Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LAW II-A
JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO v. REMEDIOS LOYOLA
G.R. No. 181370, March 9, 2011
J. Carpio
FACTS
Respondent owns a 240-square meter parcel of land located at Carmona, Cavite awarded
by the DAR under R.A. No. 6657 (CARP) which is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership
(CLOA) and duly registered under TCT. Herein petitioner Julian Lebrudo substituted by his
son Reynaldo, filed with the PARAD of Cavite, an action for the cancellation of said Title and
the issuance of another for half of the lot involved which was dismissed on the ground of
prematurity. Petitioner then re-filed for the same action with the following allegations: That
herein respondent asked for petitioners assistance in redeeming the mortgaged lot and to
shoulder the expenses needed for the issuance of Title to Loyola which was fulfilled by the
petitioner. In exchange for his assistance, respondent promised to give half of the said lot to
petitioner by executing three sinumpang salaysay waiving her right to half of the lot in
favour of petitioner. Respondent then refused to comply with her promise when petitioner
asked for his portion of the lot involved which then resulted to the petitioner asking for the
assistance of the Sangguniang Barangay of Carmona, Cavite, the PNP, and DAR to mediate
and solve the dispute. Despite efforts to solve the difference the parties failed to reach an
amicable settlement. Respondent alleged facts contrary to the information provided by
petitioner in her answer and denied ever promising to give half of the lot to Lebrudo. The
PARAD then decided the case in favour of the petitioner. Respondent then appealed to the
DARAB which was granted reversing the decision of PARAD. Petitioner then filed a motion for
reconsideration which the DARAB denied in a resolution. Petitioner then filed a petition with
the CA which affirmed the decision of DARAB in denying his petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not Lebrudo is entitled to half of the lot covered by RA 6657.
RULING
No. A Certificate of Land Ownership is a document evidencing ownership of the land
granted of awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, and contains the restrictions and conditions
provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws particularly Sec. 27 which provides for the
transferability of awarded lands prohibiting any land acquired under said law to be
transferred, sold, or conveyed to third persons except through hereditary succession, the
government, LBP, or other qualified beneficiaries. Petitioners action is without merit. The
law expressly prohibits any sale, transfer or conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land
reform rights within 10 years form the grant by the DAR. Furthermore the certificate of title
obtained by herein respondent serves as evidence of an indefeasible title and it becomes
incontrovertible after a year. The executed Sinumpaang Salaysays are likewise void ab initio
for it was the intention of the petitioner to violate the conditions imposed by the Agrarian
Law. Therefore the Petition is DENIED, the SC AFFIRMED the decision and resolution of the
CA.
reception of evidence. The Petition is GRANTED. The assailed amended decision of the CA is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The special civil case is remanded to the RTC of Masbate.
courts decision, it recognizes that the evidences presented by the parties were insufficient
to arrive at the just compensation and that the necessary evidence were unavailable for its
consideration. Despite the lack of evidence, the court still proceeded with the case and
decided it in favour of the respondent based on a mere preponderance of evidence even if it
was not relevant. The LBPs valuation is likewise erroneous. It is not enough that the
landowner fails to prove a higher valuation for the property; LBP must still prove the
correctness of its claims. In the absence of such substantiation, the case may have to be
remanded for the reception of evidence. LBP merely submitted its computation to the court
without any evidence on record whether documentary or testimonial that would support the
correctness of the values of data used in such computation. In light of the lack of evidence
needed to pursue the case, the court decided to remand the case to its court of origin. The
petition was DENIED in so far as it sought to have the LBPs valuation of the subject
property sustained. The assailed decisions of the CA and its resolution were reversed and
set aside for lack of factual and legal basis. The Civil case was remanded to the RTC of
Angeles City for reception of evidence on the issue of compensation and said court was
directed to determine the just compensation in accordance with the guidelines; and was
further directed to conclude the proceedings and to submit to the SC a report of its findings
and recommended conclusions within 60 days from notice of the decision.
CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A
ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997
J. Romero,
FACTS
Petitioners are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms.
They assailed Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of RA 6657, as well as the
implementing guidelines and procedures contained in AOs 8 and 10 series of 1988 issue by
public respondent secretary of the DAR as unconstitutional. Petitioners claimed that the
questioned provisions of CARL violate the constitution in that the provisions in question
under CARL extend agrarian reform to aquaculture lands even as the Constitution limits said
law to agricultural lands; that said provisions treat aquaculture and agriculture lands
similarly when they are differently situated and differently treat the same when they are
similarly situated in violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution; that said
provisions distort employment benefits and burdens in favour of aquaculture employees;
that questioned provisions deprive petitioner of its government-induced investments in
aquaculture as opposed to the constitutional mandate that the state respect the freedom of
enterprise to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth.
ISSUE
Whether or not the above-mentioned provisions insofar as they include in its coverage lands
devoted to the aquaculture industry is unconstitutional.
RULING
The court has already ruled impliedly that lands devoted to fishing are not agricultural
lands. In said undertaking, the use of land is only incidental to and not the principal factor in
productivity and hence, is excluded from RA 6657. While the court will not hesitate to
declare a law or an act void when confronted squarely with constitutional issues, neither will
it pre-empt the Legislative and the Executive branches of the government in correcting or
clarifying by means of amendment, said law or act. It is clearly stated in Section 10Exemptions and Exclusions of RA 6657 that Private lands actually, directly, and exclusively
used for prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and CLOA issued to agrarian
reform beneficiaries under the CARP. furthermore, under the same law, the provision states
that the foregoing provision shall not apply to agricultural lands subsequently converted to
fishponds or prawn farms provided the size of the land converted does not exceed the
retention limit of the landowner. Wherefore the petition is DISMISSED for the question of
constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the
passage of RA 7881.
SET ASIDE. The records of the case were remanded to the court a quo which is directed to
determine the proper just compensation for the subject property.
remand. After the parties filed their respective memorandum in 2007 and submitted the
case for resolution, congress passed a new agrarian reform law, RA 9700 which further
amended RA 6657. The former provides in section 5, that all valuations that are subject to
challenge by the landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17
of RA 6657, as amended. Lastly, the DAR and LBP appeared to be nonchalant in depriving
landowners of their properties. They seemed to have ignored the requirements of law, and
yet they asked for a strict compliance with the law when it came to compensating the
landowners. The rights of the Landowners cannot be lightly set aside and disregarded for
the attainment of the lofty ideals of agrarian reform. The Petition was DENIED by the SC for
lack of Merit, it also AFFIRMED the decision of the CA.