Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SECRETARY OF DAR
[175 SCRA 343; G.R. NO. L-78742; 14 JUL 1989]
The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229
was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the
1987 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and
Eminent Domain.
RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP
becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever 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
imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of
the land. What is required is the surrender of the title and the physical
possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in
favour of the farmer.
Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to
be determined is the method employed to achieve it.
Equal Protection
These are 3 cases consolidated questioning the constitutionality of the
Agrarian Reform Act. Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights includes
a call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program. The State
shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the 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 of the fruits thereof. RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code,
had already been enacted by Congress on August 8, 1963. This was
substantially superseded almost a decade later by PD 27, which was
promulgated on Oct 21, 1972, along with martial law, to provide for the
compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-
farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners. On July 17,
1987, Cory issued EO 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the
beneficiaries of PD 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 PP 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian
reform program (CARP), and EO 229, providing the mechanics for its
implementation. Afterwhich is the enactment of RA 6657, Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which Cory signed on June 10. This law, while
considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives
them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its
provisions.
In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land, the executive
order also deprives the petitioners of their property rights as protected by
due process. The equal protection clause is also violated because the order
places the burden of solving the agrarian problems on the owners only of
agricultural lands. No similar obligation is imposed on the owners of other
properties.
The petitioners maintain that in declaring the beneficiaries under PD 27 to be
the owners of the lands occupied by them, EO 228 ignored judicial
prerogatives and so violated due process. Worse, the measure would not
solve the agrarian problem because even the small farmers are deprived of
their lands and the retention rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
In his comment the Sol-Gen asserted that the alleged violation of the equal
protection clause, the sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to
a different class and should be differently treated. The Comment also
suggests the possibility of Congress first distributing public agricultural lands
and scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural lands later. From this
viewpoint, the petition for prohibition would be premature.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection clause.
HELD: The SC ruled affirming the Sol-Gen. The argument of the small farmers
that they have been denied equal protection because of the absence of
retention limits has also become academic under Sec 6 of RA 6657.
Significantly, they too have not questioned the area of such limits. There is
also the complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of
agrarian reform, an 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 the Court that the requisites of
a valid classification have been violated.
Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to
each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same
particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements:
(1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;
(2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here
challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated
must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities
imposed. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different
class and entitled to a different 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 is a substantial
distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except
to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this 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 except only where its discretion is abused to the detriment of the
Bill of Rights
Alita v. CA
FACTS: The petition seeking the reversal Court of Appeals decision:
1) Declaring Presidential Decree No.27 inapplicable to lands obtained thru the
homestead law;
2) Declaring that the 4 registered co-owners will cultivate and operate the
farm holding themselves as owners; &
3) Ejecting tenants, namely; Gabino Alita, Jesus Julian, Sr., Jesus Julian, Jr., Pedro
Ricalde, Vicente Ricalde and Rolando Salamar, as the owners would want to
cultivate the farmholdingthemselves.-2 parcels of land at Guilinan,
Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur acquired by respondents Reyes through
homestead patent under Commonwealth Act No. 141- Reyes wants to
personally cultivate these lands, but Alita refuse to vacate, relying on the
provisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and regulations of MAR/DAR-June 18,
1981: Respondents Reyes (Plaintiff) instituted a complaint against Minister
of Agrarian Reform Estrella, Regional Director of MAR Region IX
P.D. Macarambon, and Alitaet.al for the declaration of P.D. 27 and all other
Decrees, Letters of Instructions and General Orders inapplicable to homestead
lands. Defendants Alita filed their answer with special and affirmative defenses.-July
19, 1982: Reyes filed urgent motion to enjoin the defendants from declaring
the lands in litigation under Operation Land Transfer and from being issued
land transfer certificates-November 5, 1982: Court of Agrarian Relations 16th
Regional District, Branch IV, Pagadian City (Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial
Region, Branch XVIII) rendered its decision dismissing complaint and the
motion to enjoin On January 4, 1983, plaintiffs moved to reconsider the
Order of dismissal, to which defendants filed their opposition on January
10, 1983.RTC: issued decision prompting defendants Alita et al to move for
reconsideration but was denied CA: the same was sustained
ISSUE:
Whether or not lands obtained through homestead patent are covered by
the Agrarian Reform under P.D. 27.
HELD: NO. We agree with the petitioners Alita et.al in saying that P.D. 27
decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil and
transferring to them ownership of the land they till is a sweeping social
legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts
of the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be invoked to defeat
the purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act
No. 141 ones right to life itself by give a needy citizen a land wherein they
could build a house and plant for necessary subsistence.
Art XIII, Sec 6 of the Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the homesteaders'
rights over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform
statute. Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardshipin the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands
of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior
rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to
their ancestral lands.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No.
6657 likewise supports the inapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by
homestead patents like those of the property in question,
Section 6. Retention Limits.
Just compensation in agrarian cases: what law applies; how computed.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. Vs. MAGIN FERRER, ANTONIO V.
FERRER, and RAMON V. FERRER, represented by their Attorney-in-fact, ATTY.
RAFAEL VILLAROSA, GR No. 172230, Feb. 2, 2011; with companion case -
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by Secretary NASSER C.
PANGANDAMAN vs. ANTONIO V. FERRER and RAMON V. FERRER, GR No.
179421, Feb. 2, 2011.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that RA 6657,
rather than P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, is the law that should apply in the
determination of just compensation for the subject agricultural land.
The LBP and the DAR basically argue that P.D. No. 27, as reaffirmed by E.O.
No. 228, should be applied in determining the just compensation for the
subject property. They contend that P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 prescribe
the formula in determining the just compensation of rice and corn lands
tenanted as of October 21, 1972. As the subject property was tenanted and
devoted to rice production in 1972, the just value should be fixed at the
prevailing rate at that time, when the emancipation of the tenant-farmers
from the bondage of the soil was declared in P.D. No. 27.
As to R.A. No. 6657, both the LBP and the DAR insist that it applies only to
ricelands and cornlands not tenanted as of October 21, 1972. R.A. No. 6657
does not cover ricelands and cornlands acquired under P.D. No. 27 and E.O.
No. 228. The governments OLT program on tenanted privately-owned rice
and corn lands pursuant to P.D. No. 27 continues separately and distinctly
from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) acquisition and
distribution program under R.A. No. 6657 because 1) R.A. No. 6657 operates
prospectively; and 2) Congress intended that lands subject to or governed by
existing government programs such as the OLT and homestead under P.D.
No. 27 are to be treated distinctly.
With respect to the appointment of commissioners, the LBP and the DAR
argue that there was no legal basis therefor because 1) there were no long
accounts or difficult questions of fact that required the expertise and know-
how of the commissioners; and 2) the formula for just compensation was
already provided under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228.
On the other hand, the Ferrers adopted the common ruling of the CA stating
that it did not err in applying the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 in fixing the just
compensation for the subject property.
The issue as to which agrarian law between P. D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 and
R.A. No. 6657 should apply in the determination of just compensation has
been laid to rest in a number of cases. In the case of Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Hon. Eli G. C. Natividad, 497 Phil 738 (2005). it was ruled that:
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is
still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private respondents has
yet to be settled. Considering the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657)
before the completion of this process, the just compensation should be
determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657
is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect,
conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.
Section 17 of RA 6657 which is particularly relevant, providing as it does the
guideposts for the determination of just compensation, reads as follows:
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation.In determining just
compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the
owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government
assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed
by the farmers and the farm-workers and by the Government to the property
as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors
to determine its valuation.
It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on
the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to
determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just
compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD
27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation
should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by
the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.
[Emphases supplied]
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Manuel O Gallego, Jr., G.R. No. 173226,
January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 680, the Court handed down the same ruling.
Thus:
The Court has already ruled on the applicability of agrarian laws, namely, P.D.
No. 27/E.O. No. 228 in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, in prior cases
concerning just compensation.
In Paris v. Alfeche, 416 Phil 473 (2001), the Court held that the provisions of
R.A. No. 6657 are also applicable to the agrarian reform process of lands
placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228, which has not been
completed upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. Citing Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil. 1248 (1999), the Court in Paris held
that P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 have suppletory effect to R.A. No. 6657, to
wit:
We cannot see why Sec. 18 of RA [No.] 6657 should not apply to rice and
corn lands under PD [No.] 27. Section 75 of RA [No.] 6657 clearly states that
the provisions of PD [No.] 27 and EO [No.] 228 shall only have a suppletory
effect. Section 7 of the Act also provides
Sec. 7. Priorities.The DAR, in coordination with the PARC shall plan and
program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a
period of (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired
and distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and Corn lands under P.D. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all
private lands voluntarily offered by the owners of agrarian reform; x x x and
all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for
agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the
effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed within a
period of not more than four (4) years (emphasis supplied).
The above rulings were reiterated in the recent cases of Land Bank of the
Philippines v. Rizalina Gustilo Barrido and Heirs of Romeo Barrido, G.R. No.
183688, April 18, 2010, and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Enrique Livioc,
G.R. No. 170685, September 22, 2010.
The CA was, therefore, correct in ruling that the agrarian reform process in
this particular case was still incomplete because the just compensation due
to the Ferrers had yet to be settled. Since R.A. No. 6657 was already in
effectivity before the completion of the process, the just compensation
should be determined and the process concluded under this law.
Title: Daez v. CA
Issue: WON Daez may retain the disputed 4.1685 hectares land
Facts: Petitioner Daez owned a 4.1685 hectare land in Meycauayan, Bulacan
which was being cultivated by the respondent farmers Soriente et al. The
problem arose when the land was subjected to the OLT pursuant to PD 27 as
amended by LOI 474. Thus, the land was transferred to the ownership of
beneficiaries on December 9, 1980.On May 31, 1981, private respondents
made an affidavit under duress stating they are not tenants but hired
workers. Hence, Daez apllied for exemption of OLT claiming her land is
untenanted and the cancellation of the CLTs. (not majorly related to the
topic)
In their Affidavit dated October 2, 1983, Eudosia Daez and her husband,
Lope, declared ownership over 41.8064 hectares of agricultural lands located
in Meycauayan, Bulacan and fourteen (14) hectares of rice land, sixteen (16)
hectares of forestland, ten (10) hectares of "batuhan" and 1.8064 hectares of
residential lands in Penaranda, Nueva Ecija. Included in their 41.8064-hectare
landholding in Bulacan, was the subject 4,1685-hectare rice land in
Meycauayan.DAR Undersecretary Jose C Medina:
Denying Eudosia Daezs application for exemption upon finding that her
subject land is covered under LOI No. 474, petitioner being owner of the
aforesaid agricultural lands exceeding seven (7) hectares.DAR Secretary
Benjamin T. Leong
09 July 2002
Land Titles and Deeds Lands of the Public Domain
Issue:
The issue raised is whether the respondent heirs' 2.5 hectare farmland, originally
part of the estate of their deceased grandmother, consisting of twenty four (24)
hectares, is covered by Operation Land Transfer under R. A. No. 6657, or P. D. No.
27.