NataliaRealtyIncandEstateDevelopers&InvestorsCorpvsDAR

FACTS:
PetitionerNataliaistheownerofthreecontiguousparcelsoflandlocatedinBanaba,
Antipolo,Rizal.
On18April1979,PresidentialProclamationNo.1637setaside20,312hectaresof
landlocatedintheMunicipalitiesofAntipolo,SanMateoandMontalbanastownsite
areastoabsorbthepopulationoverspillinthemetropoliswhichweredesignatedas
theLungsodSilanganTownsite.TheNataliapropertiesaresituatedwithintheareas
proclaimedastownsitereservation.
EDIC,developerofNatalia,appliedforandwasgrantedpreliminaryapprovaland
locationalclearancesbytheHumanSettlementsRegulatoryCommission.Petitioners
werelikewiseissueddevelopmentpermitsaftercomplyingwiththerequirements.
ThustheNataliapropertieslaterbecametheAntipoloHillsSubdivision.
On15June1988,CARLwasenacted.
DAR,throughMARO,issuedaNoticeofCoverageontheundevelopedportionsof
theAntipoloHillsSubdivisionwhichconsistedofroughly90.3307hectares.
NataliaandEDICprotestedtothis.
MembersoftheSamahanngMagsasakasaBundokAntipolo,Inc.(SAMBA),fileda
complaint against Natalia and EDIC before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to
restrainpetitionersfromdevelopingareasundercultivationbySAMBAmembers.
DARRegionalruledbytemporarilyrestrainingpetitionersfromfurtherdeveloping
thesubdivision.
PetitionerselevatedtheircausetoDARABbutthelattermerelyremandedthecaseto
theRegionalAdjudicatorforfurtherproceedings
NataliawroterespondentSecretaryofAgrarianReformreiteratingitsrequesttoset
asidetheNoticeofCoverage.NeitherrespondentSecretarynorrespondentDirector
tookactionontheprotestletters.
Hence,thispetition.
Nataliascontention:Subjectpropertiesalreadyceasedtobeagriculturallandswhen
theywereincludedintheareasreservedbypresidentialfiatfortownsitereservation.
OSGs contention: The permits granted petitioners were not valid and binding
because they did not comply with the implementing Standards, Rules and
RegulationsofP.D.957,otherwiseknownas"TheSubdivisionandCondominium
Buyers'ProtectiveDecree,"inthatnoapplicationforconversionoftheNATALIA
landsfromagriculturaltoresidentialwaseverfiledwiththeDAR.Inotherwords,
therewasnovalidconversion.
ISSUE:Whetherornotthesubjectpropertiesshallbeincludedinthecoverageof
CARP
HELD:
NO.

Section4ofR.A.6657providesthattheCARLshall"cover,regardlessoftenurial
arrangementandcommodityproduced,allpublicandprivateagriculturallands."As
to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land devoted to
agricultural activity as defined in this Act andnot classified as mineral, forest,
residential,commercial or industrial land.The deliberationsof theConstitutional
Commissionconfirmthislimitation."Agriculturallands"areonlythoselandswhich
are "arable and suitable agricultural lands" and "do not include commercial,
industrialandresidentiallands."
Basedontheforegoing,itisclearthattheundevelopedportionsoftheAntipoloHills
Subdivisioncannotinanylanguagebeconsideredas"agriculturallands."Theselots
wereintendedforresidentialuse.Theyceasedtobeagriculturallandsuponapproval
oftheirinclusionintheLungsodSilanganReservation.
LuzFarmsvsSecofDAR
FACTS:
LuzFarmsisacorporationengagedinthelivestockandpoultrybusinessallegedly
standstobeadverselyaffectedbytheenforcementofsomeprovisionsofCARP.
LuzFarmsquestionsthefollowingprovisionsofR.A.6657,insofarastheyaremade
toapplytoit:
(a)Section 3(b)which includes the "raising of livestock (and poultry)" in the
definitionof"Agricultural,AgriculturalEnterpriseorAgriculturalActivity.
(b)Section11which defines "commercial farms" as "private agricultural lands
devotedtocommercial,livestock,poultryandswineraising..."
(c)Section13whichcallsuponpetitionertoexecuteaproductionsharingplan.
(d)Section16(d)and17whichvestontheDepartmentofAgrarianReformthe
authoritytosummarilydeterminethejustcompensationtobepaidforlandscovered
bytheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw
(e)Section32whichspellsouttheproductionsharingplanmentionedinSection
13
"...(W)herebythreepercent(3%)ofthegrosssalesfromtheproductionofsuch
lands are distributed within sixty (60) days of the end of the fiscal year as
compensationtoregularandotherfarmworkersinsuchlandsoverandabovethe
compensationtheycurrentlyreceivexxx
ISSUE:ThemainissueinthispetitionistheconstitutionalityofSections3(b),11,13
and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988),
insofarasthesaidlawincludestheraisingoflivestock,poultryandswineinits
coverage
HELD:
Saidprovisionsareunconstitutional.
ThetranscriptsofthedeliberationsoftheConstitutionalCommissionof1986onthe
meaningoftheword"agricultural,"clearlyshowthatitwasnevertheintentionof

the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the
coverage of the constitutionallymandated agrarian reform program of the
Government.
CommissionerTadeo:IpinaaalamkokayCommissionerRegaladonahindinamin
inilagayangagriculturalworkersakadahilanangkasamaritoangpiggery,poultryat
livestockworkers.Anginilagaynaminditoayfarmworkerkayahindikasamaang
piggery,poultryatlivestockworkers.
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which
includes "private agricultural lands devoted tocommercial livestock, poultryand
swineraising"inthedefinitionof"commercialfarms"isinvalid,totheextentthat
theaforecitedagroindustrialactivitiesaremadetobecoveredbytheagrarianreform
programoftheState.Thereissimplynoreasontoincludelivestockandpoultry
landsinthecoverageofagrarianreform.
AssociationofSmallLandownervsSAR
hese are four consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of the
ComprehensiveAgrarianReformAct(R.A.No.6657andrelatedlawsi.e.,Agrarian
LandReformCodeorR.A.No.3844).
Brief background: Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and Human
RightsincludesacallfortheadoptionbytheStateofanagrarianreformprogram.
TheStateshall,bylaw,undertakeanagrarianreformprogramfoundedontheright
offarmersandregularfarmworkers,whoarelandless,toowndirectlyorcollectively
thelandstheytillor,inthecaseofotherfarmworkers,toreceiveajustshareofthe
fruitsthereof.RA3844wasenactedin1963.P.D.No.27waspromulgatedin1972
toprovideforthecompulsoryacquisitionofprivatelandsfordistributionamong
tenantfarmersandtospecifymaximumretentionlimitsforlandowners.In1987,
President CorazonAquinoissued E.O.No.228,declaring full landownershipin
favorofthebeneficiariesofPD27andprovidingforthevaluationofstillunvalued
landscoveredbythedecreeaswellasthemanneroftheirpayment.In1987,P.P.
No.131,institutingacomprehensiveagrarianreformprogram(CARP)wasenacted;
later,E.O.No.229,providingthemechanicsforits(PP131s)implementation,was
also enacted. Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive
AgrarianReformLawin1988.Thislaw,whileconsiderablychangingtheearlier
mentionedenactments,neverthelessgivesthemsuppletoryeffectinsofarastheyare
notinconsistentwithitsprovisions.
[Twooftheconsolidatedcasesarediscussedbelow]
G.R.No.78742:(AssociationofSmallLandownersvsSecretary)
TheAssociationofSmallLandownersinthePhilippines,Inc.soughtexceptionfrom
the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A. 6657. The Association is
comprised of landowners of ricelands and cornlands whose landholdings do not
exceed7hectares.Theyinvokethatsincetheirlandholdingsarelessthan7hectares,
theyshouldnotbeforcedtodistributetheirlandtotheirtenantsunderR.A.6657for
theythemselveshaveshownwillingnesstotilltheirownland.Inshort,theywantto

be exempted from agrarian reform program because they claim to belong to a

differentclass.
G.R.No.79777:(ManaayvsJuico)
NicolasManaayquestionedthevalidityoftheagrarianreformlaws(PD27,EO228,
and229)onthegroundthattheselawsalreadyvaluatedtheirlandsfortheagrarian
reformprogramandthatthespecificamountmustbedeterminedbytheDepartment
of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Manaay averred that this violated the principle in
eminentdomainwhichprovidesthatonlycourtscandeterminejustcompensation.
This,forManaay,alsoviolateddueprocessforundertheconstitution,noproperty
shallbetakenforpublicusewithoutjustcompensation.
Manaayalsoquestionedtheprovisionwhichstatesthatlandownersmaybepaidfor
their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash. Manaay averred that just
compensationhasalwaysbeenintheformofmoneyandnotinbonds.
ISSUE:
1.Whetherornottherewasaviolationoftheequalprotectionclause.
2.Whetherornotthereisaviolationofdueprocess.
3.Whetherornotjustcompensation,undertheagrarianreformprogram,mustbein
termsofcash.
HELD:
1.No.TheAssociationhadnotshownanyproofthattheybelongtoadifferentclass
exempt from the agrarianreform program.Underthe law,classificationhas been
defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particularsanddifferentfromeachotherinthesesameparticulars.Tobevalid,it
mustconformtothefollowingrequirements:
(1)itmustbebasedonsubstantialdistinctions;
(2)itmustbegermanetothepurposesofthelaw;
(3)itmustnotbelimitedtoexistingconditionsonly;and
(4)itmustapplyequallytoallthemembersoftheclass.
Equalprotectionsimplymeansthatallpersonsorthingssimilarlysituatedmustbe
treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. The
Associationhavenotshownthattheybelongtoadifferentclassandentitledtoa
differenttreatment.Theargumentthatnotonlylandownersbutalsoownersofother
propertiesmustbemadetosharetheburdenofimplementinglandreformmustbe
rejected.Thereisasubstantialdistinctionbetweenthesetwoclassesofownersthatis
clearlyvisibleexcepttothosewhowillnotsee.Thereisnoneedtoelaborateonthis
matter.Inanyevent,theCongressisallowedawideleewayinprovidingforavalid
classification.Itsdecisionisaccordedrecognitionandrespectbythecourtsofjustice
exceptonlywhereitsdiscretionisabusedtothedetrimentoftheBillofRights.In
thecontrary,itappearsthatCongressisrightinclassifyingsmalllandownersaspart
oftheagrarianreformprogram.
2.No.Itistruethatthedeterminationofjustcompensationisapowerlodgedinthe
courts.However,thereisnolawwhichprohibitsadministrativebodiesliketheDAR
fromdeterminingjustcompensation.Infact,justcompensationcanbethatamount
agreed upon by the landowner and the government even without judicial

intervention so long as both parties agree. The DAR can determine just
compensation through appraisers and if the landowner agrees, then judicial
interventionisnotneeded.Whatiscontemplatedbylawhoweveristhat,thejust
compensationdeterminedbyanadministrativebodyismerelypreliminary.Ifthe
landownerdoesnotagreewiththefindingofjustcompensationbyanadministrative
body,thenitcangotocourtandthedeterminationofthelattershallbethefinal
determination.ThisisevensoprovidedbyRA6657:
Section16(f):Anypartywhodisagreeswiththedecisionmaybringthemattertothe
courtofproperjurisdictionforfinaldeterminationofjustcompensation.
3. No. Money as [sole] payment for just compensation is merely a concept
intraditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian reform program is a
revolutionaryexerciseofeminentdomain.Theprogramwillrequirebillionsofpesos
infundsifallcompensationhavetobemadeincashifeverythingisincash,then
thegovernmentwillnothavesufficientmoneyhence,bonds,andothersecurities,
i.e.,sharesofstocks,maybeusedforjustcompensation.

HeirsofDr.JoseDelestevsLBP
Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is putting the subject
propertyunderthecoverageoftheagrarianreformprogram;hence,theirrighttodue
processoflawwasviolated.TheSCagreed.Theimportanceofanactualnoticein
subjectingapropertyundertheagrarianreformprogramcannotbeunderrated,as
noncompliance with it violates the essentialrequirementsof administrative due
processoflaw.IftheillegalityintheissuanceoftheCLTsispatent,theCourtmust
immediatelytakeactionanddeclaretheissuanceasnullandvoid.Accordingly,there
beingnoquestionthattheCLTsintheinstantcasewereimproperlyissued,for
whichreason,theircancellationiswarranted.Thesameholdstruewithrespectto
theEPsandcertificatesoftitleissuedbyvirtueofthevoidCLTs,astherecanbeno
validtransferoftitleshouldtheCLTsonwhichtheyweregroundedarevoid.