Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RA 3844
Can relationship be terminated by death? No. continue bet. Lessor and members of lessees
immediate farm household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death. 1. Surviving
spouse; 2. Eldest, 1 month after death, the lessor will choose
Lease rental
Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest during
the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of leasehold after deducting
amount used for the seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and
processing.
PD 27 & RA 6657
DIFFERENCE:
PD 27 rice & corn land
RA 6657 all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain).
CHAPTER 1
Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?Yes.
Sec.2 (RA 6657)
sound rural development and industrialization
to promote industrialization
Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture (fertilizers, insecticides, hybrid seeds,
irrigation systems, tractors)
DAR Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (RULES & REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED FOR CATTLE RAISING FROM THE
COVERAGE OF CARP)
Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the rights of ARBs due to
unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent declaration of areas used for cattle purposes.
Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private agricultural lands actually,
exclusively and directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988.
Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow.
Policies:
(1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded (exclusion to be
granted only upon proof and continuously utilized up to time of application);
(2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion
(3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be
excluded; all other areas shall be covered.
(4) Encourage growth of cattle industry
(5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage, DAR shall deny due
course if application is filed 60 days after date of receipt of notice.
(6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents shall be accepted
Policy guidelines:
Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and continuously used shall be
excluded; conversely, those not ADE are subject to CARP if one or more of the following
conditions apply: (1) there is agricultural activity in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil, planting of
crops, growing of trees including harvesting); (2) land is suitable for agriculture and occupied
and tilled by farmers.
In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official functions, all processes by
DAR per AO No. 9 are valid.
Sec. 3 (c) Agricultural land land devoted to agricultural activity & not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
Natalia Realty v. DAR 1979
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of
Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the
metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are
situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. NATALIA properties later became the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately registered its
objection to the Notice of Coverage
SC:
They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation. Lands previously converted
by government agencies, other than DAR, to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL
were outside the coverage of that law. Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within
townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of the CARL.
DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption) - all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or
residential before June 15,1988 no longer need conversion clearance
Requirements: Sworn application, copy of title, certification from HLURB (zoning or
classification, citing zoning ordinance), among others. Public notice. Disturbance
compensation.
NHA v. Allarde
SC: As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (including the disputed lots) was reserved
under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the National Housing
Authority, the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity
contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore, outside the coverage of the
CARL. Verily, the assailed Orders of the respondent Court declaring the lots under
controversy as "agricultural land" and restraining the petitioner from involving the same in its
housing project thereon, are evidently bereft of any sustainable basis
Advincula-Velasquez v. CA
SC: Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the Metro Manila
Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657, there was no need for
the private respondent to secure any post facto approval thereof from the DAR
AGRARIAN DISPUTE
any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, stewardship) over
lands devoted to agriculture
any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL and other terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership.
tenancy relationship
All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.
Isidro v. CA
- Private resp is owner of land. Sister of priv resp allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion
subject to condition to vacate upon demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed
against Isidro. RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural and so agrarian.
SC:
Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of complaint. Court does not lose
jurisdiction by defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is shown,
the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Case involving agri land does not
automatically make such case agrarian. Six requisites were not present. There was no
contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of
land.
SUPLICO v. CA
Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the land
while Suplico will provide the farm implements and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans
from the palay by way of rental. Years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the
property, so private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR. Resp.
Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of contractual relationship. Trial court
declared private respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.
SC:
- SC found no reasons to disturb findings
1. Private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a farmhouse just like
what a farm tenant normally would.
2. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding and harvesting.
3. Management was left entirely to private respondent
4. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.
BEJASA v. CA
FACTS:
Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to Malabanan. Malabanan hired the Bejasas
to plant on the land and clear it, with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas continued
to stay on the land and did not give any consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared
harvest
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas
SC:
Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There was no proof that
Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas
stay on the land . There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the
tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case. There was no
proof of sharing in harvest. While Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasas word was presented to prove
this. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that he agreed to
deliver 1/5 of harvest as owners share, yet at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for
Malabanan and 50% for owner. Moreover, landowners never gave consent, citing Chico vs. CA , 284
534 self serving statement are inadequate, proof must be adhered. Even assuming that
landowner agreed to lease it for P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy .
Consideration should be harvest sharing.
VALENCIA v. CA
FACTS:
- Valencia is the owner of land, she leased the property for five (5)years to Fr. Andres Flores
under a civil law lease concept; lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the
land without Valencias written consent. During the period of his lease, private respondents
were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia. After lease, Valencia demanded
vacate but refused; Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they filed
application with DAR; CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.
SC : no tenancy
no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants; waiver of rights constitutes
abandonment. No substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord. Possession/entry
is w/o knowledge of owner. Cultivation / possession not proven. As to the remaining twenty
and more other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown that their cultivation,
possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been by authority of a valid
contract of agricultural tenancy. On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of
them have simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage being
primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives
HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA
FACTS:
Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before DARAB and seek
cancellation of title and recovery possession; on appeal, DARAB upheld but CA reversed.
SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. The taking of property violated due process (CA was
correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process because the DAR failed to send
notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party); no ocular inspection or any on-site
fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he
was a tenant of the property. By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case at
bar since there was likewise a violation of due process. No concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof
was presented except for their self-serving statements. Independent evidence, aside from self-serving
statements, is needed. Plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and migrated to US and
returned only in 1998, wife and daughter were residents of California. Land involved is residential and
not agricultural because of zoning ordinance. Coverage Section 4: All alienable and disposable public
lands. All private lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation Sec. 5 The
distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from effectivity
hereof. Sec. 63: The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon
approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of
Executive Order No. 299. xxx.. RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: The amount needed to
implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund. RA 9700, Sec. 21:
The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30,
2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be
funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One
hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00)
HOMESTEAD PATENT
A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for agricultural purposes
conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.
filed at CENRO where land being applied is located.
who are qualified - citizens of Philippines over 18 years old & not an owner of
more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for
their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale
or encumbrance of the homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of
the patent. After that five-year period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead,
but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the homesteader and his family the statute
provides that such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of
repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirs.
SC :
Petitioners contention is w/o legal basis. PD applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands
primarily devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere does it appear that lots obtained by homestead
patents are exempted from its operation. Under RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are
provided but with condition: only for as long as they continue to cultivate them. That parcels
of land are covered by homestead will not automatically exempt them from operation of land
reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs
that shall exempt their lands. Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares which require no
qualifying condition (Sec.6)
RETENTION RIGHTS
NCC: conjugal total is 5; capital/paraphernal not more than 5 each but not exceed 10
FC (Aug.3,1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2, s. 2003:
capital/paraphernal - not to exceed 5 provided with judicial separation
absolute (presumed) not to exceed 5
DAEZ v. CA
Issuance of EPs/CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar landowner from retaining the
area. In fact, EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land covered in later found to be part of landowners
retained area. In this case, CLTs of private respondent were leased w/o according Daez her right of
choice. So DAR was ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec.6 of RA 6657.
Retention by landowner: 5 hectares
Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided:
1. at least 15 years of age; and
2. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm
That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered
for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. (RA 9700, Sec. 3)
SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. - Provincial, city and municipal government ,units
acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for
actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public markets, school sites,
resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares,
consistent with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)-
hectare retention limit under this Section xxx. (RA 9700, Sec. 4)
Sanchez v. Marin
Issue:
Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government by virtue of the amendments introduced
by R.A. No. 7881 to R.A. No. 6657
SC:
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 by
expressly exempting/excluding private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL.
REPUBLIC v. CA
Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied
for exemption. Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created a commission to
conduct ocular inspection and survey the land. Later, based on the report submitted by the
commission, the Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from
CARL. Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered by
mere ocular inspection.
SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax declaration is conclusive; tax
declaration is clearly not sole basis of classification of land. SC gave credence to commissions
report. Based on their report, it was found that the land use map submitted by private respondent was
an appropriate document consistent with the existing land use. It was confirmed that the lands are not
wholly agricultural as they consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope. The CARL has
further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except those already developed shall be
exempt from the coverage of CARL.
.
LUZ FARMS
Sec. II which includes private agricultural land devoted to commercial livestock, poultry &
swine raising in definition of commercial farms is invalid.
Adm. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural land used for cattle
raising from CARP. Citing Luz Farms case private agricultural land or portions thereof actually,
exclusively &directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded. Exclusion shall be
granted only upon proof of AED prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized for such purpose up to
application. Any act to change or convert ; w/ intent to avoid CARP,shall be invalid. Only the grazing
area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be considered
for exclusion
DAR A.O #9, S of 1998 allows commercial farms certain options, subject to approval of DAR &
workers: (aside from voluntary & compulsory coverage)
DAR v. SUTTON :
Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. Lands under VOS before CARP. After CARP & Luz
Farms case, Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS. DAR issued A.O #9 (1993) which provide that only
portions of land used for raising of livestock, poultry & swine shall be excluded. DAR partially
exempted portion but ordered acquisition the rest.
SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock , swine/poultry raising do not fall under
agriculture & agricultural activity
Adm. Order #7 (2008)
(Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising)
Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 & continuously devoted
shall be excluded.
Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided that the agricultural activity in land is suitable
for agriculture presently tilled by farmers
Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within the retained areas and
areas not yet acquired.
Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect whether farmer-beneficiary OR leaseholds in
retained area.
Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title & documents required for implementation of CARP
Pursuant to DARs mandate to protect the rights & improve tenurial & economic status of
farmers in tenanted lands, DAR issued AO 02-06(REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES
GOVERNING LEASEHOLD IMPLEMENTATION IN TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS):
-Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6 requisites)
-Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at term nor by sale. In case of
alienation, purchaser/transferee shall be subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor.
-DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract .
-The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of average normal harvest during 3
agri years
-AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee.
CHAPTER IV REGISTRATION
Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/ DAR. Purpose is to
establish databank & identify actual famer-beneficiaries.
Fortich vs. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so intervened in case.
SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries, so they have no standing
yet to intervene in the case.
DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being bonafide beneficiaries
DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB.
LAND ACQUISITION
Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas and the root cause of
peasant unrest.
In order to hasten the implementation of the program, the Department of Agrarian Reform has
made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same end, the law
provides for the steps in acquiring private lands through administrative instead of judicial
proceedings. This procedure is allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice
and hearing are complied with.
Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands
including facilities and improvements necessary for agricultural production, as may be
appropriate, for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation.
The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural
lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Along the
various phases of the CARP proceedings, the process stalls because of Land Owner (LO)
resistance, most of whom invoke the ground of lack of notice or non-observance of due
process in attacking the proceedings.
Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required for implementation of CARP)
Sec. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, DAR can request RD to
cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowners protests valuation, distribution of
land will proceed. CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can
simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA.
In Association of small land owners, SC did not say automatically. SC said that title and
ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past conversation.
Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given chance to validate proceedings.
Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of law.
Notice of Acquisition:
The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the
amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of
Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)
shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation.
Immediately 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.
Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment
in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately
direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the
DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified
beneficiaries.
RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation
affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long in excess of
max retention limits;
intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the
population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the
impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner;
does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the
foreseeable future;
Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among
the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams and deliverance
Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657, however, the chief
limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) public use; and (2)
payment of just compensation, are embodied therein as well as in the Constitution.
With respect to "public use, in Association of Small Landowners declared that the
requirement of public use had already been settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for
agrarian reform, which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their
owners, subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits.
On just compensation, judicial determination is expressly prescribed in Section 57 of RA
6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. It bears stressing that the
determination of just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of Section
16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only, court can review.
Land Bank v. CA
Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR permitting the opening of
trust account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in cash or in LBP bonds.
SC:
Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in cash or in LBP bonds;
Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form
like a trust account;
There was no basis for issuance of order.
Santos v. LBP :
Facts:
RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land taken under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program, to be made in cash and bonds. According to petitioner, said order illegally
amended the judgment rendered which directs payment of compensation to be made "in the manner
provided in RA 6657.
SC:
Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation in the manner provided by RA
6657 is not illegally amended but is merely clarified by an order issued during execution proc that
such amount shall be paid in cash and bonds.
CHAPTER VI COMPENSATION
Just Compensation:
full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by expropriation (Assoc. of Small
Landowners). The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to
convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, ample.
FACTORS (Section 17): 1. cost of acquisition ; 2. current value of like properties;3. actual use &
income & nature; 4. sworn valuation by owner; 5. tax declaration; 6. assessment made by
Government assessors.
Sec. 7, RA 9700:
"SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the
cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its
nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, the
assessment made by government assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be
considered, subject to the final decision of the proper court. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the
nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land
shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation."
LBP v. Dumlao
Facts:
Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27; Determination of just
compensation remained pending with DAR, so they filed complaint with RTC for
determination.
SC:
if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be
computed in accordance with said law, although property was acquired under PD No. 27;
the determination made by the trial court, which relied solely on the formula prescribed by PD
No. 27 and EO No. 228, is grossly erroneous. The amount of P6,912.50 per hectare, which is
based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s", does
not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from respondents;
CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00 would have been a valid
exercise of this judicial function, had it followed the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No.
6657. However, the appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the
commissioner as basis for determining just compensation, namely: (a) P109,000.00 per
hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde;
and (b) P60.00 per square meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays in
Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because it does not adhere to the formula provided by
RA No. 6657.
It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be given to the owner cannot be
assumed and must be determined with certainty.
Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through AO No. 6, Series of 1992, as
amended by AO No. 11, Series of 1994:
Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date of
offer or coverage of the claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where:
LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and applicable.
Note:
1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;
RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.
2. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been determined at the time of
passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect.
Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, assessed value at the time of
the taking, location (i.e., along highway) and the volume and value of its produce, like:
(a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas;
(b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment and increase
agricultural production;
(c) available comparable sales in the area;
(d) average harvests per hectare.
The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be
reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents.
Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title
in the name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee
can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just
compensation to the landowner.
However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial court should determine the
date of issuance of these emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date of taking and
proceed to compute the just compensation due to respondents.
Petitioners argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending determination by DAR
is specious.
To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is to
violate the elementary rule that payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable
period from the taking of property;
Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation means not only the correct determination of the
amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a
reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being
immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before
actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss
Sec. 21 direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under terms mutually agreed and
which shall be binding upon registration and approval by DAR.
Sec. 44 (2) provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC the adoption of direct
payment scheme. So, AO #2, s. 1995 was issued:
Beneficiaries are determined by DAR;
Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area which the govt would
otherwise acquire;
CLOAs should bear proper annotations.
QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of
the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the
following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land;
(2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the distribution of the
land of their parents.
(3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
(4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned
their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries under the Program.
(5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and
make the land as productive as possible.
(6) If, due to the landowners retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the
land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership
of other lands available for distribution under the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
(8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. (Sec. 23)
AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award,
which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (Sec.
24)
Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate
When certificate issued. Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the rights and
responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of
the land to him, which award shall be completed within 180 days from the time the DAR takes
actual possession of the land. Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall be evidenced
by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), which
shall contain the restrictions, and conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in
the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.
In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued pending the fulfillment
of certain legal and administrative requirements. Examples of these are:
(a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc.
v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 76742, 14,July 1989.) that title to all expropriated
properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation to their respective
landowners;
(b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being awarded through the
EP or CLOA.
Cont. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1)
Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the identified beneficiaries may already
be in possession of the land but still have no EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, the DAR
shall first issue a CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the would-be beneficiaries,
an intermediate document to evidence that they have been identified and have qualified as
agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP. Moreover, aside from attesting to the inchoate
right of the identified beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof, the CBC issued
shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP.
PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES
(1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30)
annual amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to the following rules:
(a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as
established by the PARC.
(b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the value of the annual
gross production as established by the DAR.
(c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% of the annual gross
production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiarys fault, the LBP may
reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal obligation to make the repayment affordable.
(2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the
beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of
three(3) annual amortization. The LBP shall advice the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall
subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land
has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under
the Act. (Sec. 26.)
(2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred
or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary
who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself.