;
shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into c. Seeds and seedling research and pilot production center;
account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have d. Church sites and convents appurtenant thereto;
determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain; e. Mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto;
2. All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by f. Communal burial grounds and cemeteries;
Congress in the preceding paragraph; g. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates; and
h. Government and private research and quarantine centers. farmworkers to own directly or collectively the lands they till. As also mentioned by
Commissioner Tadeo, farmworkers include those who work in piggeries and poultry
4. All lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over which are not developed projects. I was wondering whether I am wrong in my appreciation that if somebody
for agriculture are exempted from the coverage of CARL. puts up a piggery or a poultry project and for that purpose hires farmworkers therein,
these farmworkers will automatically have the right to own eventually, directly or
An eighteen percent slope is not equivalent to an eighteen degree angle. ultimately or collectively, the land on which the piggeries and poultry projects were
Eighteen percent slope is obtained by having a 100 meter run and an 18 meter constructed. (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, p. 618).
rise. xxx xxx xxx"
In the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Supreme Court
has excluded agricultur-al Lands Devoted to Commercial Livestock, Poultry and Swine --- O --- O --- O ---
Raising from the coverage of CARL.
The Supreme Court said:
"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 Constitu-tion to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage
of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.
NOTE: all real property taxes in arrears, without penalty or interest, shall be
deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled.
CHAPTER IX:
CHAPTER X SEC. 21. Supplemental Appropriations. The amount of TWO BILLION SEVEN
FINANCING PROGRAMS HUNDRED MILLION PESOS (P2.7 billion) is hereby appropriated to cover the
supplemental requirements of the CARP for 1987, to be sourced from the receipts of the
FINANCING sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good
Government and the proceeds from the sale of assets by the APT. The amount collected
1. SECTION 63. FUNDING SOURCE. The initial amount needed to implement this Act from these sources shall accrue to The Agrarian Reform Fund and shall likewise be
for the period of ten (10) years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the considered automatically appropriated for the purpose authorized in this Order.
Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229.
2. SECTION 64. FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY FOR THE CARP. The Land Bank of the
Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed Philippines shall be the financial intermediary for the CARP, and shall insure that the
to augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of social justice objectives of the CARP shall enjoy a preference among its priorities.
this Act.
NOTES:
Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
The financial arm of the agrarian reform program is solely given to the Land Bank of the
a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust; Philippines. The Land Banks valuation determines the just compensation under the
b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered Comprehensive Agrarian Reform.
through the Presidential Commission on Good Government;
c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign 3. RA 8532: AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
countries; REFORM PROGRAM (CARP), BY PROVIDING AUGMENTATION FUND THEREFOR,
d) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 63 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE
grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific KNOWN AS "THE CARP LAW OF 1988"
purposes of financing production credits, infrastructures, and other support
services required by this Act; Section 1. Sec. 63 of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
e) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated. Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 63. Funding source. The amount needed to implement this Act until the year
All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund.
continuing appropriations during the period of its implementation. "Additional amounts necessary for this purpose are hereby authorized to be
appropriated in excess of the initial funds, amounting to Fifty billion pesos
NOTES: (P50,000,000,000.00) provided under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 229.
The source of funds in payments for the just compensation to the landowners must come
from the Agrarian Reform Fund. "The additional amount hereby authorized to be appropriated shall in no case exceed Fifty billion pesos
(P50,000,000,000.00).
"Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
Executive Order 229
a) "a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets Privatization Trust;
Financing
SEC. 20. Agrarian Reform Fund. As provided in Proclamation No. 131 dated July 22, 1987, a special fund is created, b) "b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth
known as The Agrarian Reform Fund, an initial amount of FIFTY BILLION PESOS (P50 billion) to cover the estimated cost of
the CARP from 1987 to 1992 which shall be sourced from the receipts of the sale of the assets of the Asset Privatization recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Government;
Trust (APT) and receipts of sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the Presidential Commission on Good Government c) "c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign
and such other sources as government may deem appropriate. The amount collected and accruing to this special fund
countries, for the specific purposes of financing production credits, infrastructure
shall be considered automatically appropriated for the purpose authorized in this Order.
and other support services required by this Act;
e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official
d) "d) All income and collections arising from the agrarian reform operations, foreign. aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for
projects and programs of CARP implementing agencies; the specific purposes of financing productions, credits, infrastructures, and other
support services required by this Act:
e) "e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Five billion pesos (P5,000,000,000.00) from
foreign aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the General Appropriations Act;
the specific purposes of financing production, credits, infrastructures, and other g) Gratuitous financial assistance from legitimate sources; and
support services required by this Act; h) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated.
"All funds appropriated to implement the provisions of this Act shall be considered
f) "f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Three billion pesos (P3,000,000,000.00) continuing appropriations during the period of its implementation: Provided, That if the
from the General Appropriations Act; need arises, specific amounts for bond redemptions, interest payments and other
"g) Other government funds not otherwise appropriated." existing obligations arising from the implementation of the program shall be included in
the annual General Appropriations Act: Provided, further, That all just compensation
Section 2. This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following the completion of its payments to landowners, including execution of judgments therefore, shall only be
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund: Provided, however, That just compensation
payments that cannot be covered within the approved annual budget of the program
4. SECTION 21. SECTION 63 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, AS AMENDED, IS HEREBY shall be chargeable against the debt service program of the national government, or any
FURTHER AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: unprogrammed item in the General Appropriations Act: Provided, finally, That after the
"SEC. 63. Funding Source. - The amount needed to further implement the CARP as completion of the land acquisition and distribution component of the CARP, the yearly
provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act appropriation shall be allocated fully to support services, agrarian justice delivery and
No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and operational requirements of the DAR and the other CARP implementing agencies."
other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos
(P150,000,000,000.00). --- O --- O --- O ---
"Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated as and when needed to
augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully implement the provisions of this Act
during the five (5)-year extension period.
"Sources of funding or appropriations shall include the following:
a) Proceeds of the sales of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO);
b) All receipts from assets recovered and from sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered
through the PCGG excluding the amount appropriated for compensation to
victims of human rights violations under the applicable law;
c) Proceeds of the disposition and development of the properties of the
Government in foreign countries, for the specific purposes of financing
production credits, infrastructure and other support services required by this
Act;
d) All income and, collections of whatever form and nature arising from the
agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CARP
implementing agencies;
CHAPTER XI: 1. Cases involving rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical,
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION OR THE RESOLUTION OF AGRARIAN DESPUTES engaged in the management cultivation and use of all agricultural lands (Caballes
vs. DAR, 168 SCRA 259 (1988; Oarde vs. CA, 280 SCARA 235 (1997);
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS OF THE DAR 2. Preliminary administrative determination of just compensation; (Executive Order
The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian No. 405.);
reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving 3. Annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or deeds of sale or their
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction amendments involving lands under the administration and disposition of the
of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural DAR or LBP;
Resources (DENR): 4. Ejectment and dispossession of tenants/leaseholders:
Primary Jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate Agrarian Reform Matters: and Exclusive 5. Sale, alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of agricultural lands;
Original Jurisdiction over all matter involving the implementation of agrarian reform; 6. Correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of
except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of registered CLOAs and EPs;
Agriculture and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Machete vs CA, 250 7. Review of leasehold rentals;
SCRA 176 (1995) 8. Collection of amortizations on payments for lands awarded under PD No. 27,
The DAR has original, exclusive, jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, except on the aspects including payment for residential, commercial and industrial lots within
of settlement and resettlement areas;
a) just compensation; and 9. Annulment or rescission of lease contracts and deeds of sale and the cancellation
b) criminal jurisdiction over which regular courts have jurisdiction. (Vda. De Tangub or amendments of titles of lands under the administration of DAR, homestead
vs. CA, 191 SCRA 885) patents, free patents, miscellaneous sales patents, to setters in settlement and
resettlement areas;
10. Boundary disputes;
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB). 11. Determination of title of agricultural lands where the issue is raised in an
agrarian dispute;
The Adjudication of Cases involves the adjudication of cases by the DARAB. The
12. Cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
adjudication of cases deals with disputes pertaining to tenancy relations; valuation of
defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12; PD No. 946;
lands acquired by DAR under compulsory acquisition mode; rights and obligations of
13. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns referred to it by the
persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management cultivation and use of
Secretary of DAR.
all agricultural lands; ejectment and dispossession of tenants/leaseholders; review of
leasehold rentals; and other similar disputes.
CASES THAT ARE EXCLUSIVELY COGNIZABLE AND UNDER THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE
OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DAR.
DARAB has JURISDICTION over Agrarian Disputes: (Central Mindanao University vs.
1. Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the
DARAB, 215 SCRA 96)
agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of CLOAs and EPs, including
Where there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever between
protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of such coverage;
the parties that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws,
2. Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or
the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board has no jurisdiction. (Heirs of the
disqualification of potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries;
Late Herman Rey Santos vs. CA, 327 SCRA 293).
3. Subdivision surveys of land under CARP;
4. Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease rentals, Certificates of Land
Cases under the primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB
Transfers (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the
purview of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the issuance, recall, or
cancellation of EPs or CLOAs not yet registered with Register of Deeds;
5. Exercise of the right of retention by the landowner; a continuation of the administrative determination. For the matter, the law may provide
6. Application for exemption from coverage under Section 10 of RA 6657; that the decision of the DAR is final and unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to courts
7. Application for exemption pursuant to Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of
NO. 44 (1990); administrative action (Phil. Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 132767, January
8. Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock, swine, 18, 2000).
and poultry raising;
9. Cases of exemption/exclusion of fish pond and prawn farms from the Rule XIII, Section II, the original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the courts to decide
coverage of CARP pursuant to RA 7881; petition for determination of just compensation has already been transformed into an
10. Issuance of Certificate of exemption for land subject Voluntary Officer to Sell appellate jurisdiction.
(VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for agricultural Primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency to determine in a
purposes; preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands taken under
11. Application for conversion of agricultural land to residential, commercial, the CARP, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.
industrial, or other non agricultural uses and purposes including protests or
oppositions thereto;
12. Determination of the rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries to homelots; VALUATION OF LANDS UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27
13. Disposition of excess area of the tenants/farmer-beneficiarys landholdings; The value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one half (2-1/2) times the AVERAGE
14. Increase in area of tillage of a tenant/farmer-beneficiary; HARVEST OF THREE NORMAL CROP YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE
15. Conflict of claims in landed estates administered by DAR and its PROMULGATION OF THIS DECREE
predecessors;
LBP vs. CA and Jose Pascual, G.R. No. 128557, Dec. 29, 1990- The Supreme Court
decided not to apply the 6% increment to the valuation because the Court of
SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT (SAC) Appeals affirmed the PARADs use of the 1992 Gross Selling Price in the valuation of
The Supreme Court shall designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial Court the private respondents lands following the ruling the Court of Appeals in the case of
(RTC) within each province to act as Special Agrarian Court. Galeon vs. Pastoral, CA-G.R. No. 23168.
These Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Sec. SECTION 50-53 of RA 6657 as amended
57 of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
(a) all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR.
(b) the prosecution of all criminal offenses under the Act. (Machete vs. CA, 250 The DAR is hereby vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
SCRA 176) agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive
Just Compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment
its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, that the and Natural Resources (DENR).
measure is not the takers gain but the owners loss. The word just is used to intensify 1) It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but shall
the meaning of the word compensation to convey the idea that the equivalent to be proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most
rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. expeditious manner,
(Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989). 2) It shall have the power to summon witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony,
require submission of reports, compel the production of books and documents
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less original and exclusive,
because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are not
and answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, and subpoena duces tecum, Without or prior to issuance of notice of CARP coverage the applicant/petitionermay file
and enforce its writs through sheriffs his/her initiatory pleading or application before the RD or Provincial Agrarian Reform
Officer (PARO).
3) Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to represent themselves, their However, after the issuance of notice of coverage, the appellant should file his/her
fellow farmers, or their organizations in any proceedings before the DAR: initiatory pleading at the DAR Municipal Office.
provided, however, that when there are two or more representatives for any
individual or group, the representatives should choose only one among C.) Who is allowed to file a petition?
themselves to represent such party or group before any DAR proceedings. Only the real - party - interest may file a pro test or petition to lift CARP coverage within
sixty (60) days from receipt of the notice of coverage or from publication date. Failure to
4) Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall file a protest/petition within the period will be considered a waiver.
be immediately executory.
D.) Who notifies the concerned Farmer Beneficiaries/occupants of the subject land of
5) Any case or controversy before it shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it the initiation of the case?
is submitted for resolution. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) notifies all tenants, leaseholders,
farmworkers, and occupants of the subject l and of the initiation of the case.
6) One motion for reconsideration shall be allowed The proof of notice to all persons above will be part of the case records.
7) Any decision after the lapse of 15 days shall be final E.) Who conducts the investigation of ALI cases?
The PARO, or any Investigating Officer or Committee, which the RD may designate, will
8) The DAR may impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to fines or conduct the investigation and perform whatever is necessary to achieve a just,
censures upon erring parties to prevent frivolous appeals expeditious, and inexpensive disposition of the case.
9) The DAR shall not take cognizance of any agrarian dispute or controversy unless a DARAB Cases
certification from the BARC that the dispute has been submitted to it for A.) Who has the authority to decide on a DARAB case?
mediation and conciliation without any success of settlement is presented: The DAR Adjudicator has the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and
provided, however, that if no certification is issued by the BARC within thirty (30) adjudicate Agrarian Disputes.
days after a matter or issue is submitted to it for mediation or conciliation the
case or dispute may be brought before the PARC. B.) DARAB cases are focused on Agrarian Disputes
2009 Rules of Procedure of the DARAB
Difference between Agrarian Law Implementation Program(admin cases) and Cases for 1) DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
Adjudication DAR Admin. Order No 3 determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of
(ALI vs DARAB) the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under R.A. No. 6657, as
Agrarian Law Implementation Program (administrative cases) amended by R.A. No. 9700, E.O. Nos. 228, 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as
A.) Who has the authority to decide on an ALI case? amended by R.A. No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws
An agrarian administrative matter or ALI case falls under the appellate jurisdiction of the and their Implementing Rules and Regulations.
DAR Secretary and primary jurisdiction of the Regional Director (RD ).
2) DARAB has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review, reverse, modify, alter, or
B.) Where should the application be filed? affirm resolutions, orders and decisions of the Adjudicators.
B.) Summons, notices, and copies of resolutions, orders shall be served personally as far
PETITION as practicable, or by registered mail upon the party himself, his counsel, or his duly
1) Filing of the petition - An action before the Adjudicator shall be initiated by filing authorized representative. However, notice to the counsel is notice to the party himself
a sworn complaint or verified petition with the Adjudicator in the Province where whether he is a complainant or petitioner, or a defendant or respondent.
the land involved is located.
2) Upon the filing of the pleading or other application which initiates an action or
proceeding, the fees prescribed therefor shall be paid in full. PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE
3) The complaint or petition may be amended, or supplemented at any time before After the last pleading shall have been served and filed, or upon receipt of the BARC
a responsive pleading is served or, in case of a reply, at any time within five (5) certification of non-settlement in instances when the case was referred to the BARC for
days after it is served. mediation/conciliation, the Adjudicator shall set the case for a preliminary conference.
4) A party may not institute more than one suit for a single cause of action. During the preliminary conference and at any stage of the proceedings, the Board or the
5) A complainant or petitioner having more than one cause of action against the Adjudicator shall exert all efforts and take positive steps for the amicable settlement of
same defendant or respondent arising out of the same questioned relationship the case.
shall join all of them in one complaint or petition.
PROCEEDINGS
PARTIES The proceedings before the Adjudicator shall be non-litigious in nature.
1) Every agrarian case must be initiated and defended in the name of the real party The Adjudicator shall personally conduct the hearing. He shall take full control of the
in interest. All parties having an interest in the matter shall be joined as proceedings. He may examine the parties and witnesses freely with respect to the
complainant or petitioner. matters at issue, and shall limit the right of the parties or their counsels to ask questions
only for the purpose of clarifying the points of law at issue or of facts involved in the
2) The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to substitute the deceased without case. He shall also limit the presentation of evidence by the contending parties only to
requiring the appointment of an executor or administrator. matters relevant and material to the issues and necessary for a just, expeditious, and
inexpensive disposition of the case
Only one motion for reconsideration shall be allowed
Pauper Litigant. A party who is an agricultural lessee, share tenant, actual tiller,
amortizing owner-cultivator, farm-worker, a member of any farmers' organization, Who May Intervene. A person who has a legal interest on the matter in litigation, or in
association, or a farmers' cooperative, as alleged and applied for in a sworn complaint or the success of either of the parties or an interest against both, or has a substantial right
motion, shall be entitled to the rights and privileges of a pauper litigant under these or interest in the subject matter of the case before the Adjudicator or Board, may be
Rules without further proof thereof. He shall continue to enjoy such status as a pauper allowed to intervene in the action by filing a pleading-in-intervention.
litigant at all levels of adjudication until the case is terminated.
FINAL ORDERS
The decisions/resolutions/final orders of the Adjudicator shall be in writing, prepared
SERVICE OF PLEADINGS and signed by him and filed with the Regional or Provincial Clerk of the Adjudicator. It
A.) The party filing the pleading subsequent to the complaint shall serve the opposing shall clearly and completely state the findings of fact and specify the evidence and the
party with a copy thereof in the manner provided for in these Rules and proof of such law or jurisprudence upon which the decision is based.
service shall be filed with the records of the case After the judgment/resolution/final order is signed by the Adjudicator or Members of the
Board, the same shall be filed with the Regional or Provincial Clerk of the Adjudicator or
of the Board, respectively, who shall indicate thereon the date of promulgation thereof.
If no appeal or motion for reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these rules, AUTHORITY OF THE DAR SECRETARY TO NULLIFY TITLES UNDER THE CARP (cases)
the decision/resolution/final order of the Board or Adjudicator shall be entered in the
DEPT OF AGRARIAN REFORM VS CUENCA
Book of Entries of Decisions by the Clerk of the Board and the Regional or Provincial
Clerk of the Adjudicator, respectively. The date of finality of the decision/resolution/final The RTCs have not been completely divested of jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters.
order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. Section 56 of RA 6657 confers special jurisdiction on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are
actually RTCs designated as such by the Supreme Court. The DAR could not be ousted
from its authority by the simple expediency of appending an allegedly constitutional or
APPEALS legal dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian.. the jurisprudential trend is for courts
to refrain from resolving a controversy involving matters that demand the special
An appeal may be taken to the Board from a resolution, decision or final order of the
competence of administrative agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] also
Adjudicator that completely disposes of the case by either or both of the parties within a
judicial in character,"
period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution/decision/final order appealed
from or of the denial of the movant's motion for reconsideration
VDA De Tangub vs CA
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however, been completely divested of jurisdiction
APPEAL TO THE CA over agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers "special
jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Courts," which are Regional Trial Courts designated by
Any decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of the Board on any agrarian dispute or
the Supreme Court at least one (1) branch within each province to act as such.
any matter pertaining to the application, implementation, enforcement, interpretation of
These Regional Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have, according to Section 57 of
agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, may be brought
the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over:
on appeal within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals
1) "all petitions for the determination of just compensation to land-owners," and
in accordance with the Rules of Court.
2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses under . . [the] Act."
The findings of fact of the Board, if based on substantial evidence,
Except for the Supreme Court, no court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue
DAR vs Cuenca
any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the Board or its
Adjudicators in any case, dispute or controversy arising from Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it follows that
the RTC of La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to issue the assailed Writ
of Preliminary Injunction. That Writ must perforce be stricken down as a nullity. Such
RELIEF FROM FINAL ORDER nullity is particularly true in the light of the express prohibitory provisions of the CARP
and this Courts Administrative Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002. These Circulars enjoin
When a decision/resolution/final order is rendered by the Adjudicator against any party,
all trial judges to strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads:
through fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence and such party has no other
Section 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference.
adequate remedy available to him in the ordinary course of law, he may file a petition for
relief with said Adjudicator, praying that the decision/resolution/final order be set aside. No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower
courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture
(DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department
EXECUTION UPON FINAL ORDER of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program.
Execution shall issue upon an order, resolution or decision that finally disposes of the
action or proceeding. Such execution shall issue as a matter of course and upon the Beneficiaries vs Lapanday
expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected.
"All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts 1.) Determination of an Agrarian Dispute for cases filed in courts and prosecutors office
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended
authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters. "SEC. 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. - No court or prosecutor's office
Jurisdiction over the present controversy lies with the DARAB. As the RTC had correctly shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the implementation of the CARP except those
dismissed the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it was superfluous for the trial provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation
court -- and the CA for that matter -- to have ruled further on the issue of the validity of from any of the parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a
the agreement. farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be automatically referred by the judge or
the prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy referral whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided, That from the determination of the
over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an administrative body of special DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In cases referred by the municipal
competence.2 trial court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with the proper regional trial
Since the DARAB had already ruled in a separate case on the validity of the Joint Venture court, and in cases referred by the regional trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of
Agreement,the proper remedy for petitioner was to question the Boards judgment Appeals.
through a timely appeal with the CA. Because of the manifest lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the RTC, we must defer any opinion on the other issues raised by petitioner until "In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction,
an appropriate review of a similar case reaches this Court. agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall
have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective
Rafael Magpily vs Dela Jesus rights and/or interests under the CARP.
Private respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that he was an agricultural
tenant of Magpily and that the instant case involves an agrarian dispute cognizable by "The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange
the DARAB. The MTC thus lawfully took cognizance of the present controversy which Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government
involves the gratuitous occupation of anothers property which became unlawful by agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and
virtue of the owners withdrawal of consent or tolerance to such occupation. interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."
Possession by tolerance is lawful, but such possession becomes unlawful when the 2.) DAR Administrative Order No. 3 Series 2011 July 19, 2011
possessor by tolerance refuses to vacate upon demand made by the owner. A person
Whether or not a case is agrarian in nature is discussed in the case of DAR vs. Roberto
who occupies the land of another at the latters tolerance or permission, without any
Cuenca, et al., (G.R. No. 154112, 23 September 2004) where the Supreme Court held
contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise to vacate upon
that: "All controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy.
Program (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
even though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts
--- O --- O --- O ---
should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original
authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters."
From the foregoing, it is therefore declared that the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) shall have exclusive jurisdiction on all cases that are agrarian in nature.
CHAPTER XII These guidelines shall apply to the procedure on the referral of cases which are agrarian
DETERMINATION OF CASES IN COURTS AND PROSECUTORS OFFICE in nature to the DAR by the Prosecutor's Office, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court (MCTC, MTC,
MeTC, and RTC, respectively), whether it be criminal or civil in nature, except those have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective
involving issues of just compensation or the prosecution of criminal offenses as provided rights and/or interests under the CARP.
for by Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700.
"The fact of non-registration of such associations with the Securities and Exchange
The determination by the DAR as to whether an agrarian dispute exists or not, or on Commission, or Cooperative Development Authority, or any concerned government
whether the case is agrarian in nature, shall be done through a summary proceeding agency shall not be used against them to deny the existence of their legal standing and
involving a strictly factual investigation. No motion for extension of time or any similar interest in a case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial bodies."
pleading of a dilatory character shall be entertained nor given due course. To this end,
the Chief of the Legal Division, or the DAR lawyer or legal officer assigned, shall exert all When the case is subject of inquest and there is an allegation by any of the parties that
reasonable means to ascertain the facts based on the testimonies and evidence the case is agrarian in nature or an agrarian dispute and one of them is a farmer,
presented. They may verify the position papers submitted by the parties, ascertaining farmworker or tenant, or involves the implementation of the CARP, the inquest
that the concerned party is the one causing the preparation thereof, and that the prosecutor shall immediately refer the case to the PARO and release the respondent for
allegations therein are true based on personal knowledge or authentic records and further preliminary investigation. The above allegations must be written, made under
documents. oath, and the party making such allegations signs the Minutes of the Inquest.
To preclude conflict of interest, in no case should the DAR lawyer serving as counsel for For cases that are already pending and are under preliminary investigation (at the time of
the farmer-beneficiary be assigned as the hearing officer. Moreover, no hearing officer the effectivity of this Circular), upon motion by any of the parties or motu propio, if
should handle a case involving a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or previous pleadings filed contain allegations which may be the grounds for referral, the
affinity who is a party thereto. investigating prosecutor shall proceed in accordance with Section 4.A.2 hereof.
If there is a prima facie presumption that an agrarian dispute exists or that the case is
agrarian in nature, the burden of proving the contrary shall be on the party alleging the 4.) OCA Circular No. 62-2010 dated April 26, 2010
same. Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, only
farmers (tenants or lessees) and regular farmworkers actually tilling the lands, as
3.) DOJ DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 40 dated June 7, 2010 certified under oath by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) and attested under
No court or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of cases pertaining to the oath by the landowners, are the qualified beneficiaries. The intended beneficiary shall
implementation of the CARP except those provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No. state under oath before the judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing to
6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from any of the parties that the case is work on the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation of paying the
agrarian in nature and one of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant, the case shall amortization for the compensation of the land and the land taxes thereon; . . . ."
be automatically referred by the judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall Department of Agrarian Reform v. Cuenca, where the Court stated that "[a]
determine and certify within fifteen (15) days from referral whether an agrarian dispute controversies on the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
exists: (CARP) fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), even
Provided, That from the determination of the DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial though they raise questions that are also legal or constitutional in nature. All doubts
recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial court and the prosecutor's office, the should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has granted it special and original
appeal shall be with the proper regional trial court, and in cases referred by the regional authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian matters." (Emphasis supplied)
trial court, the appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
In Salazar v. de Leon, the Court dismissed the Complaint for recovery of possession of
"In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, real property and declared that the dispute between the parties as landowner and
agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the domain of the DARAB. The Court also noted
that such ruling is "in line with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction which precludes the
regular courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with
an administrative body of special competence." CHAPTER XIV:
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR BENEFICIARIES
This jurisprudential trend shows the Court's recognition of DAR as the administrative
body of special competence and expertise granted by law with primary and exclusive
original jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. In furtherance of the Court's policy to
expedite the resolution of cases involving agrarian disputes and to fully implement the
objectives of agrarian reform laws, all courts and judges concerned are hereby enjoined
to strictly observe Section 50-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, and refer
all cases before it alleged to involve an agrarian dispute to the DAR for the necessary
determination and certification.
CHAPTER XV:
SSS LAW & GSIS LAW
- Free medical and dental services in all government facilities - If the senior citizen is also a person with disability (PWD), the senior citizen may
choose whether to avail of his Senior Citizen Card or his PWD Card
- Exemption from trainer fees for socio-economic programs
- Educational assistance for post secondary, tertiary, post tertiary, vocational and Indigent Senior Citizens
technical education, as well as short-term courses for retooling in both public - Free vaccination from the DOH against the influenza virus and pneumococcal
and private schools disease
- Continuance of the same benefits and privileges given by the GSIS, the SSS, and - Monthly stipend from the government in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos
the Pag-Ibig, as the case may be (P500.00)
- Special discounts in special programs for senior citizens on purchase of basic - Philhealth coverage
commodities
Death benefit assistance from the government in the amount of at least Two Thousand
- Express lanes in all commercial and government establishments Pesos (P2,000.00)
Criminal Offenses and Penalties
- Death benefit assistance of a minimum of Two thousand pesos (Php2,000.00) to Refusal to honor the senior citizen card
be given to the nearest surviving relative of a deceased senior citizen
First violation:
o Imprisonment ranging from 2 years to 6 years; and
Senior Citizen Discount and VAT Exemption applies also to credit card o Fine of P50,000.00 to P100,000.00;
- The 20% discount and VAT exemption also apply to purchases of goods and
services paid through credit cards Subsequent violation:
o Imprisonment ranging from 2 years to 6 years; and
o Fine of P100,000.00 to P200,000.00
Proof of Entitlement
Abuse of senior citizen privileges
- Senior citizens ID issued by the Offices for the Senior Citizens Affairs (OSCA)
Sec. 14. fundamental equality before the law of women and men
Penalties: The State shall protect working women by providing safe and healthful working
o Imprisonment for 6 months; and conditions
o Fine of P50,000.00 to P100,000.00
- Revised Penal Code covered offenses committed against women, e.g., physical
injuries, rape, acts of lasciviousness, seduction, parricide, homicide, murder PURPOSE (Sec. 2)
It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and
Civil Law guarantees full respect for human rights
- Had discriminatory provisions on women, treated as subordinate to husbands
To protect the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence
- Could not accept gifts from men other than their husbands without their consent and threats to their personal safety and security
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
1987 CONSTITUTION: State Policies woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom
Sec. 2 adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
the land (CEDAW, CRC, other Conventions) without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
- Full respect for human rights psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but
is not limited to, the following acts:
BATTERY - an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to the
PHYSICAL VIOLENCE acts that include bodily or physical harm physical and psychological or emotional distress.
SEXUAL VIOLENCE an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME - scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
child, including but not limited to: behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
1. rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as
a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically STALKING - an intentional act committed by a person who, knowingly and without lawful
attacking the sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch obscene justification follows the woman or her child or places the woman or her child under
publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do surveillance directly or indirectly or a combination thereof.
indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/lover to
live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser; DATING RELATIONSHIP - a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without
2. acts causing or attempting to cause the victim to engage in any sexual activity by the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis
force, threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization
or coercion; between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship.
3. Prostituting the woman or child.
SEXUAL RELATIONS - a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a
PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE - acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or common child
emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment,
stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and
mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (Sec. 5)
or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the
witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or following acts:
unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children
1. Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
ECONOMIC ABUSE - acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent 2. Threatening to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
which includes, but is not limited to the following: 3. Attempting to cause the woman or her child physical harm;
4. Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm;
1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any 5. Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or her child to engage in conduct
legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein which the woman or her child has the right to desist from or desist from conduct
the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as which the woman or her child has the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or
defined in Article 73 of the Family Code; restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of movement or conduct by force or
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial resources and the right to the threat of force, physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
use and enjoyment of the conjugal, community or property owned in intimidation directed against the woman or child. This shall include, but not limited
common; to, the following acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or
3. destroying household property; restricting the woman's or her child's movement or conduct:
4. controlling the victims' own money or properties or solely controlling the
conjugal money or properties. Threatening to deprive or actually depriving the woman or her child of custody
to her/his family;
Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her children of financial ELEMENTS
support legally due her or her family, or deliberately providing the woman's
children insufficient financial support; (3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the a. Relationship, past or present
woman or her child of a legal right; b. Married or not; living in or not
Preventing the woman in engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, c. Sexual or dating relationship
business or activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or properties, or d. Including lesbian relationships
solely controlling the conjugal or common money, or properties; e. With common child
Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on oneself for the purpose of f. Falling under Sec. 5 (punishable acts)
controlling her actions or decisions;
Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her child to engage in any sexual VENUE (Sec. 7)
activity which does not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical RTC designated as Family Court (EOJ)
harm, or through intimidation directed against the woman or her child or her/his
immediate family; RELIEFS/REMEDIES
Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through PROTECTION ORDER (Sec. 8)
another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to A protection order is an order issued under this act for the purpose of preventing further
the woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts of violence against a woman or her child specified in Section 5 of this Act and
acts: granting other necessary relief.
1. Stalking or following the woman or her child in public or private
places; KINDS:
2. Peering in the window or lingering outside the residence of the
1. Barangay protection order (BPO) (Sec. 14) issued by the Punong Barangay
woman or her child;
ordering the perpetrator to desist from committing acts under Sec. 5 (a) and (b)
3. Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the property of the woman
of this Act
or her child against her/his will;
2. Temporary protection order (TPO) (Sec. 15) issued by the court on the date of
4. Destroying the property and personal belongings or inflicting harm to
filing of the application after ex parte determination that such order should be
animals or pets of the woman or her child; and
issued; effective for 30 days
5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
3. Permanent Protection order (PPO) (Sec. 16) issued by the court after notice
6. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to
and hearing
the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal
and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of
WHO MAY FILE PETITION FOR PO (Sec. 9)
minor children of access to the woman's child/children.
1. Offended party
2. Parents or guardians of offended party
WHO ARE LIABLE?
3. Ascendants, descendants or collateral relatives within the fourth civil degree of
a. Husbands; consanguinity or affinity
b. Former Husbands; 4. Officers or social workers of the DSWD or social workers of LGUs
c. Present & Former Boyfriends or Live-In Partners; 5. Police officers, preferably those in charge of women and childrens desks
d. Those with whom the woman has a common child; or 6. Punong barangay or Barangay Kagawad
e. Anyone with whom she has/had sexual or dating relationship. 7. Lawyer, counsellor, therapist or healthcare provider of the petitioner
At least 2 concerned responsible citizens of the city or municipality where the violence
against.
SOME CASES AND DOCTRINES IN AGRARIAN REFORM
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC, VS. HONORABLE ISSUE:
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, G.R. NO. 78742 JULY 14, 1989
Whether or not the laws being challenged is a valid exercise of Police power or Power of
Eminent Domain.
ARSENIO AL. ACUNA, ET. AL. VS. JOKER ARROYO, PHILIP E. JUICO AND PARC G.R. NO.
79744 JULY 14, 1989
RULING:
INOCENTES PABICO VS. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM G.R.
NO. 79777 JULY 14, 1989 Police Power through the Power of Eminent Domain, though there are traditional
distinction between the police power and the power of eminent domain, property
NICOLAS S. MANAAY ET. AL. VS. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET. AL. condemned under police power is noxious or intended for noxious purpose, the
compensation for the taking of such property is not subject to compensation, unlike the
FACTS: taking of the property in Eminent Domain or the power of expropriation which requires
the payment of just compensation to the owner of the property expropriated.
These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including serious
challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 also known as the "Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988"
In G.R. No. 79777, the petitioners are questioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O Nos. 228 and
229 on the grounds inter alia of separation of powers, due process, equal protection and
the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use
without just compensation.
In G.R. No. 79310, the petitioners in this case claim that the power to provide for a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to the
Congress and not to the President, the also allege that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No.
229 should be annulled for violation of the constitutional provisions on just
compensation, due process and equal protection. They contended that the taking must
be simultaneous with payment of just compensation which such payment is not
contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.
In G.R. No. 79744, the petitioner argues that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued
by the President and that the said executive orders violate the constitutional provision
that no private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation which
was denied to the petitioners.
In G.R. No 78742 the petitioners claim that 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 of the decree. They therefore ask the Honorable
Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue the said rules.
HACIENDA LUISITA INC. (HLI) V. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIANREFORM COUNCIL (PARC), ET
AL., G.R. NO. 171101, NOVEMBER 22, 2011 THE CRUCIAL ISSUE: Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified
FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be reconsidered?
In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform , we However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact that
held that "The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in question form a vital
ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the landowner of the part of a watershed area.
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land in dispute is a "watershed or part of
bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No the protected area for watershed purposes." Ecological balances and environmental
outright change of ownership is contemplated either." disasters in our day and age seem to be interconnected. Property developers and tillers
Consequently, petitioner questioned before the Court of Appeals DARAB's decision of the land must be aware of this deadly combination. In the case at bar, DAR included
ordering the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property. Here, petitioner pressed the the disputed parcels of land for compulsory acquisition simply because the land was
question of whether the property was a watershed, not covered by CARP. allegedly devoted to agriculture and was titled to SRRDC, hence, private and alienable
land that may be subject to CARP.
Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides:
"Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface water or However, the scenario has changed, after an in-depth study, survey and reassessment.
overlying any ground water may be declared by the Department of Natural We cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area
resources as a protected area. Rules and Regulations may be promulgated by that need to be protected for watershed purposes. In a report of the Ecosystems
such Department to prohibit or control such activities by the owners or Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), a research arm of the DENR, regarding the
occupants thereof within the protected area which may damage or cause the environmental assessment of the Casile and Kabanga-an river watersheds, they
deterioration of the surface water or ground water or interfere with the concluded that:
investigation, use, control, protection, management or administration of such "The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in question is situated in the heartland of
waters." both watersheds. Considering the barangays proximity to the Matangtubig
waterworks, the activities of the farmers which are in conflict with proper soil
Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and and water conservation practices jeopardize and endanger the vital waterworks.
enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds." Degradation of the land would have double edge detrimental effects. On the
Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why was the Casile property Casile side this would mean direct siltation of the Mangumit river which drains to
titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of the titling, the the water impounding reservoir below. On the Kabanga-an side, this would mean
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources had not declared the property as destruction of forest covers which acts as recharged areas of the Matang Tubig
watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared as "PARK" by a springs. Considering that the people have little if no direct interest in the
Zoning Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the protection of the Matang Tubig structures they couldn't care less even if it would
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of be destroyed.
The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can be considered a most vital life mandated to protect and maintain the area in question as a permanent
support system to thousands of inhabitants directly and indirectly affected by it. watershed reserved."
From these watersheds come the natural God-given precious resource water. x
xxxx The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The most
Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally inconsistent with sound watershed important product of a watershed is water which is one of the most important human
management. More so, the introduction of earth disturbing activities like road necessity. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future
building and erection of permanent infrastructures. Unless the pernicious generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss
agricultural activities of the Casile farmers are immediately stopped, it would not of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational responsibility" that needs to be
be long before these watersheds would cease to be of value. The impact of answered now.
watershed degredation threatens the livelihood of thousands of people
dependent upon it. Toward this, we hope that an acceptable comprehensive Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing,
watershed development policy and program be immediately formulated and petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which
implemented before the irreversible damage finally happens. exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section 10, provides:
Hence, the following are recommended: "Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and exclusively
7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated and given financial assistance. used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration,
7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as critical and in need of fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national
immediate rehabilitation. defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations
7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed management plan and operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and
program be formulated and implemented by the Canlubang Estate in seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents
coordination with pertinent government agencies." appurtenent thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies
The ERDB report was prepared by a composite team headed by Dr. Emilio Rosario, the and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private
ERDB Director, who holds a doctorate degree in water resources from U.P. Los Banos in research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope
1987; Dr. Medel Limsuan, who obtained his doctorate degree in watershed management and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from coverage of this
from Colorado University (US) in 1989; and Dr. Antonio M. Dano, who obtained his Act."
doctorate degree in Soil and Water management Conservation from U.P. Los Banos in
1993. Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the disputed parcels
of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP because of
Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala submitted a Memorandum for the President dated its very high slopes.
September 7, 1993 (Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: 933103 Presidential Instructions on the To resolve the issue as to the true nature of the parcels of land involved in the case at
Protection of Watersheds of the Canlubang Estates at Barrio Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna) bar, the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the issue.
which reads:
"It is the opinion of this office that the area in question must be maintained for IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R.
watershed purposes for ecological and environmental considerations, among SP No. 27234.
others. Although the 88 families who are the proposed CARP beneficiaries will be In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and
affected, it is important that a larger view of the situation be taken as one should determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its
also consider the adverse effect on thousands of residents downstream if the coverage by the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.
watershed will not be protected and maintained for watershed purposes.
"The foregoing considered, it is recommended that if possible, an alternate area In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed farmer
be allocated for the affected farmers, and that the Canlubang Estates be beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order issued on
December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final decision on the case.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ROXAS & CO., INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS October 6, 1989 at the DAR office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the DAR
G.R. NO. 127876 DECEMBER 17, 1999 investigation of Hacienda Palico, which was "scheduled for compulsory acquisition this
year under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."
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. On October 25, 1989, the MARO completed three (3) Investigation Reports after
6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. 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 to
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three undulating (0-8% slope)" and actually occupied and cultivated by 34 tillers of sugarcane.
haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the 5 In the second Report, the MARO identified as "flat to undulating" approximately 339
Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda Palico is 1,024 hectares in area and is hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0234 which also had several actual occupants and
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 985. This land is covered by Tax tillers of sugarcane; 6 while in the third Report, the MARO found approximately 75
Declaration Nos. 0465, 0466, 0468, 0470, 0234 and 0354. Hacienda Banilad is 1,050 hectare under Tax Declaration No. 0354 as "flat to undulating" with 33 actual occupants
hectares in area, registered under TCT No. 924 and covered by Tax Declaration Nos. 0236, and tillers also of sugarcane.
0237 and 0390. Hacienda Caylaway is 867.4571 hectares in area and is registered under On October 27, 1989, a "Summary Investigation Report" was submitted and signed
TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665. 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
The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then President Corazon C. (PARO). The Report recommended that 333.0800 hectares of Hacienda Palico be subject
Aquino. In February 1986, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 promulgating a to compulsory acquisition at a value of P6,807,622.20. 8 The following day, October 28,
Provisional Constitution. As head of the provisional government, the President exercised 1989, two (2) more Summary Investigation Reports were submitted by the same officers
legislative power "until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution." and representatives. They recommended that 270.0876 hectares and 75.3800 hectares
1 In the exercise of this legislative power, the President signed on July 22, 1987, be placed under compulsory acquisition at a compensation of P8,109,739.00 and
Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and P2,188,195.47, respectively.
Executive Order No. 229 providing the mechanisms necessary to initially implement the
program. 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
On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over follows:
legislative power from the President. 2 This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Roxas y Cia, Limited
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the Soriano Bldg., Plaza Cervantes
President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988. Manila, Metro Manila.
Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent DAR a Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in Hacienda Palico were
voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. subject to immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL;
Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory acquisition by that based on the DAR's valuation criteria, the government was offering compensation of
respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL. P3.4 million for 333.0800 hectares; that whether this offer was to be accepted or
Hacienda Palico rejected, petitioner was to inform the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD)
of the DAR; that in case of petitioner's rejection or failure to reply within thirty days,
On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent Municipal Agrarian respondent DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings with notice to
Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice entitled "Invitation to petitioner to determine just compensation for the land; that if petitioner accepts
Parties" to petitioner. The Invitation was addressed to "Jaime Pimentel, Hda. respondent DAR's offer, or upon deposit of the compensation with an accessible bank if
Administrator, Hda. Palico." 3 Therein, the MARO invited petitioner to a conference on it rejects the same, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land.
Report, it was found that approximately 235 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0390
Almost two years later, on September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the were "flat to undulating," on which were 92 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane.
LBP Land Valuation Manager three (3) separate Memoranda entitled "Request to Open
Trust Account." Each Memoranda requested that a trust account representing the The results of these Reports were discussed at the conference. Present in the conference
valuation of three portions of Hacienda Palico be opened in favor of the petitioner in were representatives of the prospective farmer beneficiaries, the BARC, the LBP, and
view of the latter's rejection of its offered value. 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
Meanwhile in a letter dated May 4, 1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion MARO, representatives of the BARC, LBP, and the PARO. They recommended that after
of Haciendas Palico and Banilad from agricultural to non-agricultural lands under the ocular inspection of the property, 234.6498 hectares under Tax Declaration No. 0390 be
provisions of the CARL. 13 On July 14, 1993, petitioner sent a letter to the DAR Regional subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution by CLOA. The following day,
Director reiterating its request for conversion of the two haciendas. September 22, 1989, a second Summary Investigation was submitted by the same
officers. They recommended that 737.2590 hectares under Tax Declaration Nos. 0236
Despite petitioner's application for conversion, respondent DAR proceeded with the and 0237 be likewise placed under compulsory acquisition for distribution.
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, On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department Secretary, sent to
from the mother title of TCT No. 985 of the Hacienda, respondent DAR registered petitioner two (2) separate "Notices of Acquisition" over Hacienda Banilad. These Notices
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6654. On 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
October 30, 1993, CLOA's were distributed to farmer beneficiaries. addressed to:
Hacienda Banilad Roxas y Cia. Limited
On August 23, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MARO of Nasugbu, 7th Floor, Cacho-Gonzales Bldg. 101 Aguirre St., Leg.
Batangas, sent a notice to petitioner addressed as follows: Makati, Metro Manila.
Mr. Jaime Pimentel Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of P15,108,995.52 for 729.4190
Hacienda Administrator hectares and P4,428,496.00 for 234.6498 hectares.
Hacienda Banilad
Nasugbu, Batangas On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation
Manager a "Request to Open Trust Account" in petitioner's name as compensation for
The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to compulsory 234.6493 hectares of Hacienda Banilad. A second "Request to Open Trust Account" was
acquisition under the CARL; that should petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes sent on November 18, 1991 over 723.4130 hectares of said Hacienda.
such as Voluntary Offer to Sell or Voluntary Land Transfer, respondent DAR was willing to
provide assistance thereto. On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts of P4,428,496.40 and
On September 18, 1989, the MARO sent an "Invitation to Parties" again to Pimentel P21,234,468.78 in cash and LBP bonds had been earmarked as compensation for
inviting the latter to attend a conference on September 21, 1989 at the MARO Office in petitioner's land in Hacienda Banilad.
Nasugbu to discuss the results of the MARO's investigation over Hacienda Banilad. On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
Hacienda Caylaway
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 Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988
under Tax Declaration Nos. 0237 and 0236 were "flat to undulating (0-8% slope)." On this before the effectivity of the CARL. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares
area were discovered 162 actual occupants and tillers of sugarcane. In the second and is covered by four (4) titles TCT Nos. T-44662, T-44663, T-44664 and T-44665. On
January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director for Region IV, sent to
petitioner two (2) separate Resolutions accepting petitioner's voluntary offer to sell b. Resolution No. 19 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas
Hacienda Caylaway, particularly TCT Nos. T-44664 and T-44663. The Resolutions were approving the Zoning Ordinance reclassifying areas covered by the
addressed to: referenced titles to non-agricultural which was enacted after extensive
consultation with government agencies, including [the Department of
Roxas & Company, Inc. Agrarian Reform], and the requisite public hearings.
7th Flr. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg.
Aguirre, Legaspi Village
Makati, M. M c. Resolution No. 106 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas dated
March 8, 1993 approving the Zoning Ordinance enacted by the
On September 4, 1990, the DAR Regional Director issued two separate Memoranda to Municipality of Nasugbu.
the LBP Regional Manager requesting for the valuation of the land under TCT Nos. T-
44664 and T-44663. 32 On the same day, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director, d. Letter dated December 15, 1992 issued by Reynaldo U. Garcia of the
sent to petitioner a "Notice of Acquisition" over 241.6777 hectares under TCT No. T- Municipal Planning & Development, Coordinator and Deputized Zoning
44664 and 533.8180 hectares under TCT No. T-44663. 33 Like the Resolutions of Administrator addressed to Mrs. Alicia P. Logarta advising that the
Acceptance, the Notice of Acquisition was addressed to petitioner at its office in Makati, Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas has no objection to the conversion of
Metro Manila. the lands subject of referenced titles to non-agricultural.
Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent On August 24, 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. N-0017-96-46 (BA) with respondent
a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOA's issued by
The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of respondent DAR in the name of several persons. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed of Nasugbu, where the haciendas are located, had been declared a tourist zone, that the
respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from land is not suitable for agricultural production, and that the
agricultural to other nuses.
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to non-agricultural.
In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved
a reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent the prejudicial question of whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence,
Secretary also denied petitioner's withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal this question should be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for
could only be based on specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or determination.
if the slope of the land is over 18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped.
On October 29, 1993, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals CA-G.R. SP No. 32484. It
Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993, questioned the expropriation of its properties under the CARL and the denial of due
petitioner filed its application for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad. On process in the acquisition of its landholdings.
July 14, 1993, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo Roxas, reiterated its request to
withdraw the VOS over Hacienda Caylaway in light of the following: Meanwhile, the petition for conversion of the three haciendas was denied by the MARO
a. Certification issued by Conrado I. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge, on November 8, 1993.
Department of Agriculture, Region 4, 4th Floor, ATI (BA) Bldg., Diliman,
Quezon City dated March 1, 1993 stating that the lands subject of Petitioner's petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on April 28, 1994. Petitioner
referenced titles "are not feasible and economically sound for further moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied on January 17, 1997 by
agricultural development. respondent court.
Hence, this recourse. Petitioner assigns the following errors:
In its first assigned error, petitioner claims that respondent Court of Appeals gravely
A. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT erred in finding that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. As a general
PETITIONER'S CAUSE OF ACTION IS PREMATURE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IN VIEW OF THE PATENT ILLEGALITY OF THE RESPONDENTS' is expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress. This is not absolute,
ACTS, THE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE CAUSED BY SAID ILLEGAL ACTS, AND THE ABSENCE OF however. There are instances when judicial action may be resorted to immediately.
A PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW ALL OF Among these exceptions are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal; (2) when the
WHICH ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE SAID DOCTRINE. administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; (4)
when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when the respondent acted in
B. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT disregard of due process; (6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts,
PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO COVERAGE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter; (7)
AGRARIAN REFORM LAW, IN VIEW OF THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT PETITIONER'S when irreparable damage will be suffered; (8) when there is no other plain, speedy and
LANDHOLDINGS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES BY PRESIDENTIAL adequate remedy; (9) when strong public interest is involved; (10) when the subject of
PROCLAMATION NO. 1520 WHICH DECLARED THE MUNICIPALITY NASUGBU, BATANGAS the controversy is private land; and (11) in quo warranto proceedings.
AS A TOURIST ZONE, AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU Petitioner rightly sought immediate redress in the courts. There was a violation of its
RE-CLASSIFYING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF PETITIONER'S LANDHOLDINGS AS NON- rights and to require it to exhaust administrative remedies before the DAR itself was not
AGRICULTURAL, BOTH OF WHICH PLACE SAID LANDHOLDINGS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF a plain, speedy and adequate remedy.
AGRARIAN REFORM, OR AT THE VERY LEAST ENTITLE PETITIONER TO APPLY FOR
CONVERSION AS CONCEDED BY RESPONDENT DAR. Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) to farmer
beneficiaries over portions of petitioner's land without just compensation to petitioner. A
C. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a
THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT DAR VOID FOR FAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE beneficiary under R.A. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Before
PROCESS, CONSIDERING THAT RESPONDENTS BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PROCEDURE this may be awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the State
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS UNDER R.A. 6657, MORE PARTICULARLY, IN from the landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer of possession
FAILING TO GIVE DUE NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER AND TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY THE and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the
SPECIFIC AREAS SOUGHT TO BE ACQUIRED. landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation
with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner. There was no
D. RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO receipt by petitioner of any compensation for any of the lands acquired by the
RECOGNIZE THAT PETITIONER WAS BRAZENLY AND ILLEGALLY DEPRIVED OF ITS government.
PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT
PAID JUST COMPENSATION BEFORE IT WAS UNCEREMONIOUSLY STRIPPED OF ITS The kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The law provides that
LANDHOLDINGS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF CLOA'S TO ALLEGED FARMER the deposit must be made only in "cash" or "LBP bonds." Respondent DAR's opening of
BENEFICIARIES, IN VIOLATION OF R.A. 6657. trust account deposits in petitioner' s name with the Land Bank of the Philippines does
The assigned errors involve three (3) principal issues: (1) whether this Court can take not constitute payment under the law. Trust account deposits are not cash or LBP bonds.
cognizance of this petition despite petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative The replacement of the trust account with cash or LBP bonds did not ipso facto cure the
remedies; (2) whether the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid lack of compensation; for essentially, the determination of this compensation was
and in accordance with law; and (3) assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from marred by lack of due process. In fact, in the entire acquisition proceedings, respondent
agricultural to non-agricultural, whether this court has the power to rule on this issue. DAR disregarded the basic requirements of administrative due process. Under these
circumstances, the issuance of the CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries necessitated
I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. immediate judicial action on the part of the petitioner.
II. The Validity of the Acquisition Proceedings Over the Haciendas. e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of
Petitioner's allegation of lack of due process goes into the validity of the acquisition rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an
proceedings themselves. Before we rule on this matter, however, there is need to lay accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP
down the procedure in the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the law. 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
A. Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657 Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR
Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), provides shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
for two (2) modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and voluntary. The beneficiaries.
procedure for the compulsory acquisition of private lands is set forth in Section 16 of R.A.
6657, viz: f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of
Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:
a) a). After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and the
the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a
personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in Notice of Acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post
the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where
located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the
value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or
pertinent provisions hereof. 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
b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to
shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. 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.
c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner
the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the
delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, the
Certificate of Title and other muniments of title. 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
d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be
administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR
requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence in the regular courts for final determination of just compensation.
as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of the land acquisition to
the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 46
submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification
it is submitted for decision. 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 or 1989, which set the operating procedure in the
identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows:
duly certified correct by the PARO and all the personnel who
II. OPERATING PROCEDURE participated in the accomplishment of these forms.
A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, with the assistance of the pertinent
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall:
1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area 3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through
of responsibility. The masterlist shall include such information as required under the ocular inspection and verification of the property. This ocular
attached CARP Masterlist Form which shall include the name of the landowner, inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the computed
landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number. value exceeds = 500,000 per estate.
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 4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder,
landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land acquisition. A together with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his
case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms: recommendations, to the Central Office. The LBP representative and
a) CARP CA Form 1 MARO Investigation Report the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report.
b) CARP CA Form 2 Summary Investigation Report of Findings
and Evaluation C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
c) CARP CA Form 3 Applicant's Information Sheet Distribution (BLAD), shall:
d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries Undertaking 1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review,
e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal Report to the PARO 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 MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the review and final
forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct. valuation.
3. Send a Notice of Coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to 2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative,
the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said a Notice of Acquisition (CARP CA Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the Notice to
conference/meeting shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC the landowner personally or through registered mail within three days from its approval.
representative(s), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and other The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and
interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property. He shall discuss the amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views, objection, agreements or 3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare
suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner shall also be asked to indicate his and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of
retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary
conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF. administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance with the
4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1989. Immediately
(PARO). upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and
submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
B. The PARO shall: 4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon
1. Ensure that the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the
MAROs. 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
2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take
the land in accordance with A.O. No. 6, Series of 1988. 47 The possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform without due process of law." The CARL was not intended to take away property without
Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due
area of responsibility containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a process be observed in the taking of private property.
Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO
then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first sprung, was
"conference/meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series
the prospective farmer-beneficiaries the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian of 1993. The Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to the conference meeting were
Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested expanded and amplified in said amendments.
parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views, DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 entitled "Revised Rules Governing the Acquisition of
suggestions, objections or agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant
asked to indicate his retention area. to R.A. 6657," requires that:
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer B. MARO
(PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification 1. Receives the duly accomplished CARP Form Nos. 1 & 1.1 including supporting
of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory when the computed value of the estate documents.
exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all
papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR 2. Gathers basic ownership documents listed under 1.a or 1.b above and prepares
Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall corresponding VOCF/CACF by landowner/landholding.
review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property. The BLAD shall
prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a Notice 3. Notifies/invites the landowner and representatives of the LBP, DENR, BARC and
of Acquisition for the subject property. From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of prospective beneficiaries of the schedule of ocular inspection of the property at
R.A. 6657 then apply. least one week in advance.
For a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice 4. MARO/LAND BANK FIELD OFFICE/BARC
of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner,
the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties a) Identify the land and landowner, and determine the suitability for agriculture
pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the and productivity of the land and jointly prepare Field Investigation Report (CARP
landowner under Section 16 of the CARL. Form No. 2), including the Land Use Map of the property.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation
to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed b) Interview applicants and assist them in the preparation of the Application For
to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of Potential CARP Beneficiary (CARP Form No. 3).
the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of eminent domain. To
the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an
exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the c) Screen prospective farmer-beneficiaries and for those found qualified, cause the
Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands signing of the respective Application to Purchase and Farmer's Undertaking
they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power (CARP Form No. 4).
of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the
land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said d) Complete the Field Investigation Report based on the result of the ocular
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. inspection/investigation of the property and documents submitted. See to it that
The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property Field Investigation Report is duly accomplished and signed by all concerned.
field investigation, a boundary or subdivision survey of the land may also be conducted
by a Survey Party of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to be
5. MARO assisted by the MARO. 55 This survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation
a) Assists the DENR Survey Party in the conduct of a boundary/ subdivision survey Land Transfer (OLT), areas retained by the landowner, areas with infrastructure, and the
delineating areas covered by OLT, retention, subject of VOS, CA (by phases, if areas subject to VOS and CA. After the survey and field investigation, the MARO sends a
possible), infrastructures, etc., whichever is applicable. "Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly authorized representative inviting him
to a conference or public hearing with the farmer beneficiaries, representatives of the
b) Sends Notice of Coverage (CARP Form No. 5) to landowner concerned or his duly BARC, LBP, DENR, Department of Agriculture (DA), non-government organizations,
authorized representative inviting him for a conference. farmer's organizations and other interested parties. At the public hearing, the parties
shall discuss the results of the field investigation, issues that may be raised in relation
thereto, inputs to the valuation of the subject landholding, and other comments and
c) Sends Invitation Letter (CARP Form No. 6) for a conference/public hearing to recommendations by all parties concerned. The Minutes of the conference/public
prospective farmer-beneficiaries, landowner, representatives of BARC, LBP, hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files shall be forwarded by the MARO
DENR, DA, NGO's, farmers' organizations and other interested parties to discuss to the PARO. The PARO reviews, evaluates and validates the Field Investigation Report
the following matters: and other documents in the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards the records to the RARO for
another review.
a) Result of Field Investigation
b) Inputs to valuation DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 was amended by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. DAR A.O.
c) Issues raised No. 1, Series of 1993 provided, among others, that:
3. DARMO With the participation of CARP BARC the LO, representatives of Form C. Review and Completion of Documents
No. 4 LBP the LBP, BARC, DENR Land Use DENR and prospective ARBs, Map Local
Office conducts the investigation on subject property to identify the A. DARMO Forward VOCF/CACF CARP to DARPO. Form No. 6
landholding, determines its suitability and productivity; and jointly prepares the
Field Investigation Report (FIR) and Land Use Map. However, the field xxx xxx xxx.
investigation shall proceed even if the LO, the representatives of the DENR and DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and increased the
prospective ARBs are not available provided, they were given due notice of the number of government agencies involved in the identification and delineation of the land
time and date of investigation to be conducted. Similarly, if the LBP subject to acquisition. 56 This time, the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner
representative is not available or could not come on the scheduled date, the field before the conduct of the field investigation and the sending must comply with specific
investigation shall also be conducted, after which the duly accomplished Part I of requirements. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office (DARMO) must send the
CARP Form No. 4 shall be forwarded to the LBP representative for validation. If Notice of Coverage to the landowner by "personal delivery with proof of service, or by
he agrees to the ocular inspection report of DAR, he signs the FIR (Part I) and registered mail with return card," informing him that his property is under CARP
accomplishes Part II thereof. In the event that there is a difference or variance coverage and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention, he may choose which
between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as to the propriety of covering the area he shall retain. The Notice of Coverage shall also invite the landowner to attend the
land under CARP, whether in whole or in part, on the issue of suitability to field investigation to be scheduled at least two weeks from notice. The field investigation
agriculture, degree of development or slope, and on issues affecting idle lands, is for the purpose of identifying the landholding and determining its suitability for
the conflict shall be resolved by a composite team of DAR, LBP, DENR and DA agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be posted for at
which shall jointly conduct further investigation thereon. The team shall submit least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the
its report of findings which shall be binding to both DAR and LBP, pursuant to property is located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by the DAR
Joint Memorandum Circular of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA dated 27 January Municipal Office to representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR and prospective farmer
1992. beneficiaries. The field investigation shall be conducted on the date set with the
participation of the landowner and the various representatives. If the landowner and
4. DARMO Screen prospective ARBs BARC and causes the signing of CARP the other representatives are absent, the field investigation shall proceed, provided they
Application of Purchase Form No. 5 and Farmer's Undertaking (APFU). were duly notified thereof. Should there be a variance between the findings of the DAR
and the LBP as to whether the land be placed under agrarian reform, the land's
5. DARMO Furnishes a copy of the CARP duly accomplished FIR toForm No. 4 the suitability to agriculture, the degree or development of the slope, etc., the conflict shall
landowner by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail will be resolved by a composite team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall jointly
return card and posts a copy thereof for at least one week on the bulletin board conduct further investigation. The team's findings shall be binding on both DAR and LBP.
of the municipal and barangay halls where the property is located. LGU office After the field investigation, the DAR Municipal Office shall prepare the Field
concerned CARP notifies DAR about Form No. 17 compliance with posting Investigation Report and Land Use Map, a copy of which shall be furnished the
requirement thru return endorsement on CARP Form No. 17. B. Land Survey. landowner "by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with return
card." Another copy of the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week
6. DARMO Conducts perimeter or Perimeter And/or segregation survey or DENR in the municipal or barangay halls where the property is located.
delineating areas covered Segregation Local Office by OLT, "uncarpable
Survey Plan areas such as 18% slope and above, unproductive/ Clearly then, the notice requirements under the CARL are not confined to the Notice of
Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. They also include the Notice of Coverage
first laid down in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A.O. not distinguish. In the proceedings before the DAR, the distinction between natural and
No. 9, Series of 1990 and DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. This Notice of Coverage does juridical persons in the sending of notices may be found in the Revised Rules of
not merely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that Procedure of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Service of pleadings before the
he is entitled to exercise his retention right; it also notifies him, pursuant to DAR A.O. No. DARAB is governed by Section 6, Rule V of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
9, Series of 1990, that a public hearing, shall be conducted where he and representatives Notices and pleadings are served on private domestic corporations or partnerships in the
of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field following manner:
investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent matters. Under DAR A.O. No. 1,
Series of 1993, the Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field Sec. 6. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation or Partnership. If the defendant is
investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the other a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly
representatives may be present. registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or
any of its directors or partners.
Similarly, the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, in Section 13, Rule 14 provides:
B. The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. If the defendant is
In the case at bar, respondent DAR claims that it, through MARO Leopoldo C. Lejano, sent a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly
a letter of invitation entitled "Invitation to Parties" dated September 29, 1989 to registered, service may be made on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or
petitioner corporation, through Jaime Pimentel, the administrator of Hacienda Palico. 57 any of its directors.
The invitation was received on the same day it was sent as indicated by a signature and Summonses, pleadings and notices in cases against a private domestic corporation
the date received at the bottom left corner of said invitation. With regard to Hacienda before the DARAB and the regular courts are served on the president, manager,
Banilad, respondent DAR claims that Jaime Pimentel, administrator also of Hacienda secretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors. These persons are those through whom
Banilad, was notified and sent an invitation to the conference. Pimentel actually the private domestic corporation or partnership is capable of action. 62
attended the conference on September 21, 1989 and signed the Minutes of the meeting
on behalf of petitioner corporation. 58 The Minutes was also signed by the Jaime Pimentel is not the president, manager, secretary, cashier or
representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries. 59 No letter of invitation director of petitioner corporation. Is he, as administrator of the two
was sent or conference meeting held with respect to Hacienda Caylaway because it was Haciendas, considered an agent of the corporation?
subject to a Voluntary Offer to Sell to respondent DAR. 60 The purpose of all rules for service of process on a corporation is to make
When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), sent to it reasonably certain that the corporation will receive prompt and proper
the various parties the Notice of Coverage and invitation to the conference, DAR A.O. No. notice in an action against it. 63 Service must be made on a
12, Series of 1989 was already in effect more than a month earlier. The Operating representative so integrated with the corporation as to make it a priori
Procedure in DAR Administrative Order No. 12 does not specify how notices or letters of supposable that he will realize his responsibilities and know what he
invitation shall be sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, the LBP, the should do with any legal papers served on him, 64 and bring home to the
farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties. The procedure in the sending of these corporation notice of the filing of the action. 65 Petitioner's evidence
notices is important to comply with the requisites of due process especially when the does not show the official duties of Jaime Pimentel as administrator of
owner, as in this case, is a juridical entity. Petitioner is a domestic corporation, 61 and petitioner's haciendas. The evidence does not indicate whether
therefore, has a personality separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and Pimentel's duties is so integrated with the corporation that he would
employees. immediately realize his responsibilities and know what he should do with
The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to be sent to the any legal papers served on him. At the time the notices were sent and
landowner by "personal delivery or registered mail." Whether the landowner be a the preliminary conference conducted, petitioner's principal place of
natural or juridical person to whose address the Notice may be sent by personal delivery business was listed in respondent DAR's records as "Soriano Bldg., Plaza
or registered mail, the law does not distinguish. The DAR Administrative Orders also do Cervantes, Manila," 66 and "7th Flr. Cacho-Gonzales Bldg., 101 Aguirre
St., Makati, Metro Manila." 67 Pimentel did not hold office at the 964.0688 hectares were subject to CARP. The haciendas are not entirely
principal place of business of petitioner. Neither did he exercise his agricultural lands. In fact, the various tax declarations over the haciendas
functions in Plaza Cervantes, Manila nor in Cacho-Gonzales Bldg., Makati, describe the landholdings as "sugarland," and "forest, sugarland, pasture
Metro Manila. He performed his official functions and actually resided in land, horticulture and woodland." 71
the haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas, a place over two hundred Under Section 16 of the CARL, the sending of the Notice of Acquisition
kilometers away from Metro Manila. specifically requires that the land subject to land reform be first
Curiously, respondent DAR had information of the address of petitioner's identified. The two haciendas in the instant case cover vast tracts of
principal place of business. The Notices of Acquisition over Haciendas land. Before Notices of Acquisition were sent to petitioner, however, the
Palico and Banilad were addressed to petitioner at its offices in Manila exact areas of the landholdings were not properly segregated and
and Makati. These Notices were sent barely three to four months after delineated. Upon receipt of this notice, therefore, petitioner corporation
Pimentel was notified of the preliminary conference. 68 Why respondent had no idea which portions of its estate were subject to compulsory
DAR chose to notify Pimentel instead of the officers of the corporation acquisition, which portions it could rightfully retain, whether these
was not explained by the said respondent. retained portions were compact or contiguous, and which portions were
Nevertheless, assuming that Pimentel was an agent of petitioner excluded from CARP coverage. Even respondent DAR's evidence does not
corporation, and the notices and letters of invitation were validly served show that petitioner, through its duly authorized representative, was
on petitioner through him, there is no showing that Pimentel himself notified of any ocular inspection and investigation that was to be
was duly authorized to attend the conference meeting with the MARO, conducted by respondent DAR. Neither is there proof that petitioner was
BARC and LBP representatives and farmer beneficiaries for purposes of given the opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in
compulsory acquisition of petitioner's landholdings. Even respondent those portions to be acquired compulsorily. The right of retention and
DAR's evidence does not indicate this authority. On the contrary, how this right is exercised, is guaranteed in Section 6 of the CARL, viz:
petitioner claims that it had no knowledge of the letter-invitation, hence,
could not have given Pimentel the authority to bind it to whatever Sec. 6. Retention Limits. . . . .
matters were discussed or agreed upon by the parties at the preliminary The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
conference or public hearing. Notably, one year after Pimentel was pertain to the landowner; Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention
informed of the preliminary conference, DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
was issued and this required that the Notice of Coverage must be sent remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar
"to the landowner concerned or his duly authorized representative." 69 or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he
Assuming further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP coverage shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
of its haciendas, the areas found actually subject to CARP were not Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses
properly identified before they were taken over by respondent DAR. his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must
Respondents insist that the lands were identified because they are all exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
registered property and the technical description in their respective titles manifests his choice of the area for retention.
specifies their metes and bounds. Respondents admit at the same time,
however, that not all areas in the haciendas were placed under the Under the law, a landowner may retain not more than five hectares out of the total area
comprehensive agrarian reform program invariably by reason of of his agricultural land subject to CARP. The right to choose the area to be retained,
elevation or character or use of the land. 70 which shall be compact or contiguous, pertains to the landowner. If the area chosen for
The acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of retention is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain on
the two haciendas, but only portions thereof. Hacienda Palico has an the portion or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
area of 1,024 hectares and only 688.7576 hectares were targetted for comparable features.
acquisition. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050 hectares but only
titles. 75 The land covered by two titles has an area of 855.5257 hectares, but only
C. The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway 648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage of R.A. 6657. 76 Petitioner claims it
does not know where these portions are located.
Petitioner was also left in the dark with respect to Hacienda Caylaway, which was the Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four
subject of a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS). The VOS in the instant case was made on May titles were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied
6, 1988, 72 before the effectivity of R.A. 6657 on June 15, 1988. VOS transactions were participation therein, The results of the survey and the land valuation summary report,
first governed by DAR Administrative Order No. 19, series of 1989, 73 and under this however, do not indicate whether notices to attend the same were actually sent to and
order, all VOS filed before June 15, 1988 shall be heard and processed in accordance with received by petitioner or its duly authorized representative. 77 To reiterate, Executive
the procedure provided for in Executive Order No. 229, thus: 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,
III. All VOS transactions which are now pending before the DAR and for which no however, cannot be dispensed with. It is part of administrative due process and is an
payment has been made shall be subject to the notice and hearing requirements essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to exercise, at the very least, his right
provided in Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989, dated 26 July 1989, Section II, of retention guaranteed under the CARL.
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. III. The Conversion of the three Haciendas.
It is petitioner's claim that the three haciendas are not subject to agrarian reform
because they have been declared for tourism, not agricultural
xxx xxx xxx. purposes. 78 In 1975, then President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1520 declaring the
municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas a tourist zone. Lands in Nasugbu, including the
Sec. 9 of E.O. 229 provides: subject haciendas, were allegedly reclassified as non-agricultural 13 years before the
Sec. 9. Voluntary Offer to Sell. The government shall purchase all agricultural lands it effectivity of R. A. No. 6657. 79 In 1993, the Regional Director for Region IV of the
deems productive and suitable to farmer cultivation voluntarily offered for sale to it at a Department of Agriculture certified that the haciendas are not feasible and sound for
valuation determined in accordance with Section 6. Such transaction shall be exempt agricultural development. 80 On March 20, 1992, pursuant to Proclamation No. 1520,
from the payment of capital gains tax and other taxes and fees. the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas adopted Resolution No. 19 reclassifying
certain areas of Nasugbu as non-agricultural. 81 This Resolution approved Municipal
Executive Order 229 does not contain the procedure for the identification of private land Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1992, the Revised Zoning Ordinance of Nasugbu 82 which
as set forth in DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989. Section 5 of E.O. 229 merely reiterates the zoning ordinance was based on a Land Use Plan for Planning Areas for New Development
procedure of acquisition in Section 16, R.A. 6657. In other words, the E.O. is silent as to allegedly prepared by the University of the Philippines. 83 Resolution No. 19 of the
the procedure for the identification of the land, the notice of coverage and the Sangguniang Bayan was approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Batangas on
preliminary conference with the landowner, representatives of the BARC, the LBP and March 8, 1993. 84
farmer beneficiaries. Does this mean that these requirements may be dispensed with Petitioner claims that proclamation No. 1520 was also upheld by respondent DAR in 1991
regard to VOS filed before June 15, 1988? The answer is no. when it approved conversion of 1,827 hectares in Nasugbu into a tourist area known as
First of all, the same E.O. 229, like Section 16 of the CARL, requires that the land, the Batulao Resort Complex, and 13.52 hectares in Barangay Caylaway as within the
landowner and beneficiaries of the land subject to agrarian reform be identified before potential tourist belt. 85 Petitioner present evidence before us that these areas are
the notice of acquisition should be issued. 74 Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered adjacent to the haciendas subject of this petition, hence, the haciendas should likewise
for sale in 1989. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by be converted. Petitioner urges this Court to take cognizance of the conversion
four (4) titles. In two separate Resolutions both dated January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, proceedings and rule accordingly. 6
through the Regional Director, formally accepted the VOS over the two of these four We do not agree. Respondent DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of
petitioner's landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over
petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non- government units concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy,
agricultural. The agency charged with the mandate of approving or disapproving pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 and E.O. No. 129-A. 87
applications for conversion is the DAR.
At the time petitioner filed its application for conversion, the Rules of Procedure Applications for conversion were initially governed by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of
governing the processing and approval of applications for land use conversion was the 1990 entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 1990. Under this A.O., the application for conversion is filed Agricultural Lands and Non-Agricultural Uses," and DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of
with the MARO where the property is located. The MARO reviews the application and its 1990 entitled "Rules of Procedure Governing the Processing and Approval of
supporting documents and conducts field investigation and ocular inspection of the Applications for Land Use Conversion." These A.O.'s and other implementing
property. The findings of the MARO are subject to review and evaluation by the guidelines, including Presidential issuances and national policies related to land
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). The PARO may conduct further field use conversion have been consolidated in DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 1997. Under
investigation and submit a supplemental report together with his recommendation to this recent issuance, the guiding principle in land use conversion is:
the Regional Agrarian Reform Officer (RARO) who shall review the same. For lands less to preserve prime agricultural lands for food production while, at the same time,
than five hectares, the RARO shall approve or disapprove applications for conversion. For recognizing the need of the other sectors of society (housing, industry and
lands exceeding five hectares, the RARO shall evaluate the PARO Report and forward the commerce) for land, when coinciding with the objectives of the Comprehensive
records and his report to the Undersecretary for Legal Affairs. Applications over areas Agrarian Reform Law to promote social justice, industrialization and the optimum
exceeding fifty hectares are approved or disapproved by the Secretary of Agrarian use of land as a national resource for public welfare. 88
Reform. "Land Use" refers to the manner of utilization of land, including its allocation,
The DAR's mandate over applications for conversion was first laid down in Section 4 (j) development and management. "Land Use Conversion" refers to the act or
and Section 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987 and reiterated in the CARL process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some
and Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President. The other use as approved by the DAR. 89 The conversion of agricultural land to uses
DAR's jurisdiction over applications for conversion is provided as follows: other than agricultural requires field investigation and conferences with the
A. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is mandated to "approve or occupants of the land. They involve factual findings and highly technical matters
disapprove applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of within the special training and expertise of the DAR. DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of
agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses," pursuant to Section 4 (j) of 1997 lays down with specificity how the DAR must go about its task. This time,
Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987. the field investigation is not conducted by the MARO but by a special task force,
known as the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI-
B. Sec. 5 (l) of E.O. 129-A, Series of 1987, vests in the DAR, exclusive authority to DAR Central Office). The procedure is that once an application for conversion is
approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands for filed, the CLUPPI prepares the Notice of Posting. The MARO only posts the notice
residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses. and thereafter issues a certificate to the fact of posting. The CLUPPI conducts the
field investigation and dialogues with the applicants and the farmer beneficiaries
C. Sec. 65 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian to ascertain the information necessary for the processing of the application. The
Reform Law of 1988, likewise empowers the DAR to authorize under certain Chairman of the CLUPPI deliberates on the merits of the investigation report and
conditions, the conversion of agricultural lands. recommends the appropriate action. This recommendation is transmitted to the
Regional Director, thru the Undersecretary, or Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
D. Sec. 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the Applications involving more than fifty hectares are approved or disapproved by
President, provides that "action on applications for land use conversion on the Secretary. The procedure does not end with the Secretary, however. The
individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of the DAR, which shall Order provides that the decision of the Secretary may be appealed to the Office
utilize as its primary reference, documents on the comprehensive land use plans of the President or the Court of Appeals, as the case may be, viz:
and accompanying ordinances passed upon and approved by the local Appeal from the decision of the Undersecretary shall be made to the Secretary,
and from the Secretary to the Office of the President or the Court of Appeals as
the case may be. The mode of appeal/motion for reconsideration, and the
appeal fee, from Undersecretary to the Office of the Secretary shall be the same
as that of the Regional Director to the Office of the Secretary. 90
Indeed, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate
unto itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. 91
Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for
conversion, being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the
matter. The power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway
are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the CARL lies with the
DAR, not with this Court.
Finally, we stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the
requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court
the power to nullify the CLOA's already issued to the farmer beneficiaries. To
assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to
run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its
procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. In Hacienda Palico alone,
CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in 1993. 92 Since then until the
present, these farmers have been cultivating their lands. 93 It goes against the
basic precepts of justice, fairness and equity to deprive these people, through no
fault of their own, of the land they till. Anyhow, the farmer beneficiaries hold the
property in trust for the rightful owner of the land.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is granted in part and the acquisition
proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure
to observe due process therein. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in
this decision and the applicable administrative procedure, the case is hereby
remanded to respondent DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and
determination of petitioner's application for conversion.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 170346 March 12, 2007 On appeal, the DARAB Central Office affirmed the Provincial Adjudicators decision on
HEIRS OF NICOLAS JUGALBOT, Represented by LEONILA B. JUGALBOT, Petitioners, the sole ground that private respondents right to contest the validity of Nicolas
vs. Jugalbots title was barred by prescription. It held that an action to invalidate a certificate
COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF VIRGINIA A. ROA, Represented by LOLITA R. GOROSPE, of title on the ground of fraud prescribes after the expiration of one year from the decree
Administratrix, Respondents. of registration.10
DECISION On November 10, 2003, the DARAB denied private respondents motion for
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: reconsideration,11 hence they filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals
which was granted. The appellate court reversed the Decision and Resolution of the
Petitioners, Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot, represented by their attorney-in-fact Leonila DARAB Central Office on four grounds: (1) the absence of a tenancy relationship; (2) lack
Jugalbot, assail the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated October 19, 2005 in CA-G.R. of notice to Virginia Roa by the DAR; (3) the area of the property which was less than one
SP No. 81823 where the petitioners title to the disputed property, as evidenced by hectare and deemed swampy, rainfed and kangkong-producing; and (4) the classification
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. E-103, was cancelled and the previous title, TCT No. of the subject property as residential, which is outside the coverage of Presidential
T-11543, was reinstated in the name of Virginia A. Roa. The appellate court reversed the Decree No. 27.
Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Hence, this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
(DARAB) Central Office in DARAB Case No. 7966, affirming the Decision4 of the Provincial The sole issue for determination is whether a tenancy relationship exists between
Adjudicator and the Order5 denying the motion for reconsideration in DARAB Case No. X petitioners Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot, and private respondents, Heirs of Virginia A. Roa,
(06-1358) filed in Misamis Oriental, for Cancellation of TCT No. E-103, Recovery of under Presidential Decree No. 27. Simply stated, are petitioners de jure tenants of
Possession and Damages. private respondents?
On September 28, 1997, an Emancipation Patent (EP) was issued to Nicolas Jugalbot As clearly laid down in Qua v. Court of Appeals12 and subsequently in Benavidez v. Court
based on the latters claim that he was the tenant of Lot 2180-C of the Subdivision plan of Appeals,13 the doctrine is well-settled that the allegation that an agricultural tenant
(LRC) TSD-10465, subject property of the case at bar, with an area of 6,229 square tilled the land in question does not automatically make the case an agrarian dispute. It is
meters, located at Barangay Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City. The subject property was necessary to first establish the existence of a tenancy relationship between the party
registered in the name of Virginia A. Roa under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- litigants. The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenancy
11543, the same being issued on April 1, 1970 in the name of "Virginia A. Roa married to relationship: (a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (b) the subject matter is
Pedro N. Roa." The property was originally registered in the name of Marcelino Cabili agricultural land; (c) there is consent; (d) the purpose is agricultural production; (e) there
from whom Virginia A. Roa purchased the same sometime in 1966.6 is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (f) there is a sharing of harvests between the
Nicolas Jugalbot alleged that he was a tenant of the property continuously since the parties.14
1950s. On a Certification dated January 8, 1988 and issued by Department of Agrarian Valencia v. Court of Appeals15 further affirms the doctrine that a tenancy relationship
Reform (DAR) Team Leader Eduardo Maandig, the subject property was declared to be cannot be presumed. Claims that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to
tenanted as of October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to rice and corn. On March 1, security of tenure. The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the
1988, the Emancipation Patent was registered with the Register of Deeds and Nicolas claimant to security of tenure. There must be evidence to prove the allegation that an
Jugalbot was issued TCT No. E-103.7 agricultural tenant tilled the land in question. Hence, a perusal of the records and
On August 10, 1998, the heirs of Virginia A. Roa, herein private respondents, filed before documents is in order to determine whether there is substantial evidence to prove the
the DARAB Provincial Office of Misamis Oriental a Complaint for Cancellation of Title (TCT allegation that a tenancy relationship does exist between petitioner and private
No. E-103), Recovery of Possession and Damages against Nicolas Jugalbot, docketed as respondents. The principal factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is
DARAB Case No. X (06-1358).8 intent.16
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does
On October 23, 1998, a Decision was rendered by the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator upon the land. It is also a legal relationship, as ruled in Isidro v. Court of Appeals.17 The
dismissing private respondents complaint and upholding the validity of the intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written
Emancipation Patent. Private respondents motion for reconsideration was denied.9
agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even already married to Pedro N. Roa as evidenced by the registration in the name of "Virginia
more important.18 A. Roa married to Pedro N. Roa," does not suffice to establish the conjugal nature of the
property.
Petitioners allege that they are bona fide tenants of private respondents under In addition, the defective notice sent to Pedro N. Roa was followed by a DAR certification
Presidential Decree No. 27. Private respondents deny this, citing inter alia, that Virginia signed by team leader Eduardo Maandig on January 8, 1988 stating that the subject
A. Roa was not given a notice of coverage of the property subject matter of this case; property was tenanted as of October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to rice and corn
that Virginia A. Roa and the private respondents did not have any tenant on the same despite the fact that there was no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding
property; that the property allegedly covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 was investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he
residential land; that the lot was paraphernal property of Virginia A. Roa; and the was a tenant of the property. The absence of such ocular inspection or on-site fact-
landholding was less than seven (7) hectares. finding investigation and report likewise deprives Virginia A. Roa of her right to property
The petition is devoid of merit. through the denial of due process.
The petitioners are not de jure tenants of private respondents under Presidential Decree By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals23 applies to the case at bar since there
No. 27 due to the absence of the essential requisites that establish a tenancy relationship was likewise a violation of due process in the implementation of the Comprehensive
between them. Agrarian Reform Law when the petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and
Firstly, the taking of subject property was done in violation of constitutional due process. investigation to be conducted by the DAR before acquisition of the property was to be
The Court of Appeals was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due undertaken. Neither was there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at least
process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired.24 Both in the
the proper party. The records show that notices were erroneously addressed and sent in Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and Presidential Decree No. 27, the right of
the name of Pedro N. Roa who was not the owner, hence, not the proper party in the retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed by law.
instant case. The ownership of the property, as can be gleaned from the records, pertains Since land acquisition under either Presidential Decree No. 27 and the Comprehensive
to Virginia A. Roa. Notice should have been therefore served on her, and not Pedro N. Agrarian Reform Law govern the extraordinary method of expropriating private property,
Roa. the law must be strictly construed. Faithful compliance with legal provisions, especially
Spouses Estonina v. Court of Appeals19 held that the presumption under civil law that all those which relate to the procedure for acquisition of expropriated lands should
property of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership applies only when there is therefore be observed. In the instant case, no proper notice was given to Virginia A. Roa
proof that the property was acquired during the marriage. Otherwise stated, proof of by the DAR. Neither did the DAR conduct an ocular inspection and investigation. Hence,
acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the any act committed by the DAR or any of its agencies that results from its failure to
presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership.20 In Spouses Estonina, petitioners comply with the proper procedure for expropriation of land is a violation of
were unable to present any proof that the property in question was acquired during the constitutional due process and should be deemed arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and
marriage of Santiago and Consuelo Garcia. The fact that when the title over the land in tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
question was issued, Santiago Garcia was already married to Consuelo as evidenced by Secondly, there is no concrete evidence on record sufficient to establish that Nicolas
the registration in the name of "Santiago Garcia married to Consuelo Gaza," does not Jugalbot or the petitioners personally cultivated the property under question or that
suffice to establish the conjugal nature of the property.21 there was sharing of harvests, except for their self-serving statements. Clearly, there is no
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the phrase "married to" showing that Nicolas Jugalbot or any of his farm household cultivated the land in
appearing in certificates of title is no proof that the properties were acquired during the question. No proof was presented except for their self-serving statements that they were
spouses coverture and are merely descriptive of the marital status of the person tenants of Virginia A. Roa. Independent evidence, aside from their self-serving
indicated therein. The clear import from the certificate of title is that Virginia is the statements, is needed to prove personal cultivation, sharing of harvests, or consent of
owner of the property, the same having been registered in her name alone, and being the landowner, and establish a tenancy relationship.
"married to Pedro N. Roa" was merely descriptive of her civil status.22 Since no proof Furthermore, in the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, it was undisputed that
was adduced that the property was acquired during the marriage of Pedro and Virginia Nicolas Jugalbot was a soldier in the United States Army from June 15, 1946 to April 27,
Roa, the fact that when the title over the land in question was issued, Virginia Roa was 194925 and upon retirement, migrated to the United States and returned to the
Philippines sometime in 1998.26 It was established that Jugalbots wife Miguela and last resort, are duty-bound to correct inferences made by the courts below which are
daughter Lilia P. Jugalbot are residents of 17623 Grayland Avenue, Artesia, California, manifestly mistaken or absurd. x x x
U.S.A., where Nicolas Jugalbot spent his retirement.27 Thus, the DAR, in particular its Without the essential elements of consent and sharing, no tenancy relationship can exist
team leader Eduardo Maandig, haphazardly issued a certification dated January 8, 1988 between the petitioner and the private respondents. (Underscoring supplied)32
that the subject property was tenanted as of October 21, 1972 by Nicolas Jugalbot and Bejasa v. Court of Appeals33 likewise held that to prove sharing of harvests, a receipt or
primarily devoted to rice and corn without the benefit of any on-site fact-finding any other evidence must be presented as self-serving statements are deemed
investigation and report. This certification became the basis of the emancipation patent inadequate. Proof must always be adduced.34 In addition
and subsequently, TCT No. E-103 issued on March 1, 1988, which was less than two The Bejasas admit that prior to 1984, they had no contact with Candelaria. They
months from the issuance of the unsubstantiated DAR certification. Coincidentally, acknowledge that Candelaria could argue that she did not know of Malabanans
October 21, 1972 is the date Presidential Decree No. 27 was signed into law. arrangement with them. True enough Candelaria disavowed any knowledge that the
Bejasas during Malabanans lease possessed the land. However, the Bejasas claim that
Neither was there any evidence that the landowner, Virginia A. Roa, freely gave her this defect was cured when Candelaria agreed to lease the land to the Bejasas for
consent, whether expressly or impliedly, to establish a tenancy relationship over her P20,000.00 per annum, when Malabanan died in 1983. We do not agree. In a tenancy
paraphernal property. agreement, consideration should be in the form of harvest sharing. Even assuming that
As declared in Castillo v. Court of Appeals,28 absent the element of personal cultivation, Candelaria agreed to lease it out to the Bejasas for P20,000 per year, such agreement did
one cannot be a tenant even if he is so designated in the written agreement of the not create a tenancy relationship, but a mere civil law lease.35
parties.29 Thirdly, the fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. In
In Berenguer, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,30 we ruled that the respondents self-serving Caballes v. Department of Agrarian Reform,36 we restated the well-settled rule that all
statements regarding their tenancy relations could not establish the claimed relationship. the requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties
The fact alone of working on anothers landholding does not raise a presumption of the and the absence of one or more requisites does not make the alleged tenant a de facto
existence of agricultural tenancy. Substantial evidence does not only entail the presence tenant as contradistinguished from a de jure tenant. This is so because unless a person
of a mere scintilla of evidence in order that the fact of sharing can be established; there has established his status as a de jure tenant he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is
must be concrete evidence on record adequate enough to prove the element of he covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy
sharing.31 We further observed in Berenguer, Jr.: laws.37 The security of tenure guaranteed by our tenancy laws may be invoked only by
With respect to the assertion made by respondent Mamerto Venasquez that he is not tenants de jure, not by those who are not true and lawful tenants.38
only a tenant of a portion of the petitioners landholding but also an overseer of the As reiterated in Qua,39 the fact that the source of livelihood of the alleged tenants is not
entire property subject of this controversy, there is no evidence on record except his own derived from the lots they are allegedly tenanting is indicative of non-agricultural
claim in support thereof. The witnesses who were presented in court in an effort to tenancy relationship.40
bolster Mamertos claim merely testified that they saw him working on the petitioners Finally, it is readily apparent in this case that the property under dispute is residential
landholding. More importantly, his own witnesses even categorically stated that they did property and not agricultural property. Zoning Certification No. 98-084 issued on
not know the relationship of Mamerto and the petitioner in relation to the said September 3, 1998 clearly shows that the subject property Lot 2180-C covered by TCT
landholding. x x x The fact alone of working on anothers landholding does not raise a No. T-11543 with an area of 6,229 square meters and owned by Virginia A. Roa is located
presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. Other factors must be taken into within the Residential 2 District in accordance with paragraph (b), Section 9, Article IV of
consideration like compensation in the form of lease rentals or a share in the produce of Zoning Ordinance No. 880, Series of 1979 issued by the City Planning and Development
the landholding involved. (Underscoring supplied) Office of Cagayan de Oro City.41 To bolster the residential nature of the property, it must
also be noted that no Barangay Agrarian Reform Council was organized or appointed by
xxxx the DAR existed in Barangay Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, as all lands have been
In the absence of any substantial evidence from which it can be satisfactorily inferred classified as residential or commercial, as certified by Barangay Captain of Lapasan.42
that a sharing arrangement is present between the contending parties, we, as a court of In Gonzales v. Court of Appeals,43 we held that an agricultural leasehold cannot be
established on land which has ceased to be devoted to cultivation or farming because of
its conversion into a residential subdivision. Petitioners were not agricultural lessees or matter. The issue of ownership shall be resolved in a separate proceeding before the
tenants of the land before its conversion into a residential subdivision in 1955. Not appropriate trial court between the claimants thereof.50
having been dispossessed by the conversion of the land into a residential subdivision, At any rate, whoever is declared to be the rightful owner of the land, the case cannot be
they may not claim a right to reinstatement.44 considered as tenancy-related for it still fails to comply with the other requirements.
This Court in Spouses Tiongson v. Court of Appeals45 succinctly ruled that the land Assuming arguendo that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan is the owner, then the case is not
surrounded by a residential zone is always classified as residential. The areas surrounding between the landowner and tenant. If, however, Morta is the landowner, Occidental
the disputed six hectares are now dotted with residences and, apparently, only this case cannot claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant relationship between him and
has kept the property in question from being developed together with the rest of the lot Morta. Thus, for failure to comply with the above requisites, we conclude that the issue
to which it belongs. The fact that a caretaker plants rice or corn on a residential lot in the involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB. 51
middle of a residential subdivision in the heart of a metropolitan area cannot by any In Vda. de Tangub v. Court of Appeals,52 the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
strained interpretation of law convert it into agricultural land and subject it to the Reform is limited to the following: (a) adjudication of all matters involving
agrarian reform program.46 implementation of agrarian reform; (b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure
Despite the apparent lack of evidence establishing a tenancy relationship between related problems; and (c) approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or
petitioners and private respondents, the DARAB improperly recognized the existence of readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial and other non-
such a relationship in complete disregard of the essential requisites under Presidential agricultural uses.53
Decree No. 27. DARAB committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of To recapitulate, petitioners are not de jure tenants of Virginia A. Roa, to which
jurisdiction in issuing an Emancipation Patent to Nicolas Jugalbot. Presidential Decree No. 27 is found to be inapplicable; hence, the DARAB has no
jurisdiction over this case. The DARAB not only committed a serious error in judgment,
Once again, Benavidez v. Court of Appeals47 is illustrative in its pronouncement that an which the Court of Appeals properly corrected, but the former likewise committed a
alleged agricultural tenant tilling the land does not automatically make the case an palpable error in jurisdiction which is contrary to law and jurisprudence. For all the
agrarian dispute which calls for the application of the Agricultural Tenancy Act and the foregoing reasons, we affirm the appellate court decision and likewise hold that the
assumption of jurisdiction by the DARAB. It is absolutely necessary to first establish the DARAB gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that
existence of a tenancy relationship between the party litigants. In Benavidez, there was the subject matter of the present action is residential, and not agricultural, land, and that
no showing that there existed any tenancy relationship between petitioner and private all the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship were sorely lacking in the case at bar.
respondent. Thus, the case fell outside the coverage of the Agricultural Tenancy Act; On one final note, it may not be amiss to stress that laws which have for their object the
consequently, it was the Municipal Trial Court and not the DARAB which had jurisdiction preservation and maintenance of social justice are not only meant to favor the poor and
over the controversy between petitioner and private respondent.48 underprivileged. They apply with equal force to those who, notwithstanding their more
Verily, Morta, Sr. v. Occidental49 ruled that for DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, comfortable position in life, are equally deserving of protection from the courts. Social
there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. In order for a tenancy justice is not a license to trample on the rights of the rich in the guise of defending the
agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish all the poor, where no act of injustice or abuse is being committed against them.54
indispensable elements of a landlord-tenant relationship: As the court of last resort, our bounden duty to protect the less privileged should not be
The regional trial court ruled that the issue involved is tenancy-related that falls within carried out to such an extent as to deny justice to landowners whenever truth and justice
the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. It relied on the findings in DARAB Case No. 2413 happen to be on their side. For in the eyes of the Constitution and the statutes, EQUAL
that Josefina Opiana-Baraclan appears to be the lawful owner of the land and Jaime JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW remains the bedrock principle by which our Republic abides.
Occidental was her recognized tenant. However, petitioner Morta claimed that he is the WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
owner of the land. Thus, there is even a dispute as to who is the rightful owner of the No. 81823 promulgated on October 19, 2005 is AFFIRMED. The Register of Deeds of
land, Josefina Opiana-Baraclan or petitioner Morta. The issue of ownership cannot be Cagayan de Oro City is ordered to CANCEL Transfer Certificate of Title No. E-103 for
settled by the DARAB since it is definitely outside its jurisdiction. Whatever findings made having been issued without factual and legal basis, and REINSTATE Transfer Certificate of
by the DARAB regarding the ownership of the land are not conclusive to settle the Title No. T-11543 in the name of Virginia A. Roa. The city Assessors Office of Cagayan de
Oro is likewise directed to CANCEL Tax Declaration No. 80551 issued to Nicolas Jugalbot
and RESTORE Tax Declaration No. 270922 in the name of Virginia Angcod Roa. The heirs
of Nicolas Jugalbot, represented by Leonila B. Jugalbot or any other person claiming a
right or interest to the disputed lot through the latters title are directed to VACATE the
premises thereof and peaceably turn over its possession to petitioners Heirs of Virginia
A. Roa, represented by Lolita R. Gorospe. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989 The cases before us are not as fanciful as the foregoing tale. But they also tell of the
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC, petitioners, elemental forces of life and death, of men and women who, like Antaeus need the
vs. sustaining strength of the precious earth to stay alive.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent. "Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the
G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989 distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is more than a slogan.
Through the brooding centuries, it has become a battle-cry dramatizing the increasingly
ARSENIO AL. ACUNA, NEWTON JISON, VICTORINO FERRARIS, DENNIS JEREZA, urgent demand of the dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as their place in the sun.
HERMINIGILDO GUSTILO, PAULINO D. TOLENTINO and PLANTERS' COMMITTEE, INC., Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social justice to
Victorias Mill District, Victorias, Negros Occidental, petitioners, "insure the well-being and economic security of all the people," 1 especially the less
vs. privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal adding specifically that "the
JOKER ARROYO, PHILIP E. JUICO and PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL, State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private
respondents. property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits." 2 Significantly, there was
G.R. No. 79744 July 14, 1989 also the specific injunction to "formulate and implement an agrarian reform program
aimed at emancipating the tenant from the bondage of the soil." 3
INOCENTES PABICO, petitioner, The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these sentiments, it
vs. also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights,
HON. PHILIP E. JUICO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, HON. containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere provisions for the uplift of the common
JOKER ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, and Messrs. people. These include a call in the following words for the adoption by the State of an
SALVADOR TALENTO, JAIME ABOGADO, CONRADO AVANCENA and ROBERTO TAAY, agrarian reform program:
respondents. SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
G.R. No. 79777 July 14, 1989 right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share
NICOLAS S. MANAAY and AGUSTIN HERMANO, JR., petitioners, of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
vs. distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention
HON. PHILIP ELLA JUICO, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, and LAND BANK OF THE limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
PHILIPPINES, respondents. equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining
CRUZ, J.: retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall
further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
In ancient mythology, Antaeus was a terrible giant who blocked and challenged Hercules
for his life on his way to Mycenae after performing his eleventh labor. The two wrestled Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code,
mightily and Hercules flung his adversary to the ground thinking him dead, but Antaeus had already been enacted by the Congress of the Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line
rose even stronger to resume their struggle. This happened several times to Hercules' with the above-stated principles. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later
increasing amazement. Finally, as they continued grappling, it dawned on Hercules that by P.D. No. 27, which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to
Antaeus was the son of Gaea and could never die as long as any part of his body was provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-
touching his Mother Earth. Thus forewarned, Hercules then held Antaeus up in the air, farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners.
beyond the reach of the sustaining soil, and crushed him to death. The people power revolution of 1986 did not change and indeed even energized the
Mother Earth. The sustaining soil. The giver of life, without whose invigorating touch thrust for agrarian reform. Thus, on July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
even the powerful Antaeus weakened and died. E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and
providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the
manner of their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by Presidential
Proclamation No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and protection clause is also violated because the order places the burden of solving the
E.O. No. 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation. agrarian problems on the owners only of agricultural lands. No similar obligation is
Subsequently, with its formal organization, the revived Congress of the Philippines took imposed on the owners of other properties.
over legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations, including The petitioners also maintain that in declaring the beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 to be
extensive public hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The result, the owners of the lands occupied by them, E.O. No. 228 ignored judicial prerogatives and
after almost a year of spirited debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise so violated due process. Worse, the measure would not solve the agrarian problem
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino because even the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention rights
signed on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned guaranteed by the Constitution.
enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not In his Comment, the Solicitor General stresses that P.D. No. 27 has already been upheld
inconsistent with its provisions. 4 in the earlier cases of Chavez v. Zobel, 7 Gonzales v. Estrella, 8 and Association of Rice
The above-captioned cases have been consolidated because they involve common legal and Corn Producers of the Philippines, Inc. v. The National Land Reform Council. 9 The
questions, including serious challenges to the constitutionality of the several measures determination of just compensation by the executive authorities conformably to the
mentioned above. They will be the subject of one common discussion and resolution, formula prescribed under the questioned order is at best initial or preliminary only. It
The different antecedents of each case will require separate treatment, however, and will does not foreclose judicial intervention whenever sought or warranted. At any rate, the
first be explained hereunder. challenge to the order is premature because no valuation of their property has as yet
been made by the Department of Agrarian Reform. The petitioners are also not proper
G.R. No. 79777 parties because the lands owned by them do not exceed the maximum retention limit of
Squarely raised in this petition is the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 7 hectares.
229, and R.A. No. 6657. Replying, the petitioners insist they are proper parties because P.D. No. 27 does not
The subjects of this petition are a 9-hectare riceland worked by four tenants and owned provide for retention limits on tenanted lands and that in any event their petition is a
by petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife and a 5-hectare riceland worked by four class suit brought in behalf of landowners with landholdings below 24 hectares. They
tenants and owned by petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. The tenants were declared full maintain that the determination of just compensation by the administrative authorities is
owners of these lands by E.O. No. 228 as qualified farmers under P.D. No. 27. a final ascertainment. As for the cases invoked by the public respondent, the
The petitioners are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter constitutionality of P.D. No. 27 was merely assumed in Chavez, while what was decided in
alia of separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional Gonzales was the validity of the imposition of martial law.
limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use without just In the amended petition dated November 22, 1588, it is contended that P.D. No. 27, E.O.
compensation. Nos. 228 and 229 (except Sections 20 and 21) have been impliedly repealed by R.A. No.
6657. Nevertheless, this statute should itself also be declared unconstitutional because it
They contend that President Aquino usurped legislative power when she promulgated suffers from substantially the same infirmities as the earlier measures.
E.O. No. 228. The said measure is invalid also for violation of Article XIII, Section 4, of the A petition for intervention was filed with leave of court on June 1, 1988 by Vicente Cruz,
Constitution, for failure to provide for retention limits for small landowners. Moreover, it owner of a 1. 83- hectare land, who complained that the DAR was insisting on the
does not conform to Article VI, Section 25(4) and the other requisites of a valid implementation of P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 despite a compromise agreement he had
appropriation. reached with his tenant on the payment of rentals. In a subsequent motion dated April
In connection with the determination of just compensation, the petitioners argue that 10, 1989, he adopted the allegations in the basic amended petition that the above-
the same may be made only by a court of justice and not by the President of the mentioned enactments have been impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 6657.
Philippines. They invoke the recent cases of EPZA v. Dulay 5 and Manotok v. National G.R. No. 79310
Food Authority. 6 Moreover, the just compensation contemplated by the Bill of Rights is The petitioners herein are landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District,
payable in money or in cash and not in the form of bonds or other things of value. Victorias, Negros Occidental. Co-petitioner Planters' Committee, Inc. is an organization
In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land, the executive order also composed of 1,400 planter-members. This petition seeks to prohibit the implementation
deprives the petitioners of their property rights as protected by due process. The equal of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229.
The petitioners claim that the power to provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform was filed, this time by Manuel Barcelona, et al., representing coconut and riceland
Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to Congress and not the President. owners. Both motions were granted by the Court.
Although they agree that the President could exercise legislative power until the NASP alleges that President Aquino had no authority to fund the Agrarian Reform
Congress was convened, she could do so only to enact emergency measures during the Program and that, in any event, the appropriation is invalid because of uncertainty in the
transition period. At that, even assuming that the interim legislative power of the amount appropriated. Section 2 of Proc. No. 131 and Sections 20 and 21 of E.O. No. 229
President was properly exercised, Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 would still have to be provide for an initial appropriation of fifty billion pesos and thus specifies the minimum
annulled for violating the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process, rather than the maximum authorized amount. This is not allowed. Furthermore, the
and equal protection. stated initial amount has not been certified to by the National Treasurer as actually
They also argue that under Section 2 of Proc. No. 131 which provides: available.
Agrarian Reform Fund.-There is hereby created a special fund, to be known as the Two additional arguments are made by Barcelona, to wit, the failure to establish by clear
Agrarian Reform Fund, an initial amount of FIFTY BILLION PESOS (P50,000,000,000.00) to and convincing evidence the necessity for the exercise of the powers of eminent domain,
cover the estimated cost of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program from 1987 to and the violation of the fundamental right to own property.
1992 which shall be sourced from the receipts of the sale of the assets of the Asset The petitioners also decry the penalty for non-registration of the lands, which is the
Privatization Trust and Receipts of sale of ill-gotten wealth received through the expropriation of the said land for an amount equal to the government assessor's
Presidential Commission on Good Government and such other sources as government valuation of the land for tax purposes. On the other hand, if the landowner declares his
may deem appropriate. The amounts collected and accruing to this special fund shall be own valuation he is unjustly required to immediately pay the corresponding taxes on the
considered automatically appropriated for the purpose authorized in this Proclamation land, in violation of the uniformity rule.
the amount appropriated is in futuro, not in esse. The money needed to cover the cost of In his consolidated Comment, the Solicitor General first invokes the presumption of
the contemplated expropriation has yet to be raised and cannot be appropriated at this constitutionality in favor of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229. He also justifies the necessity
time. for the expropriation as explained in the "whereas" clauses of the Proclamation and
Furthermore, they contend that taking must be simultaneous with payment of just submits that, contrary to the petitioner's contention, a pilot project to determine the
compensation as it is traditionally understood, i.e., with money and in full, but no such feasibility of CARP and a general survey on the people's opinion thereon are not
payment is contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O. No. 229. On the contrary, Section 6, indispensable prerequisites to its promulgation.
thereof provides that the Land Bank of the Philippines "shall compensate the landowner On the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar planters have failed to
in an amount to be established by the government, which shall be based on the owner's show that they belong to a different class and should be differently treated. The
declaration of current fair market value as provided in Section 4 hereof, but subject to Comment also suggests the possibility of Congress first distributing public agricultural
certain controls to be defined and promulgated by the Presidential Agrarian Reform lands and scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural lands later. From this
Council." This compensation may not be paid fully in money but in any of several modes viewpoint, the petition for prohibition would be premature.
that may consist of part cash and part bond, with interest, maturing periodically, or direct The public respondent also points out that the constitutional prohibition is against the
payment in cash or bond as may be mutually agreed upon by the beneficiary and the payment of public money without the corresponding appropriation. There is no rule that
landowner or as may be prescribed or approved by the PARC. only money already in existence can be the subject of an appropriation law. Finally, the
The petitioners also argue that in the issuance of the two measures, no effort was made earmarking of fifty billion pesos as Agrarian Reform Fund, although denominated as an
to make a careful study of the sugar planters' situation. There is no tenancy problem in initial amount, is actually the maximum sum appropriated. The word "initial" simply
the sugar areas that can justify the application of the CARP to them. To the extent that means that additional amounts may be appropriated later when necessary.
the sugar planters have been lumped in the same legislation with other farmers,
although they are a separate group with problems exclusively their own, their right to On April 11, 1988, Prudencio Serrano, a coconut planter, filed a petition on his own
equal protection has been violated. behalf, assailing the constitutionality of E.O. No. 229. In addition to the arguments
A motion for intervention was filed on August 27,1987 by the National Federation of already raised, Serrano contends that the measure is unconstitutional because:
Sugarcane Planters (NASP) which claims a membership of at least 20,000 individual sugar (1) Only public lands should be included in the CARP;
planters all over the country. On September 10, 1987, another motion for intervention (2) E.O. No. 229 embraces more than one subject which is not expressed in the title;
(3) The power of the President to legislate was terminated on July 2, 1987; and In his Comment, the Solicitor General submits that the petition is premature because the
(4) The appropriation of a P50 billion special fund from the National Treasury did not motion for reconsideration filed with the Minister of Agrarian Reform is still unresolved.
originate from the House of Representatives. As for the validity of the issuance of E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, he argues that they were
enacted pursuant to Section 6, Article XVIII of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
G.R. No. 79744 Constitution which reads:
The petitioner alleges that the then Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform, in The incumbent president shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first
violation of due process and the requirement for just compensation, placed his Congress is convened.
landholding under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Certificates of Land Transfer On the issue of just compensation, his position is that when P.D. No. 27 was promulgated
were subsequently issued to the private respondents, who then refused payment of on October 21. 1972, the tenant-farmer of agricultural land was deemed the owner of
lease rentals to him. the land he was tilling. The leasehold rentals paid after that date should therefore be
On September 3, 1986, the petitioner protested the erroneous inclusion of his small considered amortization payments.
landholding under Operation Land transfer and asked for the recall and cancellation of In his Reply to the public respondents, the petitioner maintains that the motion he filed
the Certificates of Land Transfer in the name of the private respondents. He claims that was resolved on December 14, 1987. An appeal to the Office of the President would be
on December 24, 1986, his petition was denied without hearing. On February 17, 1987, useless with the promulgation of E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, which in effect sanctioned the
he filed a motion for reconsideration, which had not been acted upon when E.O. Nos. validity of the public respondent's acts.
228 and 229 were issued. These orders rendered his motion moot and academic because
they directly effected the transfer of his land to the private respondents. G.R. No. 78742
The petitioner now argues that: The petitioners in this case invoke the right of retention granted by P.D. No. 27 to owners
(1) E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the President of the Philippines. of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares as long as they are cultivating or
(2) The said executive orders are violative of the constitutional provision that no private intend to cultivate the same. Their respective lands do not exceed the statutory limit but
property shall be taken without due process or just compensation. are occupied by tenants who are actually cultivating such lands.
(3) The petitioner is denied the right of maximum retention provided for under the 1987 According to P.D. No. 316, which was promulgated in implementation of P.D. No. 27:
Constitution. 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-
The petitioner contends that the issuance of E.0. Nos. 228 and 229 shortly before farmers and the landowner shall have been determined in accordance with the rules and
Congress convened is anomalous and arbitrary, besides violating the doctrine of regulations implementing P.D. No. 27.
separation of powers. The legislative power granted to the President under the Transitory
Provisions refers only to emergency measures that may be promulgated in the proper The petitioners claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their
exercise of the police power. 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
The petitioner also invokes his rights not to be deprived of his property without due Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to issue the said rules.
process of law and to the retention of his small parcels of riceholding as guaranteed In his Comment, the public respondent argues that P.D. No. 27 has been amended by LOI
under Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution. He likewise argues that, besides denying 474 removing any right of retention from persons who own other agricultural lands of
him just compensation for his land, the provisions of E.O. No. 228 declaring that: more than 7 hectares in aggregate area or lands used for residential, commercial,
Lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer-beneficiary after October 21, 1972 industrial or other purposes from which they derive adequate income for their family.
shall be considered as advance payment for the land. And even assuming that the petitioners do not fall under its terms, the regulations
is an unconstitutional taking of a vested property right. It is also his contention that the implementing P.D. No. 27 have already been issued, to wit, the Memorandum dated July
inclusion of even small landowners in the program along with other landowners with 10, 1975 (Interim Guidelines on Retention by Small Landowners, with an accompanying
lands consisting of seven hectares or more is undemocratic. Retention Guide Table), Memorandum Circular No. 11 dated April 21, 1978,
(Implementation Guidelines of LOI No. 474), Memorandum Circular No. 18-81 dated
December 29,1981 (Clarificatory Guidelines on Coverage of P.D. No. 27 and Retention by proper party, and the resolution of the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision
Small Landowners), and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1985 (Providing for a of the case itself. 12
Cut-off Date for Landowners to Apply for Retention and/or to Protest the Coverage of With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as applied in the cases before
their Landholdings under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27). For failure to us, we hold that the same is satisfied by the petitioners and intervenors because each of
file the corresponding applications for retention under these measures, the petitioners them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the
are now barred from invoking this right. acts or measures complained of. 13 And even if, strictly speaking, they are not covered by
The public respondent also stresses that the petitioners have prematurely initiated this the definition, it is still within the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement
case notwithstanding the pendency of their appeal to the President of the Philippines. and so remove the impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious constitutional
Moreover, the issuance of the implementing rules, assuming this has not yet been done, questions raised.
involves the exercise of discretion which cannot be controlled through the writ of In the first Emergency Powers Cases, 14 ordinary citizens and taxpayers were allowed to
mandamus. This is especially true if this function is entrusted, as in this case, to a question the constitutionality of several executive orders issued by President Quirino
separate department of the government. although they were invoking only an indirect and general interest shared in common with
In their Reply, the petitioners insist that the above-cited measures are not applicable to the public. The Court dismissed the objection that they were not proper parties and
them because they do not own more than seven hectares of agricultural land. Moreover, ruled that "the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that
assuming arguendo that the rules were intended to cover them also, the said measures they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
are nevertheless not in force because they have not been published as required by law procedure." We have since then applied this exception in many other cases. 15
and the ruling of this Court in Tanada v. Tuvera. 10 As for LOI 474, the same is ineffective The other above-mentioned requisites have also been met in the present petitions.
for the additional reason that a mere letter of instruction could not have repealed the In must be stressed that despite the inhibitions pressing upon the Court when
presidential decree. confronted with constitutional issues like the ones now before it, it will not hesitate to
declare a law or act invalid when it is convinced that this must be done. In arriving at this
A conclusion, its only criterion will be the Constitution as God and its conscience give it the
Although holding neither purse nor sword and so regarded as the weakest of the three light to probe its meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and political
departments of the government, the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the power to considerations are irrelevancies that cannot influence its decision. Blandishment is as
annul the acts of either the legislative or the executive or of both when not conformable ineffectual as intimidation.
to the fundamental law. This is the reason for what some quarters call the doctrine of For all the awesome power of the Congress and the Executive, the Court will not hesitate
judicial supremacy. Even so, this power is not lightly assumed or readily exercised. The to "make the hammer fall, and heavily," to use Justice Laurel's pithy language, where the
doctrine of separation of powers imposes upon the courts a proper restraint, born of the acts of these departments, or of any public official, betray the people's will as expressed
nature of their functions and of their respect for the other departments, in striking down in the Constitution.
the acts of the legislative and the executive as unconstitutional. The policy, indeed, is a It need only be added, to borrow again the words of Justice Laurel, that
blend of courtesy and caution. To doubt is to sustain. The theory is that before the act
was done or the law was enacted, earnest studies were made by Congress or the ... when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert
President, or both, to insure that the Constitution would not be breached. any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an
In addition, the Constitution itself lays down stringent conditions for a declaration of act of the Legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by
unconstitutionality, requiring therefor the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and
the Supreme Court who took part in the deliberations and voted on the issue during to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument
their session en banc. 11 And as established by judge made doctrine, the Court will secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is termed
assume jurisdiction over a constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under the
requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a question are first satisfied. Thus, there must be Constitution. 16
an actual case or controversy involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial The cases before us categorically raise constitutional questions that this Court must
determination, the constitutional question must have been opportunely raised by the categorically resolve. And so we shall.
measures, had not yet been convened when the proclamation was issued. The legislative
B power was then solely vested in the President of the Philippines, who embodied, as it
were, both houses of Congress.
We proceed first to the examination of the preliminary issues before resolving the more The argument of some of the petitioners that Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 should be
serious challenges to the constitutionality of the several measures involved in these invalidated because they do not provide for retention limits as required by Article XIII,
petitions. Section 4 of the Constitution is no longer tenable. R.A. No. 6657 does provide for such
The promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos in the exercise of his powers under limits now in Section 6 of the law, which in fact is one of its most controversial provisions.
martial law has already been sustained in Gonzales v. Estrella and we find no reason to This section declares:
modify or reverse it on that issue. As for the power of President Aquino to promulgate Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or
Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, the same was authorized under Section 6 of the retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall
Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution, quoted above vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity
The said measures were issued by President Aquino before July 27, 1987, when the produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential
Congress of the Philippines was formally convened and took over legislative power from Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the
her. They are not "midnight" enactments intended to pre-empt the legislature because landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of
E.O. No. 228 was issued on July 17, 1987, and the other measures, i.e., Proc. No. 131 and the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15)
E.O. No. 229, were both issued on July 22, 1987. Neither is it correct to say that these years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm;
measures ceased to be valid when she lost her legislative power for, like any statute, they Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27
continue to be in force unless modified or repealed by subsequent law or declared shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further, That
invalid by the courts. A statute does not ipso facto become inoperative simply because of original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
the dissolution of the legislature that enacted it. By the same token, President Aquino's homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as
loss of legislative power did not have the effect of invalidating all the measures enacted they continue to cultivate said homestead.
by her when and as long as she possessed it. The argument that E.O. No. 229 violates the constitutional requirement that a bill shall
Significantly, the Congress she is alleged to have undercut has not rejected but in fact have only one subject, to be expressed in its title, deserves only short attention. It is
substantially affirmed the challenged measures and has specifically provided that they settled that the title of the bill does not have to be a catalogue of its contents and will
shall be suppletory to R.A. No. 6657 whenever not inconsistent with its provisions. 17 suffice if the matters embodied in the text are relevant to each other and may be
Indeed, some portions of the said measures, like the creation of the P50 billion fund in inferred from the title. 20
Section 2 of Proc. No. 131, and Sections 20 and 21 of E.O. No. 229, have been The Court wryly observes that during the past dictatorship, every presidential issuance,
incorporated by reference in the CARP Law. 18 by whatever name it was called, had the force and effect of law because it came from
President Marcos. Such are the ways of despots. Hence, it is futile to argue, as the
That fund, as earlier noted, is itself being questioned on the ground that it does not petitioners do in G.R. No. 79744, that LOI 474 could not have repealed P.D. No. 27
conform to the requirements of a valid appropriation as specified in the Constitution. because the former was only a letter of instruction. The important thing is that it was
Clearly, however, Proc. No. 131 is not an appropriation measure even if it does provide issued by President Marcos, whose word was law during that time.
for the creation of said fund, for that is not its principal purpose. An appropriation law is
one the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize the release of public funds But for all their peremptoriness, these issuances from the President Marcos still had to
from the treasury. 19 The creation of the fund is only incidental to the main objective of comply with the requirement for publication as this Court held in Tanada v. Tuvera. 21
the proclamation, which is agrarian reform. Hence, unless published in the Official Gazette in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil
It should follow that the specific constitutional provisions invoked, to wit, Section 24 and Code, they could not have any force and effect if they were among those enactments
Section 25(4) of Article VI, are not applicable. With particular reference to Section 24, successfully challenged in that case. LOI 474 was published, though, in the Official
this obviously could not have been complied with for the simple reason that the House Gazette dated November 29,1976.)
of Representatives, which now has the exclusive power to initiate appropriation
Finally, there is the contention of the public respondent in G.R. No. 78742 that the writ of cause the subsidence of structures for human habitation constructed on the land surface.
mandamus cannot issue to compel the performance of a discretionary act, especially by This was resisted by a coal company which had earlier granted a deed to the land over its
a specific department of the government. That is true as a general proposition but is mine but reserved all mining rights thereunder, with the grantee assuming all risks and
subject to one important qualification. Correctly and categorically stated, the rule is that waiving any damage claim. The Court held the law could not be sustained without
mandamus will lie to compel the discharge of the discretionary duty itself but not to compensating the grantor. Justice Brandeis filed a lone dissent in which he argued that
control the discretion to be exercised. In other words, mandamus can issue to require there was a valid exercise of the police power. He said:
action only but not specific action. Every restriction upon the use of property imposed in the exercise of the police power
Whenever a duty is imposed upon a public official and an unnecessary and unreasonable deprives the owner of some right theretofore enjoyed, and is, in that sense, an
delay in the exercise of such duty occurs, if it is a clear duty imposed by law, the courts abridgment by the State of rights in property without making compensation. But
will intervene by the extraordinary legal remedy of mandamus to compel action. If the restriction imposed to protect the public health, safety or morals from dangers
duty is purely ministerial, the courts will require specific action. If the duty is purely threatened is not a taking. The restriction here in question is merely the prohibition of a
discretionary, the courts by mandamus will require action only. For example, if an inferior noxious use. The property so restricted remains in the possession of its owner. The state
court, public official, or board should, for an unreasonable length of time, fail to decide a does not appropriate it or make any use of it. The state merely prevents the owner from
particular question to the great detriment of all parties concerned, or a court should making a use which interferes with paramount rights of the public. Whenever the use
refuse to take jurisdiction of a cause when the law clearly gave it jurisdiction mandamus prohibited ceases to be noxious as it may because of further changes in local or social
will issue, in the first case to require a decision, and in the second to require that conditions the restriction will have to be removed and the owner will again be free to
jurisdiction be taken of the cause. 22 enjoy his property as heretofore.
And while it is true that as a rule the writ will not be proper as long as there is still a Recent trends, however, would indicate not a polarization but a mingling of the police
plain, speedy and adequate remedy available from the administrative authorities, resort power and the power of eminent domain, with the latter being used as an implement of
to the courts may still be permitted if the issue raised is a question of law. 23 the former like the power of taxation. The employment of the taxing power to achieve a
police purpose has long been accepted. 26 As for the power of expropriation, Prof. John
J. Costonis of the University of Illinois College of Law (referring to the earlier case of
C Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, which sustained a zoning law under the police
There are traditional distinctions between the police power and the power of eminent power) makes the following significant remarks:
domain that logically preclude the application of both powers at the same time on the Euclid, moreover, was decided in an era when judges located the Police and eminent
same subject. In the case of City of Baguio v. NAWASA, 24 for example, where a law domain powers on different planets. Generally speaking, they viewed eminent domain as
required the transfer of all municipal waterworks systems to the NAWASA in exchange encompassing public acquisition of private property for improvements that would be
for its assets of equivalent value, the Court held that the power being exercised was available for public use," literally construed. To the police power, on the other hand, they
eminent domain because the property involved was wholesome and intended for a assigned the less intrusive task of preventing harmful externalities a point reflected in
public use. Property condemned under the police power is noxious or intended for a the Euclid opinion's reliance on an analogy to nuisance law to bolster its support of
noxious purpose, such as a building on the verge of collapse, which should be zoning. So long as suppression of a privately authored harm bore a plausible relation to
demolished for the public safety, or obscene materials, which should be destroyed in the some legitimate "public purpose," the pertinent measure need have afforded no
interest of public morals. The confiscation of such property is not compensable, unlike compensation whatever. With the progressive growth of government's involvement in
the taking of property under the power of expropriation, which requires the payment of land use, the distance between the two powers has contracted considerably. Today
just compensation to the owner. government often employs eminent domain interchangeably with or as a useful
complement to the police power-- a trend expressly approved in the Supreme Court's
In the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 25 Justice Holmes laid down the limits of 1954 decision in Berman v. Parker, which broadened the reach of eminent domain's
the police power in a famous aphorism: "The general rule at least is that while property "public use" test to match that of the police power's standard of "public purpose." 27
may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a
taking." The regulation that went "too far" was a law prohibiting mining which might
The Berman case sustained a redevelopment project and the improvement of blighted and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. This is
areas in the District of Columbia as a proper exercise of the police power. On the role of definitely an exercise not of the police power but of the power of eminent domain.
eminent domain in the attainment of this purpose, Justice Douglas declared:
If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be Whether as an exercise of the police power or of the power of eminent domain, the
beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the several measures before us are challenged as violative of the due process and equal
way. protection clauses.
Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the
exercise of eminent domain is clear. The challenge to Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 299 on the ground that no
For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end. 28 retention limits are prescribed has already been discussed and dismissed. It is noted that
In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 29 decided by a 6-3 vote in 1978, the although they excited many bitter exchanges during the deliberation of the CARP Law in
U.S Supreme Court sustained the respondent's Landmarks Preservation Law under which Congress, the retention limits finally agreed upon are, curiously enough, not being
the owners of the Grand Central Terminal had not been allowed to construct a multi- questioned in these petitions. We therefore do not discuss them here. The Court will
story office building over the Terminal, which had been designated a historic landmark. come to the other claimed violations of due process in connection with our examination
Preservation of the landmark was held to be a valid objective of the police power. The of the adequacy of just compensation as required under the power of expropriation.
problem, however, was that the owners of the Terminal would be deprived of the right to
use the airspace above it although other landowners in the area could do so over their The argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal protection because
respective properties. While insisting that there was here no taking, the Court of the absence of retention limits has also become academic under Section 6 of R.A. No.
nonetheless recognized certain compensatory rights accruing to Grand Central Terminal 6657. Significantly, they too have not questioned the area of such limits. There is also the
which it said would "undoubtedly mitigate" the loss caused by the regulation. This "fair complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an
compensation," as he called it, was explained by Prof. Costonis in this wise: objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a particular
class with particular interests of their own. However, no evidence has been submitted to
In return for retaining the Terminal site in its pristine landmark status, Penn Central was the Court that the requisites of a valid classification have been violated.
authorized to transfer to neighboring properties the authorized but unused rights
accruing to the site prior to the Terminal's designation as a landmark the rights which Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other
would have been exhausted by the 59-story building that the city refused to countenance in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. 31 To be
atop the Terminal. Prevailing bulk restrictions on neighboring sites were proportionately valid, it must conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial
relaxed, theoretically enabling Penn Central to recoup its losses at the Terminal site by distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must not be limited
constructing or selling to others the right to construct larger, hence more profitable to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
buildings on the transferee sites. 30 32 The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here
challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.
The cases before us present no knotty complication insofar as the question of
compensable taking is concerned. To the extent that the measures under challenge Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be
merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. 33 The
for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a
carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever different treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other
lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be
under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is
imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What clearly visible except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this
is required is the surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said excess matter. In any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid
classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice public interest on the time-honored justification, as in the case of the police power, that
except only where its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights. the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
It is worth remarking at this juncture that a statute may be sustained under the police But for all its primacy and urgency, the power of expropriation is by no means absolute
power only if there is a concurrence of the lawful subject and the lawful method. Put (as indeed no power is absolute). The limitation is found in the constitutional injunction
otherwise, the interests of the public generally as distinguished from those of a particular that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation" and
class require the interference of the State and, no less important, the means employed in the abundant jurisprudence that has evolved from the interpretation of this principle.
are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the purpose sought to be achieved and Basically, the requirements for a proper exercise of the power are: (1) public use and (2)
not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 34 As the subject and purpose of agrarian just compensation.
reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself, we may say that the first
requirement has been satisfied. What remains to be examined is the validity of the Let us dispose first of the argument raised by the petitioners in G.R. No. 79310 that the
method employed to achieve the constitutional goal. State should first distribute public agricultural lands in the pursuit of agrarian reform
instead of immediately disturbing property rights by forcibly acquiring private agricultural
One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the rights of the lands. Parenthetically, it is not correct to say that only public agricultural lands may be
individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means. It is not enough that there covered by the CARP as the Constitution calls for "the just distribution of all agricultural
be a valid objective; it is also necessary that the means employed to pursue it be in lands." In any event, the decision to redistribute private agricultural lands in the manner
keeping with the Constitution. Mere expediency will not excuse constitutional shortcuts. prescribed by the CARP was made by the legislative and executive departments in the
There is no question that not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent exercise of their discretion. We are not justified in reviewing that discretion in the
public need, subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of an absence of a clear showing that it has been abused.
individual's rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a, person invoking a right guaranteed
under Article III of the Constitution is a majority of one even as against the rest of the A becoming courtesy admonishes us to respect the decisions of the political departments
nation who would deny him that right. when they decide what is known as the political question. As explained by Chief Justice
Concepcion in the case of Taada v. Cuenco: 36
That right covers the person's life, his liberty and his property under Section 1 of Article
III of the Constitution. With regard to his property, the owner enjoys the added The term "political question" connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a
protection of Section 9, which reaffirms the familiar rule that private property shall not question of policy. It refers to "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
be taken for public use without just compensation. decided by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government."
This brings us now to the power of eminent domain. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular
measure.
D
It is true that the concept of the political question has been constricted with the
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire enlargement of judicial power, which now includes the authority of the courts "to
private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
Obviously, there is no need to expropriate where the owner is willing to sell under terms or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an ordinary deed of sale may be agreed 37 Even so, this should not be construed as a license for us to reverse the other
upon by the parties. 35 It is only where the owner is unwilling to sell, or cannot accept departments simply because their views may not coincide with ours.
the price or other conditions offered by the vendee, that the power of eminent domain
will come into play to assert the paramount authority of the State over the interests of The legislature and the executive have been seen fit, in their wisdom, to include in the
the property owner. Private rights must then yield to the irresistible demands of the CARP the redistribution of private landholdings (even as the distribution of public
agricultural lands is first provided for, while also continuing apace under the Public Land As held in Republic of the Philippines v. Castellvi, 42 there is compensable taking when
Act and other cognate laws). The Court sees no justification to interpose its authority, the following conditions concur: (1) the expropriator must enter a private property; (2)
which we may assert only if we believe that the political decision is not unwise, but the entry must be for more than a momentary period; (3) the entry must be under
illegal. We do not find it to be so. warrant or color of legal authority; (4) the property must be devoted to public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and (5) the utilization of the
In U.S. v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Company, 38 it was held: property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the property. All these requisites are envisioned in the measures
Congress having determined, as it did by the Act of March 3,1909 that the entire St. before us.
Mary's river between the American bank and the international line, as well as all of the
upland north of the present ship canal, throughout its entire length, was "necessary for Where the State itself is the expropriator, it is not necessary for it to make a deposit upon
the purpose of navigation of said waters, and the waters connected therewith," that its taking possession of the condemned property, as "the compensation is a public
determination is conclusive in condemnation proceedings instituted by the United States charge, the good faith of the public is pledged for its payment, and all the resources of
under that Act, and there is no room for judicial review of the judgment of Congress ... . taxation may be employed in raising the amount." 43 Nevertheless, Section 16(e) of the
CARP Law provides that:
As earlier observed, the requirement for public use has already been settled for us by the
Constitution itself No less than the 1987 Charter calls for agrarian reform, which is the Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or
reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated
prescribed maximum retention limits. The purposes specified in P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the
131 and R.A. No. 6657 are only an elaboration of the constitutional injunction that the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of
State adopt the necessary measures "to encourage and undertake the just distribution of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the
all agricultural lands to enable farmers who are landless to own directly or collectively Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the
the lands they till." That public use, as pronounced by the fundamental law itself, must qualified beneficiaries.
be binding on us.
Objection is raised, however, to the manner of fixing the just compensation, which it is
The second requirement, i.e., the payment of just compensation, needs a longer and claimed is entrusted to the administrative authorities in violation of judicial prerogatives.
more thoughtful examination. Specific reference is made to Section 16(d), which provides that in case of the rejection
or disregard by the owner of the offer of the government to buy his land-
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its
owner by the expropriator. 39 It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the ... the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the
measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. 40 The word "just" is used to compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15)
equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter
ample. 41 is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days
after it is submitted for decision.
It bears repeating that the measures challenged in these petitions contemplate more
than a mere regulation of the use of private lands under the police power. We deal here To be sure, the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts
with an actual taking of private agricultural lands that has dispossessed the owners of of justice and may not be usurped by any other branch or official of the government.
their property and deprived them of all its beneficial use and enjoyment, to entitle them EPZA v. Dulay 44 resolved a challenge to several decrees promulgated by President
to the just compensation mandated by the Constitution. Marcos providing that the just compensation for property under expropriation should be
either the assessment of the property by the government or the sworn valuation thereof
by the owner, whichever was lower. In declaring these decrees unconstitutional, the A reading of the aforecited Section 16(d) will readily show that it does not suffer from the
Court held through Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr.: arbitrariness that rendered the challenged decrees constitutionally objectionable.
Although the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and other
The method of ascertaining just compensation under the aforecited decrees constitutes interested parties are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence on the
impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court inutile real value of the property. But more importantly, the determination of the just
in a matter which under this Constitution is reserved to it for final determination. compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner
or any other interested party, for Section 16(f) clearly provides:
Thus, although in an expropriation proceeding the court technically would still have the Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper
power to determine the just compensation for the property, following the applicable jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
decrees, its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties
declared either by the owner or the assessor. As a necessary consequence, it would be concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality
useless for the court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. the said determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.
Moreover, the need to satisfy the due process clause in the taking of private property is The second and more serious objection to the provisions on just compensation is not as
seemingly fulfilled since it cannot be said that a judicial proceeding was not had before easily resolved.
the actual taking. However, the strict application of the decrees during the proceedings
would be nothing short of a mere formality or charade as the court has only to choose This refers to Section 18 of the CARP Law providing in full as follows:
between the valuation of the owner and that of the assessor, and its choice is always SEC. 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. The LBP shall compensate the
limited to the lower of the two. The court cannot exercise its discretion or independence landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and
in determining what is just or fair. Even a grade school pupil could substitute for the the LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other
judge insofar as the determination of constitutional just compensation is concerned. pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just
compensation for the land.
xxx
In the present petition, we are once again confronted with the same question of whether The compensation shall be paid in one of the following modes, at the option of the
the courts under P.D. No. 1533, which contains the same provision on just compensation landowner:
as its predecessor decrees, still have the power and authority to determine just (1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions:
compensation, independent of what is stated by the decree and to this effect, to appoint a) For lands above fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned
commissioners for such purpose. Twenty-five percent (25%) cash, the balance to be paid in government
financial instruments negotiable at any time.
This time, we answer in the affirmative.
b) For lands above twenty-four (24) hectares and up to fifty (50) hectares Thirty
xxx percent (30%) cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments
It is violative of due process to deny the owner the opportunity to prove that the negotiable at any time.
valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to the basic
concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor bureaucrat or
clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court promulgated only after expert c) For lands twenty-four (24) hectares and below Thirty-five percent (35%) cash,
commissioners have actually viewed the property, after evidence and arguments pro and the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any
con have been presented, and after all factors and considerations essential to a fair and time.
just determination have been judiciously evaluated.
(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred i) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in
shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set government hospitals; and
by the PARC;
(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability; j) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.
(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:
a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent (10%) of The contention of the petitioners in G.R. No. 79777 is that the above provision is
the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance unconstitutional insofar as it requires the owners of the expropriated properties to
until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose to accept just compensation therefor in less than money, which is the only medium of
forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid payment allowed. In support of this contention, they cite jurisprudence holding that:
correspondingly in LBP bonds; The fundamental rule in expropriation matters is that the owner of the property
expropriated is entitled to a just compensation, which should be neither more nor less,
b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner, whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the money equivalent of said
his successors-in- interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face value, for property. Just compensation has always been understood to be the just and complete
any of the following: equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason
of the expropriation . 45 (Emphasis supplied.)
c) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including assets
under the Asset Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by In J.M. Tuazon Co. v. Land Tenure Administration, 46 this Court held:
government financial institutions in the same province or region where the lands
for which the bonds were paid are situated; It is well-settled that just compensation means the equivalent for the value of the
property at the time of its taking. Anything beyond that is more, and anything short of
d) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or controlled corporations that is less, than just compensation. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss
or shares of stock owned by the government in private corporations; sustained, which is the measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the
expropriating entity. The market value of the land taken is the just compensation to
e) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused which the owner of condemned property is entitled, the market value being that sum of
persons, or for performance bonds; money which a person desirous, but not compelled to buy, and an owner, willing, but not
compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received for such property.
f) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the (Emphasis supplied.)
proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a
small and medium- scale industry, in the same province or region as the land for In the United States, where much of our jurisprudence on the subject has been derived,
which the bonds are paid; the weight of authority is also to the effect that just compensation for property
expropriated is payable only in money and not otherwise. Thus
g) Payment for various taxes and fees to government: Provided, That the use of
these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the The medium of payment of compensation is ready money or cash. The condemnor
outstanding balance of the financial instruments; Provided, further, That the cannot compel the owner to accept anything but money, nor can the owner compel or
PARC shall determine the percentages mentioned above; require the condemnor to pay him on any other basis than the value of the property in
money at the time and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution and the statutes.
h) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in When the power of eminent domain is resorted to, there must be a standard medium of
government universities, colleges, trade schools, and other institutions; payment, binding upon both parties, and the law has fixed that standard as money in
cash. 47 (Emphasis supplied.)
We assume that the framers of the Constitution were aware of this difficulty when they
Part cash and deferred payments are not and cannot, in the nature of things, be regarded called for agrarian reform as a top priority project of the government. It is a part of this
as a reliable and constant standard of compensation. 48 assumption that when they envisioned the expropriation that would be needed, they
also intended that the just compensation would have to be paid not in the orthodox way
"Just compensation" for property taken by condemnation means a fair equivalent in but a less conventional if more practical method. There can be no doubt that they were
money, which must be paid at least within a reasonable time after the taking, and it is aware of the financial limitations of the government and had no illusions that there
not within the power of the Legislature to substitute for such payment future obligations, would be enough money to pay in cash and in full for the lands they wanted to be
bonds, or other valuable advantage. 49 (Emphasis supplied.) distributed among the farmers. We may therefore assume that their intention was to
allow such manner of payment as is now provided for by the CARP Law, particularly the
It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium for the payment of just payment of the balance (if the owner cannot be paid fully with money), or indeed of the
compensation is money and no other. And so, conformably, has just compensation been entire amount of the just compensation, with other things of value. We may also
paid in the past solely in that medium. However, we do not deal here with the traditional suppose that what they had in mind was a similar scheme of payment as that prescribed
excercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary expropriation where in P.D. No. 27, which was the law in force at the time they deliberated on the new
only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from Charter and with which they presumably agreed in principle.
its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.
The Court has not found in the records of the Constitutional Commission any categorical
What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation. agreement among the members regarding the meaning to be given the concept of just
compensation as applied to the comprehensive agrarian reform program being
The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of contemplated. There was the suggestion to "fine tune" the requirement to suit the
whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed demands of the project even as it was also felt that they should "leave it to Congress" to
their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit not only of a determine how payment should be made to the landowner and reimbursement required
particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino from the farmer-beneficiaries. Such innovations as "progressive compensation" and
nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted "State-subsidized compensation" were also proposed. In the end, however, no special
owner. Its purpose does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes definition of the just compensation for the lands to be expropriated was reached by the
beyond in time to the foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and edify with the Commission. 50
vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of Filipinos. Generations yet to come
are as involved in this program as we are today, although hopefully only as beneficiaries On the other hand, there is nothing in the records either that militates against the
of a richer and more fulfilling life we will guarantee to them tomorrow through our assumptions we are making of the general sentiments and intention of the members on
thoughtfulness today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no less than the the content and manner of the payment to be made to the landowner in the light of the
Constitution itself that has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just magnitude of the expenditure and the limitations of the expropriator.
distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their
dreams but can now become the key at least to their deliverance. With these assumptions, the Court hereby declares that the content and manner of the
just compensation provided for in the afore- quoted Section 18 of the CARP Law is not
Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous. violative of the Constitution. We do not mind admitting that a certain degree of
Considering the vast areas of land subject to expropriation under the laws before us, we pragmatism has influenced our decision on this issue, but after all this Court is not a
estimate that hundreds of billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the cloistered institution removed from the realities and demands of society or oblivious to
amount of P50 billion initially appropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our the need for its enhancement. The Court is as acutely anxious as the rest of our people to
present standards. Such amount is in fact not even fully available at this time. see the goal of agrarian reform achieved at last after the frustrations and deprivations of
our peasant masses during all these disappointing decades. We are aware that
invalidation of the said section will result in the nullification of the entire program, killing
the farmer's hopes even as they approach realization and resurrecting the spectre of Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here and in other democratic
discontent and dissent in the restless countryside. That is not in our view the intention of jurisdictions. Thus:
the Constitution, and that is not what we shall decree today.
Title to property which is the subject of condemnation proceedings does not vest the
Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is not always required to be condemnor until the judgment fixing just compensation is entered and paid, but the
made fully in money, we find further that the proportion of cash payment to the other condemnor's title relates back to the date on which the petition under the Eminent
things of value constituting the total payment, as determined on the basis of the areas of Domain Act, or the commissioner's report under the Local Improvement Act, is filed. 51
the lands expropriated, is not unduly oppressive upon the landowner. It is noted that the
smaller the land, the bigger the payment in money, primarily because the small ... although the right to appropriate and use land taken for a canal is complete at the
landowner will be needing it more than the big landowners, who can afford a bigger time of entry, title to the property taken remains in the owner until payment is actually
balance in bonds and other things of value. No less importantly, the government financial made. 52 (Emphasis supplied.)
instruments making up the balance of the payment are "negotiable at any time." The
other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his option, are also not In Kennedy v. Indianapolis, 53 the US Supreme Court cited several cases holding that title
unreasonable because payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, other properties to property does not pass to the condemnor until just compensation had actually been
or assets, tax credits, and other things of value equivalent to the amount of just made. In fact, the decisions appear to be uniformly to this effect. As early as 1838, in
compensation. Rubottom v. McLure, 54 it was held that "actual payment to the owner of the
condemned property was a condition precedent to the investment of the title to the
Admittedly, the compensation contemplated in the law will cause the landowners, big property in the State" albeit "not to the appropriation of it to public use." In Rexford v.
and small, not a little inconvenience. As already remarked, this cannot be avoided. Knight, 55 the Court of Appeals of New York said that the construction upon the statutes
Nevertheless, it is devoutly hoped that these countrymen of ours, conscious as we know was that the fee did not vest in the State until the payment of the compensation
they are of the need for their forebearance and even sacrifice, will not begrudge us their although the authority to enter upon and appropriate the land was complete prior to the
indispensable share in the attainment of the ideal of agrarian reform. Otherwise, our payment. Kennedy further said that "both on principle and authority the rule is ... that
pursuit of this elusive goal will be like the quest for the Holy Grail. the right to enter on and use the property is complete, as soon as the property is actually
appropriated under the authority of law for a public use, but that the title does not pass
The complaint against the effects of non-registration of the land under E.O. No. 229 does from the owner without his consent, until just compensation has been made to him."
not seem to be viable any more as it appears that Section 4 of the said Order has been
superseded by Section 14 of the CARP Law. This repeats the requisites of registration as Our own Supreme Court has held in Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus and Paredes, 56 that:
embodied in the earlier measure but does not provide, as the latter did, that in case of
failure or refusal to register the land, the valuation thereof shall be that given by the If the laws which we have exhibited or cited in the preceding discussion are attentively
provincial or city assessor for tax purposes. On the contrary, the CARP Law says that the examined it will be apparent that the method of expropriation adopted in this
just compensation shall be ascertained on the basis of the factors mentioned in its jurisdiction is such as to afford absolute reassurance that no piece of land can be finally
Section 17 and in the manner provided for in Section 16. and irrevocably taken from an unwilling owner until compensation is paid ... . (Emphasis
supplied.)
The last major challenge to CARP is that the landowner is divested of his property even
before actual payment to him in full of just compensation, in contravention of a well- It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer as
accepted principle of eminent domain. October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner" of a portion of land
consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title to the land owned by him was to be
The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the actually issued to him unless and until he had become a full-fledged member of a duly
owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation. recognized farmers' cooperative." It was understood, however, that full payment of the
just compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
requirement. Obviously, the Court cannot resolve these issues. In any event, assuming that the
petitioners have not yet exercised their retention rights, if any, under P.D. No. 27, the
When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that: Court holds that they are entitled to the new retention rights provided for by R.A. No.
6657, which in fact are on the whole more liberal than those granted by the decree.
All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21, 1972 of
the land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27. (Emphasis supplied.) E
it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said decree, after The CARP Law and the other enactments also involved in these cases have been the
proof of full-fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives and full payment of just subject of bitter attack from those who point to the shortcomings of these measures and
compensation. Hence, it was also perfectly proper for the Order to also provide in its ask that they be scrapped entirely. To be sure, these enactments are less than perfect;
Section 2 that the "lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer- beneficiary after indeed, they should be continuously re-examined and rehoned, that they may be sharper
October 21, 1972 (pending transfer of ownership after full payment of just instruments for the better protection of the farmer's rights. But we have to start
compensation), shall be considered as advance payment for the land." somewhere. In the pursuit of agrarian reform, we do not tread on familiar ground but
grope on terrain fraught with pitfalls and expected difficulties. This is inevitable. The
The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the CARP Law is not a tried and tested project. On the contrary, to use Justice Holmes's
land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or words, "it is an experiment, as all life is an experiment," and so we learn as we venture
the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible forward, and, if necessary, by our own mistakes. We cannot expect perfection although
bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. 57 No outright change of we should strive for it by all means. Meantime, we struggle as best we can in freeing the
ownership is contemplated either. farmer from the iron shackles that have unconscionably, and for so long, fettered his soul
to the soil.
Hence, the argument that the assailed measures violate due process by arbitrarily
transferring title before the land is fully paid for must also be rejected. By the decision we reach today, all major legal obstacles to the comprehensive agrarian
reform program are removed, to clear the way for the true freedom of the farmer. We
It is worth stressing at this point that all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. may now glimpse the day he will be released not only from want but also from the
No. 27, as recognized under E.O. No. 228, are retained by him even now under R.A. No. exploitation and disdain of the past and from his own feelings of inadequacy and
6657. This should counter-balance the express provision in Section 6 of the said law that helplessness. At last his servitude will be ended forever. At last the farm on which he toils
"the landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be will be his farm. It will be his portion of the Mother Earth that will give him not only the
allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further, That original staff of life but also the joy of living. And where once it bred for him only deep despair,
homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at now can he see in it the fruition of his hopes for a more fulfilling future. Now at last can
the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue he banish from his small plot of earth his insecurities and dark resentments and "rebuild
to cultivate said homestead." in it the music and the dream."
In connection with these retained rights, it does not appear in G.R. No. 78742 that the WHEREFORE, the Court holds as follows:
appeal filed by the petitioners with the Office of the President has already been resolved.
Although we have said that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies need 1. R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are
not preclude immediate resort to judicial action, there are factual issues that have yet to SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections raised in the herein petitions.
be examined on the administrative level, especially the claim that the petitioners are not
covered by LOI 474 because they do not own other agricultural lands than the subjects of 2. Title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full
their petition. payment of compensation to their respective owners.
cases filed by the petitioners does not show that the said cases are similar with
3. All rights previously acquired by the tenant- farmers under P.D. No. 27 are retained and each other. The petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals sought the
recognized. nullification of the DAR Secretarys order to proceed with the compulsory
acquisition and distribution of the subject property. On the other hand, the civil
4. Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights of retention under P.D. No. 27 case in RTC of Malaybalay, Bukidnon for the annulment and cancellation of title
shall enjoy the retention rights granted by R.A. No. 6657 under the conditions therein issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, with damages, was based
prescribed. on the following grounds: (1) the DAR, in applying for cancellation of petitioner
NQSRMDCs title, used documents which were earlier declared null and void by
5. Subject to the above-mentioned rulings all the petitions are DISMISSED, without the DARAB; (2) the cancellation of NQSRMDCs title was made without payment
pronouncement as to costs. of just compensation; and (3) without notice to NQSRMDC for the surrender of
its title. The present petition is entirely different from the said two cases as it
SO ORDERED. seeks the nullification of the assailed Win-Win Resolution of the Office of the
President dated November 7, 1997, which resolution was issued long after the
CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS previous two cases were instituted.
The fourth and final preliminary issue to be resolved is the motion for
Cases; intervention filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries, which we have to deny for lack
HON. CARLOS O. FORTICH, PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF BUKIDNON, HON. REY B. of merit. In their motion, movants contend that they are the farmer-beneficiaries
BAULA, MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SUMILAO, BUKIDNON, NQSR MANAGEMENT AND of the land in question, hence, are real parties in interest. To prove this, they
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, DEPUTY attached as Annex I in their motion a Master List of Farmer-Beneficiaries.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ERNESTO D. GARILAO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT Apparently, the alleged master list was made pursuant to the directive in the
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondents. G.R. No. 131457. April 24, 1998 dispositive portion of the assailed Win-Win Resolution which directs the DAR to
The test for determining whether a party violated the rule against forum carefully and meticulously determine who among the claimants are qualified
shopping has been laid down in the 1986 case of Buan vs. Lopez (145 SCRA 34), x farmer-beneficiaries. However, a perusal of the said document reveals that
xx and that is, forum shopping exists where the elements of litispendentia are movants are those purportedly Found Qualified and Recommended for Approval.
present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the In other words, movants are merely recommendee farmer-beneficiaries.
other, as follows: The rule in this jurisdiction is that a real party in interest is a party who
would be benefited or injured by the judgment or is the party entitled to the
There thus exists between the action before this Court and RTC Case No. avails of the suit. Real interest means a present substantial interest, as
86-36563 identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same distinguished from a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or
interests in both actions, as well as identity of rights asserted and relief prayed consequential interest.[59] Undoubtedly, movants interest over the land in
for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and the identity on the two question is a mere expectancy. Ergo, they are not real parties in interest.
preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action, Furthermore, the challenged resolution upon which movants based their
will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res adjudicata in the motion is, as intimated earlier, null and void. Hence, their motion for
action under consideration: all the requisites, in fine, of auter action intervention has no leg to stand on.
pendant.'[58] Now to the main issue of whether the final and executory Decision dated
March 29,1996 can still be substantially modified by the Win-Win Resolution.
It is clear from the above-quoted rule that the petitioners are not guilty We rule in the negative.
of forum shopping. The test for determining whether a party has violated the The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the
rule against forum shopping is where a final judgment in one case will amount to President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. 18.
res adjudicata in the action under consideration. A cursory examination of the Section 7 thereof provides:
SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall, Under Republic Act 6657, the DAR retains jurisdiction over all agrarian
except as otherwise provided for by special laws, become final after the reform matters. The pertinent provision reads:
lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. The DAR is hereby vested
unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period. with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally meritorious cases. implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
(Emphasis ours) jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
It is further provided for in Section 9 that The Rules of Court shall apply Environment and Natural Resources.
in a suppletory character whenever practicable. It shall not be bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence but
Jose Luis Pos, et.al.,vs DAR, GR No. 132477 August 31,2005 shall proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or controversies in a most
Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657 states that agricultural lands refers to the land expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of
devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this act and not classified as mineral, every case in accordance with justice and equity and the merits of the case.
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just,
Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 has ruled that, with expeditious and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding before
respect to the conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non- it. . . .
agricultural uses, the authority of DAR to approve such conversion may be
exercised from the date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988. Thus, all lands that
are already classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before 15 June CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS, INC. vs THE SECRETARY OF
1988 no longer need any conversion clearance. AGRARIAN REFORM, G.R. No. 183409 June 18, 2010
The authority of the DAR to approve conversions of agricultural lands Finally, the third and fourth issues which may be summed up into
covered by Rep. Act No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses has not been pierced by whether or not an injunction is the appropriate remedy against the order of the
the passage of the Local Government Code. The Code explicitly provides[26] that DAR enjoining petitioners in developing the subject land, we rule in the negative.
nothing in this section shall be construed as repealing or modifying in any Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 6657 provides:
manner the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6657. A tribunal, board, or officer is said to be exercising judicial function
It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion of land is vested in the where it has the power to determine what the law is and what the legal rights of
DAR, the complaint for injunction was correctly dismissed by the trial and the parties are, and then undertakes to determine these questions and
appellate courts under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. This Court, in adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. Quasi-judicial function, on the other
Bautista v. Mag-isaVda. De Villena,[27] found occasion to reiterate the doctrine hand, is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
of primary jurisdiction administrative officers or bodies x xx required to investigate facts or ascertain the
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for
a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.[34]
administrative body of special competence. For agrarian reform cases, Before a tribunal, board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial
jurisdiction is vested in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of
specifically, in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the
Executive Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial powers to controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer
determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all clothed with power and authority to determine the law and adjudicate the
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling respective rights of the contending parties.[35]
under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the The Secretary of Agrarian Reform does not fall within the ambit of a
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. This law divested the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The
regional trial courts of their general jurisdiction to try agrarian reform matters. issuance and enforcement by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform of the questioned
DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, and Memorandum No. 88 were done in the
exercise of his quasi-legislative and administrative functions and not of judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.